development control (north) committee · 2015-01-14 · development control (north) committee 5th...

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

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation

Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 5TH APRIL 2011 AT 5.30p.m.

COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM Councillors: Ian Howard (Chairman)

Liz Kitchen (Vice-Chairman) John Bailey

Andrew Baldwin Gordon Brown Clive Burgess Roy Cornell Christine Costin Leonard Crosbie Sheila Dale Ross Dye Duncan England Sarah Gray David Holmes Sally Horner

David Jenkins Sheila Matthews Christian Mitchell Robert Nye Linda Pettitt Peter Rowlinson Pat Rutherford David Sheldon David Skipp Claire Vickers Belinda Walters Kyle Wickens

You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA 1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on

1st March 2011 (attached) and 15th March 2011 (to follow)

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

Chief Executive Interests of Officers

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

NOTE: (a) Those items which are headed DELEGATION in the recommendation

are seeking authority for the application to be decided by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The Committee is not being asked to decide the application as it is unable to do so at this meeting.

(b) The suggested conditions and reasons for refusal may alter

from those set out in the agenda.

(c) Applications relating to sites in two or more parishes are shown under the first Parish in alphabetical order.

6. Items not on the agenda which the Chairman of the meeting is of the

opinion should be considered as urgent because of the special circumstances.

Development Control (North) Committee 5th April 2011

The Report by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services contains the following items:

Item No.

Ward Reference Number

Site

A1 Itchingfield,

Slinfold & Warnham

DC/11/0067 3 GREENFIELD ROAD, SLINFOLD, HORSHAM

A2 Holbrook West DC/10/2209 CHEMOVATION, GRAYLANDS ESTATE, LANGHURST WOOD ROAD

A3 Itchingfield,

Slinfold & Warnham

DC/11/0357 & DC/11/0359

BAILINGS, FULFORDS HILL, ITCHINGFIELD

A4 Rusper &

Colgate DC/11/0303 ELENGE PLAT, GROUSE ROAD, COLGATE, HORSHAM

A5 Rusper &

Colgate DC/10/2637 BALDHORNS PARK FARM, WIMLAND ROAD, RUSPER

A6 Itchingfield,

Slinfold & Warnham

DC/11/0183 HIGHLANDS, HAYES LANE, SLINFOLD, HORSHAM

A7 Southwater DC/11/0186 1 THE GABLES, SOUTHWATER, HORSHAM

A8 Forest DC/11/0211 18 COMPTONS LANE, HORSHAM

A9 Southwater DC/11/0214 LAND WEST OF 1 TO 8 SHIPLEY ROAD, SOUTHWATER

DCN110301

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 1ST MARCH 2011

Present: Councillors: Ian Howard (Chairman), Liz Kitchen (Vice-Chairman),

John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Clive Burgess, Roy Cornell, Sheila Dale, Ross Dye, Duncan England, David Holmes, Christian Mitchell, Robert Nye, Linda Pettitt, Peter Rowlinson, Pat Rutherford, David Sheldon, David Skipp, Belinda Walters

Apologies: Councillors: Gordon Brown, Christine Costin, Leonard Crosbie,

Sarah Gray, Sally Horner, David Jenkins, Sheila Matthews, Claire Vickers, Kyle Wickens

DCN/129 MINUTES The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 18th January and 1st

February 2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCN/130 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member

Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Robert Nye

DC/10/1041 Personal and prejudicial – his brother lived next door to the site and had objected to the application

Councillor David Skipp

DC/10/2604 Personal and prejudicial – he lived next door

Councillor David Sheldon

DC/11/0011 Personal – he was a Member of West Sussex County Council

Councillor David Sheldon

DC/11/0020 Personal – he was a Member of West Sussex County Council

. DCN/131 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements. DCN/132 APPEALS Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No

Site Appellant(s)

DC/10/1149 Ash Lodge, 1 Cottingham Avenue, Horsham

Mr and Mrs Gowers

Development Control (North) Committee 1st March 2011

2

DCN/132 Appeals (cont.) Appeals Lodged (cont.)

DC/10/2244 The Cottage, 19 Guildford Road, Horsham

Mr D.L and Mrs C.Brown

DC/10/2306 25 Queen Street, Horsham Mr Mahmut Gunes DC/10/0675 53 Littlehaven Lane, Horsham Mr D Maguire DC/10/1819 81 Comptons Lane, Horsham Mr Phillip King

Appeal Decisions:

Ref No

Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/10/0863 Southbourne Court, Polecat Lane, Copsale, Horsham

Mr and Mrs Nicholl

Allowed

DC/09/2089 Phillips Playing Field, Southwater Street, Southwater

Mr Mark Ellis Allowed

DC/10/2133 Lane End, Lyons Road, Slinfold, Horsham

Mr and Mrs Gardner

Dismissed

DC/10/1235 46 East Street, Horsham Southern Space Ltd

Dismissed

DC/10/1062 Little Park Farm, Charlwood Road, Ifield, Crawley

Mr Mark Vickers

Dismissed

DCN/133 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/1041 - USE OF THE LAND FOR THE

STATIONING OF CARAVANS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES FOR 11 NO. GYPSY PITCHES TOGETHER WITH THE FORMATION OF AN ADDITIONAL HARDSTANDING AND UTILITY/DAY ROOMS ANCILLARY TO THAT USE

SITE: KINGFISHER FARM, WEST CHILTINGTON ROAD, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MR MAURICE BLACK (Councillor Robert Nye declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as his brother lived next door to the application site and had objected to the application. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this item) The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for eleven gypsy pitches together with associated hardstanding and ancillary utility/day rooms. Government policies PPS1, PPS7 and PPG13; OPDM Circular 01/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites; DCLG document ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide’ (May 2008); the


3

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) South East Plan; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP15, CP16, and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC7, DC9, DC32, and DC40; and Local Development Framework Gypsy and Traveller Sites – Issues and Options Document (November 2006) were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant planning history included: : Stra

Strategic & Community Planning and Itchingfield Parish Council objected to the proposal. The comments of Public Health and Licensing were noted. West Sussex County Council raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions but had requested further information from the applicant. Engineering raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. The Environment Agency raised no objection to the proposals. One hundred and forty-five letters of objection from the occupiers of 109 households have been received, together with letters of objection from Save Our Countryside Group, Billingshurst Parish Council, British Horse Society and Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). Two members of the public and a representative from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposals. The application site had an area of approximately 2.06 hectares. The site was located on the eastern side of West Chiltington Lane, from which access was gained via an existing access point. The access was hard surfaced with road planings and a gate set back some ten metres. The site was immediately opposite the access to Eastlands. Visibility to the north was good. Visibility to the south was less good due to overhanging vegetation and a bend in the road. A mature oak tree was located on the southern splay of the access point. The access continued into the field as a trackway along northern boundary and was of rubble construction. Halfway along, the top layer appeared to have been removed, but in effect continued across, although at a slightly lower level. Rubble and other materials were still evident and it remained as a

BL/12/89 Siting of a mobile home Refused BL/119/89 Siting of a mobile home Refused EN/04/0579 Complaint regarding gates and fence at the

entrance No breach identified

EN/08/0086 Hardstanding to form an extension to existing track. Notice partially complied with in that most of the unlawful track has been removed (part of the track was lawful) and much of the site was cleared of rubbish (though not everything has been removed).

Enforcement notice served


4

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) hardened surface with some weed growth, as opposed to the grass/ vegetation on the remainder of the field. There was no evidence of any active agricultural or horticultural use of the land. The field was one entity, but the application site itself was only part of that field, comprising the access and the eastern third. The land rose slightly from the road, then formed a plateau across the central section and dipped towards the eastern boundary. Levels also fell from north to south down towards Valewood Lane. There was a tree and hedge screen along the western boundary with West Chiltington Lane, to the north with the adjacent field and to the east with Clayfield Farm. The site could be seen from the access point itself, up to the level central section. However, due to the extent and nature of the boundary trees and hedges, views of the site from a wider area were very limited. Views of the site from the public rights of way to the north were unlikely due to the boundary vegetation. Similarly because the land fell away and there was a wooded area intervening and there were trees and hedges along the boundary with Clay Field Farm, no views would be available from the public rights of way or Valewood Lane. Due to the siting of the units on Greenfield Farm, close to the road, glimpses of that site were obtained from the highway. A small triangular piece of land between the site and the field to the rear of Greenfield Farm was visible from the joint access off Valewood Lane at bend in road which led to Clay Field Farm. However, views of the site itself from this point were not achievable. In the centre of the field (and within the application site) were two dilapidated touring caravans, the remains of a mobile home and other sheds/building/structures. Otherwise the field was clear of any buildings. From this point, clear views south towards Greenfield Farm in Valewood Lane were obtained. The southern boundary of the application site was a post and wire fence. There was an intervening field/paddock between the two sites, but with no trees or buildings to screen/obscure any views. It was also possible to see across to south-eastern corner of the site, which led to the access off Valewood Lane. On the application site blue and black pipes/conduit had been installed at various intervals as well as timber marker posts with yellow lines. These seemed to coincide with the 11 pitches shown on the plans, but no plots or boundaries had been delineated etc. On northern part of the site the existing electricity line followed the eastern boundary and crossed over into Clayfield Farm land. There was a separate line and pole in the south eastern corner and a further pole lying in the field with wires/conduit attached. In respect of applications relating to gypsy and traveller proposals, the current


5

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) situation was complex, particularly with regard to the progress of the review of the Core Strategy, the changing status of the South East Plan and evolving Government advice. The current position in law was as follows: The Housing Act 2004 required Local Authorities to assess the accommodation needs of gypsy and travellers. ODPM Circular 01/2006 required Local Authorities to undertake a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA). The information from the GTAA should then be taken as a key component in the overall assessment of need, which should inform housing policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) i.e. the South East Plan. The RSS would identify the number of pitches required for each Local Planning Authority, but not their location. The number of pitches set out in the RSS then had to be translated by Local Authorities into specific site allocations in a Development Plan Document forming one of the documents which made up their LDF. The policy criteria would also be used to meet unexpected demand. The preparation of any such DPD was complicated by the need to set the spatial planning context, in terms of what it sought to achieve and the resultant contribution to ‘place shaping and delivery’; this should be done through the Core Strategy, or in Horsham District Council’s case, the Core Strategy Review. The South East Plan had been submitted to Government in March 2006, shortly before the publication of Circular 01/2006, which set out the need to include information on the number of gypsy and traveller pitches required in the region. As it was not possible to include this data before the South East Plan submission deadline, the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) launched a part review of the plan in respect of gypsies and travellers. A draft policy by SEERA was submitted to the Government in June 2009 and was independently examined in the first week of February 2010. That recommended for the period of 2006-2016, 1,064 permanent residential pitches were provided for gypsies and travellers within the South East as a whole, of which an additional 50 authorised pitches were to be required in the Horsham District. The change in Government led to the decision of the Secretary of State last summer to revoke RSSs, including the South East Plan. The South East England Partnership Board (the replacement for SEERA) who had developed the draft gypsy and traveller policy was also abolished, and the Inspector’s Report into the Partial Review was abandoned. Subsequently, the revocation of the RSSs had been found unlawful, although Government had made clear that it still intended to abolish them. The South East Plan therefore remained but without any policy relating to gypsy and travellers. At the same time the Government’s intention to abolish


6

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) RSSs could then be taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ when considering applications for new gypsy and traveller sites, although this point was currently subject to a further legal appeal/challenge. The Government had also made clear its intention to abolish Circular 01/2006 and replace it with new light touch guidance. Moreover, the Government was also set to build on its ‘localism agenda’, “encouraging local authorities to provide, in consultation with the local community, an appropriate number of traveler sites that reflect local and historic demand”. The Council had always intended to progress issues through a plan-led approach and there remained a commitment to producing a separate Site Allocations DPD. Evidence of this went back as far as November 2006, when the Local Development Framework Gypsy and Traveller Sites Issues and Options Document had been published for consultation. Since that time, further local policy advances on the matter had appeared limited, but this has been due to the implications of wider changes in planning policy, centred on the South East Plan and the need for an early review of the Core Strategy, as required by the Inspector at the original examination. Background work to support a future DPD had begun. In September 2009, the results of a Stakeholder Consultation with Local Gypsy and Travellers had been published, supporting a preference for small, family run sites. It was also intended that an initial site search be carried out, with the help of independent consultants, and involving key local stakeholders, in the following months. The ‘tone’ for a potential future approach had been set by the granting of permanent approval for sites, such as, Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane (DC/10 /0721). In the meantime, the Council had an adopted criteria-based policy, policy DC32 - Gypsies and Travellers, against which to assess the application. The issues also needed to be balanced against the advice in PPS3, PPG13, PPS1, guidance contained in ODPM Circular 01/2006 – Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites and case law and established practice with regard to gypsy and traveller cases. Policy DC32 required that, for planning permission to be granted for gypsy and traveller sites there had to be an existing local need for such sites to be provided. Paragraph 58 of Circular 01/2006 stated: “… considerations for gypsies and traveller site applications are likely to include the likely impact on the surrounding area, the existing level of provision and the need for sites in the area, the availability (or lack of) the terms of accommodation for the applicants and other personal circumstances”. However, Circular 01/2006 advised that local planning authorities should not


7

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) refuse private applications solely because the applicant had no local connection. This was relevant to this case as it was not known who the future occupants would be. The GTAA completed in 2007 showed a need within the District for 39 new pitches to 2011, although it was noted that as part of the RSS, this was potentially to be increased to 50 by 2016. Although this showed evidence of a general need across the District, specific localised needs had not yet been established and this was not broken-down further into particular areas or Parishes within the District. Such detailed work was to be undertaken as part of the preparation of the Sites DPD. It was also noted that a proportion of this need arose from the District’s existing unauthorised encampments, and sites such as Greenfield Farm, which had now been granted permanent permission, and therefore this need came from the existing gypsy and traveller population. The Local Planning Authority was not aware of any substantial localised unmet need in the vicinity, either in terms of unauthorised developments or encampments of other planning applications for gypsy sites in the immediate locality. Recent Government advice and guidance on such gypsy and traveller issues together with the emerging general approach to planning issues and the Government’s localism agenda meant that there was a changing situation, with more emphasis and focus being given to local neighbourhood views and needs. This would guide the preparatory work of the Sites DPD. In respect of recent Government advice and guidance, in July 2010, when the Government believed that it had abolished the RSSs, it issued the following advice through a letter from the Chief Planning Officer: “Local councils are best placed to assess the needs of travellers. The abolition of Regional Strategies means that local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of site provision, reflecting local need and historic demand, and for bringing forward land in DPDs. They should continue to do this in line with current policy. Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments (GTAAs) have been undertaken by all local authorities and if local authorities decide to review the levels of provision these assessments will form a good starting point. However, local authorities are not bound by them. We will review relevant regulations and guidance on this matter in due course”. Whilst the situation with regard to the South East Plan had been changing in recent months, this particular guidance retained relevance as the Decentralisation and Localism Bill (which provided for the abolition of RSSs) had been published and because the work under the South East Plan relating to Gypsy and Travellers was abandoned on the basis of it. There had never been RSS figures for new gypsy caravan pitches in district in the South East,


8

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) nor were any such figures likely to be provided in the foreseeable future. In this respect, recent Government advice (2010) in relation to gypsy and traveller caravan sites stated that: “This now allows Councils to decide for themselves how many traveller pitches are necessary in their area according to local needs and historic demand”.’ Furthermore, gypsy and traveller accommodation assessments had been undertaken by all local authorities and if local authorities decided to review the level of provision, these assessments would form a good starting point. However, local authorities were not bound by them. The Council would review relevant regulations and guidance on this matter in due course. The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) website reinforced this approach by stating that “it is encouraging local authorities to provide, in consultation with the local community, an appropriate number of traveler sites that reflect local and historic demand. Exploring incentives for site provision and innovative ways in which traveler sites can be funded and maintained”. The focus, then, was on working more closely with local communities as part of the wider ‘localism agenda’. There was also the future potential for ‘neighbourhoods’ to address the issue through the production of their own neighbourhood plans. It was therefore necessary to consider the application in the light of this developing context and the situation pertaining to Horsham District and Itchingfield Parish. Arising from the work undertaken as part of the GTAA, one of the factors considered was the maximum number of pitches a site should have. Of those interviewed county-wide, 19.4% wanted a site of one to five pitches, 26% wanted six to ten pitches and 31.8% wanted 11-15 pitches. The stakeholder consultation process with local gypsy and travellers had indicated that support was for small family-run sites. With regard to local need within the parish itself and small family run sites, it was noted that permanent planning permission had recently been granted for the four pitches at Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane (DC/10/0721). A local need was said to have existed as the occupiers had been present since 2003, having previously been on another site elsewhere within the district. They had settled into the community and were seeking to convert a temporary permission in to a permanent one. The Select Committee on the ODPM Report on Gypsy and Traveller Sites 2004 had stated: “All sites should be small and not disproportionate to the size of the community to which they are placed”. In this regard and having regard to the fact that four pitches had been


9

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) provided at the Valewood site, if the current application were permitted there would be a total of 15 pitches on two separate sites within close proximity to one other within this part of the parish. In this particular part of the parish, which was not within a defined built-up area boundary, the area comprised sporadic and scattered agricultural, residential and commercial development, with a total of 26 residential properties within a 0.5 kilometre radius of the application site. Therefore, 11 pitches would result is a 42% increase in residential accommodation in this rural area. It was considered that such a scale and concentration of development would be disproportionate to the size of the existing community in this rural part of the parish. It was noted that no specific occupiers or local connection had been identified by the applicant nor had any similar justifications been put forward to set aside these concerns. It was considered therefore that whilst there was a need for pitches within the District as a whole as revealed by the GTAA, looking at the ‘local need’ within the parish itself, and the immediate community, it could be said that this need had been addressed by the recent granting of permanent permission for the four pitches at Greenfield Farm. The granting of that permission had been a pragmatic response to the local need identified in the GTAA in light of the delays in the ability of the Council to adopt a proper plan-led approach through the Local Development Framework process. It was considered that the lack of community support for the scheme went against the desire to work with communities when considering such developments and ran counter to localism objectives. With regard to the Greenfield Farm application, although it was acknowledged that Itchingfield Parish Council had objected to that application, in respect of other representations there were three letters of objection, a petition of support signed by 11 people and letters of support from the schools, playgroup and clubs attended by the children living at that site, in contrast to the current application. It was considered therefore that to grant permission for the current application would go against the thrust of the new “radical reform of the planning system to give neighbourhoods far more ability to determine the shape of the places in which their inhabitants live”, as stated on the DCLG website. Where the first criteria of DC32 could not be met and the identified local need could not be met at any alternative suitable existing site within or outside existing settlements, three different criteria applied. Firstly, the site had to be reasonably located for schools, shops and other


10

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) local services and community facilities. The site was outside any built-up area, was two kilometres from Barns Green village, 3.5 kilometres from Billingshurst and nine kilometres from Horsham. The immediate road network comprised narrow, unlit country lanes with no street lighting. Therefore most facilities were not within walking distance from the site, with the closest schools and railway station being located at Billingshurst. It was considered that the occupants were most likely to use the private car for most journeys. PPG13 indicated that walking was more likely to replace short car trips, if the distance is under two kilometres, whilst cycling had the potential to substitute short car trips and to form part of a longer journey by public transport, particularly if under five kilometres. This issue had been examined for the Greenfield Farm application. In that case the children were attending local schools and evidence had been presented about the families’ use and connection with other local facilities. A more pragmatic approach had been suggested in those circumstances. Moreover, the application had related to four pitches to be occupied for the benefit of a specific family. Therefore the scale of the use and the impact on the local area and issues of sustainability were considerably less than in the current application, which proposed 11 independent pitches. Guidance on the approach to sustainability of caravan sites in rural areas was given in Circular 01/2006, which stated that in assessing the suitability of such sites, local authorities should be realistic about the availability or likely availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local services. Local authorities should also consider the issue of sustainability not only in terms of transport modes and distances to services but also having regard to the benefits that a settled existence could bring gypsies and travellers. DCLG document ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide’ (May 2008) stated “the site must be sustainable, offering scope to manage an integrated co-existence with the local community” and emphasised that such sites must be sustainable, safe and easy to manage and maintain; and should support harmonious relations between gypsies and travellers and the settled community. The second criteria required that a satisfactory means of access be provided and that the existing highway network be adequate to serve the site. The site had an existing access and track. West Sussex County Council (WSCC) Highways had no objection to the application subject to clarification on visibility splays and works to upgrade the surfacing of the access track. With regard to concerns of residents regarding traffic levels, accidents in the vicinity and the suitability of the local road network, WSCC had requested


11

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) further information from the applicant. The third criteria required that the proposed site accommodated adequate space for the parking and turning of vehicles and provided easy access for services and emergency vehicles. In respect of parking and turning, sufficient space was available within each pitch to accommodate vehicles and their associated turning and manoeuvring. There was a turning head at the termination of the access tack, which ran down through the centre of the site as a whole. WSCC Fire and Rescue Service had raised no objections. The site was located within a rural area, which was characterised by open countryside with sporadic residential, agricultural and commercial development. The impact of the built form of the development on the visual amenities and rural character of the area was an important consideration. In this respect the key issue was how visible the site was from public vantage points. The site was reached via a trackway and access off West Chiltington Lane, but the main body of the site was the far (eastern) third of the field. In these circumstances, whilst it was possible to see across to the north eastern part of the site from the access point, due to the variations in land levels and the existence of hedges and trees around the site and along the road frontages of West Chiltington Lane and Valewood Lane, wider views of the whole site from the highway and public rights of way were limited. Neighbouring properties whose residential amenities could be affected by the proposals were those at Greenfield Farm and Clayfield Farm, which were on the north side of Valewood Lane and the properties on the south side of Valewood Lane. In respect of Greenfield farm, there was an intervening field between the two sites. On Kingfisher Farm the hardstanding area was to be set a distance of 40 metres to the southern boundary and it was within this southern part of the application site that the treatment plant would be located and landscaping undertaken. There was a further 140 metres across the field to the northern boundary of the land where the units at Greenfield Farm were located. In view of the distances involved and proposed landscaping around the perimeter of the hardsurfaced part of the site, it was not considered that issues regarding loss of privacy or direct overlooking could be raised. Similar conclusions applied to Clayfield Farm, due to the distances and existing vegetation between the two properties, as well as to the properties on the south side of Valewood Lane. A treatment plant associated with the application was shown set to the south


12

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) of the hardsurfaced pitches. Public Health and Licensing had advised that full details of the proposed scheme of sewage treatment were required. The Environment Agency had commented that the application was of a low risk category and that the sewage treatment plant may require an Environmental Permit. The principle of installing such a system was considered to be acceptable. The key issue was whether the details of the system were appropriate. The details could be required to be submitted pursuant to a condition and the specialist consultees would advise on the suitability of the system. The site was located in Flood Zone 1, which was land at low risk of flooding. The site was over one hectare in area, being 2.06 hectares and so a Flood Risk Assessment was required by PPS25. The accommodation to be provided here would fall into the classification of ‘highly vulnerable’. Concerns had been expressed about increased run-off from the site, the subsequent implications for highway and railway safety and the impact on water courses, following the creation of the hardsurfaced area upon which the various units and structures for the 11 pitches will be placed. Representation letters have referred to the potential impact on wildlife, including local flora and fauna and in particular, stag beetles. Although the proposed occupiers of the site were unknown, it was likely that some of them at least would be from a recognised racial group, either Romany Gypsies or Irish Travellers. The guidance in Circular 01/2006 on race relations, although written when the Race Relations Act 1976 was in force rather than the Equality Act 2010, was still relevant. In particular, members should have regard not only to the prohibition on racial discrimination but also to the public sector equality duty on local authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations in all they do. RESOLVED

That application DC/10/1041 be refused for the following reason: The proposed development for an unidentified group of gypsy and travellers, in this rural location, in such close proximity to an existing permanent gypsy and traveller site in the Parish of Itchingfield, would be out of scale and character with the surrounding residential development and would be disproportionate to the size of the existing community and would lead to an unacceptable


13

DCN/133 Planning Application: DC/10/1041 (cont.) intensification of development in an unsustainable location. Moreover, the proposed development would constitute a concentration of pitches which does not reflect what is considered to be a ‘local need’ for the locality/parish. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the Development Plan, in particular policy DC32, the guidance in DCLG ‘Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites – Good Practice Guide‘ and the emerging localism agenda through the Localism Bill.

DCN/134 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2172 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING

HOUSE AT 246A CRAWLEY ROAD, TO FORM PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD TO 11 NO. NEW HOUSES WITHIN LAND TO THE REAR OF NOS 246 - 256 CRAWLEY ROAD, TO INCLUDE CAR-PORTS, HARD STANDING AND ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS

SITE: 246A CRAWLEY ROAD, HORSHAM, WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: KNIGHTFORD HOMES LTD The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of 11 new private dwellings, and associated carports and access routes at land on and to the rear of 246 to 256 Crawley Road, Horsham, plus elements of back land and infill development. Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPG13 and PPG24; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13, CP14, CP16 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC6, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant planning history included:

HU/289/77 Erection of two bungalows on land to the rear of 246A Crawley Road

Refused

NH/26/91 Erection of one dwelling to the rear of 246A (outline)

Refused

DC/05/0774 Demolition of 246 and 246A Crawley Road and the erection of 10 dwellings

Withdrawn

DC/05/2577 Demolition of 246 and 246A Crawley road, and erection of 8 dwellings (outline

Withdrawn

Strategic & Community Planning, the Conservation & Urban Design Officer, the Arboricultural Officer, the Landscape Architect, the Public Health & Licensing Officer. Southern Water and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) Highways Officer raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. Comments highlight positive and negative aspects of the


14

DCN/134 Planning Application: DC/10/2172 (cont.) scheme had been received from the Crime Prevention Officer. West Sussex County Council Planning Services had commented that the proposal would generate a requirement for infrastructure contributions. The Parish Council raised no objections to the proposal. Four letters of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposals. The application site covered 0.35 hectares. It was located within the built-up area boundary of Horsham, a category 1 settlement. The site comprised part of the rear garden areas serving 246, 246A, 248, 250, 252, 254 and 256 Crawley Road and 6 Wellwood Close. The existing boundary demarcation between properties was generally well defined by fence lines and boundary vegetation providing a clear distinction between properties. The rear garden area serving 246A was substantially larger than that of adjoining properties and formed a z shape. There were number of mature and semi-mature trees on site, with dense screening along part of the southern boundary of the site and most of the eastern boundary. A number of these trees were subject to Tree Protection Orders. The surrounding area was predominantly residential in nature and comprised semi-detached and detached dwellings from varying periods and of varying designs. Crawley Road formed part of a primary bus route and there was a bus stop next to 246A Crawley Road, allowing for good access to public transport links. In terms of existing educational facilities and services, Northolmes Junior School was located approximately 200 metres to the northeast of the site and there was a Co-operative supermarket and Tesco Express service station further to the east along Crawley Road. The proposed scheme had been amended since the original submission in order to address concerns relating to neighbour amenity, overdevelopment and the living conditions of future occupants. As a result a residential unit formerly proposed to be in the south west corner of the site had been omitted, reducing the number of dwellings proposed from 12 to 11. The private amenity area serving plot 11 had also been increased in size. Accordingly neighbours and consultees had been re-consulted on the 1 February 2011. Five of the proposed dwellings would contain two bedrooms and cover net floor areas of between 71.6 and 75 square metre. The other six would contain three bedrooms and cover between 85 and 99.7 metres squared. The existing dwelling at 246a Crawley Road would be demolished in order to accommodate a new two bedroom dwelling and allow for the formation of a vehicle access route. The proposed access to serve the development would result in a cul-de-sac formation terminating in the south east corner of


15

DCN/134 Planning Application: DC/10/2172 (cont.) the site.

The removal of a row of evergreen trees along the western boundary was proposed. The majority of mature boundary vegetation was proposed to be retained, with indicative landscape proposals showing further vegetative planting both within the site and along its perimeter. The proposal would aim to achieve level 3 for the Code for Sustainable Homes and proposed a range of sustainable design features and renewable energy technologies to achieve this, including photovoltaic panels to utilise solar energy. Recent Government guidance in respect of amendments to PPS3 had removed private residential gardens from the definition of “previously developed land”. The national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare had also been deleted from PPS3. Development Plan policies, in particular policy CP3 and CP5 of the Core Strategy encourage new development to take place on previously developed land and within defined built-up areas. The site, a residential garden area, no longer comprised “previously developed land”. The proposal met the latter requirement since it was located within the defined built-up area of Horsham. The main issues to consider therefore were the appropriateness of the development and whether the proposals represented an overdevelopment of the site or would be out of keeping with the character of the area. The proposed mix of units would fall short of the 64% target identified under policy DC18, with 45% of the overall development comprising of smaller units. The Parish Council, having been further consulted on this matter, was comfortable with the level of smaller units proposed. It was noted that there was no parish level housing market assessment that identified a significant shortfall in smaller units in this location. Section 7.2 of the West Sussex Strategic Housing Market Assessment stated: “In Horsham District there is a need for a greater mix of both type and tenure of housing. There continues to be a demand for larger housing (three or more bedrooms), due to both the large number of families with children in the area and the decline in provision of this type of housing in recent years as smaller, flatted developments have come forward.” In light of this statement and the close proximity of the site to local primary schools and community facilities it would not be unreasonable to anticipate a higher demand for family size accommodation in this location. The proposed housing mix was considered to be acceptable therefore. The proposals would result in a density of 31 dwellings per hectare. The site


16

DCN/134 Planning Application: DC/10/2172 (cont.) was considered to be in a sustainable location and therefore the principle of residential development on the site was considered to be acceptable and would not conflict with the overarching principles of PPS3. The existing dwelling at 246a Crawley Road was a two storey hipped roof property with a projecting gable and bay window on the front elevation. The building was unique in terms of its design and form when viewed in conjunction with adjoining properties. While the loss of this building would be regrettable it was not located within a conservation area or considered to be of significant architectural merit that would warrant the Local Planning Authority to resist its proposed demolition. Development Plan policies require that new residential development should be of a high standard of design and layout. In support of the application the applicant had commented as follows: “The design team paid careful consideration to the proposed placing of buildings, taking into account the orientation and outlook of the adjacent dwellings with particular reference to the rhythm of the existing street scene along Crawley Road. High quality materials and construction will produce a scheme which is unobtrusive and architecturally attractive.” The general design, form and detailing of the proposed development was considered to draw from the architectural vernacular of the existing Crawley Road street scene. This was evident throughout the proposed scheme from the pitch roof designs, symmetrical fenestration detailing and incorporation of subsidiary elements such as front porches. The introduction of both semi-detached and detached properties was in keeping with the wider pattern of development. In terms of design the general approach was supported by the Council’s Conservation & Design Officer. However, the officer commented that the final treatment of external elevations should be secured by way of a materials condition which would require the submission of sample materials. This would ensure a consistent approach throughout and promote greater sympathy with the surrounding built environment. The original scheme for 12 units had sought to create a mews/courtyard-type layout orientated over the primary access route. This had raised a number of issues with regards to neighbour amenities and overdevelopment. It had resulted in what was considered to be a significantly urbanised frontage, with limited visual relief between properties. An amended layout and design had subsequently been submitted to address these concerns and had resulted in the omission of a unit formerly proposed to be located in the southwest corner of the site. In addition, units 4 and 5 had been separated to form two detached properties. This provided visual breaks while providing greater areas of open space in the south west corner of the site.


17

DCN/134 Planning Application: DC/10/2172 (cont.) The form and appearance the existing dwelling at 246A Crawley Road and the bungalow at 246 Crawley Road constituted anomalies in design terms in an otherwise uniform street scene. The proposed replacement dwelling would draw from the architectural form and style of neighbouring terraces and semi-detached properties and would be sited in sympathy with the established front building line. The proposed replacement dwelling would reinforce the rhythm of the existing street scene and was considered to be an appropriate replacement. Private parking areas would be provided through a combination of attached and detached carports and open parking areas within the site. Plots 1, 2, 10 and 11 would have one standard parking space each. Plots 3 to 8 would have two stacked parking spaces each. Plot 9 would have two standard parking spaces. The stacked parking arrangements would not be ideal but would not raise any significant amenity concerns. Four visitor spaces would be provided. The existing properties at 250,252 and 254 Crawley Road would be allocated one parking space each. Three carports were proposed throughout the development. These would provide a more suitable alternative to enclosed garages as they would introduce more open style structures into the site’s internal street scene. Since there could be future pressure to enclose these carports to form garages it was recommended that subject to the granting of planning permission a condition be imposed with the intention of preventing their alteration/enclosure. The proposed development had been designed with private garden areas backing onto neighbouring boundary lines, with the rear garden areas of adjoining properties beyond. Plots 6 -10 would benefit from substantial boundary screening due to retained vegetation. The proposed degree of physical separation between the neighbouring and proposed dwellings was considered sufficient for the purposes of mitigating any adverse effects associated with overlooking, access to light and obstruction of outlook. Concerns had been raised by an adjoining neighbour at 252 Crawley Road with regard to the impact of plot 10 upon their residential amenities. This neighbouring occupier had commented that the proposed dwelling would have an adverse impact upon their privacy and result in overshadowing to their property. It was noted that part of the dwelling would be located within three metres of their rear boundary. However, a substantial rear garden area served the neighbouring unit. Any overshadowing from the proposed buildings would only affect the upper reaches of this neighbour’s rear garden. There would be a back to back separation distance between dwellings of approximately 29 metres, which would exceed the 21 metres guideline recommended in the Council’s design guidance. Therefore no adverse overshadowing to this neighbouring property was anticipated.


18

DCN/134 Planning Application: DC/10/2172 (cont.) The applicant had amended the first floor layout of plot 10 to address neighbour concerns regarding overlooking. The originally proposed rear dormer window which would have overlooked this property had been omitted. Views from the remaining dormer window would be orientated over the rear garden area of plot 10 and screened by retained boundary vegetation. Furthermore this window would serve as a bathroom and could be obscure glazed, effectively removing any degree of overlooking. It was considered that the living conditions and residential amenities of future occupants of the development would be satisfactory. The proposed layout and orientation of the units would ensure sufficient distance between front elevations (plots 6 to 11), while the absence of side elevation windows at first floor levels would ensure no direct views into neighbouring dwellings. The Arboricultural Officer was satisfied that the tree specimens to be retained along the north, east and south boundaries would not result in the adverse overshadowing of private amenity areas. The proposed private amenity areas were considered sufficient to serve the occupants of the proposed two-bedroom and three-bedroom dwellings. The Council’s Public Health & Licensing Department had advised that it raised no objection in principle to the development of the site in terms of the noise environment of future occupiers. The WSCC Highways Officer had provided detailed comments which made specific reference to the submitted Stage One Road Safety Audit. This sought to identify safety-related problems that may be introduced by the proposed works. Specific reference was made to the site access road at its junction with Crawley Road and the pedestrian access across the proposed access itself. The visibility splays from the proposed junction with Crawley road were considered to be acceptable. The access road to the site would be 7.6 metres in width. This would be sufficient to accommodate refuse vehicles. It was noted that there was an existing bus stop to the front of the site with bus stop markings extending across the whole frontage of the development from the junction with Harwood Road to the boundary between 240 and 242 Crawley Road. The existing bus stop pole would be relocated to accommodate the access. It was considered that the relocation of this bus stop to a location further from the access to the proposed development should be considered.


19

DCN/134 Planning Application: DC/10/2172 (cont.) Due to the level of development proposed and the site’s spatial constraints, car parking spaces serving units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 would be in a tandem formation as opposed to a standard side to side parking layout. This was considered to be adequate in terms of functional viability. The revised layout had resulted in the loss of one parking space and revised comments from WSCC Highways Officer had identified that the parking provision would fall short of WSCC Parking Demand Calculator by one space. However, taking into account the provision for visitor parking on the site, this was considered to be a very minor shortfall. However, it was considered that the possibility of including one extra space should be investigated in order to comply with parking standards. The relevant part of Crawley Road was not within a controlled parking zone or resident parking permit area and therefore on-street parking in the wider area was available. It was also noted that the proposed on-site parking for the existing properties at 250, 252 and 254 Crawley Road would contribute to a reduction in on-street parking demand. It was considered that enforcement of the use of these spaces for those dwellings for which they were allocated could be necessary. The trees along the eastern boundary would help screen the development and would partially screen Harwood Road immediately to the east. Subject to further discussions the Arboricultural Officer had recommended that a condition be imposed showing effective co-ordination between underground services and root protection areas. This was unlikely to be problematic due to the siting of key specimens along the east and north boundaries, removed from likely drainage routes and trenches. It was considered that the scheme would allow for the retention of the most important surrounding mature trees and sufficient space for new planting to integrate the development. Specific planting details would be dealt with at the condition discharge stage. The Landscape Architect has expressed concern about the tree and shrub species in the applicant’s planting plan and was to provide advice to the applicant in this respect. Following the submission of an ecology report the County Ecologist considered that a further bat survey needed to be undertaken prior to the determination of the application to ensure the proposals would not have an impact on protected species.

Contributions towards transport, library and fire service infrastructure improvements together with community facilities and open space would be required and would need to be the subject of a planning agreement. Contributions towards county services would comprise £70,957. With regard


20

DCN/134 Planning Application: DC/10/2172 (cont.) to district community facility and open space contributions, the development would generate a requirement of £15,658 for open space, sport and recreation, £3,456 for community facilities and £1,728 for local recycling in connection with the provision of market housing only. Members enquired as to whether contributions towards affordable housing could also be included. It was considered that the possibility of funding off-street parking through the contributions under the planning agreement should be investigated under delegation but potentially as a separate matter to the determination of this application. An adjoining neighbour had raised an objection on the grounds of a medical condition which made them extremely sensitive to noise. Hours of construction would be controlled by way of planning conditions. The neighbouring dwelling in question was also situated approximately 46 metres from the west boundary of the application site, a considerable distance, which should help minimise associated noise impacts arising from the construction phase of the development and any alleged loss of privacy. It was proposed that waste and recycling points be located within the boundary of residents’ rear gardens. Bins could be wheeled to the house frontage on collection day. This was satisfactory in principle although it was considered that further details should be submitted at the condition discharge stage to ensure satisfactory storage and collection arrangements would be achieved. Cycle stores in the rear garden areas of the plots were proposed. Design details could be secured by way of condition and addressed at the condition discharge stage. The applicant would be required to submit formal applications to Southern Water for the connection to existing foul water and sewerage services. Further sustainable drainage details would also be required by way of condition and would be considered in consultation with Southern Water and the Council’s Technical Services department. It was considered that a meeting should be held between the Local Members, the Local Members from the adjoining ward and the Chairman of the Committee to discuss the outstanding issues. RESOLVED

(i) That a planning agreement be entered into within six months to secure contributions towards


21

DCN/134 Planning Application: DC/10/2172 (cont.) transport, library and fire service infrastructure

together with local community facilities and open space.

(ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i)

above, application DC/20/2172 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the Local Members, the Local Members of the adjoining ward and the Chairman of the Committee, following the undertaking of a bat survey by the applicant and the receipt of satisfactory ecological comments from relevant consultees; the submission of satisfactory drainage details to ensure unacceptable surface water run-off does not occur to land outside the site, particularly the adjacent highways; further consideration of the appropriateness of retaining the bus stop across the entrance to the site; an investigation to establish whether any further separation could be provided between plot 10 and the adjacent protected area of garden; investigation to establish whether one additional parking space could be provided in order to meet West Sussex County Council parking standards; and consideration to be given to whether yellow lines required on Crawley Road in the vicinity of the site, either in connection with this application or to be investigated as an independent matter following advice from West Sussex County Council to the Street Parking Working Group regarding the Council’s ability to independently promote parking restrictions. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.


22

DCN/135 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/1889 - ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CARE FACILITIES (TWO SEPARATE BUILDING ARE PROPOSED EACH CONTAINING 36 SPECIAL CARE BEDROOMS WITH COMMUNAL SPECIAL CARE FACILITIES WITHIN THE CENTRAL AREA AT GROUND FLOOR AND 28 STAFF BEDSITS AT FIRST FLOOR. A FURTHER SUPPORTED LIVING BUILDING IS PROPOSED PROVIDING 8 BEDSITS AND 2 FLATS AT GROUND FLOOR AND ACCOMMODATION FOR A FURTHER 7 STAFF AT FIRST FLOOR AS WELL AS A RELATIVES FLAT).

SITE: RAPKYNS CARE CENTRE, GUILDFORD ROAD, BROADBRIDGE HEATH APPLICANT: SUSSEX HEALTH CARE The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of three buildings in an area to the north east of the application site. Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPS5, PPS7, PPS9, PPS22 and PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP12, CP15, CP16 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC40 and DC31. Relevant planning history included:

SF/28/85 Change of use from dwelling to residential rest home

Granted

SF/47/86 Extension and conversion of the dwelling to a nursing home with 47 bedrooms

Granted

SF/65/89 Extension of nursing home to provide 16 additional bedrooms, staff flat and staff bedroom

Refused

SF/32/90 Extension to nursing home Refused SF/21/03 Erection of 20 bed special care nursing

home with activity centre and six flats and ten bedsits for staff

Granted

DC/05/0628 Extensions to special care unit to provide an additional 20 bedrooms and associated accommodation and 12 one-bed flats and four bedsits for staff

Granted

The comments of Strategic Planning, the Arboricultural Officer, Building Control, West Sussex County Council Ecology department, Southern Water were noted. The Landscape Architect, Public Health & Licensing, West Sussex County Council Highways and Archaeology departments and the Parish Council raised no objections to the proposals subject to conditions. Three letters of objection and one of comment had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposals and the agent of


23

DCN/135 Planning Application: DC/10/1889 (cont) the applicant spoke in support. The application site was located outside the built-up area 2.5 miles to the west of Horsham Town Centre and one mile to the west of Broadbridge Heath. The Slinfold Stream and Quarry SSSI was located within one kilometre of the site to the north-east. The existing site consisted of the original building, which now formed the Rapkyns Nursing Home and the existing special care building (unit 1) which had been constructed between 2004 and 2007.

The application site was located to the east and north east of the existing special care building. Trees bordered the site to the east, north and partly to the west. Most of the trees and land to the west, which fell just outside of the application site, formed part of an area designated as ancient woodland which was also used as a campsite. A public right of way ran just outside the eastern boundary of the site. Trees were located to the east of this path and an existing wire fence divided the path from the application site. The remainder of the western boundary was open to the existing special care building. At the south of the site there was an existing cluster of agricultural buildings in a poor state of repair. It was proposed that these be demolished. There was a tree/vegetative boundary adjacent to the existing driveway which the application proposed to be retained. The site was accessed from the A281 Guildford Road and then along a private drive. Concerns had been raised about the visibility from the access when turning onto the A281. Previous applications on the site had sought to address such concerns through trimming the vegetation along the relevant stretch of road to improve visibility. It was considered that the further re-grading of the adjoining land along the side of the road in order to improve visibility should be considered.

In assessing the principle of the proposal it was important to look at the relevant policy context. In particular policy CP16 regarding inclusive communities stated that particular account would be taken of the need to address the requirements stemming from people with special needs, including the disabled or those with learning difficulties. Policy CP15 stated that sustainable rural economic development within the District would be encouraged in order to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits for local communities. It also stated that development should be appropriate to its countryside location. Policy DC31 stated that care and nursing homes would be permitted in order to meet the care needs of the elderly or other groups in need of specific specialist/medical care provided that such developments


24

DCN/135 Planning Application: DC/10/1889 (cont) incorporated appropriate staff accommodation and/or was the subject of an agreed Green Travel Plan; and the need for the form and type of development in its particular location was fully justified as being essential to the identified care provision. Policy DC31 also stated that any proposal for retirement housing/communities or care homes should also comply with all other relevant policies, particularly those relating to countryside protection/strategic gaps, character, design and affordable housing where relevant. The proposed scheme would provide accommodation for 92 additional residents and 79 members of staff. The development would be formed of three blocks, two of them similar, but not identical in scale, to the existing special care facility on the site and one smaller building which would provide supported living units. A Supplementary Supporting Information Statement (SSIS) had been submitted to accompany the application which provided further evidence of the need for the proposal.

The proposed buildings would be one and a half storeys in height with an eaves and ridge height of 2.5 metres and 6.7 metres respectively. The larger two buildings proposed would each contain four wings and a central area. Each wing would be self-contained and would provide 10 or 11 special care bedrooms with en-suites, a dining/activity room, lounge, kitchen, staff room, office and storage as well as further facilities such as a sensory room, spa bath and additional bathroom/WCs. Each building would have a central area which would provide facilities for the whole building and in some instances for the whole site. Building 2 would provide a physiotherapy suite and building 3 would provide an educational facility, both of which would serve the whole site. Each of the two buildings would mirror the design and scale of the existing one and a half storey building on the site (unit 1) and would provide the same level of accommodation. Each building would also provide 28 staff bedsits within the roofspace. The third building would be located to the south of the two larger buildings, adjacent to the main access drive. This building would provide supported living in the form of eight bedsits and two flats at ground floor and two flats and six further bedrooms at first floor level within the roofspace. The first floor accommodation would be reserved for staff and would include a relatives’ visitor flat. This building would be in the form of an ‘L’ shape, measuring 37 metres in width. Given the advances in medical care it was evident from the studies referenced within the SSIS that the prevalence of profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) in the older child/young adult age range was increasing by 5% per year. As the provision of long-term support by NHS


25

DCN/135 Planning Application: DC/10/1889 (cont) providers was essentially closed, accommodation was now being provided by organisations such as Sussex Health Care. Given the very specialist nature of this care together with the need to meet the necessarily high levels of legislation and competence required to care for such a specialist group it was considered impractical to assess this application purely on the basis of the needs of Horsham District. Whilst this was considered to be a very important factor it was clear that there was a wider regional demand which needed to be considered. It was noted that Sussex Health Care operated a priority placement system for residents of Horsham District whereby residents, through Social Services, would be given priority over residents who currently lived outside of the District. When visiting the current site the case officer had been informed that many of the existing residents were from the Horsham area. Whilst it was clear that there was a very real and growing need for this specialist accommodation it was important to consider the merits of such a proposal in this specific location. The site was outside the built-up area and within the open countryside, where policy restricted new built form. The site was in an unsustainable location. However, in this specific instance matters were somewhat more complicated. The existing and proposed future residents, due to their PMLD, were unable to use public transport or public rights of way unaccompanied and were therefore reliant on the shuttle bus service provided by Sussex Health Care, which currently operated from this site. Due to the level of care required by existing and proposed future residents it was appropriate for staff to live on site and therefore there would not be the need for regular ‘to and from’ trips to work for the majority of staff. There was already an established special care unit on the site and this proposal sought to build on the existing site infrastructure, staffing, management and transportation management. Residential accommodation and facilities had to be located at ground floor level and high staffing ratios were required on site. The overall floor space demands were therefore unusually high, when analysed on the basis of square metre per user. A development of this nature with such high space demands was difficult to achieve within the built-up area where there were competing objectives such as the economic use of land and the commercial value of that land, although it was noted that the latter should not be given significant weight. It was noted that the proposal would aid the rural and District economy by the creation of employment and services. A number of amendments had been made to the scheme which had reduced the overall footprint by approximately 10% and reduced the depth of some of the wings. This had created a larger separation distance


26

DCN/135 Planning Application: DC/10/1889 (cont) between the boundaries of the site and between the buildings themselves which would enable the development to sit much more comfortably within the site. The site itself was accessed along a private drive which was understood to be shared with Rapkyns Old Stables. It was considered that there would be no public views of the proposed development from the main public highway. The development would be single storey with accommodation in the roof. The site was flat and predominately screened from longer views. There was a possibility of views into the north eastern corner of the site where there was a field gate and gap in the vegetation but this was not considered to be significant. Users of the public right of way, which was a bridleway, would be able to view a large extent of the development now proposed. However, the amended plans set the development back a minimum of 10 metres from the public right of way. This would enable planting which would soften the impact on the public right of way and its users. The development would be viewed as an extension to the existing Rapkyns care centre site facilities. The form and design of the proposed buildings was very similar to the existing four-winged building on the site and materials for building finishes and hardstanding could be controlled by condition. It was also considered to be reasonable and necessary to require the provision of a landscaping scheme by condition. The amended plans proposed a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland along the western boundary and the site. Whilst a driveway was still proposed within this buffer, the Arboricultural Officer considered that conditions to protect the ancient woodland would be acceptable and raised no objection to the amended plans. The County Ecologist considered that the additional information submitted addressed his original concerns. A statement of intent had been submitted by the applicant stating that the proposal would be carried out in accordance with the ecological mitigation. A five year management plan had also been submitted by the applicant. It was considered to be reasonable and necessary to have a drainage condition to fully consider the most appropriate drainage package for the site. Rapkyns Cottage, the nearest residential dwelling to the site, was located to the east of the south east corner. Whilst this dwelling would have a view of the proposed development, a private view was not a material planning consideration. Given the single storey nature of the development (with


27

DCN/135 Planning Application: DC/10/1889 (cont) accommodation in the roof) and the distance of the development to the residential boundary of Rapkyns Cottage it was considered that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the amenities of this dwelling. Rapkyns Stables to the south of the site may have some oblique views of the development. However it was considered that these would not be harmful. A camp site owned by Girlguiding Horsham adjoined the application site. It was considered that the impact of the development on the camp site should be mitigated by landscaping on the boundary of the site adjacent to the camp site. It was also considered that the possibility of the applicant providing landscaping within the land owned by Girlguiding Horsham itself should be investigated. In the event that appropriate landscaping could not be put in place before commencement of the development it was considered that screening should be erected along the adjacent boundary. Policy DC8 required that proposals incorporated measures which would reduce the impact on climate change. It was expected that the buildings would be designed to take account of their impact on the environment. The applicant had stated within their Sustainability and Energy Statement that design parameters, combined with the use of air source heat pumps, would likely result in an improvement factor of fifteen percent when compared to the emissions rate from the notional building baseline. Furthermore, the submitted Waste Management Plan set out proposals for the disposal of waste, including recyclable materials. The Environmental Policy for Sussex Health Care stated that Sussex Health Care would minimise use and associated CO2 emissions and maximise recycling (currently achieving 70 per cent of all waste recycled) together with other environmental aims. As the level of staff accommodation and the visitors’ flat was directly attributable to the needs of the care facility it was considered reasonable and necessary to secure this as part of a planning agreement. It was also considered to be reasonable and necessary to secure the priority placement scheme as part of a planning agreement. The planning agreement would mirror the planning agreement which already existed in relation to the site. RESOLVED

(i) That a planning agreement be entered into relating to similar issues as those in respect of the existing development on the site and, subject to requirement, additional off-site landscaping.

(ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i)


28

DCN/135 Planning Application: DC/10/1889 (cont) above, application DC/10/1889 be determined by

the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the Local Members, following consideration of drainage conditions to ensure appropriate surface and foul water drainage is secured by reviewing condition 11; further discussion with the applicant regarding the potential for landscaping outside of the site within land owned by Girlguiding Horsham and landscaping within the site adjacent to the guide camp, either by way of condition or through the planning agreement, and the erection of appropriate screening along the adjacent boundary to the guide camp if landscaping could not be provided before the commencement of the development; inclusion of a cascade clause in the planning agreement to ensure local need was met first; the reflection in the planning agreement of any requirements in existing agreements on the site relating to the provision of affordable health care to ensure consistency with previous practice; and further consideration of the access to the site to ensure maximum achievable visibility provided, if necessary by the modest re-grading of adjoining land within the visibility splays. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCN/136 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2551 - PROPOSED NEW

HEADQUARTERS FACILITY COMPRISING B8 WAREHOUSE AND B1 OFFICES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING

SITE: PLOT 1, STANE STREET, SLINFOLD, WEST SUSSEX APPLICANT: AJ WALTER AVIATION LIMITED

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the redevelopment of an existing industrial site through the erection of new office accommodation (Class B1) with associated warehouse facilities (Class B8). Government policies PPS1, PPS4, PPS7, PPG13, PPS24 and PPS25; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10, CP13, CP11, CP13 and CP15; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC25, DC26 and DC40; and the Slinfold Design Guide were relevant to the determination of this application.


29

DCN/136 Planning Application: DC/10/2551 (cont.) Relevant planning history included:

SF/23/56 New single storey factory building on existing concrete raft. Rebuilding of existing factory.

Granted

SF/7/56 Proposed use of land for light industrial. Erection of new factory building. Rebuilding of existing factory premises.

Granted

SF/61/59 Proposed erection of steel framed building for production of synthetic resin for electrical industry.

Granted

SF/37/64 Erection of at cost precast concrete building as plant maintenance workshop.

Granted

SF/32/70 Finished goods warehouse. Granted SF/19/73 Building works to provide mess rooms, toilets, control

laboratory and production offices. Granted

SF/43/73 Raw materials store and packing shop. Granted SF/10/74 Erection of building for the continuation and completion of

raw materials store/packing shop and building of new offices.

Granted

SF/23/76 Improved entrance layout into site from Hayes Lane. Granted SF/1/82 Formation of new road & car park to present industrial

site in Hayes lane - appeal against conditions 7 & 9 dismissed, condition 4 varied.

Granted

SF/45/82 Established use certificate – industrial. Granted SF/46/82 Canopy for off loading and storage canopy for temporary

storage - sub-standard stock. Granted

SF/69/86 Expansion of industrial premises. Granted SF/52/87 Construction of highway improvements. Granted SF/36/88 Extension to industrial premises. Granted SF/44/91 Erection of maintenance/engineering workshops with first

floor offices & storage (revision of SF/9/91). Granted

SF/15/92 Widening of access. Granted SF/12/98 Erection of a building to contain six varnish tanks. Granted SF/70/98 Erection of a two-storey office block. Granted SF/71/98 Convert part of car park to storage; construct new storage

area and new car park. Granted

SF/72/98 Construct a hardstanding for storage of raw materials & finished goods & alterations to road layout.

Granted

SF/30/99 Erection of ink varnish plant. Granted SF/47/99 Erection of 13 eight metre high lighting columns around

new storage area. Granted

SF/77/00 Erection of four eight metre high and three four metre high lighting columns.

Granted

SF/2/02 Removal of condition 4 SF/77/00 restricting the use of the lights between 06:00 and 22:00 hours.

Withdrawn

Public Health & Licensing, the Landscape Architect, Strategic Planning, the


30

DCN/136 Planning Application: DC/10/2551 (cont.) Arboricultural Officer, Southern Water, the County Ecologist raised no objections to the proposals subject to conditions. The comments of Building Control, Natural England and West Sussex County Council Highways Authority were noted. The Environment Agency raised no objection to the proposals. The Parish Council objected to the proposals. Forty-seven letters of objection had been received. Three members of the public and a representative from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposals and two members of the public and the applicant spoke in support. The application site covered 3.72 hectares. It formed part of an established multi-occupied industrial development previously occupied by the Flint Group (formerly know as BASF) who had since vacated the premises. The existing buildings consisted of two single-storey metal-clad warehouses with associated ancillary buildings and hard-standing. An extensive car parking area was located to the west of the primary warehouse building and a combination of permanent and temporary fencing secured the premises. The site had been identified as an employment site in the Northern West Sussex, Employment Land Review Part II, Final Draft Report (October 2010). However, it was not formally designated as an employment protection zone. The principal access to the site was off of the A29 Stane Street via Maydwell Avenue, which was a private road built in the 1980s. Adjacent the north boundary was the Downs Link, a public walkway which could also be accessed by a permissive pathway which ran adjacent to the western boundary of the site. There was a restricted vehicle access to the site from Hayes Lane to the east. It was considered that confirmation should be sought that the restriction on re-opening this access was contained in one of the planning agreements affecting the site. If not this should be secured by condition. There was established B2 (general industry) and B8 (warehouse) uses on the site relating to its former operation under BASF/ Flint Group as an ink manufacturing plant. This was consistent with the recommended uses identified in the Northern West Sussex, Employment Land Review Part II, Final Draft Report (October 2010). It appeared from the planning history that there was no restrictive condition in place which would limit the hours of use on site. The immediate surroundings of the site were described in the Design and Access Statement: “The immediate surroundings to the application site comprise buildings of similar design and age which forms the remainder of the Flint Group demise, together with a 2 storey brick built office to the


31

DCN/136 Planning Application: DC/10/2551 (cont.) West. To the East of the site there are a number of buildings owned by SI Group which are of metal and brick construction, with parking and service yards.” There was little variation in the topography within the developed areas of the site. However, an engineered landscape bund ran along the majority of the north boundary and was planted with a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees. The western boundary also consisted of deciduous mature trees with a low quality understory below. These features helped to visually screen the site. However, the level of screening in some parts was reduced during the winter months due to the significant presence of deciduous tree specimens. The southern boundary was delineated by the estate road while the eastern boundary abutted a large concrete storage area which formed part of the surrounding industrial estate. The closest residential properties were 1 and 2 Railway Cottages, located to the North West, beyond the existing car parking area. The built up area boundary of Slinfold Village extended from the east to north east of the industrial park and was approximately 150 metres from the east boundary of the application site at its closest point. Beyond the Downs Link to the north was open countryside, with views of the existing warehouse seen from elevated vantages. Further to the west adjacent to the A29, was the Spring Copse Business Park, comprising industrial and warehouse uses. It was noted at the time of the case officer’s site visit that some of the former Flint Group buildings immediately to the south were being demolished. Policy CP11 set out that a range of locations, types and sizes of employment premises and sites would be provided to meet the needs of the local economy. It made specific reference to making more use of existing sites and premises which were not fully used because they were unsuited to modern needs. Since the proposal made use of a vacant, existing employment site situated to the western side of the wider site, it was considered an appropriate location in principle for further employment use. The Northern West Sussex, Employment Land Review Part II, Final Draft Report (October 2010) set out that the recommended uses for the site were B2 or B8. Although the current application proposed B1 and B8 uses, since the proposed development would provide a new global headquarters building for AJW Aviation, it could not be expected to function properly without some B1 use. Since the B1 use would enable the recommended B8 use to come forward.


32

DCN/136 Planning Application: DC/10/2551 (cont.) Supplementary information had been submitted by the applicant providing further justification for the B1 office use proposed. The applicant had confirmed that the new headquarters would be required to accommodate AJW’s Administrative/Accounts/HR and Business Development staff, who would provide support to the attached warehouse and three other warehouses located worldwide. The applicant had also commented that there had been support for a local “cleaner” business, with the B1 office representing a welcome move away from the previous industrial nature of the site. It was also considered that the B1 use could result in a less intensive use of the site when compared to potential B2 industrial operations. A condition could be imposed to ensure recreational facilities within the office space were used by AJW staff only and that the offices were only occupied in connection with the attached B8 use. It was not unusual to have ancillary B1 office uses on sites such as the application site. It was proposed that the development be implemented in two phases to suit the anticipated growth of the company, with phase 2 of the proposal resulting in the implementation of additional warehousing only. Phase 1 would result 3400 square metres of offices and 5,050 square metres of warehouse. After phase 2 the office area would be reduced to 3,398 square metres and the warehouse area would be increased to 8,024 square metres. The proposed warehouse at completion of phase 2 would have a maximum height of approximately 13.2 metres while the taller attached office component would have a maximum height of approximately 13.95 metres. The total length of the development at completion of phase 2 would be 136.5 metres. The applicant had agreed to a more definitive timeframe in terms of implementing phase 2 of the works and had suggested a condition be imposed that required the implementation of phase 2 within five years of the completion of phase 1. There would be no objection in principle to the phased development approach subject to the imposition of an appropriately worded condition if permission were granted.

Two existing warehouses and associated ancillary buildings would be demolished to accommodate the development. The existing main warehouse had a gross floor area of 1,982 square metres and was 11.4 metres in height. The smaller building covered 440 square metres and had a maximum height of 8.6 metres. The demolition of these buildings would not raise any significant concerns as they were dated industrial buildings


33

DCN/136 Planning Application: DC/10/2551 (cont.) which were currently vacant and of no architectural merit. It was considered that were permission granted a condition should be imposed requiring the demolition of all buildings on site prior to the first occupation of the development. This would prevent the proliferation of buildings on site.

Due to the increased bulk and massing of the replacement warehouse and attached offices there was increased potential for adverse visual impacts upon the surrounding environment. Robust consideration from key vantage points beyond the boundaries of the site would be required and account would need to taken for winter views when vegetative screening was reduced. Key locations in this respect were considered to include viewpoints from 1 and 2 Railway Cottages, the Downs Link, the existing permissive pathway, Slinfold Village to the east and north east and elevated positions on private land to the north of the site. It was noted that the north and west elevations would have the greatest exposure to the public realm, while the south and east elevations would be relatively contained within the confines of the wider existing industrial development. The applicant had stated that: “The nature of AJW’s business requires a 24/7 operation, although the majority of employees will work between the core hours of 8.30am to 5.30pm with a small number of staff working a late shift and a nightshift.” The applicant has submitted a detailed Landscape and Visual Assessment and further landscape proposals which seek to address visual impacts issues through existing landscape features and reinforcement of boundary screening by way of additional planting and introduction of engineered bunds and fencing designs. It was considered that the landscape proposals would sufficiently mitigate any adverse visual impacts by reinforcing existing boundary screening through landscape planting and engineered design solutions. This screening would need to be properly managed. The proposal was not considered to have any dominating or visually intrusive effects when viewed from the public realm or adjoining properties. It was noted that there were not many residential properties located close to the application site. It was acknowledged that the some vegetation to be planted along the northern boundary would take time to establish and that there would be a lapse until the full effectiveness of landscape proposals were realised. Further investigations could be undertaken to ensure that the amenities of 1 and 2 Railway Cottages were protected. Concerns had been raised that the proposed use of grey and light grey tones would exacerbate visual prominence of the buildings. In response the applicant had suggested that a more muted colour palette be used on the north elevation, allowing for greater integration with the winter tree line when


34

DCN/136 Planning Application: DC/10/2551 (cont.) viewed from the Downs Link. The use of more muted colours was especially important considering that the roofs of the new building may have a slightly greater impact than those of the existing buildings. This approach was considered to be an improvement although it was noted that it was the applicant’s intention to retain a blue colour finish on the west elevation. If planning permission was granted a materials condition would require the approval of the final colour scheme and materials prior to the construction works commencing. The existing lighting scheme on the site, which caused significant nuisance to the local community, would be removed. A new lighting scheme which had been carefully considered to avoid unnecessary glare and light pollution would be installed. The proposed lighting scheme was supported by a site review and glare study and further supplementary information which provided further comparison between existing and proposed lighting lux levels. The proposed lighting scheme incorporated low level bollard lighting around the car park and three floodlights on the rear canopy of the building which would illuminate loading/unloading areas. The Car Park and Office Building Lighting Study (February 2011) included existing and proposed lux levels charts for the car park area, with significant reductions in light levels across this area, in particular the west boundary with railway cottages. Minimal reference was made to the proposed canopy flood lights that would be erected to the rear of the building. However, it was considered that the imposition of conditions could control final flood light details to ensure light spillage beyond the site would be minimised. With respect to the impact of night time lighting on 1 and 2 Railway cottages the applicant had submitted that the proposal would result in an improvement to the existing lawfully established lighting design. However, it was noted that the current lighting system had not been in use at night for a few years which could have led to the numbers of bats on site increasing. It was considered that a comparison between no lighting on the site at night and the proposed lighting needed to be carried out. It was noted that even if the existing lighting system had not been in use for several years, since it had not been removed its use would still be lawful. It was considered that the possibility of downgrading the classification of the lighting level from E3 to E2 should be investigated. The proposed earth bund and fence screen to the west of the car park had been designed to screen any view of the building below the top of the second floor level glazing line and would minimise any potential light


35

DCN/136 Planning Application: DC/10/2551 (cont.) nuisance imposed upon the neighbouring occupiers. These would also address any concerns regarding overlooking from the proposed office building windows and balconies. A 24 hour operation was proposed with respect to both the administrative office and warehouse storage and distribution function. Given the proximity of the site to residential properties concerns relating to noise and disturbance had been raised, with particular reference to night time noise pollution. The submitted noise assessments sought to address noise impacts as measured from the closest noise sensitive receptors with primary noise generating equipment and activities including general operations (forklift and truck movements), external heating, ventilation and air conditioning plant and traffic noise. Assessments had been carried out against BS4142 and BS8233 criteria. It was noted that in relation to previous applications decibel levels had been recorded to assess noise levels and that this could be useful in relation to the current application. It was also noted that the proposed number of heavy goods vehicle movements had not been provided, which would also have been useful in assessing the potential noise impact. Concerns had been raised about the limited control the Local Planning Authority would have over the proposed and future uses of the site and detrimental noise impacts that could arise from an unrestricted 24 hour operation. In response the applicant had submitted a supplementary report which provided greater technical detail and recommended that a condition be imposed which would require the submission of further details pertaining to the intended use of the site. Any subsequent changes to these details would need to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. To minimise impacts upon Slinfold Village it was recommended that a condition be imposed restricting access to the site from Maydwell Avenue only. It was noted that the access point from Hayes Lane was gated and vehicle access restricted. Conditions relating to the Hayes Lane access had been recommended. However, this access was located outside of land owned by the applicant and therefore a condition could not be imposed in relation to it. Further mitigation was sought through the submission of a travel plan which would allow for the establishment of defined access routes and transport options for employees of the site. The WSCC Public Rights of Way Department had suggested several improvements which could be made with respect to linking the Downs Link with Madywell Avenue and providing for publics rights of way along this vehicle access route. Subject to the granting of planning permission a condition could be imposed requiring the submission of detailed public rights of way proposals at the condition discharge stage of the application.


36

DCN/136 Planning Application: DC/10/2551 (cont.) Possible improvement works to the Downs Link were also suggested.

The committee should be mindful that any works falling beyond the sites red line of the application site are beyond the remit of planning conditions however County section 106 contributions could be used to undertake any such works or alternatively tied into a separate planning agreement. Provision for the parking of 153 cars was proposed. This would comprise 145 car spaces and eight disabled spaces. A total of 28 secure cycle spaces would also be provided for visitors and employees.

An additional footpath/cycle path to the Downs Link for AJW’s employees was proposed to discourage increased usage of the permissive path adjacent to 1 Railway Cottages. High levels of artificial and natural light could act as a physical barrier to bat populations due to their sensitivity to light. The submitted light diagrams showed an overall reduction in light levels which would be beneficial to any roosting bat populations in the surrounding tree lines. The reductions in light levels would be particularly noticeable near the west and north boundary lines which adjoined the potential habitat. Upon receipt of further light diagrams the County Ecologist makes the following comments

Were planning permission to be granted it was considered that a condition should be attached relating to the installation of spill shields on lighting bollards along the outer perimeters of the car park area and a full bat assessment should be submitted at the condition discharge stage. The applicant had submitted a deed of variation briefing paper in relation to two planning agreements on the site which identified extant obligations secured under planning permission SF/1/82 and subsequent variations/modifications described in detail within the submitted document. This was specifically in relation to restrictions on the use of the car park. A separate planning agreement would be prepared in order to secure County contributions totalling £137,040 from the applicant. This would result in the site being subject to three planning agreements in total. The proposals could not be implemented if the planning agreements were not varied.

An energy report had been submitted. Sustainable construction materials and the use of environmental controls which sought to limit the energy demands of the building were proposed. The sustainable design proposals could be secured by way of a sustainable construction condition. A flood risk assessment had been submitted. Means of sustainable surface water drainage and connections to existing services could be considered at the discharge of condition stage in consultation with Southern Water and


37

DCN/136 Planning Application: DC/10/2551 (cont.) the Councils Technical Services Department. The applicant had submitted a Green Travel Plan which would address the movement of vehicles through the centre of Slinfold. It was considered that a detailed sustainable construction condition should be imposed if planning permission were granted. It was considered that the proposals would be beneficial to the local economy, would provide long-term benefits to Slinfold and would represent an improvement of the site. RESOLVED

(i) That, subject to consideration of the details of the proposed variations to ensure the matters to be varied are appropriate in detail, the existing planning agreements relating to the site be varied in accordance with the deed of variation briefing paper submitted by the applicant.

(ii) That, upon variation of the agreements in (i)

above, a planning agreement be entered into to secure contributions, works to public rights of way and to address infrastructure requirements generated by the proposals.

(iii) That, subject to the completion of (i) and (ii) above,

application DC/10/2551 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the Local Members, to consider whether the existing planning agreements secured the use of the access onto Hayes Lane for emergency purposes only and that these measure were satisfactory to deal with the current proposal; investigate whether the proposal would result in unacceptable noise and disturbance to adjoining occupiers; consider whether the submitted details provided satisfactory information to demonstrate that overlooking and loss of privacy would not occur; investigate downgrading the classification of the lighting level to E2; ensure landscaping proposed was of an appropriate quality; confirm that Yew was an appropriate species where high level screening required in relatively short time period; ensure any planting was of an appropriate


38

DCN/136 Planning Application: DC/10/2551 (cont.)

size to achieve the required screening in the optimum period; to give further consideration to the precise requirements relating to sustainable construction; and to amend the proposed conditions/draft an additional condition in respect of contaminated land. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCN/137 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2688 - CHANGE OF USE OF

BUILDERS YARD AND ERECTION OF 1 X 4-BED DWELLING SITE: MEAD FARM, STANE STREET, SLINFOLD APPLICANT: SLINFOLD LLP

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the change of use of the existing ‘builder’s yard’ and erection of one four-bedroom dwelling, the erection of a garage for the existing Mead Farm, the stopping up of the existing vehicular access to the site from Stane Street and the creation of a new vehicular access from Maydwell Avenue. Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40; and policies CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, H1, T4, NRM7 and C4 of the South East Plan were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant planning history included: SF/20/59 Erection of bungalow Refused SF/44/59 Erection of bungalow Granted SF/3/67 Erection of farmhouse Refused SF/40/71 Erection of farmhouse Granted

The Parish Council objected to the proposals. West Sussex County Council raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. Two letters of objection, one of comment and two of support had been received. Three members of the public and a representative from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposals and the applicant spoke in support.

The application site was located on the eastern side of the A29 Stane Street

and to the south-west of Slinfold, outside any defined built-up area boundary.

The site comprised the existing builders’ yard, the existing dwelling and


39

DCN/137 Planning Application: DC/10/2688 (cont.) curtilage at Mead Farm together with the new access to be created from

Maydwell Avenue, but excluded the agricultural land which formed part of a concurrent application, DC/10/2690, for stables and field shelters.

The site was accessed from an existing but sub-standard residential access

to Mead Farm. Mead Farm, a residential property, was located to the south of the site and Mead cottage was located to the west. Spring Copse Business Park was located to the north. Maydwell Avenue to the south of the site provided access to the former Flint commercial/ industrial site, the eastern part of which was subject to a separate concurrent application DC/10/2551 for a new headquarters facility comprising B8 warehouse and B1 offices with associated parking. It was intended that the proposed dwelling be occupied by the site manager of the proposed B1/B8 use to assist in the 24 hour operation proposed for this adjacent site.

PPS7 advised that housing in the countryside should firstly be sited on

previously developed land in existing towns unless a specific local need was addressed. Furthermore, it advised that housing in the countryside required a special justification. Principally this would be that the new house related to the essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.

Policy DC1 stated that there may be certain circumstances where

development was necessary to ensure the continued sustainable development of rural areas. Such development might include that which was required to sustain the countryside as a place of varied and productive social and economic activity. These would be assessed on the basis that development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

The applicant had acknowledged the policy considerations. However, the

applicant considered that the removal of unsightly buildings, environmental improvements, improved access to Stane Street, improved relationship with adjacent residential properties together with an operational link with AJW Aviation, were material considerations specific to the application site which provided sufficient justification.

The site did not benefit from planning permission for a builder’s yard or a

Lawful Development Certificate to confirm such use and therefore the lawful use of the site remained uncertain. An enforcement enquiry had been received in 2003 relating to the storage of materials on the application site. The investigation had determined that the storage was ancillary to and for the purposes of the former Flint/ BASF site, but not on a commercial basis. It was therefore considered that the untidy appearance of the site related to an ancillary and not a commercial use, would not justify redevelopment of the application site within a sensitive countryside location. Furthermore it


40


was considered that the development of an additional dwelling would result in a further visual encroachment of built form beyond built-up area boundary.

There was no objection to the stopping up of the existing vehicular access in

principle. It was acknowledged that the visibility splays provided from this access point were poor. The proposed access for the new dwelling and Mead Farm would be taken from Maydwell Avenue which currently acted as the access route to the former Flint/ BASF site to the east. The County Surveyor had advised that Maydwell Avenue forms a highly designed junction with A29 Stane Street and as such no highway objection would be raised in terms of highway safety.

The applicant proposes to construct two double garages, one for the

proposed dwelling and one for the existing dwelling, Mead Farm. Further on-curtilage parking and turning would be provided, together with secure covered cycle storage. This could be secured by condition.

It was noted that any additional development serviced by Maydwell Avenue,

such as that proposed by the current application, required a deed of variation to the planning agreement which had been signed 10/09/1982 as part of planning permission reference SF/1/82. This agreement could be secured separately from this application and would not prejudice the consideration of this application.

A residential use at the application site with its associated activities could

create a more harmonious relationship with the two adjacent residential properties, Mead Farm and Mead Cottage. However, it was considered that this alone did not justify setting aside strong policy objections, particularly since the lawful use and any possible associated movements and activities of the site remained unclear.

Although it was intended that the adjacent site be operated on a 24 hour basis, it was considered that this did not in itself justify the erection of a dwellinghouse within the countryside or set aside current policies.

The proposed dwelling would two-storeys in height and of a ‘barn’

appearance, constructed of timber weatherboarding and clay tile roof. The fenestration would be limited in the main to the front and rear elevations, with central full height detailing. The adjacent Mead Farm is a bungalow and Mead Cottage a two storey dwelling which also benefited from a two storey annexe.

The proposed dwelling would be approximately 40 metres from Mead

Cottage and approximately 29 metres from Mead Farm. It was considered


41

DCN/137 Planning Application: DC/10/2688 (cont.) that these distances would not lead to any significant overlooking or loss of

privacy to occupiers of adjacent property or potential future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

Although the site was located on the periphery of Slinfold, a Category 2

settlement, within close proximity to a bus stop, it was considered to be in a relatively isolated location. Given the nature of the surrounding roads, which lacked footpaths or lighting, it was 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.

DC8 expected dwellings be designed to take account of their impact on the

environment, by way of reducing unnecessary draw on water and energy resources and reduce the amount of waste created from the development during its lifetime. The Council would expect any new dwelling to meet a minimum standard of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The applicant has not confirmed whether the proposed dwelling could meet this expectation.

The applicant had provided a Protected Species and Bat Survey which had

been assessed by the County Ecologist, to which no objections were raised. The removal of any trees or hedgerows was not proposed.

The proposed development would trigger the requirement to provide

financial contributions toward fire service infrastructure, Total Access Demand, and libraries of £1,447. The District Authority would require £2,930 toward open space, sport and recreation, community centres and halls and local recycling. A planning agreement to obtain these contributions had not been entered into.

RESOLVED

That application DC/10/2688 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed development which is situated outside of any built-up area boundary would represent an intensification of residential development in this countryside location to the detriment of the rural character of the area. Furthermore, it has not been shown to require an essential countryside location or that it meets an identified local need and therefore would fail to comply with the principles of sustainable development having particular regard to the poor access to services and facilities reinforcing


42

DCN/137 Planning Application: DC/10/2688 (cont.) unsustainable patterns of development. The

proposed development would thus be contrary to policies CP3, CP5 and CP19 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), policies DC1 and DC40 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) together with the overarching provisions of PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13.

02 The proposed development makes no provision for contribution towards improvements to transport, fire service infrastructure or community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

DCN/138 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2690 - CHANGE OF USE OF

AGRICULTURAL LAND TO EQUESTRIAN AND ERECTION OF 2 STABLES AND 4 FIELD SHELTERS

SITE: MEAD FARM, STANE STREET, SLINFOLD APPLICANT: SLINFOLD LLP

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to equestrian land together with the erection of two stables and four field shelters. Government policies PPS1, PPS4 and PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development policies DC1, CP2, DC3, DC6, DC9, DC29 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application. There was no planning history relevant to the site itself. The Arboricultural Officer and West Sussex County Council Highways raised no objections to the proposals. The Parish Council objected to the proposals. Two letters of objection and two of support had been received. Three members of the public and a representative from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposals and the applicant spoke in support. The application site was situated on the eastern side of the A29 Stane Street, to the south-west of Slinfold, outside any built-up area. The total


43

DCN/138 Planning Application: DC/10/2690 (cont.) area of the site was approximately 9.7 hectares. The site comprised three paddocks to the north of Maydwell Avenue, which traversed the site, and three paddocks to the south, but excluded the dwelling at Mead Farm. The paddocks were divided by bands of trees and hedges. The gradient of the land varied across the site, with the highest point being approximately the centre of the site. Hayeshill Copse to the southeast was defined as an Ancient Woodland. Maydwell Avenue acted as the access route to the former Flint commercial/industrial site to the east. Spring Copse Business Park was located to the north. Mead Farm and Mead Cottage, two residential properties, were located directly to the west and north-west of the site. The current application proposed the change of use of the agricultural land to equestrian land together with the erection of two stables and four field shelters. Policy DC29 stated that planning permission would be granted for equestrian related development provided that, among other things, the proposal was appropriate in scale and level of activity, in keeping with its location and surroundings and would not result in sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the open countryside, particularly in an urban fringe location. Each of the four proposed field shelters would measure 26 square metres. One would be located within each of the four most easterly paddocks. Stable 1, located along the eastern boundary with Mead Farm, would measure 26 square metres and contain two loose boxes. Stable 2 would be located in the adjacent paddock to the east of Stable 1 beyond a band of trees, would measure 56 square metres and would contain two loose boxes, a tack room and hay store. The proposal as a whole would comprise 12 loose boxes in total. It was noted that the applicant would be able to place field shelters on the land without permission if the structures were on skids. The proposed field shelters were not intended to be permanent in nature. Concern was expressed in relation to the potential for future applications for a change of use to residential for the proposed stable block if permission were granted. However, it was noted that there would have to be an exceptional need for any change of use to residential to be granted in the future.

A new access from Maydwell Avenue to Mead Farm had been proposed under application DC/10/2688 which was currently under consideration.


44

DCN/138 Planning Application: DC/10/2690 (cont.) The proposed access would facilitate access to the two stable blocks.

Each of the proposed field shelters would be sited either side of the central band of trees and hedges. They would relate well to the access from Maydwell Avenue, in that it would be unlikely that there would be any future pressure to provide additional tracks or hardstanding further into the countryside. The natural screening together with the separation of the site provided by Maydwell Avenue would allow for the field shelters to be read individually rather than as a cluster of development. Similarly, the proposed stable buildings would also be read individually and well-screened by natural vegetation. Given the overall size of the site, the scale of buildings and the proposed materials, which would be dark-stained timber it was considered that the proposed field shelters and stable buildings would be of a reasonable scale appropriate to the countryside location. In the event the field shelters and stables were no longer required, a condition could be attached to secure their removal from the site. The horse boxes would not be permanently stored on the site and the applicant had indicated that they would be willing to accept a condition to that effect if permission were granted. It was intended that Stable 1 and the paddock within which it would be situated would be for the private use of Mead Farm. Stable 2 and the remaining five paddocks and four field shelters would be associated with a proposed dwelling which was currently under consideration (DC/10/2688) if planning permission were granted for that dwelling. This use would be for private purposes. If planning permission were not granted for the proposed dwelling, the site would be marketed for private use and would not operate as a commercial livery. This could be secured by an appropriately worded condition. A private use of the land for equestrian purposes would be unlikely to give rise to a level of activity that would be out of keeping with the rural location. The application proposed a new link to the Downs Link bridleway, which ran on a west to east axis abutting the northern part of the application site. This would reduce the need for horses and their riders to utilise the A29 Stane Street to access the bridle path and was considered to be important in terms of safety and supporting the viability of the application. Ownership of the Downslink and whether the owner would grant access


45

DCN/138 Planning Application: DC/10/2690 (cont.) from the site was unclear. This was a private law matter separate from the planning application but confirmation could be sought during a delegation period as to whether such permission had been obtained.

It was noted that since the land was currently agricultural in nature, if a change of use to equestrian land were not granted, the applicant would still be able to graze horses on the land but would not be able to “keep” horses on the land, which would require permission for change of use. It was considered to be important to retain the agricultural use of the land. Permission for the erection of the buildings could be given independently even if a change of use was not granted. In respect of vehicle access to the site, the junction of Maydwell Avenue and the A29 was a highly designed junction and benefitted from good visibility for both vehicles emerging from the access and also vehicles travelling on the A29. When the use of the site had been converted to industrial/commercial use, the planning agreement had sought to ensure that the access served that particular use. A variation of the planning agreement could be considered appropriate to serve current proposal.

RESOLVED

(i) That the planning agreement relating to the site be varied to enable access to the site from Maydwell Avenue.

(ii) That, upon completion of the variation in (i) above,

application DC/10/2690 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the Local Members, to revise the description of the application and the red line on the plan so that the application only related to the construction of stables, field shelters and access and did not relate to the change of use of the land; to obtain details from the applicant confirming whether the necessary rights of way had been obtained for the proposed access to the Downs Link for equestrian use. If the applicant were not agreeable to these changes the application would be reported back to the Committee. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.


46

DCN/139 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2495 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE AND ERECTION 5 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS

SITE: 27 MILLFIELD, SOUTHWATER APPLICANT: THAKEHAM HOMES

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of an existing two-storey dwelling and the erection of a replacement three-bedroom dwelling which would front onto Millfield, together with the erection of four further two-storey dwellings. Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPG13 and PPS25; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control policies CP2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant planning history included application DC/09/1251 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of two three-bed and three five-bed dwellings. The comments of Environmental Management, Waste & Cleansing were noted. The Arboricultural Officer and West Sussex County Council raised no objections to the proposals. Southern Water raised no objections to the proposals, subject to conditions. The Parish Council objected to the proposals. Eight letters of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposals and the applicant and the agent of the applicant spoke in support.

The application site was located within Southwater, a Category 1 settlement. It comprised an existing two-storey dwelling, a detached garage and outbuildings set within a large garden. The land was relatively flat at the south and west of the site. However, the ground within the north-eastern corner sloped down toward the far corner boundary. The site was bounded to the south and the north by a large number of trees, a number of which were protected by Tree Preservation Orders. To the north of the rear garden was Turners Close, a relatively modern housing development, accessed from Abbotsleigh. The properties within Millfield were relatively established in character and in the main sat parallel to the street frontage with open fronted gardens. A large number of properties in this area also benefited from off-street parking, in the form of garages and hard surface parking areas. The application proposed the erection of one replacement dwelling, one three-bedroom dwelling and three five-bedroom dwellings forming a cul-de-


47

DCN/139 Planning Application: DC/10/2495 (cont.) sac development to the rear. Unit 1 would benefit from a detached garage with the remaining four units benefiting from integral garages. Separate cycle and refuse storage was also proposed.

Recent Government guidance advised of amendments to PPS3, which had removed private residential gardens, such as the application site, from the definition of “previously developed land”. However, there was still a need to direct development to the more sustainable built up areas, as set out in CP3 and CP5, although this required careful consideration of the impacts of such development on the character and appearance of the area. The site covered an area of 0.267 hectares and therefore the five houses proposed would result in a density of 18.72 dwellings per hectare. The national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare had been removed from PPS3. However, the density proposed for this development was, by common standards, relatively low. The proposed dwellings would be two-storeys and would be of brick and clay tile roof construction, with a small element of clay vertical tile hanging. The proposed sizes of the dwellings would be relatively commensurate with the size and variation of dwellings within the area. Unit 1 would have the most visual impact along the street scene by virtue of fronting onto Millfield, with the remaining proposed dwellings forming a cul-de-sac to the rear. The majority of properties along Millfield sat wide along the street frontage with a relatively narrow depth. It was noted that the proposed Unit 1 would sit deeper in the plot with a narrower frontage. Much of its depth would be screened from the street scene by the siting of 29 Millfield. Unit 1 would have windows directly below the eaves which followed the pattern of the frontage of neighbouring dwellings. The current application had been amended from the application previously refused to included soffit and fascia boards to make it more akin to neighbouring dwellings. It was noted that there were different types of dwellings within Millfield. Particularly, 29 Millfield had been extended and the semi-detached units to the east, 33 and 35 Millfield, benefited from projecting front gables which added variety to the street scene. There were therefore some similarities and some differences when compared to the overarching character of the area, which in itself was not exclusive to one particular design type. It is considered that the siting, design and orientation the units would result in a cramped layout. It was proposed that the existing access for 29 Millfield be enlarged and


48

DCN/139 Planning Application: DC/10/2495 (cont.) extended to form an access road to serve the proposed dwellings. The proposed access drive would be moved further from the boundary with 29 Millfield and a wall would be retained/built between 1.8 metres and 2.2 metres along the boundary, with appropriate landscaping. The access would be four metres in width at the end of the drive fronting onto Millfield but would narrow to 3.5 metres. This was not considered to be sufficient to protect the amenities of the neighbouring properties or to accommodate refuse vehicles. The proposed access was not considered to be of a sufficient width to accommodate the development. The proposed turning area was largely the same as that previously proposed and was not considered to be acceptable. It was considered that any lorries using the access and turning area would block the access road. The application also proposed the erection of a communal outbuilding along the boundary with 29 Millfield. It was considered that the use of the building would need to be tied to Unit 1.

The applicant had confirmed that the proposed dwellings would be constructed to achieve a minimum of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Furthermore, the applicant had also advised that the scheme would incorporate grey water harvesting on units 2 to 5 inclusive, with the harvested water being utilised for w/c and clothes washing within these properties. This would lessen the amount of excess surface water which would enter the water storage soakaway system. It was noted that a minimum of three parking spaces per dwelling was now proposed, which addressed the concerns raised in relation to parking in relation to the previously refused application. RESOLVED

That application DC/10/2495 be refused for the following reasons: 01 The proposed development by reason of the

number and size of dwellings would result in an overdevelopment of the site. Additionally, the new vehicle access to serve the proposed development would result in a loss of residential amenity to occupiers of neighbouring properties, in particular number 29 Millfield. Furthermore, the proposed replacement dwelling by reason of design, size and layout would appear out of keeping and incongruous within the street scene. As such the


49

DCN/139 Planning Application: DC/10/2495 (cont.) development would be contrary to policy CP1 of

the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

02 The proposed development makes no provision for

contribution towards improvements to transport, fire service infrastructure or community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

DCN/140 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2205 - CONVERSION OF FORMER

BARN AND STABLE BUILDING TO TWO-BED DWELLING SITE: FURZEFIELD, BROADWATER LANE, COPSALE APPLICANT: MRS K MATHERS

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the conversion of an existing building comprising a storage barn and five lean-to stables into a two-bedroom self-contained dwelling. Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPS4 and PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC8, DC9, DC24, DC27, DC29 and DC40; and policies CC6, CC1, CC4 and C4 of the South East Plan were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant planning history included:

N/47/60 Residential development Refused N/25/76 Erection of three units for staff

accommodation Granted

N/9/78 Alterations and erection of single storey extension

Granted

N/10/80 Alterations and extension Granted N/25/80 Erection of single storey extension Granted N/6/94 Alteration Granted N/37/94 Conversion of building into accommodation

for groom/security Granted


50


DC/04/1328 Retention of horse walker Granted DC/08/1593 Conservatory to rear Granted

Public Health & Licensing and West Sussex County Council raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. The comments of Building Control were noted. The Parish Council raised no objections to the proposal. Two letters of support had been received. The agent of the applicant spoke in support of the proposal. The application site was located on the eastern side of Broadwater Lane and accessed via an existing access track which ran to the north of the dwelling known as White Croft. The site covered approximately 0.16 hectares and was located outside any defined built-up area boundary. The site was located to the east of the dwelling known as Furzefield, which had previously been known as Broadwater Lane Nursery. The site was currently used in connection with an equestrian use run by the applicant in a hobby capacity and not on a commercial basis. The building subject to the current application was of painted brick, block and timber construction with a lean-to roof to an adjoining stable building. There were five stables located in the northern end of the application building with access from the north elevation. The eastern flank featured a timber gable end and large double timber doors. The southern elevation was painted render. The lean-to section of the application building was attached via a roofed-archway to another stable building to the west. The western elevation of the application building featured a small door and a timber gable end. The building, including both the storage barn and the stables, covered approximately 167 square metres. A hard-surfaced informal courtyard which allowed vehicular access to the stable areas was located the north of the application site. The land to the east and south of the application building was laid to grass. There were six stables sited in a linear pattern along the western boundary of the courtyard. The area of land within the applicant’s ownership extended to approximately 10.98 hectares, including the yard and buildings. The remaining land in the applicant’s ownership extended to approximately 5.41 hectares of mixed deciduous woodland and 4.46 hectares of grasslands. On the application site there was a block and timber stable range with six stables and four foaling boxes situated on the western side of the courtyard; a pole barn with box profile cladding and block work walling, used as a hay store and occasionally for parking the horse lorry; a pole barn clad with corrugated metal sheeting used for additional hay and bulk feed storage measuring approximately 52 square metres; a two-bay pole barn used for


51

DCN/140 Planning Application: DC/10/2205 (cont.) machinery storage measuring approximately 44 square metres; a lunging ring measuring 15.5 metres in diameter; a sand school measuring 22 metres by 15 metres; a covered horse-walker measuring 140 square metres; an L-shaped range of timber stables providing five loose boxes; an adjacent timber field shelter providing additional covered space for a horse if required; and a timber framed and timber clad storage building under a fibre cement pitched roof, which was in a poor condition. The planning history for these structures was unclear. The current application proposed the conversion of the existing building comprising five stables and storage located on the southern boundary of the courtyard. The six existing stables and the ‘L-shaped’ range of timber stables would be retained. The applicant was currently residing in the ‘annexe’ accommodation associated with the main Furzefield dwelling. This self-contained accommodation had been granted planning permission under reference N/37/94, subject to a condition restricting occupation to occupation as part of Broadwater Lane Nursery or by a close relative or member of the household staff of the occupant of the main dwelling on the site. The proposal would create an independent self-contained unit of accommodation to be occupied by the applicant and would be associated with land currently used for equestrian purposes by the applicant. The equestrian use was a small-scale private operation. The proposed dwelling would not be associated with or occupied in connection with the existing bungalow and ‘annexe’ at Furzefield. The application for the proposed dwelling had been submitted under the auspices of policy DC24. This policy advises that outside the defined built-up areas, conversion of agricultural, forestry or rural buildings for business, commercial or residential development would only be permitted where:

a) the buildings were not in an isolated position in relation to infrastructure, amenities and services;

b) the building was of suitable scale for the level of activity proposed, and of suitable construction which was not so derelict as to require substantial reconstruction. For proposals for residential use, the building was of traditional construction and/or architectural/ historic interest;

c) the buildings were proven to have been in use for a period of 10 years or more;

d) the proposed use would maintain or enhance the architectural character of the buildings and the character of their settings; and

e) the proposed use could be accommodated in the existing buildings and car parking requirements could be accommodated satisfactorily within the immediate surrounds of the buildings.


52

DCN/140 Planning Application: DC/10/2205 (cont.) The site was located outside any defined built-up area in an isolated position poorly served by public transport. The surrounding roads had no footpaths or lighting. It was considered that the occupants of the proposed dwelling would therefore be heavily reliant on cars for access purposes. This would reinforce unsustainable patterns of development and would fail to meet criterion a) of DC24. The construction of a barn of brick, breeze block and timber composition, would not be of a traditional construction or of any architectural or historic merit and therefore its conversion would not be in compliance with the requirements as set out within criterion b) of DC24. It was considered therefore that the proposed use would not maintain or enhance the architectural character of the buildings and would therefore also fail to comply with criterion d). DC24 also stated that proposals for the conversion of buildings to business and commercial uses would be considered favourably over residential in the first instance. The loss of either existing commercial or agricultural uses to residential was 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. Any commercial use of the property would need to be of such a scale that it did not generate unacceptable levels of traffic. This objective was advocated within PPS4 which stated that in the first instance preference for the re-use of buildings within the countryside should be for economic development purposes. These issues had been considered in respect of a previous application (DC/09/1690) for the conversion of redundant farm buildings to form a two/three bedroom dwelling at Frogmore Farm, Handcross Road, Plummers Plain, which had been dismissed at appeal. In that instance the Inspector had noted that: “Policy EC12.1b of PPS4 recognises that small-scale economic development, where it provides the most sustainable option in locations that are remote from local service centres, may be an acceptable location for development even though it may not be readily accessible by public transport. However, the emphasis of PPS4 is clearly on encouraging economic uses in preference to residential use when considering proposals for the re-use of buildings in the countryside”. Given the relatively recent nature of that appeal and similarities between the appeal decision and the current application, insofar as they both relate to the conversion of rural buildings, it was considered that the appeal decision formed useful guidance in the consideration of the current application. The applicant had engaged an estate agent to provide a report on the


53

DCN/140 Planning Application: DC/10/2205 (cont.) suitability of the conversion of the buildings as well as the suitability of alternative commercial or business uses in this location and in close proximity to an equestrian use. The report advised that commercial or business uses would not be compatible with the equestrian use given the close proximity of buildings and the need for turning, parking and loading/unloading. The report did not include marketing details. Such details would have allowed for an examination of whether there was any interest in the buildings for alternative commercial or business purposes and an assessment of whether the proposed residential conversion may be more appropriate in this instance. Given that the proposal was for a permanent dwelling in relation to a private equestrian operation within the countryside, it was considered appropriate to have regard to national guidance for occupational dwellings in PPS7, particularly as the applicant had advised that 24 hour presence for the care and security of the horses was required. PPS7 requires new housing within the countryside to be appropriately justified, essential for its countryside location and for an identified local need. New house-building and other new development in the open countryside away from established settlements or areas allocated for development should be strictly controlled. The applicant’s view that there was a necessity to be on site had been supported by the applicant’s vet together with a welfare officer at the British Horse Society, although the operation on site was of a very low key private operation and was not a commercial business. Policy DC27 stated that outside of the defined built up areas new housing for rural workers would be permitted in accordance with PPS7. This would include new housing in connection with the breeding and care of horses on a commercial basis. It was not considered that any substantive evidence had been submitted to justify setting aside strong policy objections to new development within the countryside, particularly given the private and low key nature of the existing equestrian operation. It was noted that the equestrian use had been adequately served by Furzefield and its ‘annexe’ dwelling up until this point. It was also noted that the equestrian land now owned by the applicant had been severed from the main dwelling and annexe. It was considered that the proposed conversion and creation of a further dwelling for the purposes of supporting the existing private equestrian use, has not been appropriately justified or shown to be essential for its countryside location. It was considered that there was no necessity for a further dwelling on the site and it was unclear what would happen to the use of the annexe if the current application were granted.


54

DCN/140 Planning Application: DC/10/2205 (cont.) It was considered that the proximity of the building subject to the current application and its associated equestrian use to the nearest residential dwelling, Furzefield, could give rise a level of unacceptable disturbance for both occupiers. This was especially so since the boundary for Furzefield was hard-up against the western elevation of the converted barn and amenity area. RESOLVED

That application DC/10/2205 be refused for the following reasons: 01 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.

02 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.

03 The proposed development makes no provision for

contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure and community facilities.


55

DCN/140 Planning Application: DC/10/2205 (cont.) 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.

DCN/141 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2448 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING

DWELLING AND REPLACEMENT WITH THREE-BEDROOM CHALET BUNGALOW

SITE: SQUIRRELS, OLD HOLBROOK, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR PAUL LEITH-SMITH The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling and its replacement with a three-bedroom chalet bungalow. Government policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC28 and DC40; and policies CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4 of the South East Plan were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant planning history included:

HR/152/64 Outline permission for erection of service cottage or bungalow

Superseded by HR/195/64

HR/195/64 Erection of service bungalow with vehicular access

Granted

HR/19/65 Erection of service bungalow Granted HR/101/69 Erection of three-bedroom service bungalow Granted DC/08/2316 Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of

new five-bed dwelling Refused

DC/09/0738 Demolition of existing dwelling and replacement with new four-bed dwelling

Refused

The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal. The applicant and the agent of the applicant spoke in support of the proposals. The application site was located on the west side of Old Holbrook, outside of any identified built up areas. The surroundings of the application site were predominantly rural in nature. The site was accessed directly off of Old Holbrook which was itself a narrow lane. There were a number of trees located along Old Holbrook. The site was relatively flat with a garden area that was mostly laid to lawn.


56

DCN/141 Planning Application: DC/10/2448 (cont.) There was a two metre close-boarded fence along the eastern boundary, whilst the frontage was relatively open and exposed to views. The site area was approximately 0.34 hectares. The application proposed demolition of the existing dwelling on the site and its replacement with a three-bedroom chalet bungalow. Policy DC1 concerned countryside protection and enhancement and required that development be of a scale appropriate to its location. Policy DC28 allowed for replacement dwellings in the countryside, subject to a number of criteria. Replacement dwellings were not considered appropriate where the existing dwelling was abandoned or derelict. In this case it had been evident during a site visit by officers that the existing bungalow was inhabited and would not constitute a derelict building. DC28 also stated that replacement dwellings would be permitted if the dwelling could be accommodated within the curtilage of the existing dwelling. Replacement dwellings should not be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling. This was the key issue in respect of the current application. Furthermore, any such proposal should not detract from the wider landscape setting and character of the area. It was evident from the planning history outlined above that there had been a number of planning applications for a replacement dwelling on the site. Application DC/09/0738 had been refused due to its impact on the character of the countryside location. The application had subsequently been dismissed at appeal with the Inspector noting that due to the open nature of the frontage of the site and the size of the proposal, the scheme would materially harm the character and appearance of the area. The current application differed from those previously refused and dismissed at appeal in that the footprint of the proposed dwelling had been reduced in size from a four-bedroom unit to a three-bedroom unit. The two previous applications had also been for two-storey dwellings. The proposed dwelling would have an L-shaped footprint and a projecting gable along its eastern elevation. It would be based on a chalet style design and as such would attempt to appear to be 1.5 storeys in height. The height of the proposed dwelling would be 7.8 metres to the top of the ridgeline. The property would be sited further to the west than the existing property, further away from the road, and would have a greater footprint than the existing property. The overall size and scale of the proposed dwelling was considered to be disproportionate to the size and scale of the existing dwelling, particularly in


57

DCN/141 Planning Application: DC/10/2448 (cont.) respect of the proposed height. The proposal, despite being described as a “chalet bungalow” and showing dormer windows within the roof slope, would be more reflective of a two-storey dwelling given the proposed ridge height of 7.8 metres. The applicant had contended that as the proposal has been reduced, the previous concerns regarding the size of the dwelling had been overcome. However, each application had to be considered on its own merits and the current proposal had to be assessed against the property it sought to replace and not against that of the refused proposal. Whilst the applicants had reduced the footprint of the dwelling as compared to the previously refused application DC/09/0738, the overall height of the proposed dwelling was considered to be excessive. The applicant had not provided elevation plans of the existing building. However, analysis of the proposed elevations in conjunction with on-site observations clearly revealed that the proposed dwelling would be a disproportionate replacement. The massing, size and scale of the proposed replacement dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing single storey bungalow. Whilst the submitted elevations demonstrated an intention to incorporate traditional design elements in the spirit of the West Sussex rural vernacular, the intention of adopted policy was to prevent any significant encroachment and intensification of residential development within the countryside having a greater impact on the wider landscape. It was considered that the increased size and bulk would be visually intrusive and would contribute to a significant increase in ‘urbanisation’ which would be harmful to the visual amenity and character of the countryside environment. The proposed scheme would be contrary in particular to policies DC1, DC9 and DC28. Although the applicants had sought to reduce the visual impact of the proposal and the proposed increase in height by setting the proposed development further back into the site, it was considered that this would not make the development any less disproportionate as compared to the existing property. RESOLVED

That application DC/10/2448 be refused for the following reason: The proposed replacement dwelling by reason of its size, siting and design would represent a dwelling disproportionate in size compared to the existing dwelling and would visually intrude upon the rural landscape resulting in an inappropriate increase in built form which is considered detrimental to the visual amenity and


58

DCN/141 Planning Application: DC/10/2448 (cont.) character of this countryside location. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the Core Strategy and policies DC1, DC9 and DC28 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 and policies CC1 and CC4 of the South East Plan 2008.

DCN/142 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/09/2140 - ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL BARN WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS TRACK

SITE: LOT 5, ADAMS FIELD, BULLS FARM, KERVES LANE, NUTHURST APPLICANT: MR D HARMAN The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of an agricultural store building, a new vehicular access, a new track to the proposed building and an area of hardstanding. The application had been resubmitted following the previous refusal of application DC/08/1860. Government policies PPS1, PPS4 and PPS7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP3 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant planning history included application DC/08/1860 for the erection of a barn and the construction of access track, which had been refused. Nuthurst Parish Council and Southwater Parish Council objected to the proposal. West Sussex County Council raised no objection to the proposals. The comments of the Forestry Commission were noted. One letter of objection had been received. The agent of the applicant spoke in support of the proposals. The application site covered 3.6 hectares in total, with an existing vehicular access situated to the north of the site off of Kerves Lane. The land consisted mainly of an open field, with designated ancient woodland outside the site on the north east and south east boundaries. A smaller area of ancient woodland was also situated within the site, adjacent to Kerves Lane. There were no public rights of way in the immediate area other than Kerves Lane to the west of the site. The site was known as Adams Field (or Lot 5) and was part of land which had originally belonged to Bulls Farm, which had been fragmented and sold as individual plots. Within PPS4, one of the Government's key objectives was to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas by promoting thriving, inclusive and locally distinctive rural communities whilst continuing to protect


59

DCN/142 Planning Application: DC/09/2140 (cont.) the open countryside for the benefit of all. It further stated that in rural areas economic development in open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in Development Plans should be strictly controlled. The current application proposed a small scale development. It proposed the formation of a new vehicular access onto Kerves Lane and a trackway with a hardstanding to the proposed agricultural building. The proposed agricultural store building would measure 8.6 metres in length, 4.2 metres in width and would have a ridge height of 3.1 metres. The proposed building would cover 36 square metres and would be similar in design to a traditional stable building and is well-screened from public view. It is not therefore considered that there would be a material adverse impact on the visual amenities of the locality from this development. With regard to the justification or need for such a building, the applicant intended to work, manage and improve the land for the benefit of wildlife and at the same time carry out a horticultural use on the site. The applicant had confirmed his intention to have a horticultural growing area and to follow a five-year program which would include the erection of stock fencing, hay production on the lower field, stewardship hedging to be planted on most of the lower field boundaries, half an acre of rare tree-planting, a wild flower meadow and a further area of tree-planting including Hazel, Sweet Chestnut, Walnut trees. The building proposed would provide a storage building for a tractor and agricultural equipment for maintenance of the land. The enterprise would not be commercial in nature. The proposed new vehicular access would be off of Kerves Lane. It was considered by County Highways that the new access would represent an improvement to highway safety due to the position of the existing vehicular access on the inside of a sharp bend. It was considered that the proposals could be implemented without adversely affecting the character of the area to a significant degree. From additional information submitted with the current application and consultees' responses, it appeared that the works would not have a detrimental effect on the ecology of the area or the trees within the ancient woodland, through which the proposed trackway would pass. The nature of the proposed trackway was not clear but this would be controlled by condition. The previously refused application (DC/08/1860) had proposed an open-cart shed structure sited in a more prominent location with a different alignment of trackway. It had been considered that the need for an access and agricultural store had not been demonstrated, particularly in this


60

DCN/142 Planning Application: DC/09/2140 (cont.) sensitive location. The current application had been revised in that the barn had been amended to the appearance of a stable building and further information had been received, providing more details of the intended use of the site, together with an ecological survey, a transport survey and a tree survey. The current application also proposed the repositioning of the building to a less obtrusive location situated adjacent to more mature planting as compared to the previous refusal. The proposed trackway had also been realigned to ensure that no trees within the ancient woodland would need to be felled for this development.

RESOLVED

That application DC/09/2140 be granted, subject to the following conditions: 01 A2 - Full Permission. 02 The building hereby permitted shall not be used

other than by the applicant in association with land within his ownership and used for storage purposes only for equipment required for the maintenance of the land as set out in the application. In the event that the building is no longer required / used for its approved purpose it shall be demolished and all resultant materials, including the hard standing, removed from the site and the land reinstated to a field within 3mths from the permitted use ceasing.

03 No development shall take place until the access from the site to the public highway has been laid out and constructed in all respects in accordance with the submitted plan (drawing no. 3278/100 Rev A received on 24th November 2009) and shall include visibility splays 2m x 180m to the south and 2m x 80m to the north and no other work shall be carried out on the site until the above mentioned sightlines have been provided and thereafter the said sightlines shall be kept free from any obstruction to visibility in excess of 0.6m above the level of the adjoining carriageway.

04 The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the existing vehicular access at the northern extremity of the site has been stopped up permanently in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning


61

DCN/142 Planning Application: DC/09/2140 (cont.) Authority in writing. 05 L8 - No Felling. 06 L9 - Wildlife Protection. 07 M5 - Timber and Wall Treatment. 08 Any gates proposed at the entrance to the site off

Kerves Lane must be sited at least 10m back from the back edge of the highway.

09 Before development is commenced precise details of the method of construction for the driveway and hardstanding, incorporating a permeable surface, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details.

REASONS ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the

amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

ITHP1 The proposed works to form the access

would not affect the character and amenity of the area or the convenience and safety of other highway users.

DCN/143 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2643 - TWO STOREY SIDE

EXTENSION SITE: 18 TILLETTS LANE, WARNHAM

APPLICANT: MRS KIM FRAZER The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for an extension to the side of the existing end-of-terrace dwelling to form an open car port with a bedroom and bathroom above. The application followed application DC/10/1755, which had been withdrawn. Government policy PPS1; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC3 and DC9; and the Warnham Parish Design Statement were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant planning history included application DC/10/1755 for a two storey side extension, which had been withdrawn.


62

DCN/143 Planning Application: DC/10/2643 (cont.) The Parish Council objected to the proposal. One letter of objection and four of support had been received. The application site was located on the east side of Tilletts Lane within the built-up area of Warnham. The area was characterised by semi-detached and terraced properties situated on rectangular-shaped plots. The property had a modern rear conservatory extension and there was a driveway to the side, adjacent to the common boundary with 20 Tilletts Lane. The proposal consisted of a two-storey extension. The extension would provide a carport open to the front and rear with a part side wall at ground floor level and a bedroom and bathroom at first floor level. The proposed extension would measure 2.95 metres in width and 6.5 metres in length. The extension would be set back 2.1 metres from the front elevation of the main dwelling and extend 1.6 metres out from the rear elevation. It would be constructed in brick and tile. The extension would incorporate a small monopitch roof, which would bridge the gap between the ground and first floor. It would be set down, with the eaves level lower than the adjacent front gable feature to match the eaves height on the main terrace. Although the form and appearance of the extension would introduce a further design element onto the dwelling it was considered that its set back position and lower height would result in a subservient appearance which would be acceptable in this location. It was considered that it would not cause material harm to the visual amenities or character of the area or compromise the aims of policy. The Warnham Parish Design Statement sought to maintain the characteristics of the Parish by requiring new development to take into account variety, individuality and the diverse nature of architecture, housing, gardens and boundaries. The Design Statement did not relate to specific locations in this regard or give more detailed requirements or limitations. It was considered that the modest extension proposed would be acceptable as it would not compromise the aims of the Design Statement. Concerns had been expressed regarding the loss of residential amenities to the occupiers at 20 Tilletts Lane. Although the extension would be set forward of the forward-most wall of 20 Tilletts Lane, it would be positioned so that it was outside of a 45o line drawn from the first floor habitable front bedroom window of the adjacent dwelling and thus there would be no material overbearing or loss of outlook. The side windows of the neighbouring property which could be affected by the proposal were a hall window and back door at ground floor level and a landing window at first


63

DCN/143 Planning Application: DC/10/2643 (cont.) floor. These did not serve habitable rooms. The main outlook for this neighbouring property was to the front and rear, which would be unaffected by the proposals. There were no windows proposed in the side/north elevation of the extension and the proposed front window would be a bathroom. A bedroom window was proposed at the rear of the extension. The resultant gap between these two properties would consist of a side passage to 20 Tilletts Lane of 1.3 metres in width. The proposed extension at ground floor level would be partly open to the carport and the first floor element is to be set in away from the boundary by 0.65 metres. These factors would help to reduce the impact of the extension on the residential amenities of adjacent occupiers. Furthermore, there were similar gaps between other properties in Tilletts Lane and therefore the result would not be uncharacteristic in the locality. RESOLVED

That application DC/10/2643 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the Local Members. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCN/143 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2578 - EXTENSION TO REAR AND

EXTENSION AND CONVERSION OF ATTIC SPACE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE

SITE: 12 THE PLAT, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR L. FOWLER The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this

application sought planning permission for an extension to the rear of the existing semi-detached bungalow incorporating rooms in the roof and associated internal works.

Government policy PPS1; Local Development Framework Core Strategy

policies CP1 and CP3; and Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC3 and DC9 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included application HU/36/55 for 55 bungalows

and 47 houses, which had been granted. The Arboricultural Officer raised no objections to the proposal. Eight letters

of objection had been received. One members of the public spoke in objection to the proposals and the agent of the applicant spoke in support.

The application site was located at the end of The Plat, a cul-de-sac within


64

DCN/143 Planning Application: DC/10/2578 (cont.) the built-up area of Horsham Town. The area was characterised by 1950s

semi-detached bungalows located mainly on rectangular shaped plots. However, four properties, including dwelling subject to the current application, were located at the end of the cul-de-sac on triangular shaped plots.

The subject dwelling had not previously been extended. The rear of the

dwelling faced due west towards properties in Irwin Drive, with a row of pine trees on land at the rear of the garden which were protected by Tree Protection Order 52.

The current application proposed the erection of an extension to the subject

dwelling measuring three metres in depth and 7.3 metres in width across the entire rear elevation. The proposed extension would form a kitchen and sitting room enlargement on the ground floor with a bedroom above, within the resultant roof space.

Amended plans had been submitted, which deleted the originally proposed

main bedroom window at first floor level on the west elevation from the proposals. It was considered that such a window would have caused a detriment to the amenities of residents in Irwin Drive by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy. The amended scheme instead proposed the inclusion of two roof lights in the south facing roof slope of the extension. Due to their height within the roof slope, the angle of sight from them and the distance from adjacent properties, it was considered that the proposed roof lights would not have a materially detrimental effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, particularly with regard to overlooking and loss of privacy. Therefore they would comply with policy DC9.

The proposed extension would be sited adjacent to a single storey flat roof

extension on the rear of 10 The Plat. It would extend no further down the garden than the neighbouring extension. The eaves height of the proposed extension would be lower than the flat roof of the adjacent property, with the roof sloping away from the common boundary between the two dwellings. Although the extension would be sited directly to the south of 10 The Plat, it was considered that due to its design, height, position and the built form at the neighbouring dwelling, it would not cause material harm to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling from overlooking and loss of light.

The changes to the roof would result in the hipped roof of the existing semi-

detached bungalow being altered to form a half-hipped design, similar to two other properties in The Plat. It was considered that the possibility of changing the gable to the rear of the proposed extension to a hipped end to reduce the effect of overshadowing and loss of light on 10 The Plat should be discussed with the applicant.


65

DCN/143 Planning Application: DC/10/2578 (cont.) It was suggested that the provision of gutters on the roof on the common

boundary, required by Building Regulations, would overhang across the boundary with 10 The Plat by 150 millimetres. It was considered that confirmation should be sought from the applicant as to whether the proposal could be contained entirely within the application site and if not that the proposal be set a further 150 millimetres back within the application site.

The foundations of the proposed extension would not be constructed within

the root protection area of the nearby preserved trees and therefore the future health of those trees would not be adversely affected by the proposed works.

RESOLVED

That application DC/10/2578 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the Local Members, to await the expiry of the period for re-consultation; obtain confirmation from the applicant that all works can be undertaken within their boundary or alternatively that the proposed side wall adjacent to the boundary with 10 The Plat be set in by 150 millimetres; to request that the proposed gable end on the extension incorporates a hip to further reduce any over-shadowing impact on 10 The Plat; and to amend condition 03 to ensure that no windows can be constructed in the west or north elevation above ground floor level. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCN/144 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/2604 - ENCLOSE EXISTING

COVERED AREA BETWEEN GARAGE AND HOUSE WITH DOORS (FRONT AND REAR), CONSTRUCT NEW MONO PITCH ROOF TO REPLACE EXISTING FLAT ROOF TO FRONT OF HOUSE AND DUAL PITCH ROOF OVER FRONT PART OF EXISTING FLAT ROOFED GARAGE

SITE: 46 GREBE CRESCENT, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR NEIL CARGILL (Councillor David Skipp declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this

application as he lived next door to the application site. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this application).

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this

application sought planning permission to enclose an existing covered area between the garage and house with doors, to construct a new mono-pitch roof to replace an existing flat roof to front of house and to construct a dual-


66

DCN/144 Planning Application: DC/10/2604 (cont.) pitch roof over the front part of the existing flat-roofed garage. Government policy PPS1; Local Development Framework Core Strategy

policies CP1 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control policies DC3 and DC9; and policies CC1 and CC4 of the South East Plan were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included application DC/10/2006 for a Lawful

Development Certificate to enclose the existing covered area between garage and house with doors and to construct new mono-pitch roof to replace existing flat roof, which had been withdrawn.

The Neighbourhood Council raised no objection to the proposals. Three letters of objection had been received from an adjacent neighbour.

One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposals and the applicant spoke in support.

The property subject to the application was a two-storey detached property

which was part of a 1970s open plan development located within the built-up area of Horsham.

The description of the current application had been amended from “enclose

existing covered area between garage and house with doors (front and rear), construct new monopitch roof to replace existing flat roof” to “enclose existing covered area between garage and house with doors (front and rear), construct new mono pitch roof to replace existing flat roof to front of house and dual pitch roof over front part of existing flat roofed garage” in order to clarify the description.

The existing covered area between the garage and dwellinghouse was

currently secured by a gate in the front elevation. The current application proposed that a door be inserted to the front and rear of this area. It was considered that the two doors would not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring properties or have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.

The existing flat roof over the front open porch, dining room bay,

passageway between the garage and dwellinghouse were stated to be in need of repair. It was proposed that it be replaced by a monopitch roof. It was considered that the proposed alterations would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.

The front three metres of the flat roof would be replaced by a pitch roof,

which would increase the height of the garage by one metre. The remaining 2.9 metre rear section of the garage would remain as a flat roof.


67


The adjacent property to the east was set further back than the application property and the garage wall formed part of the boundary between 44 and 46 Grebe Crescent. The garage for number 46 was set further forward than the front building line of number 44.

The side wall of the garage facing number 44 was mostly screened by

planting, which reduced the view of the garage from the neighbouring property.

Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposed alteration to the garage roof

would be visible from the lounge of 44 Grebe Crescent, it was not considered that it would be overpowering, dominating or overshadowing to an extent warranting refusal of planning permission.

The applicant had considered a hip end to the proposed garage roof to

reduce the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property. However, this option had been discounted, partly due to the potential need for guttering on the flank elevation in the vicinity of the common boundary.

RESOLVED

That application DC/10/2604 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 - Full Permission 02 M6 - Prescribed Materials REASONS ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the

amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of

the development plan. DCN/145 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0011 - SURGERY TO ONE ROBINIA

TREE SITE: LAND OUTSIDE 8 AND 10 SOUTH GROVE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL Councillor David Sheldon declared a personal interest in this application as

he was a member of West Sussex County Council). The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this

application sought planning permission for surgery to a Robinia, or ‘False Acacia’ tree.


68

DCN/145 Planning Application: DC/11/0011 (cont.) TPOs - A guide to the Law and Good Practice was relevant to the

determination of this application. The tree subject to the application was growing on the verge to the highway

outside 8 and 10 South Grove, Horsham. The tree was protected due to its position within area A1 of Tree

Preservation Order number 82, confirmed on 7th January 1964. The tree in question was a moderately tall specimen sited in a prominent

position on the roadside verge, land owned by West Sussex County Council and managed by the Highways Department. The tree was highly visible in the streetscene and had high amenity value.

Many years ago the tree had been hard pruned to around eight metres in

height in order to restrict its growth, as it had been found to have damaged adjacent drains, which ran immediately to the tree’s north, within 1.4 metres of the trunk. The tree had recovered well from this work and had developed an attractive, well-shaped crown from the original pruning points. Dieback from the pruning points appeared minimal and the tree remained in good overall condition, exhibiting good vigour and vitality.

A recent inspection of the adjacent drainage system had revealed further

damage which appeared to be root-related. The drains had recently been repaired but the County Council was seeking to minimise the likelihood of the tree causing further damage, involving considerable expense. The only sure way to do this was to fell the tree, but the County Council recognised its high amenity value in the streetscene and saw this as an undesirable outcome. It was therefore proposed to re-pollard the tree back to the original pruning points and allow it to develop a new fresh crown, as before.

Whilst the works would result in an initial adverse effect on the aesthetic

appearance of the tree and its amenity value, the species was reasonably tolerant of such pruning works and resistant to decay. The temporary loss of amenity was considered to be outweighed by the need to support the County Council’s wish to retain the tree, which in time would once again contribute to the character and amenities of the locality.

RESOLVED


01 TR2 - Time limit 02 TR3 - Treeworks limit: Crown reduce tree by

trimming back to original pollard points at


69

DCN/145 Planning Application: DC/11/0011 (cont.) approximately 8m above ground level 03 TR4 - Surgery standards

REASON ITRE3 The proposal will have an adverse impact upon

the character and amenities of the local area for a limited period, but is justified in this case and represents best arboricultural practice.

DCN/146 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0013 - FELL 3 ASH TREES, SURGERY

TO 2 ASH TREES SITE: POND FARM GHYLL WOODLAND, SOUTH OF CEDAR DRIVE,

SOUTHWATER APPLICANT: HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL This application proposed the felling of three ash trees (T0526, T1228,

T1292) and surgery to two more trees (T1282, T0325). TPOs - A guide to the Law and Good Practice was relevant to the

determination of this application. The trees in question were woodland specimens in five different positions

within the area of Pond Farm Ghyll, between the Timbermill estate to the west and the Cedar Drive/Pevensey Road estate to the east. The area was registered as Ancient Woodland and protected by woodland Tree Preservation Order number 534, confirmed on 6th May 1986.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposals. The area of land in question was heavily wooded and constituted a

desirable environmental feature bisecting this densely developed part of the village. It was managed as an amenity area and was open to the general public. Informal pathways bisected the area.

As landowners the Council had a legal duty of care to ensure that, within the

bounds of what was considered reasonable, trees that had been identified as structurally unsound were managed pro-actively. Full removal was not always necessary, but occasions arose where amenity considerations had to be placed behind general public safety in terms of priority.

The three trees to be felled had all been identified as structurally unsound

and were poor drawn up woodland specimens of little merit. All three were sited within striking range of one of the public footpaths and the garden to an adjacent dwelling. They were considered to have very little merit and


70

DCN/146 Planning Application: DC/11/0013 (cont.) would be replaced by other suitable woodland specimens The two trees targeted for surgery were much larger specimens but, as well

as exhibiting structural deficiency, were also in close proximity to pathways and adjoining properties. It was therefore considered that there was a moderate risk to the general public. T0325 exhibited a serious occluded wound on its main stem, above which was a great deal of weight and ‘sail area’ facing the prevailing wind. It was therefore considered prudent to crown reduce this tree, to lessen its sail area by up to 30%. T1282 was a specimen with co-dominant stems from ground level. These stems sought light and grew further and further apart. The basal area was weakened and therefore it appeared prudent to heavily reduce the loading on these stems to minimise the likelihood of structural failure.

Neither the felling of the three trees, nor the surgery to the two, would result

in any serious loss of amenity to the area. The proposed works were considered necessary on safety grounds. It was proposed that the works would be carried out prior to the commencement of the bird nesting season.

RESOLVED


01 TR2 - Time limit 02 L7b - Replanting (refers to trees T0526, T1228

and T1292) 03 TR3 - Treeworks limit:

Tree T1282: Crown reduce tree by up to 40%. Tree T0325: Crown reduce tree by up to 30%.

04 TR4 - Surgery standards

REASON ITRE1(b) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse

impact either on the health of the trees or the character and amenities of the local area.


71

DCN/147 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0020 - FELL 1 SCOTS PINE TREE, FELL 1 (UNKNOWN) TREE

SITE: STRAWFORD CENTRE, BLATCHFORD CLOSE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (Councillor David Sheldon declared a personal interest in this application as

he was a member of West Sussex County Council). The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this

application sought permission for the felling of four live trees and five dead trees, as well as surgery to nine other trees. Of these trees only T2 (Scots pine) and T16 (species stated as ‘unknown’) were protected by a Tree Preservation Order and therefore the application referred solely to these two trees.

TPOs - A guide to the Law and Good Practice was relevant to the

determination of this application. The two protected trees were sited on the eastern boundary of the site,

contiguous with the Blatchford Road industrial estate. T2 was on an area of open space to the immediate south of the vehicular access into the site. T16 was within a densely foliated area to the west of Unit 5 of the industrial estate.

The trees in question were protected by virtue of their position within Area

A2 of Tree Preservation Order number 84, confirmed on 26 May 1964. Tree T16 appeared to be the remains of a wild pear tree, but was dead and

thereby exempt from the requirement to seek consent for removal. Tree T2 was a moderately sized Scots pine tree of considerable amenity

value. Sited at the entrance to the Strawford Centre, it framed the entrance and was prominent in the immediate locality. It had an attractive form and an aesthetically pleasing shape.

Some years ago a footpath had been constructed within 900 millimetres of

the base of the northern edge of the tree. It was likely root severance during this work had resulted in infection finding its way into the tree. Brackets of the decay fungus Phaeolus schweinitzii were present on the northern and eastern sides of the basal area of the trunk and examination by acoustic assessment clearly indicated extensive internal hollowing.

It was also noted that within the higher parts of the main stem there were a

number of wounds, two in particular showing a clear coalescence of decay representing a structural compromise.

The crown of this tree consisted of long pendulous heavy principal

branches, ill-suited to weight reduction by surgery. Management of the risk that the tree represented was therefore limited.


72

DCN/147 Planning Application: DC/11/0020 (cont.) Within 2.5 metres of the access road into the site and only 11 metres from

the building itself, the tree had a ‘target zone’, in terms of windthrow, which could not be moved or cordoned off. The area in question was very busy with vehicular traffic as well as pedestrians, many of whom were severely disabled.

In the circumstances it was considered that the tree’s amenity worth was

outweighed by safety considerations, which in this case could not be effectively assuaged other than by removal.

The applicants had recommended no replacement tree planting on the site,

on the grounds that it contained a large number of self-seeded saplings around the peripheries. This was true and acceptable in the case of T16. However, T2 was of particularly high amenity value in the locality and could be regarded as a specimen tree. It was therefore considered that a replacement for T2 should be required by condition so as to uphold and maintain the character and amenities of the area.

RESOLVED


01 TR2 - Time limit 02 L7a - Replanting (note: refers to tree T2 only) REASON ITRE2 The proposal may have an adverse impact on

the character and amenities of the local area, but is justified on safety grounds.

The meeting closed at 10.55pm having commenced at 5.30pm. CHAIRMAN

Report to Development Control (North) Committee ABCD

5th April 2011 By the Chief Executive INFORMATION REPORT Not exempt

Interests of Officers EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Liz Creswick, Council Solicitor, has declared an interest in planning application DC/11/0200, relating to Horsham Trinity Cricket Club, Victory Road, Horsham. Julian Tinston, Area North Administration Officer, has declared an interest in planning application DC/11/0280 relating to 25 Treadcroft Drive, Horsham. Val Cheesman, Principal Planning Officer, has declared an interest in planning application DC/11/0484 relating to Scout Hut, Crawley Road, Horsham. The declarations have been made in accordance with Paragraph 18 of the Officers’ Code of Conduct, which requires officers’ interests in planning applications to be declared. RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee is recommended to note the report REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS To ensure the requirements of the Council's constitution are met Background papers Consultation Ward affected Contact Emails dated 28/02/11;

Lesley Morgan Ext. No. 5123

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to report the declarations of interest of two

officers. Background 1.2 The Local Government Act 1972, Local Government Act 2000, the Council’s

Constitution. 2. DETAILS 2.1 Liz Creswick, Council Solicitor, has declared an interest in planning

application DC/11/0200 for a proposed replacement sports pavilion at Horsham Trinity Cricket Club, Victory Road, Horsham. The interest arises because the officer used to be Secretary of the club and was involved in fundraising for the new pavilion, is still a member of the club and her son plays and coaches for the club. The officer has confirmed that she will take no part in the processing or determination of the application.

2.2 Julian Tinston, Area North Administration Officer, has declared an interest in

planning application DC/11/0280 for the proposed replacement and relocation of a garden wall with new timber fencing panels at 25 Treadcroft Drive, Horsham. The interest arises because the officer is an immediate neighbour of the application site and part of his side boundary forms the rear boundary of the application site. The officer has confirmed that he will take no part in the determination of this application.

2.3 Val Cheesman, Principal Planning Officer Officer, has declared an interest in

planning application DC/11/0484 for a side extension at the Scout Hut, Crawley Road, Horsham. The interest arises because the officer’s son is an Explorer Scout with 1st Roffey Scout Group, who are the applicants. The officer has confirmed that she will take no part in the determination of this application.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS 3.1 None 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS 4.1 The declaration of interests by officers, and their non-participation in the

process and determination of planning applications ensures the protection of the public's rights.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 5.1 There will be no direct effect in respect of crime and disorder. 6. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO PROMOTE RACE RELATIONS 6.1 There will be no direct effect in respect of race relations.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 5TH APRIL 2011

REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES APPEALS 1. Appeals Lodged

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

2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service DC/10/2255 Proposed rear dormer and roof alteration.

47 Bamborough Close, Southwater, Horsham, RH13 9XG. For: Mr M Stansmore

DC/10/1878 Crossover.

14 Carylls Cottages, Faygate Lane, Faygate, Horsham, RH12 4SQ. For: Mr Roy Thomas

3. Appeal Decisions

I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:- DC/10/1623 Demolition of existing garage, construction of two-storey extension and

replacement of existing garaging and garden store. 1A Gardeners Green, Rusper, Horsham, RH12 4QY. For: Mr S Batley Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/10/1362 Demolition of existing detached garage, construction of a 2-bed roomed

detached chalet style dwelling and new crossover onto Springfield Crescent for number 29. 29 Springfield Park Road, Horsham, RH12 2PW. For: Mr Scott Panter Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/10/1257 Erection of 8 detached houses with garaging, new internal drive and

improvement of existing access off Forest Road (Land west of Pipers Hollow). Land West of Pipers Hollow, Forest Road, Horsham. For: Arcadia Consturction (Horsham) Ltd Appeal: DISMISSED (Committee)

DC/09/2355 Outline application for the erection of units for Class B2 (6695 sqm) and

Class B8 (8185 sqm) Uses. Warnham Brickworks, Langhurst Wood Road, Horsham, RH12 4QD For: Mr G Berwick Appeal: ALLOWED (Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

DC/10/0760 Demolition of 2 derelict houses and replacement with one pair of 2/3-bed

semi-detached and 2 x 3-bed bungalows, 2 x 4-bed and 1 x 5-bed detached houses (total 7), garages and access drive. Old Doomsday, Hammerpond Road, Horsham. For: Hillreed Homes Ltd Appeal: DISMISSED (Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

Contact: Karen Tipper Extension: 5174

abcd

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 5 April 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Proposed erection of a three-bedroom detached dwelling

SITE: 3 Greenfield Road, Slinfold

WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

APPLICATION: DC/11/0067

APPLICANT: Mr Barry Wright REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the completion of an acceptable Section 106 Agreement relating to contributions associated with addressing the infrastructure requirements generated by the development and to secure the provision of 3 Greenfield Road as an ‘affordable’ dwelling unit in perpetuity for persons affiliated with Slinfold village. 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a three bedroom

detached dwelling together with the provision of 2 off-street parking spaces to be provided as an open market dwelling. The application also seeks to secure the existing 3 bedroom dwelling at 3 Greenfield Road as an ‘affordable’ unit in perpetuity. The applicant seeks to secure this by way of an appropriately worded Section 106 legal agreement which would require the dwelling to be marketed and sold at no more than 78% of the open market value. That dwelling would in the first instance be for persons within Slinfold Parish and in the event that such persons are not forthcoming, the dwelling would be offered on a cascading basis to those within the surrounding parishes.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.2 The site is situated within Slinfold which is a Category 2 settlement as defined by

the Horsham District LDF as settlements with more limited level of services. The site is located on the western side of Greenfield Road within a cul-de-sac comprised of two storey brick constructed semi-detached dwellings. The street curves to the east where it terminates. The pairs of semi-detached properties are staggered following the curvature of the street.

1.3 The majority of the semi-detached properties are characterised by one half

benefitting from a front gable projection feature. The design of the properties is modest in that they have a front and rear tile pitched roof with side gable ends.

1.4 The street frontage is open in character with only low level planting and fencing

present. A very small number of properties have converted the front garden to provide off-street parking, however the majority of parking is provided on street.

1.5 The street also provides access through to the Scout Hut and King George V

playing field. 2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following

policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP3, CP5, CP13 and CP19 2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control

Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC2, DC8, DC9 and DC40

2.5 South East Plan – CC1, CC4, CC6, H3, H4, H5, C4, BE5, GAT1, GAT3

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 DC/10/0416 Proposed 2 storey side and rear extension and new attached end of terrace 4-bed dwelling. Refused 23/04/2010. This application was refused for the following reasons:

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3

1 Having regard to the location of the application site within a Category 2 settlement it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed 4-bedroom dwelling would address any specific local need and would therefore reinforce unsustainable patterns of development. As such the proposal is contrary to policy CP3 and CP5 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and policy BE5 of The South East Plan (May 2009).

2 Having regard to the cumulative impact of the proposed dwelling and

proposed extension to the existing dwelling by reason of design, bulk and proximity to boundary, the development would result in an un-neighbourly and over bearing impact with the adjacent properties and a loss to the outlook of the occupiers of these properties. Furthermore, the proposed development by reason of design, size and bulk would result in an incongruous and dominant appearance to the street scene and its open character. Therefore the development is contrary to policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), and policies DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions toward

improvements to transport and community facilities infrastructure and 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 development would be met.

DC/10/1013 Demolish existing out-house and erect a rear 2-storey extension (Certificate of Lawful Development - Proposed). Granted 13/07/2010 and now implemented.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Housing Strategy and Development Manager: ‘Policy CP12 (Meeting Housing

needs) sets out the District’s requirements for affordable housing provision. In smaller settlements, including Slinfold, the Policy states that permission will only be granted for schemes providing 100% affordable housing, unless it can be demonstrated that that market housing is required under Policies CP5 or CP8.

It is proposed that a dwelling (1 x 3 bed house) is to be constructed and sold on the open market and, therefore, the application appears not to conform to Policy CP12.

However, the applicant also proposes to secure the existing 3 bedroom dwelling at 3 Greenfield Road as an affordable dwelling in perpetuity, should planning consent be granted for an additional home for open market sale.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4

It is recognised that there is a need to provide smaller accommodation for open market sale, and we note the comment from Patrick Griffin (Strategic & Community Planning) on a similar application in Ashington:

… our comments on the previous application (DC/08/0220) stated that the proposal may be acceptable against the local needs requirements to allow some limited further housing …where there is also a S106 Agreement that ties the ownership of the property(ies) to qualifying local residents for a period of 10 years, for example. The applicant has expressed a willingness to enter into such an agreement and in such circumstances this department would have no objection in principle to the application.

The applicant is prepared to enter into an appropriately worded Section 106 Agreement which would require the dwelling to be marketed and sold at no more than 78% of the open market value. The house would be marketed to those with a strong local connection to Slinfold Parish, and if in the event that no purchaser from the parish could be found, then the dwelling would be offered on a cascade basis to those in surrounding parishes, and finally to purchasers from anywhere in the District.

The property to be sold is a 3 bedroom family home and when marketed at 78% of open market value will be affordable to those who would not otherwise be able to access such accommodation within the Parish.

Housing officers note that the Parish Council has no objection to the proposal – in sensitive cases such as this, it is important that those representing the local community do not oppose the development.

Housing officers are therefore satisfied that the proposal can be considered as affordable housing, and will meet housing need in the Parish. It is particularly noteworthy that the property will continue to be marketed at 78% of open market value at subsequent resales.’

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 WSCC: The County was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location

under planning application no. DC/10/0416 to which no objections were raised

This proposal has been considered by means of a desktop study, using the information and plans submitted with this application, in conjunction with other available WSCC map Information. A site visit can be arranged on request.

The proposal is for a single dwelling unit with access onto Greenfield Road via a new access point. From an inspection of the plans alone, there is no apparent visibility issue at the point of access onto Greenfield Road.

The most recently available verified accident records reveal there have been no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the existing point of access, indicating a low risk of highway safety issues with this proposal. The level of car parking

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5

provided is within the 2010 revised parking standards for a dwelling of this type in this location.

WSCC requests a condition to be included should permission be granted that the minimum parking space dimensions should be at least 2.4 x 4.8 metres to prevent vehicles from overhanging the highway. The proposal does not include provision for secure and covered cycle storage. This should be provided in accordance with WSCC guidance on car parking in residential developments, and secured by condition.

Subject to the above conditions being attached, WSCC has no anticipated highways issues with this proposal.

Contributions of £1805 are required pursuant to sl06 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impacts of the subject proposal with the provision of additional County Council service infrastructure, highways and public transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development.

3.3 Slinfold Parish Council: No objections to the application subject to HDC looking

at the loss of light on a neighbouring property and the provision of car parking in the area.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.4 7 letters of objection received from 2 and 19 Greenfield Road, 2 Railway

Cottages Spring Lane, Suncote House Spring Lane, Collyers The Street, Rosary Cottage Hayes Lane and 13 Streetfield Road on the following grounds:

Overdevelopment resulting in back-land development The design is out of keeping with the style of house in the area Highway Access and Parking – the cul-de-sac already experiences severe

traffic congestion and parking issues. Loss of privacy, light and outlook and an increase in noise Other similar applications have previously been refused Increase in the potential for flooding Would the dwelling really be ‘affordable’

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS

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

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

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

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main considerations are the principle of the proposed development in this

location, the effect of the development on the character of the area, impact on amenities of nearby residential occupiers and existing parking and traffic conditions in the area.

Principle 6.2 Recent Government guidance advises of amendments to PPS3, which has

removed at Annex B, private residential gardens from the definition of previously developed land. Furthermore, the national indicative minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare has also been deleted from PPS3. The Government have advised that this is to prevent the overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and ‘garden grabbing’. However the overarching principles in respect of housing provisions remains that all new housing should be of high quality design and sustainably located in that it does not reinforce unsustainable patterns of development.

6.3 Notwithstanding the amendments to PPS3, the application site is situated within the

built up area boundary of Slinfold, a Category 2 Settlement as defined by policy CP3 and CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007). These settlements are defined as villages with a more limited level of services and which should accommodate only small scale development or minor extensions that address a specific local need. These policies also specifically state that development, including infilling will only be permitted provided that the impact on the character of the area and the environment, resources and assets is acceptable.

6.4 Local need will be assessed on the basis of the contribution to meeting identified

local requirements for housing, including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services, and the extent to which the addition of new development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

6.5 The site is within relatively easy walking and cycling distance from the local shop

and post office within the village, although occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be reliant on the private car for other amenities and services within and on the periphery of the larger Category 1 settlements, and as such development within a Category 2 settlement is considered to be located in a relatively unsustainable location.

6.6 For this reason in order for the development to be acceptable in principle, the

proposal would be required to meet an identified local need. The proposed 3 bedroom dwelling is for a private market dwellinghouse and as such does not meet the requirement for a specific local need. However, the applicant in seeking to meet this local need criterion has entered into discussions with the Council, and has offered the existing dwelling, number 3 Greenfield Road (which is within the ownership of the applicant), as an ‘affordable’ 3-bedroom dwelling in perpetuity for persons affiliated with Slinfold Parish. In this respect this current proposal differs significantly from the earlier refused application (DC/10/0416) which was solely for a market dwelling.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7

6.7 The applicant has also discussed with two local estate agents the market conditions

within Slinfold in respect of 3 bedroom dwellings. The submitted information indicates that there is a high demand for affordable family accommodation within Slinfold, however the demand outstrips the supply. Design and Siting

6.8 The properties within Greenfield Road comprise two-storey semi-detached

dwellinghouses with small front gardens open in character with larger rear gardens. A number of the semi-detached pairs are characterised with a gable projection to one half of the semi-detached property.

6.9 The proposed dwelling is to be sited within the side garden of number 3 Greenfield

Road and following the curvature of the road is shown set further back from the front elevation of the host property and forward of 2 Greenfield Road, whilst allowing for the provision of two off-street parking spaces. The proposed two-storey dwelling measures approximately 5.3m by 9.3m and would be constructed of brick and tile roof.

6.10 Refused application DC/10/0416 sought permission for a side extension to the

existing dwelling together with an attached dwelling thereby creating a terrace of 3 dwellings. The refused dwelling together with the side extension to the existing dwelling created a wider street frontage than that currently under consideration. The current proposal does not propose an extension to the existing dwelling, but seeks planning permission solely for a detached dwelling. The proposed dwelling is set further away from the boundary with 2 Greenfield Road arising from the revised footprint and shape, the previous proposal having had a greater width across the site with front, side and rear gable detail, whereas the current proposal is rectangular in shape with a narrower width across the site. The previous scheme was set back from this shared boundary by approximately 2.7m with the current scheme set approximately 3.7m from the shared boundary and approximately 7m between buildings.

6.11 As mentioned above, the previous application sought permission for a side

extension to the existing dwelling together with a new dwelling attached to the existing semi-detached pair thereby creating a terrace. It is considered that the proposed detached dwelling has overcome previous reasons for refusal by virtue of a reduction in the proposed size, revised footprint and shape, the perceived bulk and mass when viewed from the street has been reduced by reason of the separation between properties and the gable design. Amenity

6.12 It is considered that the proposed dwelling would not give rise to any significant

increase in overlooking or loss of privacy to the occupiers of adjacent residential properties. The main fenestration is located within the front and rear elevations with two windows centrally located within the side (south) elevation, which reflects the orientation of fenestration within the nearby properties. The first floor window within the side elevation is for family bathroom and which it is recommended should

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8

be obscure glazed. The ground floor window within this southern elevation is a secondary window for the combined living/dining room, and similarly, this could also be obscured glazed and secured by condition, however with the existing fencing along the southern boundary, it is considered that this proposed ground floor window is unlikely to give rise to any significant overlooking concerns.

6.13 It is considered that the distance of approximately 7m between the proposed

dwelling and the main side elevation (excluding single storey extension) of the adjacent property, 2 Greenfield Road, is sufficient to not result in any significant perception of enclosure or overbearing and similarly would not give rise to an unacceptable loss of outlook, privacy or light.

6.14 No windows are proposed within the northern side elevation of the proposed

dwelling. It is considered, having regard to the siting of the proposed dwelling further back in the plot and its relationship with the existing dwelling together with the blank flank northern elevation of the proposed dwelling that there would be no adverse impact on the outlook or privacy of occupiers of these dwellings.

6.15 The proposed development would provide sufficient private amenity space for both

the proposed dwelling and existing dwelling not dissimilar to the size of garden within the vicinity.

Sustainability

6.16 In terms of sustainability, any new dwelling should also have regard to its impact on

the environment. Policy DC8 of the Development Plan expects dwellings be designed to take account of their impact on the environment, by way of reducing unnecessary draw on water and energy resources and reduce the amount of waste created from the development during its lifetime. The Council would expect any new dwelling to meet a minimum standard of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The applicant has confirmed the proposed dwelling could meet this expectation and this could be secured by an appropriately worded condition.

6.17 As previously mentioned, the location of the site is within the boundary of a

Category 2 settlement which benefits from a limited range of services and facilities together with access to public transport, and therefore in terms of accessibility and sustainable location, the proposal would fail to reinforce sustainable patterns of development. However, this is required to be balanced against all other relevant material considerations, and your Officers are of the view that the provision of a market dwelling off-set against the provision of an affordable dwelling (3 Greenfield Road) would outweigh it’s location within a Category 2 settlement.

6.18 The proposed dwellings would have off-street parking for two vehicles together with

cycle storage and can be secured by condition. The proposed parking would be within the County standards. The County Surveyor has not raised any objections on highway safety grounds.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9

Drainage 6.19 Concern has been raised regarding flooding and capacity of the drainage system.

Southern Water have been consulted and comments are awaited and can be verbally presented to Members. However, they have previously been consulted in respect of the refused application DC/10/0416 to which it was advised that Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development.

Contributions

6.20 The proposed development would trigger the requirement to provide financial

contributions toward fire service infrastructure, Total Access Demand, and libraries of £1805. The District Authority would require £2343 toward open space, sport and recreation; community centres and hall; and local recycling. At the time of writing the committee report an appropriate signed agreement had not been submitted to secure contributions and the provision of the ‘affordable’ housing, however in the event that planning permission were to be granted, your Officers have recommended that the application be delegated for approval subject to securing these requirements by way of an appropriately worded legal agreement.

Protected Species,

6.21 A local resident has advised the slow worms may be present on the site, although

this has not previously been raised. The County Ecologist has been consulted and comments in this respect are awaited. Any comments received can be reported verbally to Members.

Conclusion

6.22 Whilst the proposed dwelling is for a market dwelling within a Category 2 settlement

which would otherwise be considered inappropriate as it would reinforce unsustainable patterns of development, the proposal also relates to the provision of 3 Greenfield Road as an ‘affordable’ 3 bedroom dwelling to be secured in perpetuity by an appropriately worded legal agreement. This would off-set the policy objection thereby addressing a specific local need. Thus on balance and when considered against all other material considerations, the proposed development is considered acceptable. Approval subject to securing a legal agreement is therefore recommended.

7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 That planning permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and

Environmental Services, subject to the completion of an acceptable Section 106 Agreement relating to contributions associated with addressing the infrastructure requirements generated by the development and to secure the provision of 3 Greenfield Road as an ‘affordable’ dwelling unit in perpetuity for persons affiliated with Slinfold village and subject to the following conditions:

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10

1. A2 Full Permission 2. D4 Obscured glass (south elevation) 3. D5 No windows (within the roof and side (south and north) elevations) 4. D6 Finished floor levels 5. E3 Fencing 6. G3 Parking, turning and access 7. G4 Site surface 8. G6 Recycling 9. No work shall be carried out on site until a construction management plan has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall include details of the arrangements for deliveries and the storage of materials, skips and other equipment, together with the parking of construction vehicles and cars associated with the building works. Implementation of the development shall be in accordance with the management plan unless alternative details are 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).

10. H10 Cycling provision 11. J10 Removal of permitted development – dwellings (A, B, C and E) 12. L1 Hard and soft landscaping 13. M1 Approval of materials 14. M8 Sustainable Construction 15. O1 Hours of working

1. Note to Applicant: The applicant is advised to contact the Area Engineer, West Sussex County Council, Worthing, Road Broadbridge Heath, Horsham, RH12 3LZ, Tel No: 01243 642105 to obtain formal approval from the highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public highway.

Background Papers: DC/11/0067 Contact Officer: Karen Tipper

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.

Contact: Peter Harwood Extension: 5167

abcd


BY:

Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 5th April 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Change of use of laboratory (no. 2) from B1 to D1 Dance Studio

SITE: Chemovation, Graylands Estate, Langhurstwood Road, Horsham

WARD: Holbrook West

APPLICATION: D/10/2209

APPLICANT: Fiona White – T/A Fi-steps (Dance Studio) REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak RECOMMENDATION: The decision be delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, to await the expiry of the period for re-consultation, with a view to granting permission. 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The application relates to the change of use of laboratory 2 (Use Class B1) formerly

known as Chemovation to use as a dance studio (Use Class D1). 1.2 During the consideration of the application further details regarding the use have

been submitted and reconsultation has taken place(expires 13thApril). The applicant advises that the vast majority of classes are held for children, although there are some occasional adult users, including the elderly and disabled.

1.3 It is proposed to open for business in the evenings (two 2 hour sessions from 17.30

hrs to 21.30 hrs) and Saturday (three 1 hour sessions from 09.00 hrs to 12.00 hrs). It is proposed to have two full time employees with up to ten part time staff. The dance studio is currently based in Crawley with occasional use of the Drill Hall, Horsham. The premises are used during the day for administration purposes relating to the dance studio and will not be used for dance classes except for the times stated above.


APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.

1.4 Access to the site is via the internal private driveway with in/out access from

Langhurstwood Road. Parking is to take place on part of the adjacent parking area for Graylands to the rear/east of the application site. Space has been designated for 12 car parking spaces with a further three disabled spaces situated west of the application site on the opposite side of the driveway.

1.5 The proposed change of use relates to a 230 sq m building (24 x 9.5mts) situated

within an isolated group of buildings previously used by Redland Engineering and is located in countryside to the north of Horsham town. In submitting the application the applicant has confirmed that the current proposal is the first planning application submitted by them as the current owner (Verve) who have recently purchased the site and who intend to refurbish and restore neglected buildings on the site for local businesses.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.6 The application site is located off the Langhurstwood Road, which runs north off the

A264 Horsham bypass with the site approximately 2.5 km to the north of Horsham town centre. The site is set back approximately 250 m from Langhurstwood Road and is screened on all sides by mature trees. It is accessed by a one-way private, tree lined driveway, with the exit drive approximately 250 m further to the north.

1.7 Graylands Estate extends to some 2.88 hectares and consists of a range of

buildings with permission for use as commercial floor space, which includes office use (B1); laboratories (D1); engineering workshops (B1) and warehousing (B8).

PLANNING HISTORY 1.8 The buildings on the Graylands site were originally used for office, workshops and

laboratories in association with the main activity of brick manufacture (Redland Engineering).

1.9 Most recent planning applications on the Graylands site refer to:- DC/07/2844 - Retention of change of use of Unit 1 from Class B1 –

(Research and Development ) to Class B2 – (Workshops) permitted on 14th April 2008 (personal to Halltech) used as workshop to service and repair motor vehicles.

DC/09/2250 - Change of use from B1 – Business/B2 – General Industrial/B8

Warehouse to MOT Testing Station personal to Halltech for MOT test centre (Unit 6 ).

Also of note is the appeal decision at Wealden Brickworks, Langhurstwood Road,

on behalf of Biffa Waste Services Ltd (DC/09/2355) which was subsequently allowed by the Inspector.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 PPS1, PPS7, PPG13. RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP3

and CP15. 2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document are DC1, DC9, DC25 and DC40. 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1 and CC4. 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Equalities Officer has raised no objection to the works and provision proposed for

disabled access to these premises.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.2 North Horsham Parish Council have objected to the application and commented

that: “The Parish Council considers that a traffic impact survey is still required for this area.”

3.3 One letter of objection has been received from the Langhurstwood Road Residents

Association on the following grounds:

Further increase in traffic movements along Langhurstwood Road (have referred to refusal DC/09/2355 – Biffa/Wealden)

Application vague in detail, in particular referring to vehicular movements in the evenings and at weekends

Have stated that a meeting should take place between residents and Councillors to discuss planning development in the area prior to further applications being presented to Committee.

Any further representations received on the revised details will be reported verbally.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First

Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising

from this application. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the

principle of the proposed use in this location, issues of sustainability, the effect of the development on the character of the area, impact on amenities of nearby residential occupiers and traffic conditions in the area.

The Principle of Development and Sustainability 6.2 The site is located to the north of the Horsham bypass and is outside the built-up

area boundary and therefore is within the countryside. Local Development Plan policies require that development outside of the built-up area boundary to be essential to its countryside location. Policy DC1 states generally that outside the built-up area, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and supports the needs of agriculture or forestry; enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste; provides for quiet informal recreational use; or ensures the sustainable development of rural areas. Any development must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location. Consequently development is to be concentrated in the larger towns and villages in the District.

Impact on Visual Amenities 6.3 The building is constructed of brick under a flat felted roof with a deep fascia. The

applicant has confirmed that in refurbishing this building there have been no internal alterations to the partition walls and the only alteration to the external appearance of the building has taken place on the end/west elevation by increasing the width of the existing doorway to facilitate disabled access. Although glimpses of the building can be observed from the adjacent public footpath, which runs along the driveway to the north, (ROW1573) it is considered that by reason of these minor alterations to the existing building and its location within the commercial complex that no material harm has been caused to the visual amenities or rural character of the area.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5.

Impact on Residential Amenities 6.4 The building is some 230m from the nearest residential dwelling (South Lodge)

situated on the west side of Langhurstwood Road and therefore it is considered that the residential amenities of nearby occupiers will not be adversely affected by the use of the building itself for dance classes. However, concern has been expressed by the Langhurstwood Road Residents Group about the impact of additional traffic along Langhurstwood Road on the amenities of residential properties which are situated close to the road and between the application site and the main A264 Horsham bypass.

6.5 In this regard of note is a recent appeal (DC/09/2355) at the former Wealden

Brickworks on behalf of Biffa Waste Services Ltd This appeal was allowed whereby the Inspector considered the main issue relating to the activities at the appeal site were: “its impact on the living conditions of local residents, having regard to traffic generation.”

6.6 In the Inspector’s decision dated 22nd February 2011 he states in paragraph 14: “Dwellings on Langhurstwood Road are generally close to the public highway and

some are very near to the edge of the carriageway. It is understandable that their occupants are concerned about noise of hgv engines, wind resistant, clanking of trailers and grating, coupled with vibrations including rattling windows; and all the dwellings are affected to a greater or lesser extent. These phenomena were evident at the site inspection, but unpleasant as they may be I am not persuaded that the predicted increase in hgv movements as a result of the proposed development would, in itself, result in an unacceptable worsening of the prevailing effects on the living conditions of local residents. Furthermore, any additional detriment to amenity for a relatively small number of dwellings would have to be balanced against the employment and other benefits that would derive from the proposed development.”

In this case the Inspector was considering the impact of additional HGV’s on the

amenities of residents. The current application is for the use of an industrial building as a dance studio resulting in the associated traffic being predominantly the private motor car. Furthermore, the applicant has sought to demonstrate through the submission of a report from a transport consultant, that the intended dance studio use (with limited hours of classes as proposed) would generate similar traffic movements than the authorised light industrial use of the building. The transport report concludes that:

“… the change of use proposal will firstly not result in a material increase in

vehicular trips on the highway network, particularly because the majority of users will be children with a high propensity for organised car sharing. Secondly, it will remove vehicular traffic from the highway network at peak periods. Thirdly, it will reduce cumulative journey distances when compared to retention of the existing facilities in Crawley and Horsham. Fourthly, it will reduce large vehicular numbers attracted to the building.”

The transport report dated 16th February 2011 is appended in full.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6.

6.7 In this regard, and taking into account the Appeal Inspector’s view relating to

HGV`s at the Biffa site , it is difficult to justify a refusal of planning permission for the current proposal based on the possible detrimental impact on the amenities and quiet enjoyment of residents residing in properties along Langhurstwood Road.

6.8 With respect to development in rural areas Core Strategy Policy CP15 encourages

sustainable rural economic development to deliver economic, social environmental benefits for local communities. It states that any development has to be appropriate to the countryside location, contribute to the wider rural economy, be contained within suitably located buildings, which are appropriate for conversion, and result in substantial environmental improvement and reduce the impact on the countryside. Such development should not harm the rural character of the area by virtue of the nature and level of activity involved and the type and amount of traffic generated or by other effects such as noise and pollution. It further states that the priority will, however, continue to be to minimise the amount and scale of new building in the countryside, compatible with the aim of sustainable rural, economic development.

6.9 Policy DC25 relates to the development and expansion of existing rural commercial

sites and supports such works which delivers economic benefits to the rural area providing certain criteria are met. Among other things the intensification of sites should be of a suitable scale for the level of activity proposed.

6.10 The Graylands estate has established uses and subsequent planning permissions

for B1/B2/B8 uses and as such are specifically employment generating uses. A class D 1 (Non residential Institution) use which is being applied for includes uses such as Medical and Health Centre, Crèche, Day Nursery, ,Day Centres, Consulting Rooms, Museums, Public Libraries, Art Galleries, Exhibition Halls , Non residential Education and Training Centres, Places of Worship etc. It is appreciated that the application relates to the specific use of the building as a Dance Studio, but these other uses give an indication of the other uses which fall into such a D 1 Use Class and illustrates that they are to provide facilities for visiting members of the public.

6.11 It should be noted that PPG13 (Transport) emphasises the need to reduce car

journeys and enable people to make sustainable transport choices. It advises that new leisure attractions should be located as close as possible to the town centre. This maximises the choice of means of getting there and adds to the vitality of the town centre.

6.12 PPG7 does advise that it is important to promote adequate employment

opportunities in rural areas. They should not reject proposals where small scale business development would give rise to only modest additional daily vehicle movements, in comparison to other uses that are permitted on the site and the impact on minor roads will not be significant.

6.13 It is considered that such a D1 use, with traffic movements to and from the site

arising principally from customers arriving and departing from the premises could

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7.

represent an increase in urban activity and could be detrimental to the rural character of the area. However in this particular case the applicant has demonstrated that the lawful use of the existing building would result in a comparable level of vehicular movements to that of the proposed use (with the limited hours of classes proposed) and therefore it would be difficult to justify that the intended use would have a greater impact on the rural character of the area on traffic movements.

6.14 The site is situated within a relatively isolated position and not accessible by public

transport and does not encourage walking or cycling given the poor street lighting and lack of footpaths in the vicinity, particularly as the site is accessed via a busy road used by HGV`s and itself accessed from the main A264 Horsham bypass. Usually such uses are sited within town and village centres where there is easy access to public transport and other commercial operations including shopping facilities or are located within easy reach of their customer residential properties.

6.15 PPG13 seeks to encourage development in locations accessible to other means of

transport as opposed to the private car. It is not considered that in this location these alternative modes are likely to represent realistic alternatives to the use of the car. In these circumstances and given the nature of roads within this location without footpaths or lighting, it is considered that the occupants and clients of the dance studio would be heavily reliant on the motor car for access purposes.

6.16 However, in this regard the applicant has compared the potential level of activity

with the existing lawful use of the existing light industrial B1 building and has shown this to be similar on the basis of the limited class times proposed. The applicant has confirmed that the dance studio is currently based in Crawley, although they occasionally use the Drill Hall in Denne Road, Horsham. Also the applicant has stated that the proprietors live in Horsham and the majority of their clients are Horsham based and they have been seeking suitable premises within Horsham for some time to prevent themselves and their clients travelling to Crawley.The applicant has confirmed that the Drill Hall will no longer be required for their occasional use following any grant of planning permission at the Graylands site.

6.17 In conclusion, it is considered that although the proposed dance studio is situated

outside the defined built-up area of Horsham and is not sited in a sustainable location, it is sited within an established industrial building complex whereby the level of activity and vehicular movements proposed with the limited use of the building as proposed have been shown to be comparable to the existing lawful use of this building for light industrial purposes. Furthermore, it is considered the level of car journeys along Langhurstwood Road would not cause material harm to the amenities of residents living on Langhurstwood Road such to justify a refusal in this case. Therefore it is considered on balance, that the proposed change of use to be acceptable in this location subject to appropriate restrictive conditions.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that the decision be delegated to the Head of Planning and

Environmental Services upon expiry of the re-consultation period, with a view to

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8.

planning permission being granted on balance and subject to the following conditions:-

01 A2 Full permission 02 The primary use for the building hereby approved shall be as a Dance

Studio as set out within the approved documents and for no other purpose in class D1 of the Use Class Order 2005.

Reason: Other changes of use within class D1 of the Use Classes Order 2005(as amended) are not considered appropriate in this case under the terms of policy DC9 of the LDF General Development Control Policies Document 2007.

03 The use of the premises for dance classes shall not take place other than

during the following times :- 17.30 to 21.30hrs Mondays to Friday 09.00 to 12.00hrs Saturday

Reason: In the interests of amenity as a more intensive use of the site would be contrary to the aims of policies within the Development Plan in particular Policy CP15 of the LDF Core Strategy 2007.

04 The use of the building hereby approved shall not be commenced before and until 12 car parking spaces and 3 disabled bays, as depicted on the submitted site plan, have been layed out and provided on site and thereafter retained for that purpose.

Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for

parking if vehicles in accordance with Policy DC40 of the LDF General Development Control Policies Document 2007.

8. REASONS ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring

occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

ITHP3 The vehicular traffic associated with the development would not adversely affect the safety and convenience of other highway users.

Background Papers: DC/10/2209 Contact Officer: Peter Harwood pgh21pink/wk1/jlt

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1


abcd



DATE: 5 April 2011

DEVELOPMENT: New two-bedroom detached dwelling within curtilage of existing property (Full Planning and Listed Building Consent)

SITE: Bailings, Fulfords Hill, Itchingfield


APPLICATION: DC/11/0357 & DC/11/0359

APPLICANT: Mr Paul Warren REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Applicant request to speak RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission and listed building consent be

refused 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning and listed building consent applications.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 Application DC/11/0357 seeks planning permission for the erection of a detached

two bedroom dwelling in an ‘L’ shape configuration. The footprint of the proposed dwelling would have a maximum length of 12m and a maximum width of 9m. Application DC/11/0359 seeks Listed Building Consent for the proposal. Listed Building Consent is not required for the proposal, but as the application has been submitted, the Local Planning Authority is required to determine it.

1.2 The proposal is a re-submission following the refusal of a previous application

DC/10/0149 which sought permission for a three bedroom dwelling with detached garage and withdrawn application DC/10/1552 which sought permission for a two bedroom dwelling.


APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2

1.3 The proposed accommodation would be set over two floors with the ground floor comprising lounge, dining room, utility, kitchen and WC with the first floor accommodation comprising 2 bedrooms, both with en-suite facilities and one with dressing room.

1.4 The dwelling would be constructed of stone plinth with oak frame above and clad in

oak or black tannelised softwood weather boarding (details to be agreed) and reclaimed clay tile roof.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.5 The application site falls within the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling,

Bailings, an 16th Century two storey Grade II Listed Building. The site is situated within the hamlet of Itchingfield, which is not a defined settlement within the adopted Local Development Framework, and therefore outside of any built up area and as such is within the countryside.

1.6 The site is relatively flat with a gradual decline toward the west. A ditch runs on an

east-west axis between the site and Sunnyside to the south. A pond is situated within the north-western corner of the garden of Bailings and would fall within the created curtilage of the proposed dwelling.

1.7 The boundary treatment varies, with the south and west comprising a mix of trees

and hedge, the boundary to the north comprises a fence and hedge. The front street elevation comprises a low level wall with manicured hedge behind.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS5, PPS7, PPG13


policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13 and CP19 2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control

Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC2, DC8, DC9, DC13, DC28 and DC40

2.5 South East Plan: CC1, CC4, CC6, H3, H4, H5, C4, BE5, GAT1, GAT3

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 I/12/87 Alterations, re-roofing, removal of tiling & weatherboarding, insertion of panelling, construction of 2 dormer windows & replacement of existing. Permitted 11/08/1987 I/30/89 Reconstruction of barn for use as garage/workshop. Refused 28/08/1989 I/33/89 Internal alterations and provision of new bathroom. Permitted 02/10/1989 I/34/89 New porch. Permitted 12/10/1989 I/45/89 Erection of timber framed barn with extension for use as barn garaging and garden store. Refused 22/11/1989 I/30/94 Erection of a Sussex barn for use as garage/implement store. Permitted 18/01/1995 DC/10/0149 Erection of 1 x 3-bed dwelling and detached garage (Plot to the Southwest of Bailings). Refused 29/04/2010 DC/10/1552 New detached 2-bed 2-storey house within the curtilage of a Listed Building. Withdrawn DC/10/1553 New detached 2-bed 2-storey house within the curtilage of a Listed Building. Withdrawn DC/10/1568 Garage to west of the property with re-instatement of stone boundary wall to North boundary (Full Planning). Permitted 18/11/2010 DC/10/1569 Garage to west of the property with re-instatement of stone boundary wall to North boundary (Listed Building Consent). Permitted 18/11/2010 Relevant Planning History at Sunnyside, Fulfords Hill: I/19/94 Erection of a replacement house with garage and access. Permitted 05/09/1994 I/24/94 Erection of a replacement house and garage. Permitted 30/09/1994 Relevant Planning History at Wardecot, Fulfords Hill: I/29/99 Erection of 1 replacement bungalow. Permitted 18/11/1999

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Conservation & Design Officer: Bailings is a c16th timber framed grade II listed

house. It sits in a large domestic garden and to the north and south is bounded by two other dwellings, also sitting within domestic gardens.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4

From the street, Bailings is located in a prominent position; it sits forward of the two neighbouring properties, which are both detached houses with large rear gardens. To the rear of Bailings, the large domestic garden provides a green setting for the listed building; the open character of the neighbouring gardens also contribute positively to the setting of the listed building.

The siting of a substantial detached dwelling within the garden would detract from the green setting of the listed building; the design, albeit using a vernacular barn style, is overly suburban in style, and appears cluttered with windows and door. There is also concern regarding the principle of sub-dividing the garden of Bailings; the encroachment of development towards Bailings, including fences/walls etc would suburbanise the setting; although mentioned in the DAS there is little detail contained within the application on how landscaping/ fencing etc would appear on plan. There is no information on the visual impact the application would have on the street. There is also little information on the significance of Bailings and how the proposed development would impact on this as per PPS5 HE6 requires. Policy HE10 of PPS5 states: HE10.1 When considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval. In conclusion, the setting of Bailings is considered to be a large green garden; without any other benefits afforded to preserving the setting or better revealing the significance of the listed building as per HE10 in PPS5, the application is recommended for refusal. Furthermore: HDC’s policy DC13 (Listed buildings) Development affecting a Listed Building or its setting will not be permitted unless the proposal: a. has no adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character and appearance of the building or its setting; b. uses building materials, finishes and building techniques, including those for features such as walls, railings, gates and hard surfacing, that respect the Listed Building and its setting; c. incorporates landscaping, where appropriate, having regard to the character and appearance of the Listed Building; d. is of appropriate scale and design; e. results, where relevant, in the removal of unsympathetic features and the restoration or reinstatement of missing features; and, f. would ensure the continued preservation and use of the building.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5

As discussed above, the application would not meet criteria a; c; d; f of DC13 and the application is recommended for refusal. For clarification, the application is not being considered as enabling development; if it did, it would need to also meet the criteria set out in the English Heritage enabling development document. As the development is not attached to or altering any part of the listed building itself, listed building consent is not required.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Environment Agency: No comments 3.3 WSCC: The County was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location

under planning application no. DC/1552/10 to which no objections were raised to similar proposal to this latest one at the site.

Contributions of £3355 are required pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impacts of the subject proposal with the provision of additional County Council service infrastructure, highways and public transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development.

Previous comments received in respect of DC/10/1552 (31/08/2010) “Upon inspection of my records it would appear West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no. DC/149/10, this application proposed a 1 x 4 bed dwelling at the site. No significant concerns were raised from the highway point of view.

Although the proposal is differs slightly the highway comments I made in February 2010 would be equally apply to this latest application. The S106 contributions have been re-calculated to reflect the slight change in the proposal.

Archaeology The proposed new house would be located within the garden of Bailings, a 17th-century or earlier building. In such a location, particularly close to the old house and street frontage, it would not be unusual for historic features such as wells, outbuildings, internal property boundaries, and rubbish pits to have existed in the 17th century, associated with the house. Some features of this kind may still exist within the garden, as buried archaeological traces.

Within the area where previous ground excavations were carried out in the late 1980s, associated with the laying of footings for a building and the creation of a driveway, archaeological features may once have existed. But such features, expected to have been only at shallow depth beneath topsoil, are likely to have been significantly truncated during those excavation and landscaping works (it is noted that the 1980s operations on site pre-dated the first Government national planning guidance on archaeological matters within the planning process, PPG 16 (Archaeology and Planning), published November 1990).

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6

Because the present proposals envisage the building of the new house largely, if not wholly, within the area of the 1980s ground excavations, it is not considered likely that this application involves any new archaeological impact.

Conclusions : No anticipated archaeological implications.”

3.4 Southern Water: No comments to make on the proposal. 3.5 Itchingfield Parish Council: Recommends for approval PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.6 2 letters of objection received from Moidart House The Coopers and Wardecot

Fulfords Hill on the grounds that the proposal is a repetitive and vexations nature of the application which has previously been refused. The development within the curtilage of the listed building and in a sensitive area would be detrimental to the rural character and compromise the setting of the listed building. It is contrary to policy and would set a precedent for further similar applications if granted. The proposal is for a new dwelling and not a replacement dwelling.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS




6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main considerations are the principle of the proposed development in this

location, the effect of the development on the character of this rural area, impact on the adjacent Listed Building; impact on amenities of nearby residential occupiers together with the impact on existing parking and traffic conditions in the area.

Principle

6.2 The site is situated outside of a defined built-up area and as such for the purposes

of planning policy it is situated within the countryside. Development plan policies do not permit development within the countryside unless there is an essential need for a countryside location.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7

6.3 PPS7 states at paragraph 10 that: “Isolated new houses in the countryside will require special justification for planning

permission to be granted. Where the special justification for an isolated new house relates to the essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside, planning authorities should follow the advice in Annex A of this PPS”

6.4 Policy DC1 states within the explanatory text that there may be certain

circumstances where development is necessary to ensure the continued sustainable development of rural areas. Such development might include that which is required to sustain the countryside as a place of varied and productive social and economic activity, such as subsidised housing, business uses, community facilities and services or leisure, cultural and tourism facilities. These will be assessed on the basis that development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

6.5 Previous applications have been submitted for the construction of a new dwelling

within the curtilage of this listed building based on an enabling development argument. The current application does not seek to present this as justification for the proposed development, but is now presented on a merits case. In the first instance it is to be assessed against the relevant policies forming the Development Plan which as mentioned above, seek to protect the countryside for its own merit and to ensure that only development which is essential to its countryside location is permitted.

6.6 The applicant has mentioned the adjacent properties, Sunnyside and Wardecot, as

justification that a precedent has been set to allow new residential development within Itchingfield. Mention has also been made Local Plan policy relating to small dwellings (CS20), however this was superseded in 2007 by the policies forming the adopted LDF.

6.7 Both of these aforementioned properties are relatively modern in appearance and

were granted as replacement dwellings under previous Local Plan policies. It is considered that in the light of current Development Plan policies together with the new, rather than replacement, nature of this current proposal, that these two adjacent properties do not set a precedent for new dwellings within the countryside.

6.8 The proposal the subject of this application is for a market dwelling and would not

be for subsidised housing or other identified local need. Furthermore, the application does not meet the advice as set out within Annex A of PPS7 (Agricultural, Forestry and other Occupations Dwellings) or the relevant Development Plan policies.

6.9 In respect of the principle of development within the curtilage of a Listed Building,

recent guidance is set within published PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment and in particular policy HE9 of this document states that:

“There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8

the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.”

6.10 Policy HE10 of PPS5 also states that:

“When considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that ho not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.”

6.11 The applicant has also referred to a letter sent by one of your Officers in respect of

planning application DC/09/1111 for the erection of a boundary fence at the adjacent property Wardecot which the applicant considers would result in the loss of the open rural character of the area becoming “semi urban”. The applicant contends that this is a material consideration in the determination of the full planning and concurrent listed building consent applications. Application DC/09/1111 remains un-determined with the application still under consideration by your Officers awaiting clarification on the outstanding boundary dispute. It is considered that this aforementioned application raises separate issues to those for these applications and does not constitute a reason to justify setting aside current policy objections to the current proposal, for the erection of a detached two bedroom two storey dwelling within a countryside location.

Design, siting and effect on Listed Building

6.12 The proposed dwelling would be situated within the curtilage of a Grade II Listed

Building, a 16th Century two-storey dwelling of simple vernacular design, being of timber frame construction with rendered sections, Horsham tile slab roof with cat-slide at rear and gabled side elevations.

6.13 The design of the proposed dwelling remains unchanged from the previous

withdrawn application (DC/10/1552) and incorporates a cat-slide roof to the north elevation , interrupted by a single storey outshot, forming part of the ‘L’ shape configuration. The proposed two-storey element of the dwelling would sit parallel to the southern boundary. Whilst the design of the proposal is an improvement from the previously refused dwelling (DC/10/0149), and would not necessarily appear out of context within an urban setting, it is however considered that it would lead to an inappropriate relationship with the simple architectural merit of the adjacent Listed Building and sub-division of the plot in this countryside location. This concern has been expressed previously by the Council’s Conservation and Design Advisor who has stated that as a result of this relationship that the proposal would lead to a suburbanisation and crowding of the listed building, compromising its setting.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9

6.14 The applicant has also referred to planning permission (reference I/30/94) which granted a barn in the location of the current proposal, as further justification for residential development in this countryside location. The applicant contends that had the barn been completed, then the intervening time would likely allow for it to be considered for conversion to residential accommodation. It should be noted however that planning permission for this barn was granted in 1995 and was subject to a condition restricting the use of the barn solely as ancillary garaging and not as separate unit of accommodation, as it was considered that separate residential accommodation in this location would detract from the setting of Bailings. It is considered that this permission clearly sought to restrict development within this sensitive location and to protect the setting of the listed building, and therefore, your Officers are of the view that these concerns remain and would fail to be protected were these planning and listed building applications be granted for a separate independent dwelling.

6.15 The proposed dwelling together with associated residential paraphernalia, such as

structures, garden curtilage etc, anticipated with this nature of development would result in a further infill of a residential character within an otherwise spacious plot resulting in a loss to the open nature of the street and rural location and detriment of the setting of this Grade II Listed Building. Amenity

6.16 The proposed detached dwelling is shown on the submitted block plan to be set a

minimum of 4.5m from the boundary with Sunnyside with a distance of approximately 13m between the proposed dwelling and the side elevation of this adjacent property.

6.17 The proposed dwelling would be set approximately 27m from the front boundary

and further back in the plot than both the existing dwelling ‘Bailings’ and ‘Sunnyside’ having regard to the distance between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring property together with the boundary treatment, it is not considered that there would be a significant loss of privacy.

6.18 With regards to the amenity of the property to the north, Wardecot, together with

the amenity of the occupiers of Bailings, it is considered that similarly there would be limited impact on privacy.

Sustainability

6.19 Sustainability issues also arise as part of the consideration of this application. To

accord with policy the development should be suitably located and not in an isolated position in relation to infrastructure amenities and services. In this case the proposed dwelling is considered to be in a relatively isolated location not well served by public transport. There is a train station at Christ’s Hospital as well as a daytime bus service. The site, whilst within the hamlet of Itchingfield is approximately 2.4km from Barns Green, 3.9km from Broadbridge Heath and 6.8km from the centre of Horsham, the nearest settlements with amenities and services.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10

6.20 PPG13 sets guidance in relation to the distances where walking to the site can offer

the greatest potential to replace car trips. These are 2 km in relation to walking and 5 km in relation to cycling. It is not considered that in this location these modes are likely to represent realistic alternatives for the use of the private car. The applicant has stated that the train station and farm shop are within walking and cycling distance. However, in these circumstances and given the nature of the roads without footpaths or lighting, it is considered that the occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on the car for access purposes and would therefore reinforce unsustainable patterns of development.

Highway safety and parking

6.21 The County Surveyor has not raised any objection in respect of the access on

safety grounds, however details of surfacing would be required. Similarly, secure covered cycle storage would need to be provided on site and could be secured by way of condition.

Contributions

6.22 The proposed development would trigger the requirement to provide financial contributions toward fire service infrastructure, Total Access Demand, and libraries of £3,355. The District Authority would require £1,953 toward open space, community centres and local recycling.

Conclusion

6.23 In conclusion it is considered that the proposed dwelling which remains unchanged

from the previously withdrawn application DC/10/1552 and only slightly reduced in size from refused application DC/10/0149 has not overcome the concerns, this being firstly the principle of a new dwelling within this countryside location that has not been demonstrated to require a countryside location and is not for an identified local need, thereby reinforcing unsustainable patterns of development; and secondly, the proposal would result in a suburbanisation and crowding of the adjacent Listed Building, Bailings, to the detriment of the character of the rural area and setting of the Listed Building.

7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that planning permission DC/11/0357 be refused for the

following reasons:

1. The proposed development which is situated outside of any built-up area boundary would represent an intensification of sporadic development in this countryside location to the detriment of the rural character of the area. Furthermore, it has not been shown to require an essential countryside location or that it meets an identified local need and therefore would fail to comply with the principles of sustainable development having particular regard to the poor access to services and facilities and being remote from

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 11

adequate public transport provision thereby reinforcing unsustainable patterns of development. The proposed development would thus be contrary to policies CP3, CP5 and CP19 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), policies DC1, DC9 and DC40 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) together with the overarching provisions of PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13.

2. The design, siting and bulk of the proposed development together with its

associated residential paraphernalia would result in a loss to the spacious character of the area together with a suburbanisation and crowding of the adjacent listed building to the detriment of the character of the rural area and setting of the listed building. As such the development would be contrary to policy DC1, DC9 and DC13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) together with the overarching provision of PPS5.

3. The proposed development makes no provision for contribution towards

improvements to transport, fire service infrastructure or community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

7.2 It is recommended that Listed Building Consent DC/11/0359 be refused for the

following reason:

1. The design, siting and bulk of the proposed development together with its associated residential paraphernalia would result in a loss to the spacious character of the area together with a suburbanisation and crowding of the adjacent listed building to the detriment of the character of the rural area and setting of the listed building. As such the development would be contrary to policy DC1, DC9 and DC13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) together with the overarching provision of PPS5

Background Papers: DC/11/0357 and DC/11/0359 Contact Officer: Karen Tipper

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1


abcd



DATE: 5 April 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Relocation of driveway to provide an extension to the basement of unimplemented dwelling approved under DC/09/1943 to relocate surface parking underground

SITE: Elenge Plat, Grouse Road, Colgate

WARD: Rusper and Colgate


APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs F Varela

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Agent request to speak (Mr Brett) RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The application represents an amendment to DC/09/1943 for a replacement

dwelling. The application seeks planning permission for an extension to the basement of approximately 7.5m to provide underground parking and home cinema room plus bedroom, games area, gym, laundry and bathroom. The proposal also includes the relocation and reconfiguration of the access from the rear of the dwelling as approved to the front of the dwelling along the front boundary.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.2 The site is situated outside any defined built up area boundary and therefore is

within the countryside. It is also located within the nationally designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.


APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

1.3 The application relates to a replacement dwelling of what is known as the ‘Chauffeur’s’ dwelling and which forms part of the property known as Elenge Plat. The replacement dwelling is independent from Elenge Plat and other ancillary buildings set within the site which extends to approximately 10 hectares. The approved replacement is sited to the northeast of the main dwelling.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 PPS1, PPS3, PPS7, PPG13


policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP5 2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control

Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC4, DC8, DC9, DC28 and DC40

2.5 South East Plan: GAT1, SP1, C4

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY LB/11/68 Proposed farm workers cottage. Refused 11/04/1968 LB/22/72 Erection of farm workers dwelling. Refused 21/07/1972 LB/40/77 Studio workshop. Permitted 24/01/1976 LB/28/80 Removal of condition 2. Refused 12/11/1980. LB/15/83 Removal of conditions 2 and 3. Refused 04/08/1983 LB/35/83 Removal of conditions 2 and 3 Refused 13/12/1983 CG/35/88 Change of use from redundant farm building to 3 workshops. Permitted 20/01/1989. CG/32/03 Vehicular access and gate. Refused 08/01/2004.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

DC/04/1241 Block up existing access and form new vehicular access with gates. Permitted 30/07/2004. DC/07/0538 Demolition of existing and relocation of chauffeur's dwelling (Outline). Permitted 08/05/2007 DC/08/2112 Demolition of existing and relocation of chauffeur's dwelling pursuant to Outline planning application DC/07/0538 to include minor re-siting of dwelling (Approval of Reserved Matters). Permitted 28/11/2008. DC/09/0381 Refused 11/06/2009. Relocation of dwelling approved under DC/08/2112. DC/09/1615 Retention of fence to enclose proposed permitted development tennis court. Permitted 04/11/2009 DC/09/1943 Relocation of dwelling approved under DC/08/2112. Permitted 18/12/2009 DC/10/0121 Replacement garden store/workshop ancillary to main house. Permitted 19/03/2010 DC/10/0625 Single storey side kitchen extension with proposed new basement comprising garage, swimming pool, gym, and TV games rooms all located to the Southeast side of house. Permitted 26/05/2010

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 None.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Colgate Parish Council: No objection 3.3 WSCC: The proposal would not be anticipated to have a negative impact on

highway safety in this location. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.4 No third party letters of representation received.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4





6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues are the effect of the development on the character of the area and

the visual amenities of the street scene and AONB; the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining property; existing parking and traffic conditions in the area; the existing trees; and the quality of the resulting residential environment for future occupiers.

Principle:

6.2 The principle of a replacement detached dwelling on the application site within this

countryside location was established under Outline Planning approval reference DC/07/0538 with Reserved Matters approved under reference DC/08/2112.

6.3 A proposal for the re-siting of the approved dwelling was initially refused under

Planning Application reference DC/09/0381 for reasons that it was considered to be unsympathetic to the landscape setting and High Weald AONB resulting in a spread of built development, including the driveway, parking area and residential paraphernalia.

6.4 Following discussions and negotiations with your Officers, a subsequent application

for the re-siting of the dwelling was approved under DC/09/1943 which overcame these previous concerns. This included the separation from the main driveway to provide vehicle access to the replacement dwelling taken at a point to the south-east of the dwelling approximately 27m from the rear elevation of the dwelling. This previously approved application provided surface parking on a small area to the front with additional parking taking place at the rear.

6.5 The basement as approved under DC/09/1943 measured the same length and

width of the replacement dwelling (9m x 13.5m) but included two light wells to the rear. The basement comprised gym, games area, family room, laundry and bathroom. The basement was reached via an internal staircase form the ground floor hallway and with 2 sets of steps leading from the rear patio area to the gym and family room via the rear lightwells.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5

6.6 The proposal seeks to increase the basement by 7.5m by 13.5m, to the front of the dwelling. The enlarged basement would comprise gym, games area, bedroom with en-suite, laundry, bathroom, home cinema room and double garage. The internal staircase and steps continue to be proposed. The driveway would lead directly to the underground garage element, with connecting doors into the games area together with bi-folding doors from the drive into the home cinema room. The plans also show steps leading from the landscaped ‘roof garden’ above the basement extension leading down to the underground garage element.

Design, Scale and Impact:

6.7 The proposed development is for a two-storey dwelling plus basement. The mass,

scale and height of the above ground level dwelling is not dissimilar to the existing dwelling to be demolished. Similarly, the design and scale of the above ground level dwelling remains unchanged from approved applications DC/08/2112 and DC/09/1943.

6.8 As noted above, the basement is shown to provide home cinema room, gym,

games area, laundry together with the provision of an additional bedroom and en-suite. The original approval for the replacement dwelling was for a 4 bedroom dwelling, where as the current proposal would be for a 5-bedroom dwelling.

6.9 The current application proposes to increase the footprint of the basement area by

a further 7.5m forward of the main elevation together with an excavated area of 4.8m to the front of the basement to provide access/turning to the proposed underground parking. The roof of this proposed basement extension is shown to be landscaped with balustrading above.

6.10 The existing driveway forks approximately 15m into the site providing separate

access to the main dwelling with the driveway leading to the workshops beyond. 6.11 It is proposed that the new access to the approved replacement dwelling be taken

directly from the entrance running back along the front boundary parallel to Grouse Road for approximately 18m then curving toward the dwelling for a distance of approximately 13m. At this point the gradient of the driveway begins to fall away toward the dwelling at an approximate 14degree fall.

6.12 Negotiations had previously secured the access and parking to the rear of the

replacement dwelling to reduce the visual impact on the rural character of this location and to preserve the intrinsic quality of the High Weald AONB. It is your Officers view that the proposed relocation and reconfiguration of the access together with the changes to the land levels, would result in a contrived appearance to the detriment of the sweeping topography of the area within this part of the High Weal AONB. It is considered that access drive and changes in land levels would be visible from Grouse Road, particularly when approaching from the north as well as during winter months.

6.13 It is considered that the proposed increase in the overall impact of the dwelling

which is associated with the works to include parking and access, together with changes to land levels to facilitate the vehicular access to the underground garage

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6

to the front of the dwelling, exceeds that which was previously considered to be acceptable, having been negotiated with your Officers. Whilst there is no specific objection to the enlarged basement per se, the proposals now include a re-sited and reconfigured access, large areas of hardstanding and changes in levels. These are considered excessive and would result in a contrived appearance in the AONB and represent an unsympathetic built form, and would increase the visual impact of the dwelling previously approved, to an unacceptable degree in this sensitive location.

Highway Safety:

6.14 Vehicle access from Grouse Road to the site as a whole was approved under

planning permission reference DC/04/1241 and met with the support of the County Surveyor. The access from Grouse Road provides visibility splays and widened ingress/egress to the site.

Landscaping:

6.15 There is very little detail of the proposed landscaping of the site, however the

applicant has shown that further planting is proposed along the front boundary with Grouse Road. Additional planting and fencing is also proposed along the driveway access. There are a number of mature trees, including the large oak central within the site, which add to the visual character and amenity of the residential curtilage and it is intended that these be retained. A condition could be attached requiring full hard and soft landscaping details including the submission of details for the protection of the trees to be retained were planning permission to be granted.

Conclusion:

6.16 It is considered whilst the above ground level design and scale of the approved

replacement dwelling remains unchanged, the proposed enlargement to the basement forward of the building together with the large areas of driveway and excavation in this prominent position represents inappropriate development and encroachment of built form into the countryside to the detriment of the visual amenities and rural character of the locality and fails to preserve the character of this part of the High Weald AONB contrary to the policies forming the adopted Development Plan.

7. RECOMMENDATION

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

1. The enlarged basement together with the proposed areas of driveway and

excavations would not relate sympathetically with the wider landscape setting of this site which is located within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which would be to the detriment of the visual amenities and rural character of this part of the AONB. The scheme would thus lead to inappropriate additional built development in the AONB, contrary

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7

to policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC4 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/11/0303 Contact Officer: Karen Tipper

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1

Contact: Amanda Wilkes Extension: 5521

abcd




DEVELOPMENT: Conversion of commercial studio to mixed residential/commercial studio.

SITE: Baldhorns Park Farm, Wimland Road, Rusper

WARD: Rusper and Colgate


APPLICANT: Mrs A Armour REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer Referral RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The application seeks permission for the conversion of a building currently used as

a commercial studio, to mixed residential/commercial studio use. 1.2 The existing unit comprises a commercial building with a floor space of 203sq

metres. The building is currently used as workshop premises in relation to the applicant’s garden sculpture business known as ‘Gleaubal Ltd’. Planning permission was granted for this use under DC/08/0245. Further permission was later granted under DC/08/2191 and DC/09/1350 for changes to the fenestration and doors as originally permitted under the approved scheme.

1.3 The applicant advises that manufacturing of the products designed and prototyped

in the studio takes place mainly in Horsham at Quadplas in Mulberry Trading Estate, Foundry Lane and Matann Ltd, Blatchford Road and the use is therefore supporting local manufacturing businesses


APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2.

1.4 The current application now seeks permission to convert the original five bay former agricultural building which currently has permission solely for commercial purposes into mixed commercial/residential accommodation, consisting of two bays for workroom space and three bays for residential accommodation comprising two bedrooms, a lounge, a kitchen and a bathroom.

1.5 It should be noted that whilst a site visit has been made, an internal inspection of

the building has not been achieved as the keys are apparently unavailable. However, your officers are aware from previous visits by Building Control that the internal layout differs from that previously approved.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.6 The site is located outside any defined Built Up Area, within the countryside

between Horsham and Rusper. The site is approximately 2.3 km from the centre of Rusper and approximately 7.2 km from central Horsham.

1.7 Baldhorns Park itself is in separate ownership and consists of a main house and a keeper’s cottage, with the application site forming part of a collection of agricultural buildings and surrounding grounds. The application site itself can be accessed through a gated entrance from a vehicular spur off of the main access road leading from Wimland Road. The buildings consist of utilitarian structures including a large Atcost structure with concrete posts and corrugated cladding. The area between the Atcost Structure and the application premises is grassed over. There is a parking area adjacent to the Atcost building that is associated with the commercial use of the premises. A rough concrete surface separates the utilitarian structures on site which appear to be used in part for storage of garden paraphernalia (tables and chairs) and in part for agricultural storage purposes. A pond, the subject of a recent permission, together with a separate pond are located to the south of the building.

1.8 The site is accessed via a long drive which joins Wimland Road on a sharp bend

and also serves the farm buildings, Baldhorns Park and Keeper’s Cottage. 2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

PPS1, PPS3, PPS4, PPS7 and PPG13. RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.2 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following

policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP5, CP11, CP13, CP15 and CP19.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3.

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Documents 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC2, DC3, DC9, DC24, DC40.

2.4 South East Plan 2007:

CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment CC1 Sustainable Development CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 The application site is subject to a lengthy planning history, the following are considered relevant to the current planning application:

2.6 In 2007 planning permission was refused for the conversion of this building to a

mixed residential/commercial studio use and the demolition of an adjoining agricultural building ( following the overturn by the Committee of an officer recommendation for approval) (DC/07/1283) The application was refused on the following grounds:

‘The creation of a new residential unit is considered inappropriate in this isolated, unsustainable, countryside location. As such the proposal is contrary to the sustainable development aims set out in PPS 7, policies LOC2 and DEV4 of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016, policies CP15 and CP19 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DC1, DC24 and DC40 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies.’

2.7 Subsequently planning permission was granted for the use of the building as a

commercial studio and demolition of adjoining agricultural building (DC/08/0245).

2.8 Permission was then granted for alterations windows and doors to the approved commercial conversion (DC/08/2191).

2.9 In 2009 permission was granted for the retention of patio, decking and steps ancillary to the ‘studio’ building (DC/09/1350).

2.10 Permission was granted for the retention of a pond and earth bank adjacent to the building in 2010 (DC/10/1351).

3 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Public Health and Licensing Department – No objection in principle. Refers to the original comments made in respect of DC/07/1283, regarding land

contamination issues and suggests previous conditions should be re imposed if permission is granted.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.2 Rusper Parish Council – Object

This small scale development is outside the built up boundary and is out of keeping with the rural location and previously refused under application number DC/07/1283. There has been no change to the proposal and with the applicant not living full time in the UK the Parish council’s previous objections still applies.

Their previous comments on DC/07/1283 at the time were

‘Strong objections. This proposal would involve the conversion of a building that is not of historical or aesthetic value to the area. It would involve a development within the strategic gap and outside of the boundary of the village.

As such it would be in contradiction to policy CP5 of HDC LDF Core Strategy that restricts development in Category 2 settlements to small-scale developments within the built up boundary of the village.’

3.3 Environment Agency – No comments. 3.4 Southern Water – No objections subject to conditions and note to applicant. 3.5 West Sussex County Council:

Highways West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no. DC/1283/07 to which no objections were raised to the conversion of redundant agricultural building to mixed residential / commercial studio and demolition of adjoining agricultural building.

In terms of vehicular movements, the proposal is unlikely to result in a material increase in traffic movements over what currently exists therefore it is not expected to have a detrimental impact. Providing the proposed car parking does not exceed the WSCC Maximum Standards, no highway concerns would be raised.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.6 Neighbour Notifications – 3 letters of objection and 4 letters of support have been

received, the comments and reasons for objection are noted as follows: Objections

Previous residential restrictive condition imposed by DC/07/1283. Located within an unsustainable area, within isolated countryside area. History of unauthorised planning uses on site requiring Council’s intervention. 2 letters of support submitted from people who have a business interest in the

application succeeding, therefore not independent.

Support Beneficial to have a regular resident in property, and to the property and

grounds and its occupation would benefit the wildlife and local environment.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5.

Major contributor to the local community. Work ideally suited to the West Sussex countryside, more effective if lived on

site. Currently has to commute to site to run business, therefore would reduce

number of journeys to and from site. Uses local factories and local people to produce and install work, therefore

provides employment locally.





6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the

principle of the conversion to mixed use with a residential component in this location and sustainability issues, the effect of the development on the visual amenities and rural character of the area and the relationship between the proposed use and the agricultural activity at the site.

6.2 With regards to the principle of the proposed conversion, the proposal by its

live/work nature raises several issues. Government Advice contained within PPS7 states that ‘The Government's policy is to support the re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside where this would meet sustainable development objectives. Re-use for economic development purposes will usually be preferable, but residential conversions may be more appropriate in some locations, and for some types of building. Planning authorities should therefore set out in LDDs their policy criteria for permitting the conversion and re-use of buildings in the countryside for economic, residential and any other purposes, including mixed uses’. Mixed use development is also generally encouraged in PPS1 although the importance of spatial planning and focusing new development in sustainable locations is also emphasised. PPS4 also encourages LPAs to approve the conversion and reuse of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside for economic development.

6.3 Local Development Framework Policy DC24 in respect of the conversion of

agricultural and rural buildings to Industrial, business and residential uses, sets out the relevant policy considerations, noting that proposals for business and commercial uses will be considered favourably over residential in the first instance, and states the following criteria:

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6.

6.4 Outside the defined built up areas, conversion of agricultural forestry or rural

buildings for business, commercial or residential development will be permitted where; (a) the building is suitably located in that it is not in an isolated position in relation to infrastructure, amenities and services;

6.5 The site is located in the countryside approximately 2.3km from the centre of Rusper (by road) which is identified within the LDF Core Strategy as a Category 2 settlement. The site is approximately 7.2km from the built up area boundary of Horsham. The site is accessed by relatively narrow, unlit, undulating and winding country lanes without pavements and is not served by public transport.

6.6 Thus it is considered that the site is located in an unsustainable location. It is

therefore necessary to consider the proposed use in terms of likely trip generation and movement patterns associated with the proposed mixed use and the impact on sustainable development objectives of national, strategic and local policy.

6.7 The proposal includes a residential element comprising a two bedroom dwelling of

approximately 110.7sqm internal floor space. The occupants would be reliant on the private motor car in relation to facilities such as shopping, education and entertainment. The workshop would, however be linked to the residential use so that employment would be provided on site.

6.8 Vehicular movements generated by the commercial use of the site include those

made by staff, deliveries of materials, no customers directly visit the site. Products are generally ordered on the internet and the applicant also exhibits products at shows.

6.9 Since the grant of planning permission for commercial use of the premises, the applicant advises that the business has expanded and that she now employs other members of her family. The applicant, her husband and daughter currently live off site and commute either as a family or separately to site depending on business commitments. The applicant states that ‘by living on site they would significantly reduce the number of car journey to and from the premises by an average of 10 movements a day simply because they would not have to travel to and from the site from their home that is remote from the premises’.

6.10 The applicant has drawn attention to an appeal decision to allow a live/work unit at

‘The Orchards’ Mannings Heath. The appellant used a similar sustainability argument based on traffic generation and reduction of journeys as a result of the live /work unit. In this case, the Inspector allowed the appeal. It is however noted that the circumstances in this case were different in that the premises were used for office purposes and as such employed a greater number of people on site. Therefore it was deemed by the Inspector in that case that an alternative live/work unit could result in a significant reduction in the number of traffic movements to and from the site.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7.

6.11 With regard to the current application, the authorised use for commercial purposes was granted at a time when the only employee and occupier was the applicant. The applicant states that the company has since grown and now employs her husband and daughter for most of the time and her son and daughter-in-law occasionally. In light of the above it is recognised that the traffic movements associated with an element of residential use on the site may not increase as much as would normally be associated with a residential use in such a location, due to a reduction in vehicle journeys made by staff to and from the site in connection with their employment, and which would be inline with the aims of PPG13. However this must be balanced against additional ‘private’ traffic movements from the site that would not occur if staff were not residing on the site and as it is unlikely all the employees referred to would live in the accommodation proposed.

6.12 On balance, your officers consider that whilst the proposal does raise issues in relation to sustainability, given the mixed nature of the use, the restricted size of the residential accommodation proposed and the level of activity and vehicular movements likely to be generated by the use, sustainability issues in this case are not in themselves considered to be determinative.

6.13 However given that this assessment is based on an assessment of the applicants

proposed operations on the site and that a more intensive use of the site may not be acceptable in terms of sustainability, conditions are recommended in relation to the specific use of the building. In such circumstances alternative uses would then require specific planning permission.

6.14 (b) The building is of a 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.

The use is proposed to be contained within the existing building.

The building has recently been converted to commercial use and is considered structurally sound and would not require reconstruction for the proposed mixed use. With regard to the residential element of the use the building is not considered to be of any particular architectural or historic merit, but is not in itself considered to necessarily preclude a ‘live work’ unit in such a building.

6.15 The proposal relates to the use of the existing building with permission for commercial use, which has a floor area 203sqm. The planning permission granted under DC/08/0245 has a condition precluding the building from being used for residential purposes. The current application in addition to the change of use, also includes some internal and external alterations to the building. The plans show the removal of one large window on the western elevation which currently serves the bay that would form the new living room area. The insertion of a flue to the western slope of the roof profile is also shown. No other external alterations are proposed. Internal alterations are indicated showing a new partition wall separating the living accommodation from the commercial workspace. These alterations are considered to be acceptable.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 8.

6.16 (c) The buildings are proved to have been in use for a period of 10 years or more, and are no longer essential to the running of agricultural or forestry uses;

The building appears to meet these requirements.

6.17 (d) The proposed use will maintain or enhance the architectural character of the buildings and the character of their settings;

The building is a utilitarian structure formerly a milking parlor. It is not of particular architectural/historic character and external alterations including the cladding of the brick walls with weathered oak has been carried out in connection with the conversion to commercial use.

6.18 The current scheme proposes some further minor alterations to the building, including the removal of one window and the addition of a flue in the roof slope. It is not considered that these alterations would result in any material adverse impact upon the character or appearance of the building.

6.19 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;

The commercial element of the proposed live /work unit is already in operation it

has been shown that it can be accommodated within the building. The business operation is already conditioned to restrict customers from visiting the site and such a condition would be re-imposed should permission for the live/work unit be granted. No significant on site parking would be required, two car parking spaces are shown accommodated between the existing buildings to reduce its wider impact on the countryside.

6.20 The residential curtilage associated with the domestic element of the conversion

would primarily be located between retained buildings and with appropriate boundary treatments would have an acceptable appearance and retain the existing agricultural setting of the farm complex.

6.21 In terms of the relationship of the uses with the adjoining agricultural buildings, as

the agricultural buildings are in the applicants ownership and a condition to ensure that the buildings are not used for livestock purposes should be imposed. It has previously been ascertained that there would be no need for other livestock buildings on the holding.

Other issues

6.22 The principle of the use of the property for commercial purposes has already been established; however, the current application would effectively result in the loss of two bays of the commercial use, which were shown on the approved plans for the

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 9.

commercial use (DC/08/0245) to be used for storage and for associated facilities of wc, kitchen/rest room and office.

6.23 The plans as originally submitted for the refused mixed commercial/residential proposal (DC/07/1283) showed two bays as a workshop and three bays as residential. The plans were subsequently amended to three bays for a workroom and two bays for living accommodation, and the applicant gave the justification that ‘I need a large space to make my prototypes’ and ‘My sculptures tend to be quite large which is why I need such a large workshop area’.

6.24 It is now proposed that three fifths of the building would be in residential use, with a workroom in the remaining two fifths of the building – in effect a return to the original requested layout for the mixed use. Further information has been requested from the agent in respect of the justification for the reduction in the size of the workshop space sought and he has advised that: ‘..having dealt with the original mixed-use conversion proposed under DC/07/1283 and subsequently DC/08/0245 for commercial use as well as this latest application, I am well versed in the reasons for the various splits between commercial and residential.

As you are aware, DC/07/1283 proposed mixed use with the residential element taking up about 2/5 of the floor space with the current scheme taking up about 3/5. The explanation for this is that at the time DC/07/1283 was being considered the applicant was going through a divorce and anticipated primarily single person occupation of the residential element. The amount of residential floor space was all that was needed and the commercial area utilised what would be left rather than reflecting the perceived need for floor space for that use. That application was recommended for approval but rejected by committee for reasons that I refer to in my current application.’

The subsequent application for commercial use (DC/08/0245) was submitted simply on the basis of making use of the whole building rather than a part of it. There was no ‘need’ test in policy for the amount of commercial floor space to be created because policy concentrates on other matters such as the structure and traffic flows etc, the latter of which considered what would arise from use of the whole building.

Since the DC/07/1283 application was considered the applicant has now re-married and now employs, primarily on an administrative and management basis, other family members in the business but she remains the artist. Policy continues to remain silent on any ‘need’ test relative to the amount of floor space required for particular purposes. However, I think it is inevitable that parts of the residential area, such as the sitting room, will be used in connection with the commercial element, such as for staff meetings and administrative duties etc, particularly as I suspect an approval will be conditioned to require this building to be occupied as a single entity with the respective uses ancillary to each other.

For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that the remaining commercial area is adequate for these purposes.’

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 10.

6.25 The applicant wishes to establish a residential base from which to live and work from the site. Your officers have made requests to both the applicant and their agent requesting access inside the application premises in order to clarify how the premises are currently being used, however to date this has not been possible as the keys are apparently unavailable. On balance however, whilst it is acknowledged this is a finely balanced case, it is concluded that a case for approval can be made having regard to the circumstances outlined above.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that the application be permitted subject to the following

conditions: 1. A2 Full Permission

2. The agricultural buildings annotated ‘buildings to be used for agricultural storage no livestock use’ on drawing number 1238.1/01A shall not be used other than for agricultural storage and shall not be used for the accommodation of livestock.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the residential

accommodation hereby permitted and the adjacent agricultural uses and in accordance with The Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007 policy CP3.

3. No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written

approval of the Local Planning Authority on an application in that behalf. Any that is installed with the permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenity of the locality and in accordance with policies DC1 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

4. The live/work unit hereby permitted shall not be subdivided and the

occupation of the residential accommodation shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed in the business occupying the linked workspace within the unit, or a widow or widower of such a person or any resident dependents.

Reason: To accord with the terms of the application, to ensure the

sustainability of the mixed use, to ensure a satisfactory relationship between uses and in accordance with Horsham District Local Development Framework - Core Strategy 2007 policy CP19 and the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 policy DC9.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 11.

5. The residential use hereby permitted shall at no time occupy more than 60% of the floorspace of the building to be converted.

Reason: To ensure the correct balance between the live/work accommodation in the interests of sustainability and in accordance with policy DC24 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

6. E3 Fencing 7. G3 Parking, Turning and Access

Delete…’(or in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority)’…

8. G5 Recycling 9. No raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing

materials or waste shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the workshop area unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties and in accordance with policy DC1 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

10. V5 No Extensions

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties and in accordance with policy DC! And DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11. The work room element hereby approved shall be used for the design and

construction of prototypes in association with the production of garden sculptures and for no other purpose including any other purpose in any class B1 in the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

Reason: Changes of use as permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 are not considered appropriate in this case under policy DC24 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

12. The premises shall not be open to retail customers/potential customers.

Reason: To control the levels of activity at the site in the interests of the character and amenities of the countryside and to prevent unsustainable travel patterns in accordance with policy CP19 of the Core Strategy 2007 and DC24 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 12.

13. No development approved by this planning permission shall be commenced

until:

a) A desktop study has been carried out which shall include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. And using this information a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors has been produced.

b) A site investigation has been designed for the site using the

information obtained from the desktop study and any diagrammatical representations (Conceptual Model). This should be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) prior to that investigation being carried out on the site. The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable:

a risk assessment to be undertaken relating to groundwater and

surface waters associated on and off the site that may be affected, and

refinement of the Conceptual Model, and the development of a Method Statement detailing the remediation

requirements.

c) The site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with details approved by the LPA and a risk assessment has been undertaken.

A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements, including measures to minimise the impact on ground and surface waters, using the information obtained from the Site Investigation has been submitted to the LPA. This will need to be approved in writing by the LPA prior to that remediation being carried out on the site.

Development of the site will be carried out in accordance with the approved

Method Statement.

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 LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the LPA for, an addendum to the Method Statement. This addendum to the Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Upon completion of the remediation detailed in the Method Statement a

report shall be submitted to the LPA that provides verification that the required works regarding contamination have been carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement(s). Post remediation sampling and monitoring results shall be included in the report to demonstrate that the

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 13.

required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

Reason: To ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment during and following the development works and in accordance with policy CP2 of the Core Strategy 2007.

14. L1 Hard and soft Landscaping 15. L2 Protection of Trees and Landscape Features 16. M4 Matching Materials

17. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved details of the

proposed sustainable construction methods incorporating sustainable construction techniques shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter 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).

4. REASONS

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring

occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

IECO1 The proposal would make a positive contribution to the local economy and local job opportunities.

ICTN1 The proposal would not be obtrusive in the landscape or harmful to the visual

quality of the area.

Background Papers: DC/10/2637 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1.

Contact: David Taylor Extension: 5166

abcd




DEVELOPMENT: Revised entrance including curved screen walls and gates in lieu of previously approved entrance and drive under DC/10/0652

SITE: Highlands, Hayes Lane, Slinfold



APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs P Wyatt REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Applicant request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The application seeks permission for a revision to the entrance of the property as

approved under DC/10/0652 to include curved screen walls, gates and floodlit plaques. The previous entrance approved permitted a typical rural access gate and followed extensive discussions and negotiations as part of this previous application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.2 Highlands is located on the western side of Hayes Lane. There are two dwellings

on the site, ‘Highlands’ and ‘Highlands Lodge’ which is located to the west of the recently approved (DC/10/0652) entrance/access to the site. Hayes Lane is a typical rural countryside lane which is characterised by hedges running along the verge of the highway. The site lies outside any defined built up area boundary and is therefore in the countryside when applying planning policy.


APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 PPS1, PPS7, PPG13 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1,

CP2 and CP3. 2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document 2007 are DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40. 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan 2001-2016 are C4, CC1, CC3, CC4,

and CC6. PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 DC/08/1331 Application withdrawn for construction of entrance, brick pillars and

ornate wrought iron gates and new access drive, close boarded fencing to boundary and erection of gardeners store/pumphouse on 11/08/2008

DC/08/2393 Application withdrawn for construction of entrance from Hayes Lane, construction of new access drive within existing property, timber gate in hedging and construction of gardeners store/pump house on 19/12/2008

DC/08/2631 Planning Permission refused for change of use of part of existing

paddock to incorporate into the residential curtilage and construction of new entrance from Hayes Lane and provision of new timber entrance gates in hedging and drive and construction of a gardeners store/pump house on 05/03/2009

DC/09/1103 Planning Permission refused for a new entrance drive, timber gate in hedging, stable and pump building, removal of existing pump building, closure of existing entrance and formation of 2 paddocks on 12/10/2009 DC/10/0652 Planning permission permitted for a new entrance drive, timber gate in hedging, stable and pump building, closure of existing entrance and formation of a paddock on 30/06/2010 DC/10/2414 Application withdrawn for revised entrance, curved screen walls, close boarded timber gates, brick piers and ornate lions in lieu of previously approved entrance under DC/10/0652 on 13/01/2011

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 No internal consultations have been received.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

Slinfold Parish Council – No objection

3.2 West Sussex County Council Highways – “No objection would be raised in

principle. It appears that the wall and gate do not adversely affect visibility at the point of access onto Hayes Lane. Previously WSCC required 120 metre visibility splays at the point of access onto Hayes Lane these would still need to be provided” PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 No public consultation responses have been received. 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS




6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are the principle of

development and:

a) the impact on the rural character of the area and its landscape setting; b) the impact on visual amenity; c) highway safety. 6.2 The application seeks permission for revised entrance details including curved

screen walls and gates in lieu of previously approved DC/10/0652. This was approval for a new entrance drive, stable and pump building, removal of existing pump building, closure of existing entrance and formation of a paddock. An unimposing, typical rural gate with hedging adjoining was proposed as part of the scheme. It was considered that this style of gate would have a limited visual impact on the character of the rural area. The access point has not changed, rather it is the boundary treatment/entrance details that are to be changed.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4.

6.3 The curved walls would each measure 6m in length either side of the access and the gate would be set back 5m from the roadside edge. The walls would measure 1.8m in height with 2.4m high brick piers and pier caps. The proposed close boarded timber gate would measure 5.7m in width and 1.8m in height. Two stone plaques (0.6m X 0.5m) are also proposed on either side of the curved walls which would be floodlit from the base of the wall.

6.4 The application site is situated outside of any built-up area boundary and as such is

within the countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies Document concerns countryside protection and enhancement, the main thrust of which is to protect and enhance the natural beauty and amenity of the District’s countryside for its own sake. Development should be of a scale appropriate to its location.

6.5 Policy DC9 requires development to be of a high quality of design, massing and

appearance. Extensive discussions have previously taken place regarding the appropriateness of the style of gate and entrance details to be provided at the site entrance as shown in the previous applications and most recently as part of the previous application DC/10/0652 which subsequently permitted a typical rural access gate. The revised proposal would provide a large set of close boarded gates, with stone walls, stone piers and floodlit plaques. The combination of these features have an urban appearance and are not in keeping with the rural locality, which is characterised by hedges adjacent to the verge of the highway. It is considered the gates, walls and associated works do not protect or enhance the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside location and represents a harsh and incongruous feature in the rural locality.

6.6 There is no objection to the principle of providing an appropriate access in this

location in either highway or visual terms as West Sussex County Council Highways Department have confirmed there are no highway objections to the proposal. It is considered that entrance features as previously approved under application DC/10/0652 would be more appropriate in this countryside location.

6.7 In conclusion, the principle of providing an entranceway at this point off Hayes Lane

is considered acceptable, as was considered under the previous planning application DC/10/0652 and the entrance point has not changed. Much discussion took place between the Local Planning Authority and the applicant regarding an appropriate entrance to be provided as part of this scheme, which resulted in the provision of a typical rural gate and associated soft landscaping. It is not considered the revised entrance, which would introduce a large set of gates, curved stone walls, stone piers and floodlit plaques are appropriate or respect the character of this sensitive countryside location. It is considered the proposal fails to accord with the policies of the Core Strategy, the General Development Control Policies Document and the South East Plan.

7. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse planning permission for the following reason:

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5.

The proposed entrance comprising stone walls, stone piers, floodlit plaques and vertical boarded gates due to their size, scale and appearance represents and unduly prominent and discordant feature causing material harm to the character and visual amenities of this rural area. Therefore the proposal is contrary to the aims of policies within the development plan, in particular, policy CP3 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document 2007 and policy DC1 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document 2007.

Background Papers: DC/11/0183 Contact Officer: David Taylor

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1.

Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515

abcd DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (North) Committee

BY:


DATE: 5th April, 2011

DEVELOPMENT:

Surgery to three oak trees.

SITE: WARD:

Land outside 1 The Gables, Southwater. Southwater.

APPLICATION:

DC/11/0186

APPLICANT:

West Sussex County Council.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by West Sussex County Council. RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent. 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the application. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application proposes surgery to three protected oak trees. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The trees are County Council owned specimens on the verge on the eastern side

of Shipley Road, closely adjacent to the property 1 The Gables. PLANNING HISTORY 1.3 The trees in question are individually protected by Tree Preservation Order number

23, confirmed on 14th October 1970. The application refers to trees T8, T7 and T6. 2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 As trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any

person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2.

Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 Members are advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication

TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000). 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Southwater Parish Council has stated an objection to this proposal, stating the

consideration that the trees “do not need trimming at the present time”. 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER Not applicable in this case. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The oak trees in question are a fairly dominant and prominent feature along Shipley

Road, and have high amenity value. Tree T1 (tree T8 of the TPO) is sited right on the corner of the road junction between Shipley Road and Mill Straight, and hence is particularly noticeable.

6.2 The works proposed under this application involve surgery to crown reduce the

trees by up to 30% as part of a management strategy to limit their size. This is on account of a claim upon the trees’ owners, West Sussex County Council, in regard to the alleged involvement of the trees in a subsidence event at 2 The Gables, the property to the east beyond number 1. No. 1 The Gables was underpinned in 1989, but No. 2 has not so far been dealt with in this way. No. 2 is a considerable distance from the trees (around 20m), but this is within the trees’ ‘Zone of Influence’ as defined under the NHBC guidelines, ‘Chapter 4.2 – Building near Trees’.

6.3 At the same time, it is also proposed to lightly crown lift each tree to the correct

statutory heights above the carriageway and footpath. 6.4 The crown raising works are extremely minor, and permissible as statutory works to

keep highways and footways clear. 6.5 The crown reduction works are much more extensive, and will clearly alter the look

of the trees in the landscape. However, the degree of reduction proposed meets the recommendations at BS 3998 'Recommendations for Tree Work' (2010) and each tree as it happens is fairly well suited, by form and structure, to such surgery. Tree T1, on the corner, was lopped many years ago and remains rather ill-shapen and the opportunity can be used to correct and improve this. Overall, it is not

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3.

considered that the works will harm the trees or result in an inappropriate amenity loss.

6.6 Southwater Parish Council is of the view that the works are not required at this

time, but this contention is not supported by any further detail. Given the size of the claim for liability already faced by the County Council on account of the alleged root actions of the trees upon the adjacent dwelling, the proposal seeks to minimise and control further growth, which if left unchecked could possibly result in further claims. The County Council’s management team should be applauded for seeking to take preventative action rather than taking perhaps the cheaper option of applying for consent to fell the trees outright. This would result in a profound loss of amenity to the locality.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions:

1. TR2 Time limit 2. TR3 Treeworks limits:

Undertake surgery works exactly as specified in schedule submitted with application.

3. TR4 Surgery standards INF7 Works limitations. INF8 Wildlife protection.

8. REASONS

ITRE1(b) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the trees or the character and amenities of the local area.

Background Papers: DC/11/0186 Contact Officer: Will Jones.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1.




BY:



DEVELOPMENT:

Surgery to one oak tree.

SITE: WARD:

Land north of 18 and 18a Comptons Lane, Horsham. Forest.

APPLICATION:

DC/11/0211

APPLICANT:




1.1 The application proposes surgery to a large protected oak tree. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The tree is a County Council owned specimen on the verge between Comptons

Lane and the attendant footpath to the south, to the north of the properties 18 and 18a Comptons Lane.

PLANNING HISTORY 1.3 The tree is individually protected by Tree Preservation Order number 1251,

confirmed on 10th May, 2005. 1.4 Works to crown reduce the tree on grounds of its involvement with an alleged

subsidence event at the adjacent property were permitted at the Development Control (North) Committee on 6th December 2005 (ref: DC/05/2388).

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 As a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any

person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.


TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000). 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Forest Neighbourhood Council has stated no objection to this proposal, though

queries the prudence of leaving the works until summer 2012 and notes that this would place the works within the bird nesting season.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS


5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER Not applicable in this case. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The oak tree in question is a very large and dominant and prominent feature in this

area of Comptons Lane, and is the finest tree in the area. It has very high amenity value.

6.2 The works proposed under this application involve surgery to crown reduce the tree

by up to 30% as part of a management strategy to limit its size. This is on account of a claim upon the trees’ owners, West Sussex County Council, in regard to the alleged involvement of the tree in a subsidence event at the adjacent property to the south. The dwelling is approximately 12.5m from the tree, well within the ‘Zone of Influence’ as defined under the NHBC guidelines, ‘Chapter 4.2 – Building near Trees’.

6.3 The tree was previously crown reduced over five years ago, but has made a good

recovery. It appears to remain in good health and condition. It also remains a large specimen, despite the previous works, and clearly retains a high water demand.

6.4 The crown reduction works are extensive, and will clearly alter the look of the tree

in the landscape, reducing its height. However, the degree of reduction proposed meets the recommendations at BS 3998 'Recommendations for Tree Work' (2010) despite the previous works and as it happens the tree remains fairly well

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3.

suited, by form and structure, to such surgery. Overall, it is not considered that the works will harm the tree or result in an inappropriate amenity loss.

6.5 Given the claim for liability already faced by the County Council on account of the

alleged root actions of this tree upon the adjacent dwelling, the proposal seeks to minimise and control further growth, which if left unchecked could possibly result in further claims. The County Council’s management team should be applauded for seeking to take preventative action rather than taking perhaps the cheaper option of applying for consent to fell the tree outright. This would result in a profound loss of amenity to the locality.

6.6 Taking account of the Neighbourhood Council’s comments in regard to the timing

and date of the works, it is not seen necessary to deviate from the use of a standard condition as used on all treework applications, that the works shall be carried out within one calendar year of the date of the consent. As the works shall be executed by contractors on behalf of the County Council, who will be aware of the restrictions which apply during the bird nesting season, it is not considered necessary or reasonable to restrict the timing of the works by condition.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS





8. REASONS

ITRE1(a) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the tree or the character and amenities of the local area.


APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1.




BY:



DEVELOPMENT:

Surgery to six oak trees.

SITE: WARD:

Land west of 1 – 8 Shipley Road, Southwater. Southwater.

APPLICATION:

DC/11/0214

APPLICANT:




1.1 The application proposes surgery to six protected oak trees. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The trees are the six County Council owned specimens of the seven running in a

line along the eastern side of Shipley Road, in the verge between the highway and the residential dwellings. One tree is not included in the application, as it is the sole specimen not owned by the County Council – it is on private land.

PLANNING HISTORY 1.3 The trees in question are individually protected by Tree Preservation Order number

1250, confirmed on 10th May 2005. The application refers to trees T1, T2, T3, T5, T6 and T7, T4 being the tree in private ownership.

1.4 An application to fell tree T1 on the grounds of its involvement with a subsidence

event at the adjacent property was refused on 9th December 2005 (ref: DC/05/2029).

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2.

1.5 An application for surgery works was submitted on 2nd July 2008 (ref: DC/08/1440).

The surgery was proposed to instigate a cyclical maintenance strategy to manage the sizes of the trees due to their alleged involvement with a subsidence event at the adjacent properties. Consent to crown reduce the trees by 30% was granted on 2nd September 2008 at the Development Control (North) Committee.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 As trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any

person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.


TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000). 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Southwater Parish Council has stated no objection to this proposal. 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS


5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER Not applicable in this case. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The oak trees in question are a dominant and prominent feature along Shipley

Road, and have high amenity value. Previous crown reduction works have lessened their size, but not their overall shape or landscape amenity merit. Moreover, each specimen appears to have made a reasonably strong recovery from the works.

6.2 The works proposed under this application involve the trimming of the new growth

back to the previous points of reduction dating from 2008. Hence the actual amount of branch removal will be very small, and this will not result in any harm or amenity loss.

6.3 Given the number of large claims for liability already faced by the County Council

on account of the alleged root actions of the trees upon the adjacent dwellings, the proposal seeks to minimise and control further growth, which if left unchecked could possibly result in further claims. The County Council’s management team

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3.

should be applauded for seeking to take preventative action rather than taking perhaps the cheaper option of applying for consent to fell the trees outright. This would result in a profound loss of amenity to the locality.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS





8. REASONS

ITRE1(b) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the trees or the character and amenities of the local area.
