development control (south) committee

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

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation

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

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 19TH JUNE 2012 AT 2.00 P.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: Roger Arthur

Adam Breacher Jonathan Chowen Philip Circus George Cockman David Coldwell Ray Dawe Brian Donnelly Andrew Dunlop Jim Goddard Ian Howard

David Jenkins Liz Kitchen Gordon Lindsay Chris Mason Sheila Matthews Brian O’Connell Roger Paterson Sue Rogers Kate Rowbottom Jim Sanson

Tom Crowley

Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Election of Chairman

2. Appointment of Vice-Chairman

3. Apologies for absence

4. To approve the time of meetings of the Committee for the ensuing year

5. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15th May 2012 (attached)

6. 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.

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

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

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

Item No.

Ward Reference Number

Site

A1 Steyning DC/12/0940 Memorial Playing Fields Charlton Street Steyning

A2 Bramber, Upper

Beeding and Woodmancote

DC/12/0862 Noordwyjk Pound Lane Upper Beeding

A3 Chantry DC/11/2460

& DC/12/0988

Castle Farm Estate The Hollow Washington

A4 Chanctonbury DC/11/2648 Land South East of Martins Farm London Road

Ashington A5 Cowfold,Shermanbury

and West Grinstead DC/12/0926 Glebe House Steyning Road West Grinstead

A6 Billingshurst and

Shipley DC/12/0752 Lamina Dielectrics Limited Daux Road Industrial

Estate Daux Road Billingshurst A7 Billingshurst and

Shipley DC/12/0790 Thornhill Works Billingshurst Road Coolham

A8 Cowfold,Shermanbury

and West Grinstead DC/12/0742 Homelands Farm Stables Bines Road Partridge

Green A9 Chantry DC/12/0133 Barn Rackham Street Rackham A10 Chanctonbury DC/12/0945 Recreation Ground Mill Road West Chiltington A11 Cowfold,Shermanbury

and West Grinstead DC/12/0599 Sake Ride Farm Wineham Lane Wineham

9. 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

DCS120515

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 15TH MAY 2012

Present: Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman), Sheila Matthews (Vice-

Chairman), Roger Arthur, Adam Breacher, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, George Cockman, David Coldwell, Ray Dawe, Brian Donnelly, Andrew Dunlop, Jim Goddard, Ian Howard, Liz Kitchen, Gordon Lindsay, Chris Mason, Brian O’Connell, Sue Rogers, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson

Apologies: Councillors: Roger Paterson

DCS/179 MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17th April 2012 were

approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. DCS/180 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member

Item Nature of Interest

Councillor David Jenkins

DC/10/1457 Personal & prejudicial – he lived near the application site

Councillor George Cockman

DC/12/0091 Personal– he knew an objector

Councillor Adam Breacher

DC/12/0091 Personal -

Councillor Roger Arthur

DC/12/0611 Personal & prejudicial – he was a close neighbour and an objector to the application

DCS/181 ANNOUNCEMENTS Rod Brown, the Head of Planning & Environmental Services had declared an

interest in planning application DC/11/1962 as he was a School Governor at St Peters School Henfield, which was interested in obtaining s106 funding from this development should permission be granted. He confirmed that he had and would take no part in the processing or determination of the application

DCS/182 DECISIONS ON LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES

DC/12/0638 Barnfield House, Sincox Lane, Shipley - for the occupation of Barnfield House , formerly Falconers Farm, in non- compliance with an agricultural occupancy condition attached to SP/5/91.

Granted

DC/12/0382 Stable Cottage, Hole Street Barn, Hole Street, Wiston - for the use of Stable Cottage as a unit of independent accommodation

Granted

Development Control (South) Committee 15th May 2012

2

DCS/182 Decisions on Lawful Development Certificates (cont.)

DC/12/0383 Hole Street Barn Cottage, Hole Street, Wiston - for the use of Hole Street Barn Cottage as a unit of independent accommodation

Granted

DC/12/0686 New Barn Farm, Bolney Road, Cowfold - for the residential occupation of the property in non compliance with an agricultural occupancy condition attached to CF/22/97

Granted

DCS/183 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1962 - DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR

UP TO 102 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE AND ACCESS (OUTLINE PERMISSION)

SITE: LAND EAST OF MANOR CLOSE HENFIELD APPLICANT: WELBECK STRATEGIC LAND LLP

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application had been considered at the last meeting of the Committee (DCS/173 (17.4.12) refers), when it had been resolved to defer consideration of the application to enable a meeting with West Sussex County Council to discuss their consultation responses in respect of the application. Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal. Discussions had now taken place with the Head of Capital & Asset Management at the County Council, who had confirmed that his objection had been based on the grounds of an adjoining landowner and that development of the site as currently proposed would completely block access to land in County Council ownership, effectively sterilising it. He had confirmed that the County Council would wish to bring forward the land in its ownership to the north of the proposed development as part of a comprehensive development of the east side of Henfield and considered this should be the preferred route for any development of this area. This suggestion, that a more comprehensive form of development should be considered for land to the east of Henfield, had been put to the applicant who had indicated that they were not prepared to withdraw the appeal and progress the promotion of the site together with the County Council's land as a strategic residential allocation.

The County Surveyor had also been re-consulted on the application and he had confirmed that there was no objection to the proposed development on highway safety grounds. Two members of the public and a representative of the Parish Council addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal.


3

DCS/183 Planning Application: DC/11/1962 (cont.) In the light of the additional information obtained from the County Council, Members considered that there was no basis on highway safety or other grounds on which to contest the appeal.

RESOLVED

(i) That the appeal be not contested. (ii) That, had the Committee been in a position to

determine the application, it would have resolved to grant the application subject to: - the completion of a planning agreement to secure

financial contributions and the provision of three fire hydrants; and

- the conditions contained in the report submitted to the Committee on 17th April 2012.

DCS/184 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/1457 - OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 78 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ASSOCIATED GROUND PREPARATION WORKS, HIGHWAYS, ACCESS AND THE FIRST PHASE OF THE SANDGATE COUNTRY PARK

SITE: RMC ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD WORKSHOPS STORRINGTON ROAD WASHINGTON

APPLICANT: CEMEX (Councillor David Jenkins declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this

application as he lived near the application site. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of the item.

Councillor Sheila Matthews, the Vice-Chairman took the Chair for the consideration of this item.)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of up to 78 residential units, associated ground preparation works, highways, access and the first phase of the Sandgate Country Park. Consent was sought for the means of access to the site with all other matters reserved for future determination. The application had been amended during the course of its consideration, with the main revisions being a reduction in the number of dwellings proposed from up to 100 units to up to 78 units and the re-location of the proposed access further to the west of the existing access to the site. The applicant had stated that the proposal had been submitted under the terms of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD, which sought to deliver small housing sites capable of delivering housing in the short term and to maintain the Council’s rolling five year housing land supply. Details of additional supporting information submitted by the applicant since the publication of the agenda were reported.


4

DCS/184 Planning Application: DC/10/1457 (cont.) The application site was located outside any built-up area as currently defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework and to the west of the village of Washington on the northern side of the A283. Clayton Boarding Kennels was located adjacent to the existing vehicular access to the site and the South Downs National Park boundary was on the southern side of the A283. The majority of the surrounding area was characterised by sporadic residential development and, to the north and north-west of the site, was residential development at Heath Common which was characterised by large detached dwellings set in large plots. To the east of the site was an area of National Trust land in agricultural use and beyond that a large area of public open space known as Warren Hill. The site had previously been excavated for sand and had been partially filled. The southern part of the site contained engineering workshops with associated hard standing and ancillary office buildings. This area was enclosed on two sides by very steep slopes which were subject to slippage. The northern part of the site had been restored and contained two ponds which had been flooded as part of the site restoration works. National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Delivering Sustainable Development - Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40; and policies SP1, CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5, H1 and H3 of the South East Plan were relevant to the determination of this application, together with the guidance contained within the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD and the Planning Obligations SPD. The site had a long planning history dating from the 1950s, relating to: applications for workshops, maintenance buildings and ancillary offices; the deposit of excavated material and builders’ rubble; and the carrying out of remedial earthworks in order to stabilize land on the eastern side of the site. The comments of the Head of Strategic Planning & Performance, the Head of Public Health & Licensing, the Head of Economic Development & Leisure, the Head of Corporate Support Services, the Building Control Manager, the Housing Strategy & Development Manager, Sussex Police, the Environment Agency and Natural England were noted. The Design & Conservation Officer, the Council’s Landscape Architect, the County Surveyor, CPRE Horsham & Crawley District Branch, the South Downs Society, the South Downs National Park Authority, the National Trust, Heath Common Residents Association and Thakeham Village Action objected to the application. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer raised no objection to the proposal. Southern Water and the County Ecologist raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. Both Washington and Storrington & Sullington Parish Councils strongly objected to the proposal and their comments were noted. 115 letters of objection two of support and one of


5

DCS/184 Planning Application: DC/10/1457 (cont.) no objection had been received. Three members of the public and a representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal. The applicant’s agent and two representatives of the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application. It was considered that the principal issues in the determination of this application were: whether the proposal was acceptable in principle, having regard to Government and development plan policy; highway safety; and the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.

The Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD set out a number of criteria against which development proposals would be assessed, details of which were submitted. Whilst, potentially, the application site could fall within the remit of the SPD, it would be necessary to meet the requirements of all the criteria for a favourable recommendation to be given for the erection of up to 78 dwellings on a site outside the built-up area. It was noted that, from a strategic perspective, there was no objection in principle to the development of the site, subject to the completion of an appropriate planning agreement. However, the indicative housing mix was not considered acceptable insofar as it did not meet the target for the provision of smaller (1 & 2 bedroom) units. It was also noted that normal development management criteria had to be fulfilled to ensure that any proposed development complied with the criteria set out in the SPD. In this respect, the County Surveyor had objected to the proposal on the grounds of highway safety and the unsustainable location of the site. A number of departures from highway design standards had been identified on the originally submitted design and the submission of an amended plan re-positioning the proposed site access to the west of its current location had failed to remedy this situation. It was also considered that the site was removed from Storrington and had limited access to services. Any future residents of the site would be dependent upon travelling for employment purposes and to access a wider range of services and facilities. Whilst there were footways linking the site to Storrington along the A283, given the nature of the footpath and speed of traffic on the adjacent carriageway this route was unlikely to be attractive to any future residents. Whilst the application included proposals for pedestrian and cyclist access links via a proposed footpath to the north-west of the site, it was considered that they were unlikely to provide permanent alternatives to the private motor car as they would not be lit nor would they be overlooked and would primarily serve as rural leisure routes only. Concern was also expressed regarding the appropriateness of the site for housing, given its separation from the urban area of Storrington; the lack of suitable connections to the built up area and the central areas of Storrington; and the provision of an urban estate in a countryside location which would not relate to the surrounding area’s development pattern and character.


6

DCS/184 Planning Application: DC/10/1457 (cont.) It was considered that the proposed access would result in an extensive loss of a broad highway verge and the introduction of lighting, which would damage the rural character of the area and the adjoining National Park. The loss of trees and woodland necessitated by the cut and fill works and the opening up of the site from some viewpoints would also have significant adverse visual impacts. Whilst the creation of a Country Park had been a long-term aspiration of the Council and remained so, it was considered that it would be unwise at this time to commit the Council to any proposal for which no budget existed, a business case was lacking and minimal detail had been provided. With regard to air quality, although a Low Emissions Assessment had been submitted, the measures proposed were considered to be inadequate and unclear. Members considered that, whilst there was policy support for the proposal, this was outweighed by the objections raised on detailed issues relating to General Development Control Policies and the proposal was therefore considered unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/10/1457 be refused for the following reasons: 01 The proposed development is located in the

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

02 The proposed development is unacceptable as there

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


7

DCS/184 Planning Application: DC/10/1457 (cont.) 03 The proposed development, if permitted, would

involve the construction of a new vehicular access onto A283 Storrington Road where the number of departures from highway design standards required to build the junction would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies and Criteria 17 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

04 The proposed development does not adequately

provide off-site facilities for pedestrians / cyclists / people with disabilities (those confined to a wheelchair or others with mobility difficulties) to link with existing provision and local services. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies and Criteria 17 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

05 The proposal is remote from local service centre

provision conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the reliance on the private car as represented in national and local policy. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP5 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy, Policy DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies and Criteria 11 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

06 The proposed development is considered

unacceptable by virtue of the proposed means of access and the loss of trees and woodland, as it would be likely to have significant adverse visual and landscape character impacts on the surrounding area, including the adjoining South Downs National Park. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP1 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy, Policy DC1 & DC2 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies and Criteria 6 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.


8

DCS/184 Planning Application: DC/10/1457 (cont.) 07 The proposed development would result in a small,

isolated residential enclave which would not relate well to the development pattern and character of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP1 & CP3 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy, Policy DC1 & DC2 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies and Criteria 6 & 7 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

DCS/185 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1924 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING

PROPERTY CALLUNA AND THE ERECTION OF SEVEN DWELLINGS CONSISTING OF TWO PAIRS OF SEMI DETACHED DWELLINGS, AND THREE DETACHED DWELLINGS

SITE: CALLUNA, NYETIMBER LANE, WEST CHILTINGTON APPLICANT: MR MICHAEL STEPHENS

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing property and the erection of seven dwellings. The application had been amended during the course of its determination, having originally proposed eight dwellings. The layout would consist of two x 2 pairs of semi-detached dwellings at the front of the site and three detached dwellings to the rear. The application attempted to meet an identified housing need in West Chiltington, which was a Category 2 settlement as defined by policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework, and had therefore been the subject of detailed negotiation, in which the Parish Council had been fully involved. The application site was located within the built-up area as defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework, to the western side of Nyetimber Lane, almost opposite its junction with Nyetimber Copse. The character of the properties within the immediate vicinity was mixed in design and style, with a predominance of single storey bungalows, interspersed with two storey dwellings.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9, DC15 and DC40, together with the West Chiltington Village Design Statement, were relevant to the determination of this application. There was no relevant planning history in respect of this application. The comments of the Head of Strategic Planning & Performance, the Housing Development & Strategy Officer, the Design & Conservation Officer, West Sussex County Council were noted. Public Health & Licensing raised no


9

DCS/185 Planning Application: DC/11/1924 (cont.) objection. The Environment Agency and Southern Water raised no objections to the proposal. The Arboricultural Officer and West Chiltington Rural Preservation Society objected to the application. The Parish Council supported the application and their comments were noted. Four letters of support had been received. Thirty letters of objection, ten letters of objection in respect of additional information and a further ten letters of objection in respect of the most recent amended plans had been received. A representative of the Parish Council addressed the Committee in support of the application. It was considered that the main issues in the determination of the application were whether the proposal was acceptable in terms of its effect upon the visual character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring policies and if it complied with national policy and the policies of the Local Development Framework. It was noted that, under policy DC15 of the General Development Control Policies Document, planning permission would only be granted for proposals that retained the unique semi-rural character of the area of West Chiltington, presently created by low density development set in large plots. However, the housing need identified by the Parish Council in relation to this proposal was that a number of residents in West Chiltington had expressed a desire to downsize to smaller properties on reduced size plots, whilst remaining in the area. The application site was the largest in the immediate area, being surrounded by a number of smaller but still well sized residential plots, and some redevelopment of the site was therefore clearly achievable. There were, however, some constraints on the site, principally the amount of tree cover including preserved trees to the front of the site and a drop in site levels to the south. The current proposal would result in some impact upon the visual character of the area, although the screening to the site would limit this and there had been a number of instances in West Chiltington prior to the adoption of the Local Development Framework where a similar level of development had been considered acceptable. It was considered that there appeared to be a clear local need for smaller dwellings, as identified in the West Chiltington Parish Housing Needs Survey, and there was no policy objection in principle to the proposal, subject to the completion of a planning agreement tying the ownership of the properties to qualifying local residents. However, whilst both the Parish Council and the applicant were of the view that a marketing period to West Chiltington residents of three months would be adequate, Members considered that a marketing period of six months would be more appropriate, to ensure that sufficient opportunity was afforded to local


10

DCS/185 Planning Application: DC/11/1924 (cont.) residents to purchase the properties. Members also considered that, if permission were granted, any properties re-sold within five years of initial occupation should be subject to the same marketing period. The setting of a suitable marketing period was imperative, as the proposal would not be acceptable if it did not meet the provisions of Local Development Framework policies. In this respect, the shorter the time period of marketing to local residents the more likely it was that the dwellings could be purchased by someone not resident within the village and the proposal would be contrary to policy. Members considered that, whilst it was accepted that a local need for smaller dwellings had been identified, it was important that the initial marketing and resale of the properties should be restricted to qualifying local residents to ensure that the development was fully acceptable in planning policy terms. It was also considered that the outstanding issues in respect of the trees on the site, as noted by the Arboricultural Officer, needed to be addressed.

RESOLVED (i) That a planning agreement be entered into to ensure

that the proposed dwellings are marketed to residents of West Chiltington Parish for a minimum period of six months and any re-sales within five years of initial occupation are subject to the same period of marketing.

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

and the resolution of the outstanding issues in respect of the trees on the site, application DC/11/1924 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/186 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/2621 - DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING

HOUSE, BRACKLYN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 9 NEW DETACHED (4 X 2 BEDROOM AND 5 X 3 BEDROOM) SINGLE STOREY DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS SITE BRACKLYN HARBOROUGH HILL WEST CHILTINGTON APPLICANT: MR ANDREW DAVEY

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing two storey property on the site and the construction of nine detached bungalows (four x 2-bedroom and five x 3-bedroom) with integral garages. The development would be accessed via the existing drive from Harborough Hill.


11

DCS/186 Planning Application: DC/11/2621 (cont.)

The application site was located within the boundary of West Chiltington Common, which was a category 2 settlement as defined in the Horsham District Local Development Framework. The site was currently occupied by a two storey dwelling on the northern side of Harborough Hill and contained a number of trees protected by a Preservation Order, mainly grouped on the eastern boundary, to the front of the site and the south western corner.

The National Planning Policy Framework; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19; and policies DC9, DC15 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document, together with the West Chiltington Village Design Statement, were relevant to the determination of the application.

Relevant planning history included: WC/14/91 Erection of 4 bungalows and garages Granted DC/05/2802 9 dwellings and access (outline) Refused and

dismissed on appeal

DC/06/1331 Erection of 6 dwellings and access Withdrawn DC/06/2244 Erection of 6 dwellings and access Withdrawn DC/06/2902 Replacement of Bracklyn and the erection

of 6 new detached dwellings Refused and appeal withdrawn

Public Health & Licensing, the County Surveyor, the Environment Agency and Southern Water raised no objections to the application, subject to conditions. The County Archaeologist raised no objection to the application. The concerns of the Council’s Arboricultural Officer were noted. The comments of the Council’s Landscape Architect and the Environmental Management Team were noted. West Sussex County Council had requested a financial contribution towards service infrastructure, highways and public transport, if the application were approved. The Parish Council supported the proposal and one letter of objection had been received. It was considered that the main issues in the determination of this application were whether the proposal was acceptable in terms of its effect upon the visual character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring policies and if it complied with national policy and the policies of the Local Development Framework. It was noted that the application had been the subject of detailed negotiation, in which the Parish Council had been fully involved. West Chiltington was a Category 2 settlement as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy, which should accommodate only small-scale development or minor extensions that addressed specific local needs. Following the adoption of


12

DCS/186 Planning Application: DC/11/2621 (cont.) Policy CP5, the Parish Council had undertaken a Housing Needs Survey to help identify local need requirements in West Chiltington and they were now seeking a comprehensive solution within the village, comprising sites at Bracklyn, Calluna in Nyetimber Lane and a site near Steele’s Close. In terms of the physical appearance of the proposed development and its impact on the character of the area and neighbouring properties, the application site was the largest in the immediate area and was surrounded by a number of smaller residential plots, especially to the north east of the site. The site was constrained by a number of protected trees on the east, west and front boundary which defined the developable area of the site. It was therefore considered that, due to the size of the plot, an increase in the number of residential units on the site could be achieved without having an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. The design of the proposed single storey dwellings and the retention of the screening on the site would assist in maintaining the semi rural character of the locality, whilst meeting the needs identified by local residents for properties with smaller gardens. The current proposal sought to meet an identified local need through the provision of single storey bungalow accommodation, which had been acknowledged in the housing needs survey as being a desire of respondents to help maintain a sustainable community. If it was accepted that there was a need for the dwellings proposed, a mechanism to retain the properties to meet a local need would need to be placed on their sale so as to allow them to continue to meet the identified need of the local community. Any permission would therefore need to be subject to the completion of a planning agreement relating to the marketing of the properties. As the scheme was for more than five units and the settlement had a population of less than 3000, policy stated that permission would normally only be granted for schemes providing 100% affordable housing. However, the Parish Council had submitted a statement detailing their comprehensive approach to meeting housing needs, with the sites at Bracklyn and Calluna meeting the market housing requirements of the village and the Steele Close site providing affordable housing. Members considered that, whilst it was accepted that a local need had been identified, it was important that the initial marketing and resale of the properties should be restricted to qualifying local residents to ensure that the development was fully acceptable in planning policy terms. It was also considered that the outstanding issues in respect of the trees on the site, as noted by the Arboricultural Officer, needed to be addressed.


13


RESOLVED

(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to ensure that the proposed dwellings were marketed to residents of West Chiltington Parish for a minimum period of six months and any re-sales within five years of initial occupation are subject to the same period of marketing.


and the resolution of the outstanding issues in respect of the trees on the site, application DC/11/2621 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.


BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF 31 RETIREMENT APARTMENTS WITH COMMUNAL FACILITIES AND CAR PARKING

SITE: FOXMEAD MEADOWSIDE STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MCCARTHY AND STONE RETIREMENT LIFESTYLES PLC

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application had been considered by the Committee at its meeting in March 2012 (DCS/165 (20.3.12) refers), when it had been resolved to delegate the determination of the application to him, in consultation with local Members, following further investigation of financial contributions in respect of the Storrington Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), parking provision and the evidence for the proposed number of spaces and details of the proposed substation. Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal. The application was now resubmitted to Committee as an error had been made when reporting the separation distance to the neighbouring property, The Studio, at the previous meeting. Whilst there would be a separation distance in excess of 26 metres between facing habitable room windows, nevertheless, at its closest point there would be a separation distance of seven metres between the proposed development and the neighbouring property. Whilst it was acknowledged that there was a first floor window on the western elevation of The Studio, this window served a bathroom, which was classed as a non-habitable room, and at this point the separation distance was nine metres. There were no windows on the part of the eastern elevation of the proposed building closest to The Studio. Given the topography of the land, the separation distance and the height of the proposed building, it was not considered that the occupiers of the


14

DCS/187 Planning Application: DC/11/1483 (cont.) neighbouring property would suffer a loss of residential amenity in terms of the proposal being overbearing. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application. Since the previous report, it had been agreed that the sum of £500 per additional car parking space would be paid towards mitigation measures in respect of air quality and the Housing Strategy & Development Manager had confirmed that he would have no objection to the monies coming out of the commuted sum for affordable housing.

The County Surveyor had also been re-consulted on the proposal and had confirmed that the provision of 16 spaces for 31 apartments was considered adequate given the nature and type of development. Details of the substation had been submitted, indicating that the structure would have be 3 metres x 3 metres, with a height of 2.35 metres. It would be sited on the eastern boundary of the site, 14 metres from the neighbouring property, The Studio, and would be screened by a 2.5 metres fence/wall. Members considered that, in this respect, further consideration needed to be given to the siting of the substation and soundproofing/noise conditions. Also, although Members still had some concerns regarding the use of mobility scooters along Manley’s Hill, the applicant had advised that the pavement was wide enough for this use and the County Surveyor had not raised an objection in this regard. Members therefore considered that the application was acceptable in principle.

RESOLVED (i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure

the appropriate financial contributions and a fire hydrant.


and further consideration in respect of the siting of the substation and soundproofing/noise conditions, application DC/11/1483 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.


15

DCS/188 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0551 - CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO A DUAL PITCH LOCAL GYPSY SITE INCLUDING THE STATIONING OF TWO MOBILE HOMES SITE THE CARAVAN, LITTLEWORTH LANE, PARTRIDGE GREEN APPLICANT: MR BILLY BATH

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for a permanent change of use of the land to a dual pitch local gypsy site with the stationing of two mobile homes and space for two touring caravans.

The application site was located outside the built-up area as defined by the Local Development Framework, on the western side of Littleworth Lane to the north of the ribbon development of residential properties on either side of the road and The Windmill pub. The application site was bordered by open countryside to the north, east and west, with the pub and residential development further to the south and a public footpath in between from which a clear view of the site could be obtained. A caravan was located on the site at present, which appeared to be derelict and could not be taken as any evidence of residential use.

Guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ (published March 2012), together with Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Local Development Framework relating to Gypsies and Travellers and the general countryside and design policies of the Framework, were relevant to the determination of the application.

An outline application for a residential dwelling was refused in 1983 (WG/21/83) and an application for the formation of a vehicular access was refused in 2005 (DC/05/1052). The comments of Public Health & Licensing, the Strategic Planning Officer, Southern Water and West Sussex County Council were noted. The Landscape Architect and the Littleworth Residents Association objected to the application. The Parish Council strongly objected to the application and 46 letters of objection had been received. One member of the public and a representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal. It was considered that the main issues in the determination of the application were the effect of the proposal upon the character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties and whether there were any material considerations which would over-ride such considerations. The area of Littleworth formed a transition between the built-up area of Partridge Green to the south and large areas of open countryside to the north and the development of the site as proposed would clearly have the potential for some visual impact upon the character of the area. This had been exacerbated by the recent felling of a number of trees on the site which had opened it up from within


16

DCS/188 Planning Application: DC/12/0551 (cont.) as well as when viewed from the public footpath, although this view was partly obscured by a close boarded fence that had apparently been constructed relatively recently. It was also noted that, were the access to be considered satisfactory by the County Council as the Highways Authority, it was likely that the required visibility splays would have an effect upon the hedgerows to the front of the site, which would further increase the visual impact of proposal. It was therefore considered that the development of the site would encroach onto the current open countryside aspect of the area, to the detriment of its visual character. Whilst it was acknowledged that there was a need for traveller sites in the District, it was anticipated that progress would be made during the coming year in meeting this need. In addition, in view of current policies and guidance, the application site did not appear suitable for use as a gypsy site and such provision would clearly adversely affect the character of the area. Having regard to local and national planning policy guidance, Members therefore considered that the application was unacceptable.

RESOLVED That application DC/12/0551 be refused for the following reason: 01 The proposed development by virtue of its location

would adversely affect the visual character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties. It is not considered that the site is reasonably located for community facilities and it has not been demonstrated that a satisfactory means of access can be provided either in highway safety terms or so that there would not be a further adverse impact upon the visual character of the area. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policies CP1, CP3, CP13 & CP15 of the Core Strategy and policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC32 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.


DWELLING AND REPLACEMENT WITH 3 NO. 5-BED HOUSES WITH ANCILLARY GARAGING AND HARDSTANDING SITE YAFFLES, ROCK ROAD, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MARTIN GRANT HOMES

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application


17

DCS/189 Planning Application: DC/12/0317 (cont.) sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with three 5-bed houses with ancillary garaging and hardstanding. Amended plans had been submitted to address concerns raised regarding the height of the originally proposed dwellings. These plans reduced the height of the proposed dwellings from 9 metres to 8.4 metres and the floor level at which the dwellings would be built had also been reduced by approximately 0.4 metre, resulting in an overall reduction in the height of the dwellings of approximately one metre.

The application site was located within the built up area of Storrington as defined by the Local Development Framework and on the edge of the Heath Common Character Area. The area consisted of fairly low density substantial two storey houses with garaging.

Guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework; policies CP1, CP3 and CP5 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy; and policies DC9, DC15 and DC40 of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document, together with guidance contained within the Heath Common Village Design Statement, were relevant to the determination of the application.

There was no relevant planning history in respect of this site. The comments of Strategic & Community Planning, West Sussex Highway Authority, Southern Water and Heath Common Residents Association were noted. The Arboricultural Officer raised no objection to the proposal. The Parish Council objected to the application, as amended, and 24 letters of objection had been received in respect of the original application, together with 14 further letters of objection in respect of the amended plans. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the proposal and the applicant’s agent spoke in support. It was considered that the main issues in the determination of this application were the principle of the development, the effect of the development on the amenity of nearby occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the area. The site was located within the built up area of Storrington, which was a Category 1 Settlement where infill was acceptable in principle subject to other Development Plan policies. Whilst it was acknowledged that the existing dwelling occupied a larger than average sized plot on the corner of Rock Road and Thakeham Copse, Members considered that the current proposal for the erection of three dwellings on the site would result in overdevelopment and would have an adverse impact on the visual character of the area.


18

DCS/189 Planning Application: DC/12/0317 (cont.) Members therefore considered that the application, in its current form, was unacceptable.

RESOLVED That application DC/12/0317 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services to allow the investigation of the submission of a scheme for two dwellings. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be refused in its current form.

DCS/190 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0528 - CHANGE OF USE FROM B1 (BUSINESS) TO C3 (DWELLINGS) INCLUDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL UNITS AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR 3 DETACHED HOUSES, GARAGES AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK) SITE ENTERPRISE HOUSE UNIT 1 HORTON HILL HENFIELD ROAD SMALL DOLE APPLICANT: MR CHRISTOPHER BOARDMAN (NEW PLACE INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the change of use from B1 (Business) to C3 (Dwellings) including the demolition of the existing commercial units and redevelopment of the site for three detached houses, garages and associated works. The proposal would result in the creation of three large plots and the access road plus landscaping strip would be between 10 and 15 metres wide. The two existing commercial buildings on site and the existing conifers along the western boundary of the site would be removed. The vegetation on the eastern and western boundaries would be retained and, where possible, additional infill planting was proposed. Details of additional supporting information submitted by the applicant since the publication of the agenda were reported.

The application site was located in a countryside location, within the South Downs National Park. The two commercial buildings on the site were fairly low rise and industrial in nature. The western boundary consisted of fir trees to the north western end of the site, with the rest being open. The southern end of the site consisted of a grassed area. A public footpath ran to the north and west of the site from Pound Lane in Upper Beeding to Horton Hall, Henfield Road, Small Dole and there were views of the site from the length of this footpath.

Guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework; policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5 and CP15 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy; and policies DC1, DC2, DC4, DC9, DC18, DC19, DC30 and


19

DCS/190 Planning Application: DC/12/0528 (cont.) DC40 of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document, together with The South Downs Management Plan 2008 – 2013 and South Downs Planning Guidelines 2008, were relevant to the determination of the application. DEFRA’s Circular March 2010 “English National Parks and The Broads” also provided updated policy guidance on English National Parks. The South Downs National Park Authority had statutory purposes and socio-economic responsibilities, as specified in the Environment Act of 1995. Working in partnership with other Local Authorities and other organisations, it was also the duty of the Authority to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of the local communities within the National Park.

Relevant planning history included: UB/15/58 change of use of an agricultural building

for livestock to therapeutic purposes Granted

UB/17/58 erection of a monkey holding unit for therapeutic purposes

Granted

UB/25/98 re-cladding of a building Granted DC/05/1225 telecommunications installation consisting

of one pole mounted tri-corner antenna unit and various internal equipment

Granted

DC/11/1878 demolition of the existing commercial units and redevelopment of the site for 4 detached houses, garages and associated works (South Downs National Park)

Refused and appeal lodged

The comments of Strategic & Community Planning, the Housing Officer, the Development Surveyor, Public Health & Licensing, Natural England, Southern Water and West Sussex County Council Highway Authority were noted. The Landscape Officer and the South Downs Society objected to the application. The Environment Agency raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. Details of an independent report commissioned by the local planning authority on the viability of the commercial site were reported. The Parish Council objected to the application and one letter of no objection and one of support had been received. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the proposal. It was considered that the main issues in the determination of this application were the principle of the development and the effect of the development on the visual amenities and the character of the area, being located within the South Downs National Park. The proposed dwellings would be sited outside the built-up area boundaries allocated in Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy DPD (2007), where development was strictly controlled to protect the rural nature of the District and Government


20

DCS/190 Planning Application: DC/12/0528 (cont.) guidance also sought to control development, including new dwellings, in the countryside to protect the countryside for its own sake. The current proposal failed to meet the requirements of the policy DC1, as it would not support the needs of agriculture or forestry, would not provide for quiet informal recreational use, the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste and would fail to meet sustainable development criteria. There was a long and consistent tradition of resisting speculative housing which was unrelated, as in this case, to any specific countryside related activity and to protecting the countryside for its own sake. The only justification put forward by the applicant for dwellings was that the current commercial use was not viable. It was considered that the development would represent sporadic development, to the detriment of the visual amenities and rural character of the South Downs National Park. The overall result of the development and associated residential paraphernalia would be to erode the rural character and visual amenities of this rural area. The main difference between the current application and that previously refused (DC/11/1878), other than the reduction of dwellings from four to three, was that the applicant had submitted a marketing report prepared by the company currently marketing the existing buildings. The local planning authority had also commissioned an independent report on the viability of the commercial site, which concluded that one of the units had been marketed at an excessive figure per square foot and insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that the other unit was no longer viable. It was considered that housing in this location would have a greater visual impact than the existing buildings had on the surrounding landscape, given their height, scale and bulk. Members considered that the reduction in the number of houses from four to three and the material factors that the applicant had raised would not overcome the principal policy objections and that the proposal was therefore unacceptable.

RESOLVED That application DC/12/0528 be refused for the following reasons: 01 The site lies in a rural area, outside the limits of any

existing town or village and the proposed development is not considered essential to this rural location being unrelated to the needs of agriculture, forestry or the extraction of minerals, if permitted, would consolidate


21

DCS/190 Planning Application: DC/12/0528 (cont.) an undesirable element of sporadic development in a

rural area which would result in visual intrusion into the countryside to the detriment of the rural character of the area and the South Downs National Park. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy DC1, DC2 & DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007, Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP15 of the Core Strategy 2007 & the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

02 The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the

development would meet specific local needs 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 would not reinforce unsustainable patterns. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies CP5, CP12 & CP15 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1 & DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

03 The proposed development makes no provision for

contributions towards improvements to transport and community facilities infrastructure and is thereby contrary to Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy 2007 as it is not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

04 It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the

Local Planning Authority that the risks to human health and the water environment from potential historic contamination on the site have been adequately assessed in accordance with Policy CP2 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

DCS/191 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/2141 - PROPOSED NEW GATE AND

ACCESS ONTO THE A281 SITE HUNDRED STEDDLE BARN, BRIGHTON ROAD, WOODMANCOTE APPLICANT: MR MELVYN WALTERS

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the construction of a new gate and access onto the A281. The access would be located on the southern side of the A281 with Hundred Steddle Barn located to the west and entrances to residential properties to the east. The proposed access would serve a smallholding which comprised


22

DCS/191 Planning Application: DC/11/2141 (cont.) two pasture fields, currently accessed via a shared trackway serving Hundred Steddle Barn and other properties to the west. A five metres wide field gate set back into the field, as the access would rise in gradient from the road, was also proposed. The application site was located outside any built-up area,as defined by the Local Development Framework.

Guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework; policies CP1, CP3 and CP19 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy; and policies DC1, DC9 and DC40 of the Local Development Framework were relevant to the determination of the application.

There was no relevant planning history in respect of this site. West Sussex County Council raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions, and their comments were noted. The Parish Council objected to the application and five letters of objection had been received, including two from original objectors in response to the County Council’s comments. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the proposal. It was considered that the main issues in the determination of this application were whether the proposal acted as a precedent for future development on the site; the effect upon highway safety; and the impact upon the visual character of the area. With regard to precedent, the current application had to be considered on its own merits and if any future application for development were submitted it would also have to be determined on its own merits. However, given the countryside location of the site, it was unlikely that any application for residential development would succeed as a matter of principle, irrespective of the construction of any access. It was noted that the existing access was limited in visibility and, subject to the provision of the required visibility splays, the new access would improve highway safety for the applicant. The existing access would remain, as it was used by other properties. Whilst the proposal would have some visual impact, there were a number of accesses in the vicinity some of which were especially prominent. It would therefore be difficult to argue that the provision of an access in itself would cause sufficient visual harm to warrant a refusal. Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.


23


RESOLVED That application DC/11/2141 be granted subject to the following conditions: 01 A2 Full Permission 02 The access, hereby approved, shall include the

provision within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to prevent surface water draining onto the public highway.

03 The access, herby approved, shall have a gradient no steeper than 1:15 for the first 15 metres.

04 Securing of visibility splays 2.4 metres by 120 metres should be included at the centre of the proposed site vehicular access onto Brighton Road. These visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions over a height of 0.6 metres above adjoining carriageway level.

05 L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping REASONS 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.

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

DCS/192 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0091 - CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING

RESIDENTIAL GARAGE/CAR PORT TO WORKSHOP FOR ARTISAN COOKERY SCHOOL AND CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL GARAGE/GARDEN ROOM/WORKSHOP TO TEAROOM SITE 1 HORSEBRIDGE COTTAGES, HORSEBRIDGE COMMON, ASHURST APPLICANT: MR L NICHOLSON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application had been considered by the Committee at its meeting in March 2012 (DCS/166 (20.3.12) refers), when it had been resolved to delegate the determination of this application to him, in consultation with the local Members, to enable further discussions with the applicant and the County Council regarding highways issues including widening of the access; provision of passing bays; and the possible impact of the level of weekend traffic.


24

DCS/192 Planning Application: DC/12/0091 (cont.) Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal. A site meeting had now taken place, which had enabled the highways issues to be discussed in relation to the proposed change of use. Issues of particular concern and which were subsequently discussed included the extent of the required visibility splays, widening of the existing driveway, provision of passing bays, previous road accidents and the speed of vehicles along this section of the road.

West Sussex County Council’s Highways Department had provided a written statement, which reiterated the highways advice given and summarised the discussions that had taken place on the site visit. Two further letters of objections had been received.

One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposal and the applicant and a representative of the Parish Council spoke in support. In view of the comments of the County Council’s Highways Department, it was considered that it would not be possible to substantiate a refusal of this application on highways grounds. Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable but requested that the County Council be asked to facilitate the installation of the signage proposed by the applicant in relation to the access to the site and to give consideration to any other measures that could improve highways safety in the vicinity of the site. It was also requested that a note to applicant be included on the notice of grant to the effect that further permission was required from the Secretary of State as the land was designated Commons Land.

RESOLVED That application DC/12/0091 be granted subject to the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun

before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

02 The change of use hereby approved shall only allow the two outbuildings to be used for an artisan bakery school and a tea room and for no other uses or purposes.

03 The premises shall not be open for trade or business except between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Sunday, including Bank Holidays.


25

DCS/192 Planning Application: DC/12/0091 (cont.) 04 No work for the implementation of the development

hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 09.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

05 The change of use, hereby approved, shall not begin to operate until details of the driveway widening and access improvements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access improvements shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the change of use.

06 This change of use, hereby approved, shall not begin to operate until covered secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with a detailed construction plan to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

07 This change of use, hereby approved, shall not begin to operate until a plan showing the vehicle parking and turning spaces has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The parking spaces shall thereafter conform to the approved plan and be retained for their designated use.

08 This change of use, hereby approved, shall not begin to operate until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 165 metres, both north and south, have been provided at the centre of the proposed site vehicular access onto Horsham Road. These visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions above the adjoining carriageway level.

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

10 The change of use, hereby approved, shall not begin to operate until a schedule of materials for the surface of the car parking area been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.


26

DCS/192 Planning Application: DC/12/0091 (cont.) REASON ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities

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

DCS/193 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0029 - CONSTRUCTION OF 9 HOMES (6 X

2-BED AND 3 X 4-BED) AND 1 (2-BED) FLAT WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE (UNITS 1 TO 4 STATION WORKS) SITE STATION WORKS MYRTLE LANE BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MARTIN GRANT HOMES LTD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing commercial and industrial buildings and their replacement with nine houses and a flat with garaging below. The dwellings would form a terrace of three units to the west of 3 Myrtle Lane, with a further six units forming a terrace running north to south across the site. The proposed garage with flat above would be located to the rear of the three terraced units. Eighteen car parking spaces would be provided on the site. The application site was located within the built up area boundary of Billingshurst as defined in the Horsham District Local Development Framework, to the west of Billingshurst Station. The immediate vicinity was characterised by both residential and commercial properties.

Guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework; policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy; and policies DC8, DC9, DC18, DC19 and DC40 of the Local Development Framework, together with the Billingshurst Village Design Statement, were relevant to the determination of the application.

There was no relevant planning history in respect of this site. The comments of Building Control, the Council’s Strategic & Community Planning Department, Sussex Police, Southern Water and West Sussex County Council were noted. The County Surveyor raised no objections subject to conditions. The Parish Council raised no objection subject to the completion of a planning agreement and their comments were noted. One letter of comment, one of support and four of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent spoke in support. The applicant had submitted evidence in respect of the marketing history of the site, which indicated that the units had been marketed since 2009 with no


27

DCS/193 Planning Application: DC/12/0029 (cont.) meaningful interest being received. In addition, the site was located to the west of a number of existing residential dwellings. It was therefore considered that the proposal would comply in principle with policies relating to the loss of employment sites. In addition part of the site, adjacent to the applicant’s site, had been identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as being developable for housing and, in view of the site’s low intensity of use, the wider area could be considered. It was considered that, following the amendments to the proposed terrace fronting onto Myrtle Lane, which has resulted in the proposed properties being of the same height and similar style to the existing terrace, the new dwellings would be in keeping with the overall character of the street scene and would not impact on the amenities of adjoining properties. The changes to the proposed terrace of six units had also added interest to the scheme and, although taller than the proposed terrace fronting Myrtle Lane, it was considered that they would not appear overbearing and would not be overly dominant in the streetscene. The proposed dwellings would be located 29 metres from the boundary of 3 Myrtle Lane and it was therefore considered that there would not be undue overlooking from the proposed dwellings to the existing residential units in Myrtle Lane or a loss of their established residential amenities. Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle, subject to the completion of the necessary planning agreement and the development of proposed condition 8 to ensure that the amenities of neighbouring properties and businesses were not adversely affected during construction of the development.

RESOLVED (i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure

the appropriate financial contributions and a fire hydrant.


and development of proposed condition 8 to ensure that the amenities of neighbouring properties and businesses were not adversely affected during construction of the development, application DC/12/0029 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.


28

DCS/194 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/2648 - CHANGE OF USE TO SUI GENERIS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A PETROL FILLING STATION INCLUDING CANOPY (ROADSIDE FACILITIES), WITH A RETAIL STORE, ATM AND ANCILLARY OFFICES, DISTRIBUTION YARD, UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS, SECURE FENCING PLUS HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING SITE LAND SOUTH EAST OF MARTINS FARM LONDON ROAD ASHINGTON APPLICANT: MR NEIL NORTHOVER

Consideration deferred without debate.

DCS/195 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0611 - PROPOSED REAR AND FIRST FLOOR EXTENSIONS

SITE: HIGH LARCHES, MELROSE PLACE, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR K ZAMIAN (Councillor Roger Arthur declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this

application as he was a close neighbour and an objector to the application. He spoke in objection to the application and then withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of the item, in accordance with Paragraph 12(2) of the Code of Members’ Conduct.)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission to raise the ridge height of the dwelling from six to seven metres and to incorporate accommodation within the roof space of the property. The application also proposed the demolition of the existing flat roofed garage and an increase in the footprint of the dwelling. The rear extension would incorporate two wings with accommodation at ground and first floor levels, the northerly wing would extend 16.5 metres and the southerly wing 11.5 metres from the rear elevation of the existing building. The application site was located within the built up area and within the Heath Common Character Area, as designated within the Council’s Local Development Framework. The Heath Common area incorporated a unique semi-rural residential character which predominantly comprised low density development set within large plots. Other properties within the road comprised a mixture of detached single storey properties and chalet style bungalows and there were neighbouring properties surrounding the site to the north, south and east. National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Delivering Sustainable Development - Sections 1 and 7; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP3 and CP5; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9 and DC15 were relevant to the determination of this application. An earlier application for proposed rear and first floor extensions had been withdrawn (DC/11/2245). The comments and concerns of the Melrose Place Residents Association and the Heath Common Residents Association were noted. The Parish Council and


29

DCS/195 Planning Application: DC/12/0611 (cont.) Southern Water raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. Eight letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the proposal and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the application. It was considered that the principal issues in the determination of this application were the effect of the development on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and the character of the area.

It was considered that the principle of extending the bungalow to create accommodation within the roof space and to the rear was acceptable, subject to the development remaining in keeping with the appearance of properties within the street scene and having no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties. It was noted that the proposed extensions would considerably increase the floor area of the dwelling, which was set within a large plot with a lengthy rear garden. The street scene elevation showed that the extended dwelling would sit approximately 1.2 metres below the ridge line of the dwelling to the south and 2 metres above the ridge line of the dwelling to the north. The northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the site were mostly well screened by trees, hedging and planting ranging from 3 to 6 metres in height, although there was a visual break in this screening along the northern boundary, towards the eastern end of the garden. The applicant had advised that further landscaping would be provided along this boundary. Members considered that, whilst the proposal was acceptable in principle, there were still some concerns regarding the size of the proposed extensions.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/0611 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, with a view to seeking a reduction in the size of the proposed extensions. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted

DCS/196 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0443 - FORMATION OF GARDEN AND

CHILDRENS' PLAY AREA IN EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE SITE: FORMER CRICKET FIELD, STATION ROAD, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: BILLINGSHURST PARISH COUNCIL (MRS B BELL)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the change of use of a former cricket field to a garden and children’s play area. The proposal was to landscape the existing


30

DCS/196 Planning Application: DC/12/0443 (cont.) open space and create differing areas with planting, a stage area, children’s play area, an orchard and vegetable garden, boules piste, pathways and stream. The proposal also sought to create two breaks in the existing brick wall to allow access between the two fields. The application site was located on the western side of Station Road to the south of Billingshurst Railway Station. Billingshurst Leisure Centre and Childrens Centre and The Weald School were to the north of the site and to the south and east were residential properties, with factory units forming the boundary at the end of Myrtle Lane. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP14; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC21 and DC22 were relevant to the determination of this application. In December 2006, an application for the construction of a 25m, 4 lane swimming pool including extension to existing facilities and associated car parking had been granted (DC/06/2277) and, in July 2009, permission had been granted for the installation of a multi court and erection of youth shelter (DC/09/0752). The Council’s Strategic & Community Planning Team and Sport England raised no objection to the application. Two letters of objection and one of support had been received. Whilst the proposals would result in a loss of formal playing pitches, which would normally be resisted, the cricket pitch had been relocated to Jubilee fields, west of the A29 and therefore there would be no loss in the overall provision of this facility.

It was considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining properties or the character of the area and, as at present the land was used for informal recreational purposes, its use as a more formal garden with associated facilities would not result in such a change in the level of activity as to harm the amenities of the locality. Members agreed the recommendations in the report without debate.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/0443 be granted, subject to the following conditions: 01 A2 Full Permission


31

DCS/196 Planning Application: DC/12/0443 (cont.) 02 Prior to the implementation of the development hereby

permitted full details and cross sections of the proposed gateways, pathways, bridges, stream, play equipment, shed, future stage and earth mounds shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

03 L4 Landscape Management Plan – delete “other than…gardens”

04 O1 Hours of Working 05 O2 Burning of Materials REASONS ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities

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

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

DCS/197 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0639 - AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUS

PERMISSION DC/08/1497 (PROVISION OF 8 NEW ALLOTMENTS AND SHEDS, ADJACENT TO EXISTING ALLOTMENTS ON RECREATION GROUND) TO INCLUDE RELOCATION OF THE SHEDS OUTSIDE THE ALLOTMENT AREA

SITE: ALLOTMENTS NORTH OF ASTON RISE PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: PULBOROUGH PARISH COUNCIL

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for an amendment to previous permission DC/08/1497 (Provision of 8 new allotments and sheds, adjacent to existing allotments on Recreation Ground) to include relocation of the sheds outside the allotment area. The application site was located adjacent to an existing allotment site to the east and would reclaim an area of land allocated as recreation space at present. The site backed onto to part of the boundary of 13 Orchard Way and continued along the boundary of 14 Orchard Way. Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CP5 and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy DC21 were relevant to the determination of this application. In 2008, permission had been granted for the provision of eight new allotments and sheds, adjacent to existing allotments on Recreation Ground (DC/08/1497).


32

DCS/197 Planning Application: DC/12/0639 (cont.) The location and principle of development had been established under the previous application and it was considered that the current proposal would not materially affect the visual character of the area. Additionally, the impact upon neighbouring amenity would be limited due to the nature of the existing and established recreational use.

Members agreed the recommendations in the report without debate.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/0639 be granted, subject to the following conditions: 01 A2 Full Permission 02 M6 Prescribed Materials 03 E3 Delete words ‘dwellings/buildings’ and replace

with ‘Use’ REASONS IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the

Development Plan ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities

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

The meeting closed at 6.10pm having commenced at 2.00pm.

CHAIRMAN

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 19TH JUNE 2012

REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING & 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/12/0062 Ground floor extension and first floor extension over existing garage

block with internal alterations (South Downs National Park). Locks Barn, Shoreham Road, Upper Beeding, Steyning, BN44 3TU. For: Mr C Meyler

DC/12/0101 Surgery to 1 x Pine tree

Woodnote, Hillside Walk, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 3HL. For: Mr Alan Chandler

DC/12/0361 Proposed orangery to rear of property.

20 Blanches Road, Partridge Green, Horsham, RH13 8HZ. For: Mr Mark Edwards

DC/11/2148 Two new single storey dwellings adjacent to 1 and 2 Hole In The Wall

Cottages. Hole In The Wall, High Street, Upper Beeding, West Sussex For: Mr and Mrs S and V Stringer

DC/11/0467 Partial relocation of existing private drive.

Lydford Farmhouse, Kings Lane, Cowfold, Horsham, RH13 8BD. For: Mr Luke Halestrad

3. Public Inquiry

DC/11/1962 Development of the site for up to 102 residential dwellings together

with associated landscaping, open space and access (Outline Permission). Land East of Manor Close, Henfield, West Sussex For: Welbeck Strategic Land LLP

4. Appeal Decisions I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:- DC/11/2392 Construction of two storey side extension and two storey porch at

rear, rebuilding of porch at front and addition of PV solar panels and thermal water heating panels. Quince Cottage, Lock, Partridge Green, Horsham, RH13 8EG. For: Mrs Miriam Spencer Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/11/0111 Erection of 8 dwellings (5x3 bed and 3x4 bed dwellings) and

associated works. Land South of Venters, Storrington Road, Thakeham, West Sussex For: Croudace Homes Ltd Appeal: ALLOWED…(Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

DC/11/2353 Retention of gates and front boundary wall.

Mill Lodge, Mill Road, West Chiltington, Pulborough, RH20 2PY. For: Mr and Mrs P Martin Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/11/0567 Conversion of stable and outbuildings into residential unit.

Hatches House, East Street, West Chiltington, Pulborough, RH20 2JY. For: Mr Ian Walter Appeal: DISMISSED (Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

DC/11/2552 Part first floor extension to existing bungalow.

Brambledown, Monkmead Copse, West Chiltington, Pulborough, RH20 2PD. For: Mr John Crook Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/11/1222 Erection of detached three-bedroom bungalow.

Finches, Kings Barn Villas, Steyning, BN44 3FH. For: Mr Colin Morris Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

Contact Officer: Rebecca Tier Tel: 01403 215382

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 19th June 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Installation of skateboard facility

SITE: Memorial Playing Fields, Charlton Street, Steyning, West Sussex

WARD: Steyning

APPLICATION: DC/12/0940

APPLICANT: Steyning Parish Council

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Parish Council application RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission. 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for a skate park facility adjacent to the western

boundary of the Memorial Playing field. The skate park will replace an existing concrete hard standing which incorporates a basketball playing area. The proposed facility is intended for the use of scooters, BMX bicycles as well as skate board users.

1.2 The proposed skate park will measure approximately 600 square metres, yet will comprise

a floor area of up to 1200 square metres with the earth bunds that are proposed. The proposed skate park facility is proposed to be cut into the natural slope of the land and the remaining earth used to form the earth bunds which will measure between 1200 mm to 1400 mm in height.

1.3 The skate park will predominantly incorporate a concrete surface with a variety of ramps

and a concrete skirt of approximately 1.5 metres around the edge to allow for sufficient space for the skaters and bikers to finish. The facility also incorporates a beginner’s area which will have slow sloping area with small hips, banks, curbs and rails.

1.4 A new tarmacadam path to the facility is also proposed and will extend approximately 42

metres from the Mill Road playing field entrance to the proposed skate park facility.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site is located within the north-westerly corner of the Memorial Playing fields which currently incorporates grassed land and a concrete basket ball court. A strip of land along the western side of the application site and the area beyond the site to the west is located within the South Downs National Park.

1.6 The site is surrounded by roads which connect to the playing field, Mill Road is located to

the north, Charlton Street is located to the east and Newham Lane connects to the south. In addition to the playing field which surrounds the site to the east and south, there are other sports and recreation facilities located within the vicinity of the site, these include the bowling green and tennis courts situated to the north-east, children’s play equipment to the east and a cricket club to the south-east of the site.

1.7 Behind the planted boundary along the western boundary side of the site there are

allotments with fields beyond. The closest neighbouring property is Byways in Mill Road which is situated 62 metres from the skate park facility. The eastern and southern ends of the playing field are also flanked with residential properties within Charlton Street and Newham Lane.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Delivering Sustainable Development: Sections

3, 4, 7, 8 & 9.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2007) – CP1,

CP3, CP14, CP15 & CP19. 2.4 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, General Development Control

Policies (2007) – DC1, DC2, DC9, DC22 & DC40.

PLANNING HISTORY 2.5 None relevant. 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 The Council’s Head of Housing & Community Development has made the following

comments in response to this application:

“I fully support the proposal. The demand for a street sports facility in Steyning has been well established for over 10 years.

I am aware that park neighbours have opposed this location as a potential site and would therefore recommend that if permission is granted it should be conditional on sight of a facility management plan.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3

New sites can initially been patronised by mixed audiences not all of whom are dedicated to using it for its intended purpose. However, provided there is a management group comprising users and site owner this period has traditionally lasted for no more than a few weeks after which usage settles down and any detriment to neighbours normally becomes negligible.”

3.2 The Council’s Public Health & Licensing Officer has made the following comments in

relation to this application: “The installation of the skateboard facility will have some impacts on nearby residents primarily from noise. Sources of noise include the surface interaction between the skateboard and the ramps, the impact noise from the board landing following a jump, participants and spectators laughing and shouting. There is also the potential for noise from amplified music arising from portable devices although with the prevalence of personal music players this has become less of an issue at such facilities. The noise assessment report entitled “Skate Park at Memorial Playing Fields, Steyning” prepared by Atkins dated September 2011 is therefore welcomed. The subsequent comments are based on this report. Please note that I have not carried out any noise measurements myself to validate those within the report. The report’s methodology is accepted and appropriate recognised standards for assessment of noise have been applied which, although they do not lend themselves to this type of noise impact, are the best ones available. It is my view that a worst-case scenario for noise from the facility and the impact on the nearest receptors has been assessed. The report’s conclusions and recommendations are also accepted. In the conclusion it states that “the skate park has the potential to impact on the amenity of nearby noise sensitive receivers” and goes on to recommend mitigation measures to minimise these impacts. The mitigation measures include closure of the park in late evening, for example at 2030 hours, and creating an earth bund around the facility as a noise barrier. If you are minded to approve the application I suggest consideration of the following conditions:

The mitigation measures in the report are implemented; No lighting to be installed without the prior written approval of the local planning

authority; An operational management plan to be submitted, approved implemented and

thereafter maintained for the duration of the development. This plan would be expected to include details of the signage to be erected (displaying hours of use, appropriate usage, emergency contact numbers and how to report defects), maintenance arrangements for the site, management oversight arrangements and possibly the establishment of a user group as a liaison mechanism between the providers and those who benefit from the facility.”

3.3 Any further consultation responses received subsequent to the writing of this report will be

reported verbally at the Committee Meeting.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3.4 None received.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 84 letters of representation have been received in support of this application, the main

reasons for support are summarised below:

Proposal will provide a valuable sport amenity for young people now and in the future. The facility will help reduce loitering and anti-social behaviour in the village. The skate park is in a suitable location which is located in a public playing field catering

for a variety of sporting activities. The site is a central location which has good accessibility and provides a safe

environment for people using the facility. There is a lack of activities for young people in the village and there has been an

identified need for a skate park within Steyning.

3.6 76 letters of representation have been received in opposition to this application, the main reasons for objection are summarised below:

The noise impact associated with the skate park facility and the impact this will have on

the tranquil nature of the area, neighbouring occupiers, wildlife and the general amenity of the playing field.

Loss of open space within the playing field. The skate park will increase anti-social behaviour, graffiti and litter within the area. Lack of parking provision to serve the proposed skate park and cars will cause further

congestion within Mill Road. The visual appearance of the proposed facility and the pedestrian track will be

detrimental to the appearance of the area and the South Downs National Park. The skate park is too close to trees along the western boundary which will allow leaves

to drop onto the facility making the surface slippery and unusable. Inadequate drawings have been provided which do not show the plan size, elevation

heights or topography levels.

3.7 3 letters of representation have been received from neighbouring residents who have not objected or supported the application yet have made comments and observations. The following points have been made: Concerns raised in relation to the level of demand for car parking Earth bunding is considered essential to reduce the noise impact of the skate park Query regarding the position of the toilets Query regarding whether the facility will be fenced. Concerns in relation to the noise created by motorised scooters or bikes.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS 4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol

(protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 5.1 It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder. 5.2 It is however noted that a CCTV camera has been recently installed within the field which

seeks to monitor activity within the playing field.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is considered that the principal issues for consideration in the determination of this

planning application are the impacts of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the visual impact on the appearance of the local area and South Downs National Park.

6.2 It is understood that there has been an identified local need for a street sports facility within

Steyning for a number of years. A number of local concerns have however been received on this application regarding the suitability of the Memorial Playing Field site for the proposed skate park facility that has been proposed. The Memorial Playing ground is a large recreation field which incorporates some existing sports and leisure facilities, including a bowling green and tennis courts situated to the north-east, children’s play equipment to the east and a cricket club to the south-east of the site. The site comprises one of the main open spaces and recreation areas within Steyning, it benefits from a central location and good pedestrian access with six entrances to the Memorial Playing field. It is also noted that football matches and other sporting activities take place on the recreation ground on a regular basis. It is therefore considered that the principle of creating a further sports facility in the place of the existing basketball court is acceptable subject to ensuring that the skate park has no significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in terms of noise disturbance or any visual detriment to the appearance of the South Downs National Park and surrounding area.

6.3 The proposed skate park measures approximately 29.5 metres by 22.5 metres and

therefore incorporates an area of 600 square metres. It is proposed to incorporate some earth bunds within the development, including the earth bunds it is estimated that the development will comprise a floor area of up to 1200 square metres. The skate park will predominantly incorporate a concrete surface with a variety of ramps and a concrete skirt of approximately 1.5 metres around the edge to allow for sufficient space for the skaters and bikers to finish. The facility also incorporates a beginner’s section which will have slow sloping area with small hips, banks, curbs and rails. The skate park facility is proposed to be cut into the natural slope of the land, the photographs submitted show that the majority of the facility will be sunken and the higher level platforms and concrete skirt around the top of the facility will be the most visible part of the facility within the surrounding area. Given that facility will be sunken and that there are other structures such as the children’s play equipment and fenced tennis courts already visible within the recreation ground, it is considered that provided that the facility is adequately maintained then the proposal will not cause any significant visual impact on the surrounding area. Precise measurements of the topography levels, design of the skate park and a detailed management plan explaining how the facility will be maintained and managed will however need to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development; this can be secured via planning conditions.

6.4 A strip of land along the western side of the site and the area beyond to the west falls

within the South Downs National Park boundary. However, it would appear that the South Downs National Park boundary should have been drawn level with the western boundary of the application site, the playing field would therefore fall completely outside the National Park. The scale at which the South Downs National Park boundary was drawn at however meant that a strip of land along the western side of the playing field was included in the National Park boundary. The proposed skate park facility will however be screened by a hedge exceeding 3 metres in height, this hedge is intended for retention and is considered to provide adequate screening of the facility from the open countryside within the National Park to the west and for users of the allotments. It is therefore considered that the impact upon views and enjoyment of the National Park will be limited due to the screening that will be retained along the western boundary of the site. The South Downs National Park Authority Link Officer has visited the site and has been involved in preliminary discussions

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6

on this proposal; no concerns have been raised in relation to the visual impact on the South Downs National Park.

6.5 Some concerns have been raised in relation to the parking facilities serving the proposed

skate park facility. There are some car parking spaces located to the north of the Tennis Club within Mill Road and some parking available on-street within the nearby roads. It is noted that this area is usually very busy with parked cars. It is however anticipated that most users of the skate park facility will gain access by foot due to the central location of the site, its accessible pedestrian links and it usage by children and young people. It is therefore considered that the proposed skate park facility will not significantly increase traffic movements or congestion within the area.

6.6 The closest neighbouring properties to the site are within Mill Lane and comprise Byways

located approximately 62 metres to the north-east of the proposed skate park facility and Downlands located approximately 80 metres from the propose skate park. The nearest neighbouring properties in Newham Lane to the south are located approximately 90 metres and the nearest neighbouring properties in Charlton Street are located approximately 190 metres from the proposed skate park at the closest point. A Noise Assessment has been undertaken by an acoustic specialist and submitted with this application in order to assist with officer’s assessment of the proposed skate park facility. The acoustic survey undertaken also coincided with a visitation of a mobile skate ramp to the playing fields, allowing ambient and background noise levels to be measured, for comparative purposes, both with and without the mobile skate ramps in place. The acoustic specialist advises that throughout the measurements being taken, especially those taken from residential property boundaries, a significant noise contribution was emanating from the play area within the playing fields, with young people and children talking, laughing and shouting to each other. It is therefore noted that there is an existing level of noise within the playing fields associated with the nearby children’s playground and other sporting activities.

6.7 It is acknowledged that the noise associated with a skate park will comprise a different type

of noise this relates to the interaction between the wheels and skate park surface and the impulsive noises associated with performance tricks. The acoustic specialist acknowledges that the proposed skate park has the potential to impact on the amenity of nearby noise sensitive receivers, he has however recommended that if the skate park is installed in this location it should include the provision of the following mitigation measures in order to minimise these impacts.

i) Carefully designed earth bunding required around the park, at least 1.5 metres

higher than the highest point within the park. ii) Skate park access is limited. No late evening or night time access possible (park

closed by 8.30pm)

The earth bunds will need to be positioned in particular to the north-easterly and north-westerly corners of the site which are closest to the neighbouring properties of Byways and Downlands in Mill Lane. The final location of the earth bunds will be secured by planning condition. It is not intended that the proposed skate park facility would be enclosed by fencing and a gate; it is also considered that this would create a more urbanised and isolated enclosure within the playing field. No lighting will be incorporated in conjunction with the proposed skate park facility and therefore it will not be useable after dark. It is however considered difficult to limit the usage of the facility during daylight hours and particularly in the longer daylight hours of the summer months given the lack of enclosure. It is noted that other leisure and sporting activities are likely to be taking place on the playing grounds during these lighter evenings and the proposal is not therefore considered to significantly contribute to noise impact during these times.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7 6.8 The Council’s Public Health Officer has been asked to comment on the noise report

submitted and advise if the proposed skate park will cause any unacceptable level of noise to residential properties which surround the site. The Council’s Public Health Officer agrees that the methodology and the noise assessment has been carried out to the appropriate recognised standards, he also accepts the conclusions and recommendations outlined in the report. In addition to the mitigation measures, he has requested that no lighting should be allowed in conjunction with the development without prior approval and that an operational management plan detailing signage, maintenance/management oversight arrangements and possibly the establishment of a user group as a liaison mechanism between the providers and those who benefit from the facility should be approved prior to the commencement of development. On the basis of the information given in the acoustic assessment and the advice of the Council’s Public Health Officer, it is considered that the proposed mitigation measures which can be secured by planning conditions will limit the amount of noise impact to the nearest neighbouring occupiers.

6.9 In conclusion, it is noted that a high volume of letters of support and opposition to this skate

park facility have been received. It has been shown by the noise assessment undertaken that the proposed skate park has the potential to cause some noise impact to the nearest neighbouring properties, however it is considered that the proposed earth bunds and other mitigation measures suggested by the Council’s Public Health Officer may lessen the noise impacts that may occur. On balance, it is considered that the proposed skate park will provide a valued and accessible sports facility within the existing playing field, and that the mitigation measures secured by planning conditions will ensure that the noise impact to neighbouring residential properties are minimised.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following

conditions: 01. A2 Full Permission (3 years)

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02. D10 Floodlighting

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

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 03. The hedge along the western boundary of the site shall be retained in conjunction with the skate park facility at all times. Reason: To control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

04. No gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected in conjunction with the skate park facility without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8

Reason: In order to safeguard the character and visual amenities of the locality and/or highway safety and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

05. Prior to the commencement of development, a site layout plan, elevation drawings and

section plans showing the design of the skate park, the position of the earth bunds and the site levels, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The skate park shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved plans and details.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a development of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

06. Prior to the commencement of development, a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external surfaces of the skate park and access track have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a development of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

07. Prior to the commencement of development, an operational management plan shall be submitted and approved in writing prior to the commencement of development, this plan shall thereafter be implemented and maintained duration of the development. This plan shall include details of the expected signage to be erected (displaying hours of use, appropriate usage, emergency contacts numbers and how to report defects), maintenance arrangements for the site, management oversight arrangements and the establishment of a user group as a liaison mechanism between the providers and those who benefit from the facility.

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

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the

character and visual amenities of the locality. Background Papers: DC/11/0421 & DC/12/0940

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.

Contact: Gary Peck Extension: 5172



BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 19 June 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Redevelopment of site to provide for 4 x 5-bed detached houses

SITE: Noordwyjk, Pound Lane, Upper Beeding

WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote


APPLICANT: Mr Jon Ryan REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbours request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To delegate the application for APPROVAL subject to the receipt of comments from West Sussex County Council and consideration of whether any contributions to community facilities or transport infrastructure can be justified. 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the exiting

property, Noordwyjk, and its replacement with 4 x 5 bed detached houses. 1.2 Access to 3 of the proposed properties would be directly from Pound Lane while

access to the fourth would be via The Driftway where a detached double garage would be located to the south western corner of the site.

1.3 2 different styles of dwellings are proposed, serving plots 1 & 4 and 2 & 3 respectively. The ridge heights of the proposed dwellings would be between 7.6 & 8.3 metres, the existing property being about 6.5 metres with a shallower roof than much of the surrounding properties. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site is located within the built-up area of Upper Beeding which is

designated as a ‘Category 1’ settlement in the Core Strategy and is defined as a town or village with a good range of services capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.

1.5 The site is located at the junction of Pound Lane with The Driftway and currently consists of a 2 storey house with a relatively shallow pitched roof and single storey extensions to the side and rear. A low wall, trees and hedging provides some screening to the Pound Lane frontage with a grass verge and brick wall set back from The Driftway.

1.6 To the north of the site, also within Pound Lane, is Tara, a 2 storey dwelling of a

similar ridge height with a first floor window facing the site. To the west, is development generally of more chalet styles in The Driftway. The nearest property is The Moorings, a chalet style property with its roof sloping away from the application site and a flat roofed garage to its south eastern corner. The rear garden of The Moorings runs parallel to the existing rear garden of the application site and a high brick wall provides the mutual boundary with the application site being situated on a slightly higher level. To the north west are chalet style houses in The Paddocks which are partly visible from the application site.

1.7 The edge of the built-up area boundary is drawn on the eastern side of Pound Lane

and as a result the application site is adjacent to open countryside to the east save for 2 residential dwellings immediately opposite. There is a discernible change in the character of Pound Lane compared to that further south since the road is narrower. The northern extent of the built-up area is drawn to The Paddocks, a short distance from the application site and so, although the application site itself is in the built-up area, the surroundings of the site to the east and further to the north are of open countryside.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 Relevant government policy is contained within the National Planning Policy

Framework RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5 & CP13 of the Core Strategy of the Local

Development Framework are relevant to the determination of the application. 2.4 Policies DC9, DC18 & DC40 of the General Development Control Policies

Document of the Local Development Framework are also relevant to the determination of the application.

PLANNING HISTORY 2.5 Planning permission was granted on appeal and costs awarded against the Council

for unreasonable behaviour for the erection of 5 x 4 bed houses to replace the existing dwelling in January 2011 (DC/09/2117).

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.

2.6 Planning permission was refused in 2009 for residential development comprising 4

x 4-bed houses and 1 x 5-bed house to replace existing dwelling to be demolished, new vehicular access (DC/09/0706).

2.7 Planning permission was refused in 2008 (DC/08/2005) for the demolition of

existing dwelling and replace with two blocks of 4 x 2-bed flats (totalling 8) with 8 car parking spaces and new vehicle access points.

2.8 Planning permission for the erection of 1 house on the northern part of the site was

refused in 1997 & 1999 (UB/16/97 & UB/49/99). 2.9 Planning permission was granted on appeal in 1989 for the erection of 5 houses

and 1 double garage (UB/36/88). 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 None undertaken

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Upper Beeding Parish Council objects to this application on the grounds that it is

overdevelopment, is out of keeping with the street scene, has inadequate parking provision, is located in an area where the drainage is already inadequate to meet the need, is located on an unadopted road which is not properly maintained, and fails to address the local need for affordable housing.

3.3 Southern Water advises that a formal application for connection to the public sewer

needs to be made by the applicant or developer. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.4 17 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:

- inadequate parking provision and the development will exacerbate existing problems

- road is substandard - adverse impact upon sewerage, again exacerbating existing problems - excessive number of dwellings - out of character with the character of the area - the existing dwelling is of character and should be retained - it has not been proven the land is owned by the applicant - the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS 4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First

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

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 5.1 It is not considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact upon crime and

disorder. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is considered that the main issues in the determination of the application are i)

the planning history of the site as a material consideration in the determination of the application and ii) the impact of subsequent changes in government policy

6.2 As stated in the planning history section above, planning permission was originally

granted on appeal in 1989 for the development of 5 houses on this site. In his decision letter, the Inspector stated:

“Although they [the Local Planning Authority] have suggested that it might affect the outlook and privacy of adjoining residents I can find no evidence of possible overlooking or undue proximity to existing houses. The design, although making full use of a site of 1300 square metres, provides an interesting and varied frontage which should result in development of quality in contrast to the somewhat uniform existing development, but in no way incongruous in a village street setting. Given that there is a presumption in favour of allowing applications for development unless they can be demonstrated to be harmful to existing interests I cannot find that there is any serious reason to justify refusal.”

6.3 The permission was not implemented and a further series of three applications

were submitted to the Council in 2008 and 2009. During consideration of the more recent applications, it was considered by your officer that, since the character of the area had not changed fundamentally since 1989 and subsequent changes in government advice had not indicated a stronger presumption against development (if anything the opposite) that the appeal decision was still of relevance.

6.4 Notwithstanding this, the Council refused the first two of the recent applications in

line with officer advice as it was felt that the design of the dwellings did not provide the quality of development envisaged by the previous Inspector. The third application was more reflective of the 1989 scheme but was also refused, this time against officer advice. A subsequent appeal heard in 2010 and issued as a decision in early 2011, was successful and costs awarded against the Council for unreasonable behaviour.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5.

6.5 The 2011 appeal therefore becomes the greater material consideration in the determination of the application. It is recognised that neighbouring residents are united in their opposition to the proposals and have consistently objected to each application submitted and the strength of their opposition is again evident in the consultation responses received for the current application.

6.6 The majority of the representation letters raise points that were considered at the

previous appeal and the Inspector’s comments upon them have to be taken into account under the current proposal.

6.7 A number of objections continue to be received regarding highways matters, in

particular the inadequacy of the road surface, suggested inadequate parking provision and the general increase in traffic. The County Council’s comments as Highways Authority are awaited in respect of the current application although it should be noted that they have not objected to the previous proposals. On these matters the Inspector commented:

Paragraph 18: ‘The Council’s concern on this issue is that the local highway

network is inadequate to serve the proposed development. This is a concern shared by local residents’

Paragraphs 20 & 21: ‘The appellant has had a detailed professional highway

assessment undertaken…The Council…evidence essentially is based on assertion and references to the extent of public objection to the scheme…whilst I fully acknowledge the strength of local opinion, the weight of evidence strongly supports the appellant’s case…nothing that I saw leads me to a contrary conclusion’

Paragraph 24: ‘…some local residents consider that inadequate on-site car parking

would be provided…however, the proposed on-site parking would accord with the County Council’s adopted car parking standards. It is possible that occasional on-street car parking could arise…however, given the width of the road and relatively low traffic speeds past the site this should not give rise to unacceptable highway danger. There is no professional view to the contrary.’

6.8 The Inspector concluded that there as no conflict with planning policy in respect of

highways matters. The appellant subsequently applied for costs on the basis that the Council had been unreasonable in refusing the application on such basis. The Inspector concluded it was unreasonable for the Council to rely ‘almost solely on the strength of public opinion’ in the absence of any objection from the highways authority (the County Council).

6.9 In the absence of any objection from the County Council again, pending receipt of

their comments, it can only be concluded that to pursue such an objection again would almost certainly lead to an award of costs against the Council.

6.10 Similarly matters of drainage and sewerage have been of great and understandable

concern to local residents. This was examined in detail both at the application stage (the determination of the application being delayed by about 6 months primarily for consideration of such issues) and again at the appeal. The Inspector commented:

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6.

Paragraph 26: ‘The existing drainage system appears to be an unsatisfactory one in that it is a combined foul and surface water system’

6.11 The Inspector went on to note that this was a concern of the Council and

‘substantial’ to local residents. He then considered the technical evidence submitted by the applicant, which was far beyond that normally considered at the application stage, which stated a soakaway system would be used to accommodate surface water drainage so that it no longer drained into the sewer. The Inspector considered this ‘would greatly reduce peak flows into the sewer.’ He therefore concluded:

Paragraph 29: ‘…the weight of evidence strongly supports the view that the

proposed development would not exacerbate existing drainage problems and may well be beneficial in reducing surface water flows through the drainage network.’

6.12 In light of this conclusion, the Inspector also considered a costs claim by the

appellant on the Council’s refusal reason for this issue. He stated: ‘It is understandable that the Council would wish to have regard to local views,

especially ones so strongly expressed. However, on technical matters such as this it was unreasonable to go against the advice of Southern Water Authority in the absence of a contrary technical view and to provide no substantial professional drainage evidence…’

6.13 Again, the Council was found to have behaved unreasonably and so it must also be

concluded in the absence of any objection from Southern Water that costs would again be awarded against the Council were an objection to be pursued on this basis.

6.14 Objections have also been received about the number of dwellings, their effect

upon the character of the area and that the existing dwelling should be retained. 6.15 It would appear difficult to object to the number of dwellings being proposed given

that a greater number has already been allowed on appeal. In respect of the existing house, the Inspector previously commented ‘the existing house is an interesting and individual 1960s design. However, it is of unexceptionable architectural quality and does not merit retention.’

6.16 The effect upon the character of the area does warrant closer scrutiny but the

Inspector did previously state that that was a variety of development locally of a range of house types and densities and so it again appears difficult to resist the proposal by type of dwelling alone. Previously, the dwellings had been linked detached which had caused some concern to your officers but the Inspector concluded that along with the variations in their design, it would ‘…ensure a pleasing development in its own right and provide a greater sense of spaciousness between the houses than might otherwise exist.’ There is now a full level gap between the proposed dwellings as they are detached and has there are 2 different types of house design amongst the 4 plots, this would also seem to accord with the Inspector’s favourable comments regarding variation in design.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7.

6.17 The primary change in circumstance since the previous application is the adoption of government guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Several of the representations have also pointed out that as there is widespread opposition to the proposal locally it could be refused under the Localism Act.

6.18 Paragraphs 14 & 15 of the NPPF are highlighted in bold in the document. It states

that at the heart of the NPPF, there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For the latter this means ‘approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay’. The Inspector previously concluded that the scheme was acceptable against the provisions of the development plan and it would seem logical, therefore, to conclude that the proposal therefore meets the requirements of paragraphs 14 and 15 of the new guidance.

6.19 Upper Beeding is classified as a Category 1 settlement by policy CP5 of the Core

Strategy and is therefore considered to be a village with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport and therefore capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. For the purposes of the NPPF, it is considered that Upper Beeding would be considered a sustainable location. Your officers are aware that local residents do not agree with assertion but policy CP5 is an adopted policy and an Inspector would base a decision against it as he did previously.

6.20 The Inspector also found that neither the Council nor County Council provided

sufficient evidence to justify financial contributions to offset the impact of the development. This has been an increasingly common conclusion found by Inspectors for developments of 5 units or less and has been discussed recently at the Development Management Advisory Group. The previous conclusion does not prevent the Council from seeking contributions again if sufficient justification can be made and in this respect the comments of the County Council are awaited. If there is a resolution to grant permission, it is suggested that officers investigate with the County Council and the Parish Council any areas where a contribution could be sought that could comply with government guidance.

6.21 Your officers appreciate that there is significant local concern about this proposal.

Equally, though, planning applications have to be determined in accordance with national and local guidance. Previously, an Inspector found that reliance on public concern was not a sufficient reason for refusal of an application, especially when it is unable to be backed up by technical guidance, and consequently awarded costs against the Council. Given the previous appeal decision, it is considered that this revised application similarly accords with government guidance and is therefore acceptable.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following

conditions and consideration of whether any contributions to community facilities or transport infrastructure can be justified.

01 A2 Full Permission 02 E3 Fencing - replace ‘screen walls and/or fences’ with boundary

treatment’ 03 M1 Approval of Materials

04 No works or development shall take place until full details of the hard and soft landscape scheme have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme and shall comprise:

Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers Hard surfacing materials- layout, colour, size, texture, coursing, levels The approved scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with these details. Planting shall be carried out according to a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning authority prior to commencement of the development. Any plants which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) 05 D6 Finished Floor Levels 06 O1 Hours of Working 07 No development shall take place, including works of any demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv) wheel washing facilities v) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vi) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and

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

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9.

08 Development shall not begin until details of foul and surface water drainage works, and details of hard surfacing, have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained

Note to applicant: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk

8. REASONS


IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan. Background Papers: DC/12/0862 Contact Officer: Gary Peck

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1






DEVELOPMENT:

DC/11/2460 Refurbishment of one existing building (Block A), redevelopment of an existing building (Block B), demolition of remaining former poultry rearing buildings and the erection of 5 new buildings all for B1 (Business) and/or B8 (Storage or Distribution) uses (Blocks C to G) with associated parking and landscaping (Outline Planning) DC/12/0988 Re-submission of planning application (Ref. DC/11/2460) following Appeal submitted to the Planning Inspectorate relating to the non-determination of the application. Proposed development relates to: Refurbishment of one existing building (Block A), redevelopment of an existing building (Block B), demolition of remaining former poultry rearing buildings and the erection of 5 new buildings all for B1 (Business) and/or B8 (Storage or Distribution) uses (Blocks C to G) with associated parking and landscaping (Outline Planning)

SITE: Castle Farm Estate The Hollow Washington Pulborough

WARD: Chantry

APPLICATION: DC/11/2460 & DC/12/0988

APPLICANT: Hargreaves Management Ltd.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: DC/11/2460 - Category of development and

forthcoming appeal – Public Inquiry DC/12/0988 – Category of development RECOMMENDATION: DC/11/2460 - To agree that the appeal is not contested. DC/12/0988 – To grant planning permission. 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.1 DC/11/2460 - To consider whether the Council should contest the recently submitted

appeal.

1.2 DC/12/0988 - To consider the planning application.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Planning application DC/11/2460 was first reported to the April’s Committee meeting

whereby it was resolved to defer the application for a site meeting with West Sussex County Council (including the County Surveyor) to discuss their consultation responses in respect of the application and the traffic issues on the site. A copy of the original Committee report is attached at Appendix A.

2.2 A site visit subsequently took place at 5pm on the 1st May 2012 with two of the local

members, two HDC Planning Officers, the agent, the applicant, the applicant’s transport consultant and the WSCC County Surveyor. The concern in relation to the impact on the volume of traffic onto the A24 was raised and also the highway safety implications of large lorries exiting onto the A24 and The Hollow. In response, the applicant’s Transport Consultant observed that there was constant movement of the queuing traffic southbound of the Washington roundabout and that the proposed traffic exiting the site onto the A24 would be accommodated within the existing traffic. The County Surveyor advised that they did not consider the exit from The Hollow onto the A24 as a dangerous junction. The agent also pointed out that the site has an extant consent DC/08/0237 for the use of the replacement buildings previously permitted for Castle Kitchens for Class B1 and B8 uses.

2.3 The remainder of the discussions on site focussed on the type of businesses and uses that

would occupy the proposed B1 and B8 buildings. With reference to concerns raised by Washington Parish Council, Members queried the impact of the proposed development on the village of Washington and whether the applicant could advise on the nature of the businesses that would occupy the proposed buildings. The applicant did not have a clear indication of the nature of businesses that would occupy the buildings. It was resolved that the local members would discuss with the Parish Council the type of businesses that they felt would contribute to the local area and would feed this information back to the Case Officer.

2.4 Following the meeting, an appeal against non determination of planning application

DC/11/2460 was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on the 9th May 2012 and duplicate application DC/12/0988 has subsequently been resubmitted to Horsham District Council on the 18th May 2012. The agent has advised in an accompanying letter that the appeal against non determination has been submitted in order to protect the applicant’s position following the Planning Committee meeting, the Parish Council concerns raised in their consultation response, the post Committee site visit and the Parish Council’s subsequent meeting. The agent has also advised that the applicant wishes to continue to discuss matters with the District Council through the new application, including the proposed conditions and the terms of the Section 106 agreement.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 3.1 Application DC/12/0988 proposes the same scheme as application DC/11/2460 and seeks

outline planning permission for the refurbishment of one existing building (Block A), redevelopment of one existing building (Block B), demolition of seven former poultry rearing buildings and the erection of five new buildings for Class B1 (business) and Class B8 (storage or distribution) uses (Blocks C to G) with associated parking and landscaping. Outline planning is sought for the approval of the access and layout of the development; matters that are reserved include the appearance, landscaping and scale of the development.

3.2 The proposed development will utilise the existing vehicular crossover from The Hollow

which is located approximately 50 metres to the south-west of the site. In early 2011, the

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3

access was widened and the visibility splays improved in accordance with the previously approved planning permission DC/08/0257 for redevelopment of the site.

3.3 The proposal will involve the demolition of approximately 8,087 square metres of disused

agricultural buildings comprising poultry rearing sheds, an abattoir, farm shop and other ancillary outbuildings. Permission is sought for the erection of five buildings which will incorporate an approximate floor space of 5,752 square metres. The proposed development incorporates the retention of the former Castle Kitchen’s office building which is located at the western end of the site. This building will then be divided into two units comprising Block A and B. Five new buildings are proposed in the remainder of the site, with Blocks C and D located opposite each other, Blocks E and F located more centrally within the site and Block G located at the eastern end of the plot. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment conducted for this application has given maximum AOD ridge heights for the new buildings.

3.4 Along the eastern boundary and part of the southern boundary a landscaped bund is

proposed to provide screening of the site from the footpaths located to the east and south. An open amenity area for staff has been incorporated in the central southern part of the site. The Planning Statement submitted with this application states that the proposed layout incorporates parking provision for 192 cars of which 10 will be disabled spaces, space within the site has also been allocated for service yards and turning space for delivery vehicles.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 4.1 The application site is located outside the built up area and incorporates an area of land

located to the east of the A24 and to the north-east of the Hollow. The site incorporates a rectangular plot of land measuring approximately 2.4 hectares in area. The topography of the land is such that much of the site is in a natural dip which reduces its visual impact from mid to long distance views. The land also rises to the north and east of the site.

4.2 The western boundary of the site is tree lined and southern boundary is partially lined by a

hedgerow. Open countryside immediately surrounds the site and a market garden which is run by a charitable organisation is located directly to the south of the site. The hamlet of Rock lies to the west of the A24 and Rock Common to the east. A number of residential properties are located along the Hollow and a sand pit/land fill site is located to the south of the site. The closest residential dwelling comprises Castle Farm Cottage, a two storey detached dwelling which is located directly to the south-west of the site.

4.3 The site was formerly a poultry farm incorporating eleven buildings which comprised

rearing sheds, abattoir, farm shop and other ancillary uses. All of these buildings still remain on the site, the former abattoir and farm shop on the western side and one other building at the south eastern corner were used by Castle Kitchens Limited during their occupation of the site. Castle Kitchens vacated the site in August 2010 and site has remained unoccupied since this time.

5.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK



1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 13 are relevant to this proposal.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 5.3 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2007) – CP1,

CP2, CP3, CP11, CP15 & CP19. 5.4 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, General Development Control

Policies (2007) – DC1, DC2, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC20, DC26 & DC40.

PLANNING HISTORY 5.5 DC/11/0835 – In 2011 a Certificate of Lawful Development was issued for the continued

occupancy of the dwelling separate from former poultry farm.

DC/08/0237 – In 2008 planning permission was granted for approval of reserved matters for the demolition of existing sheds and erection of 5 new commercial buildings with access roads.

DC/07/1791 – In 2007 planning permission was granted for the retention of kitchen building

for the production of allergen free and other special dietary requirement meals and other specialist food products without compliance with condition 1 of planning permission DC/06/0490.

DC/06/0490 – In 2006 planning permission was granted for the conversion of disused

agricultural building to temporary kitchen for 3 years for the production of allergen free and other special dietary requirement meals and other specialist food products.

DC/05/1850 – In 2005 outline planning permission was granted for the demolition of

existing sheds, erection of 2-storey buildings providing replacement kitchens and ancillary offices.

DC/05/1359 – In 2005 planning permission was granted for the demolition of existing shed

and temporary stationing of portable kitchen for the production of specialist food products. 6. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 6.1 The Council’s Public Health Officer, Senior Policy Officer and the Landscape Officer have

advised that their comments and suggested conditions would remain the same as previous application DC/11/2460. Their detailed comments are reported in the previous Committee report shown in Appendix A.

6.2 The Council’s Access Officer had made the following comments in relation to this

application:

The design and access statement does not contain enough information stating how accessible the site will be for disabled people. Please confirm the following:

1) Accessible parking 2) Level access into the venue 3) Lifts where appropriate 4) Accessible toilets 5) Any other disability access feature which may be relevant

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5

OUTSIDE AGENCIES 6.3 West Sussex County Council have made the following comments in relation to this

application:

“The application above is a duplication of DC/11/2460 on which the Highway Authority was consulted; after the submission of further information no objection was raised.

As no amendments have been made to the submission the Highway Authority wishes to add no further comment and offer the same recommendation/request for contribution as per application DC/11/2460.”

6.4 The Environment Agency have made the same comments on this application as received on application DC/11/2460. Their detailed comments are reported in the previous Committee report shown in Appendix A.

6.5 Washington Parish Council have submitted a further letter of representation in relation to

application DC/11/2460, any further comments received in relation to application DC/12/0988 will be reported at the meeting:

“Washington Parish Council Planning Committee met on Monday 14th May and again discussed the above planning application. Councillors are of the opinion that they still strongly object to this proposal.

Members were disappointed to learn that a meeting had taken place recently, on site between Horsham District Councillors and WSCC Highways department without a representative of Washington Parish Council being invited. They were concerned to hear that Highways still do not consider the exit from The Hollow onto the A24 as a dangerous junction.

Since the initial permission was granted some years ago, traffic has increased significantly, particularly causing congestion on the southbound carriageway of the A24 during peak evening times. We do not understand why the exit on to this road is not adjudged to be substandard. The acceleration onto the dual carriageway, at this junction, is from a standing start. Additionally, the traffic exiting may wish to head North, and this means lorries may well be crossing two lanes, into traffic travelling 70 mph, in order to turn north at the Washington Roundabout.

Councillors are disappointed that the agent is unable to provide a report on traffic movement numbers relating to this application, as he had made representation at our Parish Council meeting that the calculation is on the pessimistic side and might be considerably less than this. However, should permission be granted this calculated volume of movements would be extant within this.

Surely the reality will be that a significant number of vehicles will turn left out of the site and join the A283, and that junction is equally substandard. We are not aware that there are any proposals for junction improvements there within this application.

Councillors were supportive of the original innovative design, sympathetic to the location and appropriate to local needs, but are of the opinion that they cannot support the current application.

In summary, Councillors do STRONGLY OBJECT to this application.”

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6 6.6 Any further consultation responses received subsequent to the writing of this report shall be

reported verbally at the Committee meeting.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 6.7 Three letters of neighbouring objection have been received at the time of writing this report,

the main concerns are summarised below and any further letters of neighbouring representation will be reported verbally at the Committee meeting.

Flooding The site has a long history of flooding with the Honeybridge Stream located to the west.

There is inadequate drainage to serve the site and the proposed development will cause further flooding problems.

Traffic Non sustainable location where employees will be dependant on the use of the car. The increased volume of traffic will cause further traffic congestion on the

A24/Washington Roundabout and the increased use of The Hollow as a rat-run. The Hollow is a narrow road not capable of taking large volumes of traffic, it is width

restricted for access to 6’6’’ with the diameter of the road in parts now not exceeding 11’.

Concern regarding the highway safety of large lorries using The Hollow and accessing onto the A24.

Concern that Ashington will be used as a regular route for lorries and vehicles to access the site when travelling northbound.

The increased traffic in The Hollow will mean that local residents will not be able to walk safely along the road.

Visual & Environmental Impacts The site is visible from the South Downs National Park and Chantonbury Ring and will

have a visual impact on the appearance and character of this rural area. The development will cause light, air and noise pollution within the area. Biodiversity The development will impact on a variety of species found within the site and the

surrounding area. 7. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS 7.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol


8. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 8.1 It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder. 9. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS 9.1 It is considered that the principal issues in the determination of this outline application are i)

whether the principle of development is acceptable in this rural location, ii) the impact of the development on Highway safety and iii) the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

9.2 Outline planning permission (DC/05/1850) was granted in 2006 and the Approval of

Reserved Matters application (DC/08/0237) was granted in 2008 for the demolition of existing poultry buildings and erection of five new commercial buildings with access road to

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7

serve Castle Kitchens Ltd. The approved scheme retained the buildings along the western boundary of the site and introduced five new buildings with a cumulative floor space of 4,840 square metres within the westerly and central parts of the site, the easterly section of the site was proposed as a landscaped amenity area. Subsequent to the permissions being fully implemented, Castle Kitchens, a local business which produced allergen free foods went into administration and vacated the site in August 2010. The extant consent DC/08/0237 allows the permitted buildings to revert to Class B1 and B8 should Castle Kitchens vacate the site.

9.3 When assessing whether the general principle of the proposed development is acceptable,

it is considered that the Local Development Framework Policies continues to remain supportive of the amended scheme. Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy states that more efficient use should be made of existing employment sites which are not fully used because they are unsuited to modern business needs. Policy CP15 relates to Rural Strategy and states that where, exceptionally, new or replacement buildings are involved, the development should result in substantial environmental improvement.

9.4 This application seeks outline planning permission for the demolition of most of the existing

former poultry buildings on the site, the erection of five new buildings and the refurbishment and redevelopment of an existing building on the site. The buildings would be occupied by a number of different businesses within Class B1 and B8 uses. This outline application seeks approval for the access and layout of the proposed development. The proposed development would utilise the existing vehicular crossover onto The Hollow which is located approximately 50 metres to the south-west of the site. The existing access has been widened and the visibility splays improved in accordance with the previously approved planning application DC/08/0237 for redevelopment of the site. The access would enable users of the site to turn west and exit southbound onto the A24 or turn east onto The Hollow and exit onto the A283.

9.5 A number of concerns have been raised regarding the highway safety implications of the

increased vehicular movements associated with the proposed development. West Sussex County Council (WSCC) has been consulted on this application to advise on the Highways implications of this proposal. The Highways department has considered the increased traffic generation associated with the additional 911 square metres floor space in comparison to the 4840 square metres approved under application DC/05/1850 and DC/08/0237. WSCC Highways have advised that the traffic generation data submitted by the applicant is considered to be robust and demonstrates that the proposed development is expected to generate an additional 146 daily movements, peaking at an additional 21 movements between 08:00 and 09:00. This is below the threshold that would require additional junction assessment to be undertaken. A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has however been submitted by the applicants, in response to this WSCC have advised that the outcome of the Road Safety Audit suggests that there are no safety concerns relating to an intensification of movements through the junction. On this basis WSCC Highways have therefore advised that there are no material grounds for a Highway safety objection.

9.6 Concerns have also been raised in relation to HGV movements to the site and in particular

the narrow width of The Hollow and turning issues onto the A24. It is however noted that a number of larger vehicles currently use the Hollow in connection with the Concrete Batching Plant located to the south-east of the site. WSCC Highways have advised that while details of proposed HGV movements have not been extracted from the data submitted, if it were to be assumed that 20% of the generation were to be HGV movements then this would result in a typical increase of 2 movements per hour. WSCC consider that this low number of large vehicle movements will not result in Highway safety hazards. It is also considered that the number of HGV movements associated with B1 office use and B8 storage and distribution is considered to be fewer than the food production use previously permitted.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8 9.7 The nearest neighbouring dwelling is Castle Farm Cottage, which is located to the south-

west of the application site. In June 2011, a certificate of lawful use was issued to allow the continued residential occupancy of Castle Farm Cottage separate from the former poultry farm. The dwelling is however still currently within the same ownership as the application site and is currently being rented out separately from Castle Farm. Castle Farm Cottage is located approximately 7 metres from the closest building comprising Block A. Given the close proximity of the dwelling to the application site concerns were raised with the agent and applicant regarding the associated noise and disturbance that would be caused to the occupiers of this dwelling. It was however considered that providing that the dwelling continues to be tied in ownership to the application site then future occupiers of the dwelling would be aware of the development of the adjacent site. The existing building to be retained comprising Block A will also be limited to B1 office use in order to limit any noise impact to the occupiers of Castle Farm Cottage. There is a small group of residential properties located on the southerly side of The Hollow; their shared entrance is located opposite the entrance of the application site. These properties are located over 25 metres from the proposed buildings and the development will be mostly screened to the neighbouring occupiers by tall trees and planting which lines both sides of The Hollow. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will not cause any loss of privacy to these neighbouring properties.

9.8 The Council’s Public Health Officer has requested that a condition relating to the restriction

of opening hours be attached to any recommendation for approval in order to protect neighbouring properties from noise disturbance. The Council’s Public Health Officer has suggested opening hours of 06:00 hours to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and no opening on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The Class B8 use would also be restricted from any steel stockholding uses and operators primarily engaged in heavy plant hire occupying the site as it is considered that these uses would have significant impacts on the residential dwellings within the vicinity.

9.9 The site is located within a natural dip within the open countryside which surrounds the site,

arable fields are located to the north and east, woodland to the west and the market garden to the south. The application site is located outside the South Downs National Park yet distant views are possible from the edge of the Park boundary to the south and south-west. The Council’s Landscape Architect has been consulted to advise on the visual impact of the proposed development on the surrounding countryside. The Landscape and Visual Assessment submitted with the application has informed the design and layout of the site and in particular height parameters, maximum AOD ridge heights for buildings. Whilst the scale of the buildings are not being considered as part of this outline application, the details of the maximum ridge heights of the building will inform the details submitted in the reserved matters. The Council’s Landscape Architect is however satisfied that providing the ridge heights of the proposed buildings are kept below the stated maximum AOD levels then countryside views surrounding the site will not be affected. The landscaping scheme for the proposed development will be assessed at the reserved matters stage.

9.10 A bird survey has been submitted and has shown that no bird would be affected by the

demolition of the existing structures and the construction of the proposed buildings. The Ecologist at West Sussex County Council has been consulted on this application and he has confirmed verbally that he has no concerns with the proposed development; his formal written comments will be reported at the Committee Meeting. Details of how suitable provision will be made for protected species and their habitats will be required to be submitted in writing and approved prior to the demolition of buildings on the site.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9 10.0 CONCLUSIONS 10.1 In conclusion and given that the County Surveyor and Highways Authority continues to

raise no objection to the proposed scheme on highway safety grounds, it is considered that the Local Planning Authority would be unable to substantiate a highways refusal reason on appeal. To refuse the applications on such a basis would almost certainly lead to a successful award of costs against the Local Authority.

10.2 It is considered that the advice and suggested conditions given by County Surveyor

address some of the highways concerns raised. On this basis, it is recommended that the appeal against non determination of planning application DC/11/2460 is not contested and the resubmitted application DC/12/0988 for the same scheme is recommended for approval.

11. RECOMMENDATIONS DC/11/2460 11.1 The Committee is therefore recommended to confirm that the appeal is not contested and

that had the Committee been in a position to determine the application that it would have resolved to approve the application subject to the conditions contained in the original Committee report and the completion of a Legal Agreement to secure financial contributions and to ensure that Castle Farm Cottage and Castle Farm.

DC/12/0988 11.2 It is recommended that outline planning consent be GRANTED subject to same conditions

contained in the original Committee report shown in Appendix A and subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the County Council financial contributions and to ensure that Castle Farm Cottage and Castle Farm are tied in the same ownership.

12. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the

character and visual amenities of the locality. Background Papers: DC/08/0237, DC/11/2460 & DC/12/0988

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10


APPENDIX A/





DATE: 17th April 2012

DEVELOPMENT:

Refurbishment of one existing building (Block A), redevelopment of an existing building (Block B), demolition of remaining former poultry rearing buildings and the erection of 5 new buildings all for B1 (Business) and/or B8 (Storage or Distribution) uses (Blocks C to G) with associated parking and landscaping (Outline Planning)

SITE: Castle Farm Estate The Hollow Washington Pulborough

WARD: Chantry


APPLICANT: Hargreaves Management Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development. RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal

agreement to secure contributions in respect of transport infrastructure and to ensure that Castle Farm Cottage and Castle Farm remain in the same ownership.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT


1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the refurbishment of one existing

building (Block A), redevelopment of one existing building (Block B), demolition of seven former poultry rearing buildings and the erection of five new buildings for Class B1 (business) and Class B8 (storage or distribution) uses (Blocks C to G) with associated parking and landscaping. Outline planning is sought for the approval of the access and layout of the development; matters that are reserved include the appearance, landscaping and scale of the development.

1.2 The proposed development will utilise the existing vehicular crossover from The Hollow

which is located approximately 50 metres to the south-west of the site. In early 2011, the access was widened and the visibility splays improved in accordance with the previously approved planning permission DC/08/0257 for redevelopment of the site.

1.3 The proposal will involve the demolition of approximately 8,087 square metres of disused

agricultural buildings comprising poultry rearing sheds, an abattoir, farm shop and other

APPENDIX A/

ancillary outbuildings. Permission is sought for the erection of five buildings which will incorporate an approximate floor space of 5,752 square metres. The proposed development incorporates the retention of the former Castle Kitchen’s office building which is located at the western end of the site. This building will then be divided into two units comprising Block A and B. Five new buildings are proposed in the remainder of the site, with Blocks C and D located opposite each other, Blocks E and F located more centrally within the site and Block G located at the eastern end of the plot. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment conducted for this application has given maximum AOD ridge heights for the new buildings.

1.4 Along the eastern boundary and part of the southern boundary a landscaped bund is

proposed to provide screening of the site from the footpaths located to the east and south. An open amenity area for staff has been incorporated in the central southern part of the site. The Planning Statement submitted with this application states that the proposed layout incorporates parking provision for 192 cars of which 10 will be disabled spaces, space within the site has also been allocated for service yards and turning space for delivery vehicles.


1.5 The application site is located outside the built up area and incorporates an area of land

located to the east of the A24 and to the north-east of the Hollow. The site incorporates a rectangular plot of land measuring approximately 2.4 hectares in area. The topography of the land is such that much of the site is in a natural dip which reduces its visual impact from mid to long distance views. The land also rises to the north and east of the site.

1.6 The western boundary of the site is tree lined and southern boundary is partially lined by a

hedgerow. Open countryside immediately surrounds the site and a market garden which is run by a charitable organisation is located directly to the south of the site. The hamlet of Rock lies to the west of the A24 and Rock Common to the east. A number of residential properties are located along the Hollow and a sand pit/land fill site is located to the south of the site. The closest residential dwelling comprises Castle Farm Cottage, a two storey detached dwelling which is located directly to the south-west of the site.

1.7 The site was formerly a poultry farm incorporating eleven buildings which comprised

rearing sheds, abattoir, farm shop and other ancillary uses. All of these buildings still remain on the site, the former abattoir and farm shop on the western side and one other building at the south eastern corner were used by Castle Kitchens Limited during their occupation of the site. Castle Kitchens vacated the site in August 2010 and site has remained unoccupied since this time.

2. INTRODUCTION



1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 13 are relevant to this proposal.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

APPENDIX A/ 2.3 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2007) – CP1,

CP2, CP3, CP11, CP15 & CP19. 2.4 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, General Development Control

Policies (2007) – DC1, DC2, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC20, DC26 & DC40.

PLANNING HISTORY 2.5 DC/11/0835 – In 2011 a Certificate of Lawful Development was issued for the continued

occupancy of the dwelling separate from former poultry farm.

DC/08/0237 – In 2008 planning permission was granted for approval of reserved matters for the demolition of existing sheds and erection of 5 new commercial buildings with access roads.

DC/07/1791 – In 2007 planning permission was granted for the retention of kitchen building

for the production of allergen free and other special dietary requirement meals and other specialist food products without compliance with condition 1 of planning permission DC/06/0490.

DC/06/0490 – In 2006 planning permission was granted for the conversion of disused

agricultural building to temporary kitchen for 3 years for the production of allergen free and other special dietary requirement meals and other specialist food products.

DC/05/1850 – In 2005 outline planning permission was granted for the demolition of

existing sheds, erection of 2-storey buildings providing replacement kitchens and ancillary offices.

DC/05/1359 – In 2005 planning permission was granted for the demolition of existing shed

and temporary stationing of portable kitchen for the production of specialist food products. 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 The Council’s Strategic & Community Planning Officer has referred to the relevant local

planning policies that relate to this application and has made the following comment:

“In conclusion, in relation to Policy DC25, although the principle of B1 / B8 use on this site has been accepted through previous planning permissions, the previous planning permissions were granted to accommodate the business needs of Castle Kitchens, an established local business, at that time and you need to be mindful of the further evidence presented through the recent Employment Land Review. The site specific matters are best judged by you as a case officer after a site visit and we suggest that you are mindful of the aims of the relevant policies and the above comments.”

3.2 The Council’s Senior Environmental Officer has been asked to advise whether an

Environmental Impact Assessment is required for this application, she has made the following comments in relation to this matter:

“I have had a look at the various documents and reports connected with the application. The site exceeds meets the Schedule 2 criteria in the EIA legislation (10a - Industrial Estate Development). The site is greater than the threshold of 0.5ha, and it is therefore necessary to consider whether an EIA is required.”

APPENDIX A/

“When considering the need for an EIA I have taken into account Schedule 3 in the EIA regulations, taking into account the development characteristics, location and nature of the impact. Although a number of environmental concerns have been raised in relation to the proposals,(eg contamination, noise, landscape), I don't consider that they are of such a scale or complexity to require a full EIA. This is primarily because the site is relatively small, and has already been subject to some development in the past, and the population affected by the proposal is low. I therefore consider that a full EIA is not required, and that the environmental concerns that have been raised can be addressed as part of the normal planning application process.”

3.3 The Council’s Landscape Architect has raised no objection to this application yet has made

the following comments in relation to this application:

“I have been involved in considerable pre-application discussion and negotiation with the applicants to ensure that the proposed development in terms of the layout, height and form of the buildings will not have adverse visual effects on adjoining open countryside or on the character, appearance and natural beauty of those areas of the South Downs National Park closest to the site.”

“A concise but thorough landscape and visual assessment has been undertaken which

has then informed the design and layout of the site and in particular height parameters- max AOD ridge heights for buildings. (These ridge heights should be specifically referred to in any approval to ensure the heights of buildings submitted at the reserve matters stage do not exceed them).”

“I am satisfied in terms of the cross sections provided that, despite the slight increases

in building heights compared with the existing ones on the site, that in views from the public footpaths to the north and northeast that the proposed buildings will either not be visible or only just visible and this would be mitigated by the three proposed green roofs to block C, F and G.”

“In terms of views from the south east the existing site is prominent. There would be a

slight improvement in the view provided by a combination of a green roof to proposed block G and in time by structure planting to the east and south east boundary of the site.”

“In terms of views from the south where in places the site is prominent through gaps in

the existing woodland proposed additional hedge planting and planting in the proposed open space will be of benefit although I would seek a commitment now from the applicant to establish a complete hedgerow with hedgerow trees on the southern boundary ensuring significant reinforcement of the existing one.”

“In terms of distant views from the South Downs escarpment I consider the impact is

negligible taking account of the effects of intervening woodland and the impact of nearby quarries. In terms of views from Washington Common in the SDNPA the views are very limited.”

3.4 The Council’s Public Health & Licensing Officer has raised no objection to this application

yet has asked for the following conditions to be attached to any recommendation for approval:

Prior to development Asbestos investigation and risk assessment, with all asbestos containing materials

being taken off-site by a licensed contractor.

APPENDIX A/

Demolition and construction construction environmental management plan hours of construction restricted to 0800-1800 Mon-Fri and 0800-1300 Sat with no work

on Sundays and bank holidays no burning

Operational phase no open burning of waste materials hours restricted (06:00 hours to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and at no times on

Sundays or Bank Holidays) B8 uses restricted prohibiting steel stockholding and operators primarily engaged in

heavy plant hire residential unit to stay in same ownership as development site

3.5 The Council’s Access Officer has made the following comments in relation to this

application:

“The Design and Access Statement does not make reference to how accessible the venue will be for disabled people. Please confirm the following: Accessible parking spaces outside the units Accessible toilets within the units Level access inside the units If the units are more than one floor, will there be any unique facilities upstairs, and if so,

how will access be provided to this floor for disabled people with mobility issues.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3.6 The Environment Agency have advised that the proposed development will only be

acceptable if the following measure(s) as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission. Planning Condition “The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in

accordance with the approved FRA and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

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

2. Finished floor levels are set 150mm above the surrounding ground levels”

Reason: 1. To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water

from the site. 2. To reduce the impact of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants. Planning Informative Under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, if it is proposed to fill, divert, obstruct or culvert a watercourse, the applicant would require the prior consent of the Environment Agency, We are aware of a watercourse or ditch in the vicinity of the site.

APPENDIX A/

Potential Contamination “Whilst we will not be providing specific advice on controlled waters for this site, it is recommended that the requirements of “PPS23 – “Planning and Pollution Control”, Annex 2: ‘Development on Land Affected by Contamination’ are followed. This means that all risks from contamination need to be identified so that appropriate action can be taken. Therefore, in completing any site investigations and risk assessments the applicant should assess any risk to groundwater and surface waters from contamination which may be present and where necessary carry out appropriate remediation. “

Pollution Prevention “When carrying out construction and demolition activities, potential sources of pollution from site activities will need to be identified so that appropriate pollution prevention measures are taken to avoid any contamination of surface waters (bodies of water that are above ground, such as rivers, lakes, and streams) coastal waters and groundwater.

There should be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either groundwater or any surface waters whether direct or via soakaways during and after the proposed works. Any surface water drains will lead directly to a watercourse and as such no liquid other than clean surface water (for example roof run-off) should be allowed to discharge to a surface water drain.

The risk of pollution at construction and demolition sites can be significantly reduced by providing secondary containment measures for storage tanks. Oil tanks must comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution (England) (Oil Storage) Regulations 2001.

Further detailed advice and where our pollution prevention guidelines are available to view and download can be found at the Environment Agency’s pollution prevention website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/32252.aspx or by calling our National Customer Contact Centre (NCCC) at 03708 506506.”

3.7 Southern Water have given the following comments and advice in relation to this application:

“Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network

to provide foul sewerage disposal to service the proposed development. The development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a legal mechanism through which the appropriate infrastructure can be requested (by the developer) and provided to drain to a specific location.

Alternatively, the developer can discharge flow no greater than existing levels if proven to

be connected and it is ensured that there is no overall increase in flows into the foul system. You will be required to provide a topographical site survey and/or a CCTV survey with the connection application showing the existing connection points, pipe sizes, gradients and calculations confirming the proposed foul flow will be no greater than the existing contributing flows.

Should this application receive approval, please include, as an informative to the

permission, the following requirements:

“The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development.

APPENDIX A/

Please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH.” Our initial investigations indicate that there are no public surface water sewers in the area to serve this development. Alternative means of draining surface water from this development are required. This should not involve disposal to a public foul sewer. We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following condition is attached to the consent: “Construction of the development shall not commence until detail of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved, in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water.” Following initial investigations, Southern Water can provide a water supply to the site. Southern Water requires a formal application for connection and on-site mains to be made by the applicant or developer. We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent: “A formal application to the water supply is required in order to service this development. Please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH.” Southern Water’s current sewerage records do not show any public sewers to be crossing the above site. However, due to changes in legislation that came into force on the 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH.”

3.8 West Sussex County Council have requested a Total Access Demand of £70,000 and for

two fire hydrants to be financed by the developer. The Highways department have made the following comments in relation to this proposal: “It has been established by the Local Planning Authority that the extant permission of the

site is B1 use, relating to the 4840 square metres approved under application DC/05/1850 and subsequently in 2008 under DC/08/0237. Therefore the developer can lawfully introduce any B1 use (Eg- offices or light industrial processes) with a more intensive use without the need for further planning permission.

The applicant has submitted additional information relating to the expected generation of a

B1 facility. This represents a ‘worst case’ scenario and demonstrates the movements associated with a particularly intensive B1 use. It should be noted that traffic generation can differ significantly depending on the activity taking place on the site. An interrogation of the TRICS database suggests that food production would generate approximately 300 daily movements for this scale of development, modern light industry could generate approximately 500 and offices approximately 750, all of which are potential uses of the B1 class.

With the above in mind, it is only the impact of traffic generation associated with the

increase in 911sqm that is to be considered. The traffic generation submitted by the applicant, considered to be robust, demonstrated that the proposed development is expected to generate an additional 146 daily movements, peaking at an additional 21 movements between 08:00 and 09:00. This is below the threshold that would require additional junction assessment to be undertaken. When compared to the Department for

APPENDIX A/

Transport’s ‘Average Daily Traffic Flow’ (SDTF) data along the A24, which suggests a flow of approximately 19900 during 2010, this represents 0.7% of the daily total and within expected daily variation. It should be noted that the year-on-year figures demonstrate that traffic flow has decreased since the original approval was granted.

It is appreciated that the number of additional HGV movements will again differ depending

on the nature of the business that occupies the site – it would be reasonable to expect that an office use will generate fewer HGV movements than a food production use. While detail of proposed HGV movements have not been extracted from the data submitted, if it were to be assumed that 20% of the generation were to be HGV movements then this would result in a typical increase of 2 movements per hour. It should be noted that this is an extraordinarily high assumptions given that HGV movements make up just 4% of the ADTF on the A24 (representing 1 additional movement every 2 hours).

The access from The Hollow has received technical approval and has been subject to a

Road Safety Audit, stages 1 and 2, through application DC/08/0237. Again, it is only the impact on the access generated by the additional movements associated with the proposed 911sqm of additional ground floor area. As no alterations are proposed to the access, the intensification modest and the RSA2 carried out in April 2011, it would not be appropriate for the junction to be re-audited and we are satisfied the access is safe.

The applicant has submitted information demonstrating that there have been no road traffic collisions at the junction of The Hollow and the A24 during a five year period dating back to 2006.

While it is accepted that there are local concerns relating to merging onto the A24, vehicles

weaving on the approach to the roundabout on the southbound carriageway, the use of The Hollow and ‘rat running’, the actual impact of the development above and beyond what is considered to be the extant use is such that it would be imperceptible to other road users. Therefore, there are no material Highway capacity or Highway safety grounds on which it would be possible to resist this application.

There are concerns over the sustainability of the site. The isolated location is such that it is

unrealistic to consider walking and cycling as viable alternatives to private car and the site is not served well by public transport. There is a bus stop within 400m of the site, however, this would require users to cross the A24 to the detriment of personal and Highway safety or take a significant diversion to the south to use the underpass whilst service level is infrequent. Realistically, the vast majority of the 146 additional movements associated with the site will be dependant on the use of the car. A Travel Plan has been submitted for review by our Travelwise Officer, it is anticipated that this will help redress the balance. However, given the limitations on public transport, walking and cycling, further information if sought as to the methods that will be implemented and how the occupants will be encouraged to promote them. We would recommend that the approval and implementation of the Travel Plan is secured by condition should the Local Planning Authority be minded to permit this development.

The car parking provision is in-line with the maximum standards as set out within the

WSCC Parking Standards. Sheltered and secured cycle parking should be provided in line with the following ratios: Staff – 1 space per 150sqm (38 spaces) Visitors – 1 space per 500 sqm (11 spaces) Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to permit the development we would recommend conditions relating to: The approval of a detailed construction plan to show the layout of the car parking

spaces.

APPENDIX A/

The approval of a detailed construction plan to show the covered secure cycle parking. The approval of a Travel Plan which remains in accordance with the requirements of

the Business Travelwise Officer, Andy Mouland. “ 3.9 West Sussex County Council’s Ecologist has verbally confirmed that he has no objections

to the application. His formal written comments will be reported at the Committee Meeting.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.10 Washington Parish Council have strongly objected to this application for the following

reasons:

Traffic issues

“Traffic generation figures suggest almost 998 traffic movements into and from this proposed development during the day. The Hollow is a width-restricted Road, 6’ 6” at present, but its maximum width, in places, is just 11’. It has been historically used as a ‘rat-run’ for motorists travelling south on the A24, wishing to travel east on the A283 to avoid traffic congestion on the Washington Roundabout. It is a fact that most of these vehicles would be taking that option at peak times, when significant traffic from these proposed units would be leaving the site.

The ‘slip-road’ exit onto the A24 from The Hollow is unsatisfactory and dangerous. Traffic on the main road will be hurtling down at speed, or conversely, during the evening rush hour, will be at a complete standstill, backed up from the roundabout. During the period 5-6pm on weekdays, almost 100 vehicles would be leaving Castle Farm and fighting to enter this gridlock. Those heading north will still have to join the tailback south, before circumnavigating the roundabout, and adding to congestion there.

There is still continuing sand-winning at Rock Common Quarry, an adjacent site to Castle Farm Estates, which involves numerous traffic movements in any given day, by lorries, transporting the aggregate. They are directed South, onto the A283, but if traffic from this proposed development is also directed there, the junction is less than acceptable, and would require extensive work to improve the current sight-lines.

Landscape and Residents’ Amenity

The prior, approved, applications on this site, DC/05/1850 and (Reserved Matters) DC/08/0237 were very specifically sympathetic to its situation within countryside, and have highlighted within the reasons for your approval as below:

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

This, current, application does nothing to ameliorate impact, both visually (as viewed from the South Downs National Park), nor on the amenity of neighboring residents that are entitled to protection under The Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 - The Respect for Private and Family Life ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Article 1 of the first protocol - Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions except in the public interest…….

APPENDIX A/

The bulk and design of these units is unacceptable. We are further concerned that there might be trade counters attached, in the future, to some of these units that would also add to traffic generation, which has not been mentioned within this application.

Flood Risk

We have heard representations at a Parish Council Meeting from residents adjacent to this site that are very concerned that this development would add to the current (historical) flood risk there and also whether the application does address the current bio-diversity of the site, given that there are many species that require protection should you be mindful of granting permission on this application, and we would ask you to also consider these that have also been sent to you.”

3.11 Ashington Parish Council have objected to this application on the following grounds: 1. “The A24/The Hollow junction is inadequate for high volumes of large lorries – slip roads

are too short and lorries turning onto the A24 would require both lanes of the carriageway. This would be detrimental to the road safety of all users.

2. The Hollow is a narrow country lane and is totally unsuitable for heavy lorries. The safety of residents of The Hollow will be jeopardised if additional heavy traffic is routed along The Hollow.

3. Northbound lorries would have no access to the site. They would need to turn round on the A24 and the most likely place for this would be at the A24 Hole Street junction (at the southern end of Ashington). The on/off slip roads at this junction are short and not adequate for large lorries, leading to reduced highways safety. There is also a low height bridge under the A24 at this junction and it is highly likely that many lorries would strike the bridge or have to drive up through Ashington village in order to re-join the A24 at the Billingshurst Road junction.

4. Flooding risk – If surface water from the site is allowed to flow into the Honeybridge stream then it is likely that this will exacerbate current flooding problems in Ashington. The Honeybridge stream flows from the application site through to Ashington and beyond. It is well known that the Mill Lane road culvert in Ashington floods (causing nearby residential properties to flood and isolating some 60 properties). 5. A24 noise – additional vehicles on the A24 will generate additional noise. It is well known that Ashington residents suffer from high background levels of noise from the A24. WSCC have agreed to resurface the A24 with noise reducing tarmac around Ashington but this has been delayed because of financial but backs. Additional use of the A24 should not be permitted until the noise situation is resolved. This is the highest priority on the Ashington Community Action Plan 2010. “

3.12 The CPRE Sussex Countryside Trust have objected to this application for the following

reasons: 1. “This site is in the countryside remote from settlements and, to be in accordance with

HDC’s policies, should therefore only be used for businesses which require a countryside location.

2. The site is in a location which would mean that majority of workers would travel unsustainably by car.

3. Unrestrained B1 and B8 usage on this site would have the potential to harm the countryside character of the area, create nuisances and generate significant amount of extra traffic movements.

4. The site is just outside the South Downs National Park. If permitted, it would introduce an unrestrained industrial estate into this sensitive location which could harm the character of the Park and the enjoyment of those using it.

APPENDIX A/ 5. The granting of approval in this case could set a precedent for other future inappropriate

commercial development in the countryside contrary to countryside and environmental protection policies.

Despite this, should Horsham DC be minded to permit this application, conditions to ensure

that only appropriate businesses with low levels of activity commensurate with this countryside location should be placed on any approval. Such conditions should include a requirement that the name and occupation of the user shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing; that any B1 use allowed should be restricted to B1 (a) office use; that any B8 storage use should have a restricted number of annual movements and exclude any activity involving the general public or wholesale trade.”

3.13 Nine letters of neighbouring objection have been received for this application, the main

concerns are summarised below: Flooding

The site has a long history of flooding with the Honeybridge Stream located to the west. There is inadequate drainage to serve the site and the proposed development will cause further flooding problems.

Traffic Non sustainable location where employees will be dependant on the use of the car. The increased volume of traffic will cause further traffic congestion on the

A24/Washington Roundabout and the increased use of The Hollow as a rat-run. The Hollow is a narrow road not capable of taking large volumes of traffic, it is width

restricted for access to 6’6’’ with the diameter of the road in parts now not exceeding 11’.

Concern regarding the highway safety of large lorries using The Hollow and accessing onto the A24.

Concern that Ashington will be used as a regular route for lorries and vehicles to access the site when travelling northbound.

The increased traffic in The Hollow will mean that local residents will not be able to walk safely along the road.

Visual & Environmental Impacts The site is visible from the South Downs National Park and Chantonbury Ring and will

have a visual impact on the appearance and character of this rural area. The development will cause light, air and noise pollution within the area. Biodiversity The development will impact on a variety of species found within the site and the

surrounding area.



5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 5.1 It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS 6.1 It is considered that the principal issues in the determination of this outline application are i)

whether the principle of development is acceptable in this rural location, ii) the impact of the

APPENDIX A/

development on Highway safety and iii) the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

6.2 Outline planning permission (DC/05/1850) was granted in 2006 and the Approval of

Reserved Matters application (DC/08/0237) was granted in 2008 for the demolition of existing poultry buildings and erection of five new commercial buildings with access road to serve Castle Kitchens Ltd. The approved scheme retained the buildings along the western boundary of the site and introduced five new buildings with a cumulative floor space of 4,840 square metres within the westerly and central parts of the site, the easterly section of the site was proposed as a landscaped amenity area. Subsequent to the permissions being fully implemented, Castle Kitchens, a local business which produced allergen free foods went into administration and vacated the site in August 2010. The extant consent DC/08/0237 allows the permitted buildings to revert to Class B1 and B8 should Castle Kitchens vacate the site.

6.3 When assessing whether the general principle of the proposed development is acceptable,

it is considered that the Local Development Framework Policies continues to remain supportive of the amended scheme. Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy states that more efficient use should be made of existing employment sites which are not fully used because they are unsuited to modern business needs. Policy CP15 relates to Rural Strategy and states that where, exceptionally, new or replacement buildings are involved, the development should result in substantial environmental improvement.

6.4 This application seeks outline planning permission for the demolition of most of the existing

former poultry buildings on the site, the erection of five new buildings and the refurbishment and redevelopment of an existing building on the site. The buildings would be occupied by a number of different businesses within Class B1 and B8 uses. This outline application seeks approval for the access and layout of the proposed development. The proposed development would utilise the existing vehicular crossover onto The Hollow which is located approximately 50 metres to the south-west of the site. The existing access has been widened and the visibility splays improved in accordance with the previously approved planning application DC/08/0237 for redevelopment of the site. The access would enable users of the site to turn west and exit southbound onto the A24 or turn east onto The Hollow and exit onto the A283.

6.5 A number of concerns have been raised regarding the highway safety implications of the

increased vehicular movements associated with the proposed development. West Sussex County Council (WSCC) has been consulted on this application to advise on the Highways implications of this proposal. The Highways department has considered the increased traffic generation associated with the additional 911 square metres floor space in comparison to the 4840 square metres approved under application DC/05/1850 and DC/08/0237. WSCC Highways have advised that the traffic generation data submitted by the applicant is considered to be robust and demonstrates that the proposed development is expected to generate an additional 146 daily movements, peaking at an additional 21 movements between 08:00 and 09:00. This is below the threshold that would require additional junction assessment to be undertaken. A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has however been submitted by the applicants, in response to this WSCC have advised that the outcome of the Road Safety Audit suggests that there are no safety concerns relating to an intensification of movements through the junction. On this basis WSCC Highways have therefore advised that there are no material grounds for a Highway safety objection.

6.6 Concerns have also been raised in relation to HGV movements to the site and in particular

the narrow width of The Hollow and turning issues onto the A24. It is however noted that a number of larger vehicles currently use the Hollow in connection with the Concrete Batching Plant located to the south-east of the site. WSCC Highways have advised that while details of proposed HGV movements have not been extracted from the data

APPENDIX A/

submitted, if it were to be assumed that 20% of the generation were to be HGV movements then this would result in a typical increase of 2 movements per hour. WSCC consider that this low number of large vehicle movements will not result in Highway safety hazards. It is also considered that the number of HGV movements associated with B1 office use and B8 storage and distribution is considered to be fewer than the food production use previously permitted.

6.7 The nearest neighbouring dwelling is Castle Farm Cottage, which is located to the south-

west of the application site. In June 2011, a certificate of lawful use was issued to allow the continued residential occupancy of Castle Farm Cottage separate from the former poultry farm. The dwelling is however still currently within the same ownership as the application site and is currently being rented out separately from Castle Farm. Castle Farm Cottage is located approximately 7 metres from the closest building comprising Block A. Given the close proximity of the dwelling to the application site concerns were raised with the agent and applicant regarding the associated noise and disturbance that would be caused to the occupiers of this dwelling. It was however considered that providing that the dwelling continues to be tied in ownership to the application site then future occupiers of the dwelling would be aware of the development of the adjacent site. The existing building to be retained comprising Block A will also be limited to B1 office use in order to limit any noise impact to the occupiers of Castle Farm Cottage. There is a small group of residential properties located on the southerly side of The Hollow; their shared entrance is located opposite the entrance of the application site. These properties are located over 25 metres from the proposed buildings and the development will be mostly screened to the neighbouring occupiers by tall trees and planting which lines both sides of The Hollow. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will not cause any loss of privacy to these neighbouring properties.

6.8 The Council’s Public Health Officer has requested that a condition relating to the restriction

of opening hours be attached to any recommendation for approval in order to protect neighbouring properties from noise disturbance. The Council’s Public Health Officer has suggested opening hours of 06:00 hours to 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and no opening on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The Class B8 use would also be restricted from any steel stockholding uses and operators primarily engaged in heavy plant hire occupying the site as it is considered that these uses would have significant impacts on the residential dwellings within the vicinity.

6.9 The site is located within a natural dip within the open countryside which surrounds the site,

arable fields are located to the north and east, woodland to the west and the market garden to the south. The application site is located outside the South Downs National Park yet distant views are possible from the edge of the Park boundary to the south and south-west. The Council’s Landscape Architect has been consulted to advise on the visual impact of the proposed development on the surrounding countryside. The Landscape and Visual Assessment submitted with the application has informed the design and layout of the site and in particular height parameters, maximum AOD ridge heights for buildings. Whilst the scale of the buildings are not being considered as part of this outline application, the details of the maximum ridge heights of the building will inform the details submitted in the reserved matters. The Council’s Landscape Architect is however satisfied that providing the ridge heights of the proposed buildings are kept below the stated maximum AOD levels then countryside views surrounding the site will not be affected. The landscaping scheme for the proposed development will be assessed at the reserved matters stage.

6.10 A bird survey has been submitted and has shown that no bird would be affected by the

demolition of the existing structures and the construction of the proposed buildings. The Ecologist at West Sussex County Council has been consulted on this application and he has confirmed verbally that he has no concerns with the proposed development; his formal written comments will be reported at the Committee Meeting. Details of how suitable

APPENDIX A/

provision will be made for protected species and their habitats will be required to be submitted in writing and approved prior to the demolition of buildings on the site.

6.11 In conclusion, it is therefore considered that the proposed scheme will continue to

redevelop this former business site and will visually improve the appearance of the land, whilst ensuring no detriment to the rural character and appearance of the locality.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that outline planning consent be GRANTED subject to the completion of

a legal agreement to secure the County Council financial contributions and to ensure that Castle Farm Cottage and Castle Farm are tied in the same ownership. The following conditions are attached to this recommendation:

01. A1 Outline Permission

(a) Approval of the details of the scale of each building, the appearance of each building, and the landscaping of the development (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

(b) Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition (a) above, relating to the scale of each building, the appearance of each building and the landscaping of the development, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out as approved. (c) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. (d) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02. D6 Finished Floor Levels Before development commences precise details of the finished floor levels of the development in relation to a nearby datum point shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

03. An asbestos investigation and risk assessment shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the demolition of any structures or buildings on the site. All asbestos containing materials shall be removed from the site by a licensed contractor.

Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 04. The agricultural buildings shall be demolished, the debris removed from the site and the site cleared before any other works for the implementation of the development hereby commence. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/

05. A construction environmental management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development on the site. Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

06. O1 Hours of Working No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

07. No burning of materials shall take place during the demolition, construction or operational phases of the development. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

08. The premises shall not be open for business except between the hours of 06:00 hours and 23:00 hours Monday to Saturday and at no times on Sunday or Bank Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

09. Within the Class B8 use hereby permitted, steel stockholding and operators primarily engaged in heavy plant hire are not allowed to occupy the site.

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

10. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment received on the 31st January 2012 and the following mitigation measures detailed in this document:

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

2. Finished floor levels are set 150mm above the surrounding ground levels.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site.

11. Construction of the development shall not commence until full details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water. The scheme agreed shall be implemented strictly in accordance with such agreement unless subsequent amendments have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority and Southern Water.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained.

12. S5 Discharge prevention

There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either ground water or any surface waters whether direct or via soakaways.

Reason: To prevent pollution of surface water.

13. No development shall be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a plan showing the layout of the proposed

APPENDIX A/

development and the provision of car parking spaces for vehicles. The areas of land provided shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking of vehicles clear of all highways in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

14. No development shall be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a plan showing the locations for the covered secure cycle parking. The facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for the parking of cycles in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

15. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the West Sussex County Council Travelwise Officer. The plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To promote sustainable modes of travel in accordance with policies CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development: Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

16. M9 Sustainable Construction (commercial development)

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the proposed construction methods incorporating sustainable construction techniques to achieve a BREEAM very good rating shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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). 17. M1 Approval of Materials

No development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

18. No works or development shall take place until full details of the type, character; layout and structure of the proposed hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/

19. L4 Landscape Management plan

Before development commences a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibility and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small privately owned domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity and nature conservation in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

20. No development, demolition or alterations to building(s) shall take place until details indicating how suitable provision will be made for protected species and their habitats have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such provision shall be made prior to the demolition of existing structures and the commencement of development. The approved scheme shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the development.

Reason: To safeguard the ecology of the area, and in the interests of protected specifies as listed under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after the development.

21. H6 Wheel Washing

No work shall be carried out on the site unless and until an effective vehicle wheel-cleaning facility has been installed in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such facility shall be retained in working order and operated throughout the period of work on the site to ensure that vehicles do not leave the site carrying earth and mud on their wheels in a quantity which causes a nuisance, hazard or visual intrusion from material deposited on the road system in the locality. Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

22. H4b Construction Material Storage

No work shall be carried out on site unless there is available within the site provision for the storage of materials and equipment associated with the building works; all in accordance with precise details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commences. The approved facilities shall be retained and available for use throughout the period of work required to implement the development hereby permitted unless alternative details are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety and/or in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

23. The use of any land for car parking shall not be commenced until details of layout surfacing and drainage thereof have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Such land shall not be used thereafter for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

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

24. The existing building comprising Block A and shown on the Proposed Site Plan (Drawing No. FSP 11-805-055) shall only be used for purposes within Use Class B1 as

APPENDIX A/

defined in the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) 2011.

Reason: Changes of use as permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 are not considered appropriate in this case under policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Informatives

1. Under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, if it is proposed to fill, divert, obstruct or culvert a watercourse, the applicant would require the prior consent of the Environment Agency. We are aware of a watercourse or ditch in the vicinity of the site. 2. The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development. Please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH. 3. A formal application to the water supply is required in order to service this development. Please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH.

8. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the

character and visual amenities of the locality. Background Papers: DC/05/1850 & DC/08/0237

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177





DEVELOPMENT:

Change of use to sui generis and construction of a petrol filling station including canopy (roadside facilities), with a retail store, ATM and ancillary offices, distribution yard, underground fuel storage tanks, secure fencing plus hard and soft landscaping

SITE: Land South East of Martins Farm London Road Ashington West Sussex

WARD: Chanctonbury


APPLICANT: Mr Neil Northover

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT


1.1 This application was deferred at the May Committee meeting to enable the Parish Council

to give full consideration to the amended plans submitted on 11th May 2012. 1.2 The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a petrol filling station

including canopy (roadside facilities), with a retail store, ATM and ancillary offices, distribution yard, underground fuel storage tanks, secure fencing plus hard and soft landscaping. The application also seeks approval of a change of use to sui generis given there is an extant permission on the site for the erection of a petrol filling station, kiosk/mini store, restaurant and private and commercial parking following the Approval of Reserved Matters under application DC/09/1876. The application has been amended during the course of its consideration in order to address the concerns of the County Surveyor and the Council’s Landscape Consultant.

1.3 The petrol filling station would be located in the southern part of the site and would

comprise a canopy, 8 fuel pumps for regular vehicles and with one petrol pump for HGVs. The proposed retail unit would be two-storey with a height to ridge of 9.5 metres and an amended footprint of 505sq.m. It would be located west of the canopy and would consist of a goods forecourt, general goods area, storage facility, and WC’s on the ground floor and an office with a floor area of 181sq.m at first floor level. 48 car parking spaces would be

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

provided, including two disabled parking spaces and informal parking for commercial vehicles in front of the proposed open storage area. A 2m high green palisade fence would enclose the proposed storage area east of the petrol filling station.

1.4 Access to the site would be provided via London Road and in accordance with the advice

of the County Surveyor the access has been moved further northwards to prevent queuing taking place on the highway opposite the Martins Farm access and a footway connection would be provided from the roundabout to the site entrance. The existing preserved trees on the site are shown to be retained and additional tree planting and landscaping is proposed to the site boundaries.


1.5 The application site is located immediately to the north of the built-up area of Ashington

between London Road and the A24. It comprises an undeveloped and overgrown area of land with an area of approximately 1 ha.

1.6 The site is situated at about the same level as London Road and is relatively open to views

from the road. The A24 northern slip road runs on an incline along the eastern site boundary such that the A24 is set well above the level of the site.

1.7 The site contains a small number of preserved trees mainly in the south-western corner

with hedging of varying height along the southern and eastern boundaries 2. INTRODUCTION


RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework – section 31 is of particular relevance to the

application.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 Policies CP1 & CP15 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are relevant to

the application. 2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control

Policies (2007) are relevant in the assessment of the application: - DC1, DC8, DC9, DC25 & DC35.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 AS/35/94 – In 1996, outline planning permission was granted for roadside facilities

including a petrol filling station, restaurant and commercial vehicle parking subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure the northern part of the site for the relocation of commercial businesses from Old London Road, Ashington or such other locations as may be agreed with the Council.

2.6 AS/31/96 – In 1997, the Council resolved to grant permission for the erection of a coach

depot in the northern part of the site subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement controlling the future use of the existing Rons Coach Depot site and a variation of the

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

existing legal agreement. It was not possible to complete a legal agreement to secure a suitable use for the existing site and the application was subsequently withdrawn.

2.7 AS/48/97 – In 1998, the reserved matters pursuant to the outline permission AS/35/94 for a

petrol filling station, restaurant and parking areas were approved. 2.8 AS/72/00 – In 2001, a renewal of both the outline permission and reserved matters

approval were granted, subject to a variation of the legal agreement attached to AS/35/94 to reflect the current application reference.

2.9 DC/04/1586 – In 2004, a renewal of unimplemented outline permission AS/72/00 and

reserved matters to erect a petrol station, restaurant and vehicle parking was granted permission.

The previous permissions were granted subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure the northern part of the site for the relocation of commercial businesses from Old London Road, Ashington or such other locations as may be agreed with the Council. Consideration was therefore given as to whether there was a continued need for such provision having regard to the nature and location of the site. Given the period that had elapsed since permission was first granted and that no specific relocation needs had been identified for the site, it was not considered that this provision should be pursued. Accordingly, the permission was granted without the requirement of a legal agreement.

2.10 DC/07/2372 – In November 2010 a renewal of reserved matters (DC/04/1586) for the

erection of a petrol filling station, kiosk/mini store, restaurant and private and commercial parking was approved and expires in November 2012.

2.11 DC/09/1876 – In March 2010 a renewal of the unimplemented outline permission AS/72/00

and the reserved matters to erect a petrol station, restaurant and vehicle parking (previously renewed approval DC/04/1586) was approved. However permission was only granted for one year and it has therefore expired.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 The Head of Strategic Planning has made the following comments on the application :-

‘’The proposal seeks the permission for the change of use to sui generis and construction of a petrol filling station including canopy (roadside facilities), with a retail store, ATM and ancillary offices, distribution yard, underground fuel storage tanks, secure fencing plus hard and soft landscaping. The application needs to be considered against the Local Development Framework particularly the Core Strategy 2007 and the General Development Control Policies 2007.

The principle of development of a petrol filling station has already been established, through a history of previously granted outline permissions (AS/35/94, AS/72/00, DC/04/1586, DC/07/2372 and DC/09/1878) dating back to 1994. As such it would be difficult to refuse planning permission for a petrol filling station on this site. This application however, seeks to provide a retail store instead of the previously agreed restaurant and it also includes provision for an open storage area, additional to that previously agreed.

As per the comments for the previous application DC/07/2372, it is worth mentioning, again, the Inspectors’ report into the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD, as this particular site was put to the Council to be considered for inclusion within the built-up area boundary and for the site be used for a hotel and/or employment uses. In their response to

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4

this, the Inspectors’ said: “ADS5 land north of Ashington has an unimplemented outline planning permission for a petrol filling station and restaurant. In the event of this permission not being implemented we agree with the Council that any alternative proposals should be considered afresh against the policies in force at the time. It should not be assumed that some other form of development would be acceptable in principle.”

To address the new elements of the proposal, with regards to the retail store, as long as this does not seriously affect the vitality and viability of existing local shopping facilities, it complies in principle to Policy DC35 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. With regards to the open storage yard, criterion a) of Policy DC25 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 sets out that proposals for development which delivers economic benefits to the rural area will be permitted where it relates to the needs of the rural local economy. We suggest, therefore, that you seek further information from the applicant in order to demonstrate that the employment part of the proposal relates to the needs of the rural local economy. This is needed to comply with Policy DC25.

Further policies that need to be taken into account are Policy DC8 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 which favours developments which ensure that measures are incorporated that reduce the impact of climate change and carbon dioxide emissions; and also Policy DC9, of the same document, which sets out various development principles which permissions need to take account of to ensure high quality development. As the case officer you are the best person to assess these issues.

Therefore, in conclusion, because of the Inspectors comments, the Strategic Planning Team would be keen to ensure that the obtaining of permission on this site would not be a route to an alternative form of development and would suggest you seek further information from the applicant regarding the local need for the employment element of the proposal. I am happy to offer further guidance if necessary.’’

3.2 The Council’s Landscape Consultant objects to the proposal and made the following

comments on the scheme as originally submitted:-

‘’It is recognised that there is an existing permission on this site and that, in principle, location of a petrol filling station on this land has already been agreed. However, we would not recommend granting permission for this current application on grounds of its impact on the local landscape fabric and landscape character. The application as currently proposed represents an attempt to squeeze as much hard surface into the available space as possible, with potentially adverse effects on the surrounding vegetation and consequently the landscape, the storage yard in particular representing an additional element. The proposed retail building would also be substantial and therefore not in scale with surrounding buildings. Local Development Framework Policies Ashington is identified as a Category 2 settlement in the Core Strategy key diagram, indicating that it is a village with a more limited level of services which should accommodate only small-scale development or minor extensions. The proposal site lies outside the limits of the Built Up Area Boundary for Ashington and is thus regarded as being in the countryside, albeit having been previously identified in the Local Plan as suitable for roadside facilities. CP 1: Landscape and Townscape Character. The proposed development would not protect, conserve or enhance key landscape and settlement characteristics, or conserve or enhance biodiversity. The development proposals indicate the removal of large areas of dense shrubs in the north of the site and the settlement would essentially be extended to the A24.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5

CP 2: Environmental Quality. Given the difficulty of draining waste water, consideration could be given to recycling rainwater, which would be collected separately from groundwater. CP 15: Rural Strategy. This development would not result in substantial environmental improvement. Development Control Policies DC 1: It is not considered that the development is of a ‘scale appropriate to its countryside location’ in terms of its area in relation to the size of the site. Policy DC 2 – landscape character. The application planning statement indicates that the proposals allow for a range of additional landscaping and a large amount of planting. However, the plans do not support this, showing only a few proposed trees. Indeed there is little space left whereby such a contribution to character could realistically be made. Landscape Character The site is situated within landscape character area J2 Broadford Bridge to Ashington Farmlands. Individual specimen oak trees are a feature throughout the area. Planning and land management guidelines include the following: Conserve the mostly rural character of the area Encourage landscape improvements along the A24 Encourage new tree planting in Ashington where appropriate Restore hedgerows Despite the proximity to the A24, and its settlement edge location, the site and surrounding area is still considered to have a strongly rural character, reinforced by substantial tree and hedge lines. There is a 9m high standard oak, typical of the area and graded A1 in the arboricultural report, located in the south-east of the site. The development proposals indicate the removal of this tree, which would be to the long term detriment of the character of the area. It is suggested, subject to the tree officer’s view, that a Tree Protection Order could be applied to this tree. Views Views of the site appear to be obtainable from several properties along the B2133 to the west and three properties along the A24 to the south. However, generally the site is visually contained as a result of surrounding trees and the elevated section of the A24 to the east. Direct views are obtainable by motorists descending the A 24 north-bound off slip road south of the site. Direct views of the forecourt and proposed canopy would be obtainable from Martins Farm, especially as the access would be widened alongside it.

Development Proposals There does not appear to be a specific use proposed for the open storage yard, or justification for the proposed size, which is extensive. The yard extends significantly north of the garage forecourt, with adverse visual and landscape impact. This open yard represents a substantial increase in developed area as compared with the previously permitted scheme, as can be seen by the existing tree protection fence, which extends only to the limits of the previously agreed scheme. Circulation around the building to the south seems very restricted. The planning statement says that there is provision for 48 car spaces, but the layout plan shows only 37 car parking spaces plus two disabled spaces, with perhaps 4 lorry parking spaces. In busy periods the fragmented car park layout may lead to visitors circulating round the retail building to try to find a parking space. 8m lighting columns are proposed for the car park. These lighting columns would be considerably higher than the

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6

surrounding hedges and although the light would be directed towards the car park, it would be visible from side views against a largely dark background, even with full cut off units. It has been assumed that the fascia of the forecourt canopy would not be lit. If permission is granted, this should be specifically covered by condition. There seems to be a contradiction between the sustainability assertion that the lights would be dimmed when motion is not detected and the security assertion that the car park would be ‘brightly lit’ during the hours of opening in the evening.

The proposed ‘Active frontage’ is not shown on the elevations. The operator selected for the fuel filling station will presumably have their own branding requirements which typically are garish gantry signs, purposefully intrusive on the roadside. Given the offline location in this instance, there is a concern over future illuminated signing near the A24, together with a strong commercial desire to maintain relatively open boundaries to maximise visibility. Broadly similar concerns could arise for the retail unit.

Effects on vegetation and landscape The large oak south of the proposed widened entrance is likely to be vulnerable because of potential damage to its root protection zone. The anticipated swept path of a 16.5m articulated vehicle as shown on Figure 4.1 indicates that, with careful design and detailing, it would appear to be possible to retain the 9m high oak in the south-east of the site. This tree has the capacity to contribute to the local landscape over a long period of time and should be retained if at all possible. The main circulation area south of the retail building encroaches very close to the boundary hedge such that its ability to provide a meaningful, healthy, landscape boundary screen must be in question. Whilst it should be acknowledged that somewhat similar implications would have arisen on previous layouts, the weakness of the layout in this regard is a concern and underscores the overall "tightness" of the site. The fence and hard surface of the open storage yard are proposed to extend within approximately 2 metres of the planting line of the established offsite hedge over much of its length, which, taking into account the requirement for kerbs or other edge restraint, is likely to adversely affect the long-term viability of the hedge as an effective screen and landscape and ecological structural and linking element. As existing, this hedge represents only a partial screen in winter time. Augmentation of the planting line within the site would be beneficial. Application Planting Proposals The current planting proposals are minimal and inadequate. These should seek to reinforce the landscape boundary to the site, including for example, screening of the proposed palisade fence where gaps exist along London Road. The site plan currently shows trees to be removed, but does not show existing dense bushes to be removed. No plant sizes or other specification details are given, or any indication of future management.

Summary Overall, it is considered that the development as currently proposed cannot be supported on either landscape or visual grounds. The development proposals represent a larger development than the site can comfortably accommodate, in terms of the dimensions of the building, but especially in terms of the extent of hard surface proposed. In particular, the proposals for a storage yard with a hard surface to extend into the tightly defined northern part of the site appears excessive and not in keeping with the rural location. Conditions However, notwithstanding the above and in recognition of the site's planning history, in the event that the proposal is recommended for approval, conditions should address the following issues:

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7

1. Before development is commenced, a comprehensive hard and soft landscape plan should be prepared, showing vegetation to be retained including tree protection measures, proposed planting species, location, density, sizes and specification details, including ground preparation and boundary treatments. The soft landscape plan should be accompanied by a maintenance and management plan to cover both the retained and proposed vegetation, for a minimum of five years. This would identify the minimum heights that the boundary hedgerows would be maintained at. 2. Planting proposals to contribute to the planning and management guidelines as detailed in the Broadford Bridge to Billingshurst Farmland landscape character document. 3. No signage, either illuminated or unlit, should be allowed that would be discernible from beyond the eastern and southern site boundaries

3.3 Following the submission of the amended plans, the Landscape Consultant continues to

object to the proposal for the following reasons:-

‘’The landscape proposals as illustrated on drawing no. GN01 00.005 Revision H, Proposed Site Plan, represent an improvement on the original scheme as shown on Revision E. A number of landscape issues have been addressed by the amended proposal. The extent of the proposed hard surface would be reduced generally and the storage yard would be smaller. This would allow for the retention of existing shrubs to the west of the storage yard and additional proposed tree planting along the eastern and southern boundaries, as shown indicatively on the proposals drawing. The additional indicative trees and retained vegetation would have the potential to contribute to screening of the site. The footprint of the proposed building would be reduced by approximately one fifth.

However, the entrance would be relocated slightly to the north, which would necessitate the removal of an additional existing boundary tree. The quality of this tree is not clear from the information given.

Despite the acknowledged improvements to the proposed scheme, it is still considered that the storage yard would represent an inappropriate incursion into the countryside and that the proposed retail building would be sufficiently large to make it difficult to screen effectively.

With regard to Local Development Framework policies, it is also still considered that the proposals would not comply with CP 1: Landscape and Townscape Character or CP 15: Rural Strategy.’’

3.4 The Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the proposal:-

‘’I have examined the latest site layout drawing (GN01 00.005 Rev F) and note the following:

The protected trees on the site (ref: TPO/0955, confirmed on 15/09/98) are targeted for retention. Please note that the oak in the centre of the site (T1 of the TPO) was excluded from the Order prior to confirmation.

The RPA's of each have been respected, save for one small ingress of one of the car parking spaces adjacent to T5. Given the small degree of ingress involved, and the condition of the tree, I register no objection to this; no special surfacing will be required.

The revised position of the access driveway into the site will result in the loss of a fairly large willow tree and other specimens associated with the original hedgerow. However, these trees are of no especial merit, and I raise no concern in respect of their removal.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8

As the scheme will have no adverse impact upon the retained trees on the site, and meets the arboricultural provisions of poicy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007), I register NO OBJECTION. However, full protective fencing will be required, and accordingly I advise the use of standard condition L2a. I also recommend the use of L6 (no burning).

3.5 In response to the comments of the Landscape Consultant with regard to the oak tree in

the centre of the site, the Arboricultural Officer has made the following additional comments:-

‘’You will recall that this tree was originally included within TPO/955 as 'T1', but deleted prior to confirmation at the Area 2 Development Control sub-committee on 15th September 1998 further to a report from the Council's arboriculturalist dated 13 July. This was because the arboriculturalist had noted that the tree had only moderate amenity merit, and also exhibited signs of crown asymmetry and basal disturbance. Further to Bernice's comments, I revisited the site on 10th April 2012, and inspected the tree. I note the following:

Within its present environment, I have no issue in principle with Bernice's consideration that the removal of this tree "would be to the long-term detriment of the character of the area", and that it has "the capacity to contribute to the local landscape over a long period of time". Indeed, so long as the character of the area remains as existing, there is no reason for this tree to be felled, and as it certainly contributes to the amenities of the locality, to a degree, and clearly offers a useful wildlife habitat.

However, she also attests that with careful design and detailing it would not only be possible to retain the tree within the existing development plans, but also that it should accordingly "be retained if at all possible".

Retention of semi-mature trees on development sites is clearly desirable and promoted by the Council at policy DC 9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007). However, having re-examined this tree, whereas I applaud Bernice's intent, I have reservations that this is a tree which meets the criteria for long-term retention within the context of the likely development at the site, for the following reasons:

o In amenity terms, the tree remains small (only 9m in height) and views of it from outside the site are heavily restricted by the tall hedgerows which border it. It is visible from the dual carriageway spur to the south, but only fleetingly, and even to pedestrians only the head of its crown can be seen. Even if the hedgerow in this area was trimmed to more usual height, I am not of the view that it would become in any way prominent or of especial or outstanding merit in visual terms.

o Although in fair health, the crown has considerable and extensive deadwood, the removal of which would certainly be required should the site be developed. This would leave a number of large wounds in the upper crown, which, while in no way terminal, would adversely affect its health. The main leader to the west, adjacent to its point of emanation from the principal trunk bifurcation, has an extended open wound on its upper surface, which, while appearing benign at present, is occluding poorly and is therefore a large decay entry point. The trunk has a modest lean to the north-east; but this is not of concern.

o A greater worry, previously noted by my predecessor in 1998, is that the tree has clearly grown on the edge of what appears to be an old pond to its immediate east. Though the pond is presently dry, the rooting structure is very typical of a pond edge tree, having long drawn-out lateral roots to the west, at a high level, and the commonly seen complex of directly vertical and lateral roots to the east on the pond side at around 600mm lower down. This rooting structure, while not unsound, is in rather poor structural condition, and more

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9

importantly would react very badly to any alteration of levels, something which would be very hard to resist within the develoment process.

o To put this another way, not only the tree but also the remnant pond would also need to be retained for the tree to stand a chance of coping with a dramatic alteration of its existing environment around it. Given its position on the site, it is most hard to see how this could be acheived, and would sterilise a considerable part of this area of the site.

Technically, it might be possible to re-profile the pond area in a manner by which the tree would survive, using an inert filler and techniques to minimise harm by direct root damage or alterations to the localised hydrology. However, given my assessment above, my judgement is that this would be incommensurately complex given the relatively low amenity value of the tree, its size, and its likely SULE (safe useful life expectancy) given the strong likelihood of development on the site. It would sterilise a large part of the site for development, and with the best of intentions may well have a low chance of success, both during and subsequent to the development process in the longer term.

On balance, despite the respect I have for Bernice's considerations, I do not feel that this tree warrants the special attention it would require in order for it to be successfully retained within the development scheme, or the effect its retention would have on the development of the site as a whole. I therefore consider it better practice to seek the full and effective retention of the remaining TPO'd trees on the site, and secure suitably robust soft landscaping to ameliorate, so far is can be, the loss of the oak tree in question.’’

3.6 The Head of Public Health & Licensing has made the following comments on the

application:-

‘’ Noise

The development will introduce noise primarily due to the movements of vehicles accessing the site. The proposed operation of the distribution yard, heating oil storage facility and vehicle storage area will also result in a concentration of HGV movements.

The proximity of the site to the A24 implies that the locality is already exposed to high levels of ambient noise. However it should be noted that traffic noise from the A24 is characterised by peak hour flows and outside of the normal peak periods the masking effect of noise from the A24 will be reduced.

It should also be considered that the noise generated by vehicles entering and leaving the site or manoeuvring on site for deliveries is different in character from vehicles moving freely along the highway. Ancillary noise such as reversing alarms, car stereos, slamming of car doors can be significant sources of noise.

Having regard to the proposed site layout and statements from the applicant that no externally located plant is to be installed it is considered that the most likely noise generating activities that that could adversely affect nearby residents are the arrival and departure of patrons from the service station, the acceptance and dispatch of deliveries, and handling and storage of materials in the open yard.

These potential impacts are best controlled through limiting the hours of operation of the proposed development. In order to further minimise the exposure of local residents to noise from vehicles and activities at the site appropriate boundary treatments to the western and southern boundaries are required. This should take the form of a fence or other imperforate barrier with a minimum height of 2m

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 10

Accordingly it is recommended that the following conditions be applied should consent be granted:

1. The hours of operation of the petrol filling station shall be restricted to 06:30-20:00 hours on Monday to Saturday and from 07:30 to 13:00 hours on Sundays or Bank Holidays;

2. The hours of operation of the retail store shall be restricted to 08:30-18:00 hours on Monday to Saturday and from 09:00 – 13:00 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays

3. The hours of operation of the open storage yard and all activity associated with the distribution of kerosene/heating oil shall be restricted to 07:30-18:00 hours on Monday to Friday, from 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays;

4. Deliveries to or from the premises shall be restricted to 08:00-18:00 hours on Monday to Friday, from 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays;

5. No externally located plant shall be installed or operated unless an assessment of the acoustic impact arising from the operation of the plant has been undertaken in accordance with BS 4142:1997. The acoustic assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where the acoustic survey has identified any adverse noise impact, a scheme of works to reduce the level of noise shall be drawn up. The scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme as approved by the local planning authority shall be fully installed before the development is occupied.

6. A boundary treatment comprising a fence or other imperforate barrier with a minimum height of 2 metres shall be installed along the full extent of the western and southern boundaries of the development site.

Air Quality

Horsham District currently has two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA's) designated on the basis of elevated pollution levels, which are directly attributable to transport emissions.

Whilst the AQMA's are within defined areas, the impact on pollution in those and other areas from the local road network is an important factor. One means by which transport emissions can be reduced across the district is by facilitating the uptake of low emission vehicles. The provision of a new petrol filling station provides an opportunity for low emission community infrastructure improvements which can encourage the use of low emission vehicles and reduce vehicle exhaust emissions.

It is therefore recommend that the Applicant be required to provide a Liquid Petroleum Gas(LPG), or similar alternative fuelling facility as part of the development should it be recommended for approval.

Lighting

The applicant has submitted alighting assessment prepared by a specialist consultant. This assessment identifies that the site is located in a relatively dark location. Accordingly the consultant has designed a scheme of lighting for the entire development which avoids light nuisance and minimises light overspill. Accordingly it is recommended that the lighting scheme be made subject to the following condition:

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 11

7. No external lighting shall be operated unless installed in accordance with the design and specifications submitted in the Project Centre report titled Ashington Petrol Station Lighting Assessment, reference: 2011 11 11_Ashington Petrol Station and dated 11/11/20011.

Pollution Prevention and Control

The operation of the petrol filling station is subject to permit issued under the Pollution Prevention and Control regime. The applicant must apply for permit to operate this installation to this authority prior to the commencement of this use.

The bulk storage of fuels is also subject to regulations enforced by the Environment Agency. The applicant should follow the appropriate advice to ensure the underground storage tanks comply with these regulatory requirements.’’

The Head of Public health & Licensing therefore raises no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions as suggested above.

3.7 The Head of Corporate Support Services has advised that he has no objection to the

application and is satisfied that the applicant is aware of the existing surface water ditch network.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.8 The County Surveyor has no objection to the proposal but requested that further

information be provided when first consulted on the application:-

‘’I understand that the planning history of this site dates back to the 1990’s following the construction of the Ashington By-pass and subsequent new housing in the village. The site already has planning consent for a petrol filling station and Little Chef restaurant which remains valid until December 2012. The applicants have now submitted this latest planning application to, effectively, amend the existing consent to provide a new petrol filling station, retail store and distribution yard. The retail store would be used to sell country clothing and sports goods and the distribution yard would be used for the applicant’s fuel distribution business. The access arrangements would be from a spur off the London Road/Billingshurst Road as previously agreed.

From a highway point of view, planning consent already exists for a petrol filling station and restaurant on this site and therefore no objections in principle are raised to this latest proposal. The proposed access route to the site is acceptable, but I would question whether the fuel pump configuration shown will work effectively as motorists would enter the site and then have to turn quite sharply to park parallel to the pumps. If the pumps are busy then queuing would most likely take place at the entrance until pumps become free and this could tail back onto the highway at busy times. It would, therefore be preferable to move the entrance further northwards (so that it is not opposite the Martins Farm access) so that motorists would be able to enter the site and form queues in line with the pumps based upon their judgement of the fuel required and the queue lengths. Motorists leaving the pumps would still have to make a fairly tight turn to exit the site and there could be some conflict with retail parking in front of the building, although this seems to be fairly commonplace at other filling stations. The swept path arrangement for petrol tankers would appear acceptable. Also, although high sided vehicles be able to enter the site, would they also be able to leave in site bearing in mind the proximity of the canopy to the exit ?

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 12

As regards any off-site highway works being required, it will be necessary to construct a new footway extension from the north-east corner of the roundabout to the filling station entrance as any pedestrians approaching from the village would otherwise have to walk on the verge or in the road. I assume that the applicants will also want to attract traffic to the site from the A24 which will require amendments to advance signing on this road and also on Billingshurst Road and London Road. This would have to be financed by the applicants.

In summary, there would be no highway objection in principle to this application, but the following needs to be addressed :

1. The entrance should be moved further northwards so that motorists can approach

parallel to the pumps and to prevent queuing taking place on the highway opposite the Martins Farm access.

2. A footway connection to be provided from the roundabout to the site entrance so pedestrians can walk safely to the site from Ashington.

3. Confirmation of the routing for HGV’s associated with the fuel distribution use. Will the height of the canopy cause problems in this respect ?

4. Confirmation as to whether the applicants will want advanced signing for the site in which case this fill need to be funded by the applicants.

3.9 Following the submission of amended plans the County Surveyor commented further as

follows:-

1. The entrance has been moved slightly northwards, but the distance has been constrained by the presence of a mature tree and its roots. However, the movement is sufficient to allow motorists to enter the site and gives them more space and time to make an informed decision before turning southwards and approaching the pumps. I am therefore satisfied that this issue has been adequately addressed.

2. A footway connection has now been shown between the entrance to the roadside facility and the existing roundabout. This issue is now satisfactorily addressed.

3. It is not clear how HGV’s associated with the fuel distribution use can be controlled. The Highway Authority would prefer that all fuel deliveries (including petrol/diesel) is from the direction of the A24, but deliveries of other fuels such as coal or oil for homes may be journey or route specific and it would not be possible to prevent such movements along the B2133 should a delivery need to be made to, say, Billingshurst or Pulborough.

4. An advanced signing strategy would have to be agreed and funded by the applicants prior to the opening of the roadside facilities as the Highway Authority would want all traffic to use appropriate routes and not pass through the centre of Ashington village.

Subject to the imposition of conditions the County Surveyor has advised that no objection would be raised on highway grounds.

3.10 The County Archaeologist has advised that structural remains of a house dating to the

1720s or earlier survive at shallow depth in the south-eastern corner of the site. These archaeological remains would be removed by new development works, and should be fully revealed, recorded and reported prior to the start of development. However, no objection is raised on archaeological grounds to the proposed development subject to archaeological safeguards through the use of a suitable planning condition.

3.11 The Environment Agency had no comments to make on the application. 3.12 Southern Water has advised that the applicant should consult the Environment Agency

directly regarding the use of a package treatment plant which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. Southern Water further advises that the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities. Good

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 13

management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system.


3.13 Ashington Parish Council originally objected to the proposal on the following grounds;-

The Parish Council Object to this application. The Parish Council had previously supported the development of this site for a petrol station with kiosk/mini-store, restaurant and parking (roadside facilities), however, this new application introduces a more industrial nature to the site and excludes previous elements (restaurant/café) which the Parish Council consider would have been of benefit to the village. Ashington is a Category 2 settlement with limited facilities and expansion of beneficial facilities would be welcomed.

This application is clear that ‘no end-user’ has been identified for the petrol filling station (Planning Statement 3.5). The application states that the petrol filling station will be the main attractor to the site. The Parish Council support the need for a petrol station in the village, this is reinforced by the Community Action Plan 2010. This site has had various planning permissions for a petrol station for many years but it has never been built. The petrol station is essential to this development. The Parish Council would like a commitment from the Developer that the petrol station is built and fully operational. This application should not be approved unless an end-user for the petrol station is found.

The Parish Council has the following specific issues of concern: 1. Proposed Opening Hours: 06 30-20 00hrs mon-sat, 06 30-13 00hrs Sundays & BH. Presumably for the distribution yard & retail store? This is too early in the morning and will cause noise and disturbance to those living near the development. 2. Planting/screening– the application refers to ‘hard & soft landscaping’ but no details of any are presented. The application is relying on existing hedges/trees to screen the site but existing hedges are only 3-5m high and the proposed retail unit is 9.3m high. The retail unit will be clearly visible from all sides. Much of the screening hedge is outside the application boundary and therefore not in the control of the applicant. It cannot be assumed that this will be allowed to grow to provide adequate screening for the site. More planting/landscaping is needed. 3. Renewable energy – the application refers to the suitability of the retail unit to accommodate PV panels however, none appear to be shown on the detailed plans. 4. Lighting –There is no mention of whether the lights will be switched off at night. For the avoidance of light pollution the lights should be switched off when the premises is closed. 5. Transport – no details have been supplied about the likely number of journeys to/from the site. There are no details on the number & size of vehicles to serve the development (and distribution yard). There are no details of proposed routing of LGVs to/from the site. The Parish Council ask for a routing agreement so that LGVs do not travel through the village. Although routing agreements may not be enforceable in practice unless accompanied by physical restrictions to the local & sub-regional highway network. What policing mechanism will the planning authority put in place? 6. The B2133 Billingshurst Road is not a strategic route and the Council is concerned that the distribution yard could generate LGV movements which would have a detrimental effect on residential properties along this route. At some points it is impossible for LGV’s to pass each other on this road due to the narrowness of the road. 7. Advanced signage to/from the development to be from the northern end of the village only A24 Billingshurst Road junction only). The Parish Community Action Plan 2010 calls for a reduction in the number of LGVs coming through the village unnecessarily. 8. The Parish Council would like WSCC Highways to check the slip roads at the Billingshurst Road/A24 junction including East Wolves roundabout.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 14

Many Ashington residents have had ‘near misses’ because of short sight-lines in this area. A report commissioned by Thakeham Village Action into a recent planning application for a landfill site at Laybrook Brickworks (DC/09/2180) concluded ‘There should be serious concerns expressed by WSCC about a major increase in LGV flows on the A24 grade separated junction at Ashington. The two roundabouts do not meet current roundabout design standards and from casual observation there is the potential for laden LGVs to overturn as they will be able to enter and negotiate the roundabouts (especially the southern approach to the eastern roundabout) at too high a speed. This is just one reason why an Operational Safety Assessment of the existing infrastructure is required.’ 9. The articulated vehicle ‘swept path analysis’ appears to show the possibility of collision or encroachment onto the verges if two LGVs are to pass each other on Old London Road. 10. There is no proposed footpath to the site – how are pedestrians to access the site without walking along the road? 11. Fencing – The distribution yard is proposed to have a 2m high green palisade fence – no example of this is shown. No drawings of what this will look like have been supplied. Is this fencing adequate for a fuel storage yard ie to prevent theft? Screening/planting would be required to soften the appearance of the fence. 12. Distribution yard –a portakabin on the site would be out of keeping with the environment? A purpose built building of appropriate style would be required. 13. Retail store – proposed to be country clothing & sports goods. Presumably Use Class A1 – the application does not make this clear? But, if approved, this could be changed without any further planning applications. This may be to the detriment of other retail units /businesses in the village. Consideration should be given to specific types of store only and not a very general Use Classification. 14. There is concern that surface water run-off, although proposed to be controlled, would cause flooding in the ditch/stream to the east of the site. The cost to remedy this would be borne by the adjacent landowner. 15. The site is very small and there may be conflicts between vehicles accessing the distribution yard, petrol station & retail store.

3.14 However, following the receipt of amended plans the Parish Council now support the

application and has made the following comments:-

‘’The Parish Council SUPPORT the amended planning application. The newly amended DC/11/2648 proposals for the site are much more appealing and beneficial to the village than either the existing planning permission (DC/07/2372), or the original DC/11/2648 (to which the Parish Council had objected). The Parish Council welcomes the creation of local jobs that will result, and the petrol station (both of which are in the Ashington Community Action Plan 2010), recognises the benefit of a country store, and some competition in the domestic heating oil business, and recognises that once in operation further changes are limited as the site is self-contained and future expansion is not possible. The Parish Council would like to suggest that the country store include elements of a ‘farm shop’ eg fresh goods (meat, veg, bread), handmade, artisan, slightly more expensive, organic etc, as well as other limited grocery type items often found at petrol station stores. The Parish Council recognises that this may have a slight impact on the main retail store in the village (Co-op) but will never out-compete the Co-op and would give residents more buying choices, and possibly reduce lorries passing through the village (another Community Action Plan 2010 priority) to pick up sandwiches etc.

Some of the Parish Council’s concerns expressed to the original DC/11/2648 can be controlled by appropriate planning conditions: 1. Opening & delivery hours – HDC’s Environmental Health Officer has made some suggestions for the avoidance of noise disturbance to nearby residents. 2. Lighting – switched off when the site is closed at 8pm and on again in the morning 3. Height of goods stored in the distribution yard not to exceed 2m 4. Full hard & soft

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 15

landscaping as per Preliminary drawing supplied to the Parish Council on 30th May 2012 and to be checked by HDC. 5. Advance signage and routing agreements to prevent vehicles travelling through the village to access the site. 6. The petrol station is recognised as the main use of this site, any future planning applications for activities at the expense of the petrol station not to be permitted. HDC to advise on this. 7. Renewable energy to be considered 8. Portakabin to be temporary, permanent facility to be built in an appropriate style.

The Parish Council is aware that if this application is not permitted that DC/07/2372 will be built and this is considered to be less beneficial to the village, and indeed have some undesirable elements (especially 24 hour activity).

Members of the Parish Council would be happy to meet with HDC Officers and/or Councillors to discuss this application.’’

3.15 8 letters of objection were received from neighbouring residents on the plans as originally submitted and a further 4 letters of objection to the amended plans have been received on the following grounds:-

Source of air and light pollution Lack of need for a petrol filling station - there is a similar facility 5 miles to the north

of the village, also in Findon, Storrington and Upper Beeding Dangerous road Length of opening hours Additional noise Additional traffic Industrial nature of the proposal is not in keeping with the village Adverse signage in a rural location No end user identified Industrial fuel distribution unit is not needed Intrusive lighting Given the existing Co-op store there is no need for another retail outlet in the village Distribution yard would be detrimental to village life Adverse impact on neighbouring residents in terms of noise and disturbance


(protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out in Section 6 below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact on

safety and security issues. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is considered that the principal issue in the determination of the application are i) whether

the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to central government and development plan policy and ii) the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 16 6.2 Members will have noted from the planning history that planning permission has previously

been granted for a petrol filling station on the site and there is an extant permission for the erection of a petrol station, restaurant and parking but which is due to expire in November of this year. It is considered appropriate at this stage to provide an explanation of the circumstances in which planning permission was granted for the approved development.

6.3 The site is located on a greenfield site outside the defined built-up area boundary of

Ashington. Up to 2004, the previous permissions that have been granted for a roadside facilities development on the site were in accordance with Policy AS2 of the Horsham District Local Plan 1997. However, following the renewal of permission in 2004 the Horsham District Local Plan was superseded by the Horsham District Local Development Framework 2007 and under the current plan the site is no longer allocated for a roadside facilities development. Such a change in policy terms would normally have constituted a material change in circumstances which would have justified the withholding of a further permission. Furthermore, given the existence of the Buck Barn facilities 6 miles to the north on the A24 your officers questioned whether there was a need for additional roadside facilities within the locality. On submission of applications DC/07/2372 & DC/09/1876, Counsel advice was sought on the matter and it was confirmed that as outline consent had been granted (and subsequently renewed) for roadside facilities, the principle of such a development on the site had been accepted and the applications could not therefore be refused on the point of principle having regard to the change in policy.

6.4 However, the current application has introduced new elements into the scheme and

proposes the construction of a petrol filling station including canopy (roadside facilities), with a retail store, ATM and ancillary offices, distribution yard, underground fuel storage tanks, secure fencing plus hard and soft landscaping. In this regard, the Inspectors’ report into the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD is of particular relevance, as the application site was put to the Council to be considered for inclusion within the built-up area boundary and for the site be used for a hotel and/or employment uses. In their response to this, the Inspectors’ said: “ADS5 land north of Ashington has an unimplemented outline planning permission for a petrol filling station and restaurant. In the event of this permission not being implemented we agree with the Council that any alternative proposals should be considered afresh against the policies in force at the time. It should not be assumed that some other form of development would be acceptable in principle.” The application has therefore been assessed in terms of current government advice and development plan policy.

6.5 Current Government advice in relation to roadside facilities is embodied in Para 31 of the

National Planning Policy Framework. The advice states that: ‘’Local authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to

develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development, including large scale facilities such as rail freight interchanges, roadside facilities for motorists or transport investment necessary to support strategies for the growth of ports, airports or other major generators of travel demand in their areas. The primary function of roadside facilities for motorists should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user.’’

6.6 It is within this national policy context that the application should be assessed in

conjunction with the policies contained in the Local Development Framework. In this respect, Policy DC1 is of particular relevance in the assessment of the proposal and states that outside built-up area boundaries development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and meets a number of criteria. Furthermore, any development permitted must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location. Policy DC9 sets out various development principles which proposals need to take account of to ensure high quality development and reiterates that development must relate

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 17

sympathetically to the local landscape. With regard to the new elements of the proposal, Policy DC35 states with regard to the retail store, that the proposal should not seriously affect the vitality and viability of existing local shopping facilities. With regard to the open storage yard, criterion a) of Policy DC25 states that proposals for development which delivers economic benefits to the rural area will be permitted where it relates to the needs of the rural local economy.

6.7 The applicant has advised that development of the application site would enable Northover

Fuels to trade incorporating all of the products and services that are currently provided from their other depots in Dorset and Devon. It is submitted that feasibility studies have demonstrated that the site has never been developed as a petrol filling station due to the flyover system. However studies undertaken by the applicant have shown that a petrol filling station would thrive with the addition of the solid fuel, domestic heating oil and country store projects on the same site. The proposal would employ 20 full and part time staff which it is submitted would be of benefit to the local economy.

6.8 In response to the various objections raised by local residents, the applicant has advised

that the end user would be a major oil company preferably or it would be branded under Northover Fuels. There would be no increase in air or light pollution as the existing planning permission is for a 24 hour site whereas the proposed opening hours would be between 06.00 to 20.00 hours. The lights would be switched off when the site was not in use. A total of 4 HGVs would leave the site per day and 2 loads per week of palletised products would be delivered. HGV routing would be via the A24 north and south as there would be no need to access the site through the village and signage could be erected to this effect. The palletised goods would be stored to a maximum height of 2m. The goods to be sold in the country store would include animal feed and bedding; fishing tackle; country clothing; gardening products, gas bottles, pre-packed solid fuel, kindling & logs.

6.9 The application has been amended during the course of its consideration in response to

the comments of the County Surveyor and Landscape Consultant. In this respect, the vehicular access has been re-located and the provision of a pedestrian footpath is now proposed. Having regard to the comments of the Landscape Consultant, the footprint of the building has been reduced by some 117 square metres and the area of hardstanding for the storage yard has been reduced to the minimum viable area so that the distance between the new fence and the site boundary to London Road has increased to 4 metres. The applicant has also confirmed that the existing boundary hedgerows and tree planting would be supplemented with additional new planting where appropriate.

6.10 In terms of policy, the application is considered to be at variance with current government

advice in respect of roadside facilities which states, amongst other things:- ‘’The primary function of roadside facilities for motorists should be to support the safety and welfare of the road user.’’ From the information submitted, it would appear that the main activities on the site would be in respect of retail and storage and distribution of pre-packed goods, with the roadside facilities an ancillary element in the proposed development, having regard to the limited hours of opening. It is therefore considered that the proposal is not in accordance with national planning advice.

6.11 With regard to the impact on the character of the area, it is acknowledged that the

amendments have addressed a number of landscape issues, however, the proposal would still constitute a building of substantial scale and bulk which would be difficult to screen notwithstanding the proposed additional landscaping. The proposal would have a total floor area of 687 sq.m as opposed to the approved development which has a floor area of 582 sq.m. Furthermore, the permitted scheme is comprised of three separate elements:- the petrol filling station, incorporating a small retail area, a restaurant and car wash. Whilst the petrol station is of a similar height to that currently proposed ie 9.5 metres, the restaurant has a maximum height of 8.5 metres and the car wash a maximum height of 6.5

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 18

metres. The approved buildings would also be sited in different locations within the site which helps to break up the mass of the built form on the site. The current application, however, proposes one large imposing building and also a storage yard which represents a substantial increase in the developed area compared to that previously approved. In this respect, it is considered that the scale of the building is not in keeping with the surrounding development and would exert a dominating influence in this prominent countryside location. Your officers share the views of the Landscape Consultant in this regard who has lodged an objection to the proposed development on the grounds of the proposal’s adverse visual and landscape impact on the surrounding area.

6.12 In conclusion, whilst there may be some economic benefits to be derived from the

proposal, it is not considered that they are sufficient to outweigh the harm identified by the Landscape Consultant in terms of adverse visual and landscape impact. It is considered that the proposed development would represent an over-development of the site which would have a detrimental impact on the rural character and appearance of the surrounding area.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Planning permission be refused for the following reasons:- 1. The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside of the defined

built-up area boundary and is unrelated to the needs of agriculture, forestry, the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste. It therefore represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside contrary to Policy CP1 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy and Policy DC1 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies.

2. The proposed development is considered unacceptable as it would represent an

over-development of the site which would be likely to have significant adverse visual and landscape character impacts on the surrounding area and for which there is no over-riding need given the proximity of other roadside facilities in the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to national guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP1 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy, and Policy DC1 & DC2 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies.

Background Papers: DC/11/2648

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1

Contact Officer: Emma Greening Tel: 01403 215122




DATE: 19 June 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Extension to existing outdoor riding ménage for private use only

SITE: Glebe House Steyning Road West Grinstead Horsham

WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead


APPLICANT: Mrs Jane Robinson

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.1 To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.2 The application seeks to extend the existing ménage which currently measures

60metres by 20metres, and is located to the east of the stable block. The proposal would see the ménage extend by 20metres to the east and 6metres to the north, creating a ménage measuring 80metres by 26metres.

1.3 The applicant has stated that the ménage would be for private use only and that the

extension to the ménage would be constructed of post and rail fencing with a sand/ rubber surface to match that already existing.


1.4 The application site is located outside of the Built up Area in a rural location

surrounded to the north, east and west by fields. The main house with which the ménage is associated with is Grade II* listed and there are a number of Grade II listed barns located to the west of the existing ménage. The site of the existing ménage is located to the east of the West Grinstead Conservation Area.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2

1.5 The ménage itself is located to the east of the stable block with paddocks used for the grazing of horses located to the north, east and south of the ménage. Approximately 60metres to the north of the existing ménage lies the nearest neighbouring property ‘Hobhearn House’, and is clearly visible from the existing ménage. Footpaths are located to the north (94metres) and south (130metres) of the existing ménage but views from these will be screened in part by the trees and hedges.

1.6 The existing ménage is located approximately 20metres from the edge of the West

Grinstead Conservation Area, 38metres from the Grade II listed barns and 76metres from the main Grade II* listed Glebe House.

2. INTRODUCTION


RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012: Achieving Sustainable Development, Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) and Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment).


2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007): Policies

CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character) and CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development)

2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control

Policies (2007): DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character), DC9 (Development Principles), DC13 (Listed Buildings), DC29 (Equestrian Development).

PLANNING HISTORY

WG/27/49 Farm buildings

(From old Planning History) PER

WG/31/49 Addition to cowstall & dairy

(From old Planning History) PER

WG/37/61 Covered yard & lean-to cattle shelter & conversion of

cowhouse into covered yard & shelter Comment: + br (From old Planning History)

PER

WG/18/86LB Demolition of stables, grooms quarters & erection of

new stables (From old Planning History)

PER

WG/19/86 Erection of new stables PER

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3

(From old Planning History)

DC/08/0375 Horse walker (on land to the east of Glebe House and Orchard Cottage)

PER

DC/09/0939 Formation of a horse exercise track for personal use (land to the South of Glebe House)

PER


INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Any comments from waste management will be reported verbally at the meeting 3.2 The Design and Conservation Advisor has made the following comments: Glebe

House is a grade II* listed building, with its barns being on the statutory listed also at grade II. Glebe House appears to be the manor house, associated with the hamlet of West Grinstead as it sits in a complex of other buildings, including the parish church, (grade I) former vicarage & church house and historic farmstead known as Glebe Farm, of which the barns are grade II listed.

The development is for an extension to the ménage, which sits to the east of the listed barns. Under para. 128 of the NPPF, the applicant is expected to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by the development; this has not been adequately carried out and the information received to date is minimal, only describing the effect other ménages close to listed buildings have on their settings. However as this is an application for an extension to an existing ménage, in an area which has other agricultural and countryside uses, the development would not detract from the setting of Glebe House, the listed barns nor the other aspects of the historic hamlet pattern. In conclusion, the application meets the requirements of DC13 and the NPPF para. 131.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 English Heritage has stated that the application should be determined in

accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.


3.4 Any comments from West Grinstead Parish Council will be reported verbally at the

meeting. 3.5 One letter of objection has been received to the application. They outline concerns

regarding overdevelopment as the proposed extension of an already full sized dressage arena would not be appropriate in terms of scale or level of activity and would constitute gross overdevelopment for a private equestrian yard. It is considered that it would spoil the nature and character of the landscape that abuts the conservation area in West Grinstead. The existing dressage arena is floodlit. There are further concerns raised that such a development would lead to an

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4

increase in traffic and associated noise over and above what is currently caused. They further suggest that there are misstatements in the supporting statement, and suggest that the ménage is being extended for carriage driving.


RIGHTS 4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First

Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant

impact on crime and disorder. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS 6.1 The application seeks to extend the existing ménage to the north and east, the

proposal would see the ménage extend into the paddocks surrounding the existing ménage. Policy DC29 of the General Development Control Policies covers equestrian development. This policy states:

Planning permission will be granted for equestrian related development if: a) It can be demonstrated that the re-use of the existing buildings on site for

any related equestrian use is not appropriate before new or replacement buildings are considered;

b) The proposal is appropriate in scale and level of activity, and in keeping with its locations and surroundings; and

c) Does not result in sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the countryside, particularly in an urban fringe location

6.2 The relevant part of this policy is (b) and (c) the design and access statement which

accompanies the application states that the reason for the proposed extension to the sand school is so that more than one horse can be exercised in safety in the confines of the arena and secondly to provide an arena more appropriate for the training of show jumping and event horses. Whilst it is acknowledged that the extension to the existing ménage would be significant, it would be directly adjoining the existing sand school and relatively close to the stables and horse walker meaning it would not result in additional sporadic development in the countryside and the equestrian use would still be relatively contained. In terms of part (b), the proposed extension to the ménage is unlikely to significantly increase the level of activity on the site given that it has been stated that it is for private use only. However it is considered to attach a condition to ensure that the ménage remains solely for private purposes only.

6.3 There has been a letter of objection to the application from the property to the north

of the application site; this property sits approximately 60metres from the site of the proposed ménage extension. The existing ménage has flood lights on the northern edge. Given that the proposed extension to the ménage would be located approximately 6metres closer to the neighbouring properties and given its open

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5

rural location, it is considered appropriate to attach a condition for no floodlighting for the extended part of the ménage. This would help to limit the impact of the proposed ménage extension in terms of potential light pollution. In terms of the visual impact of the proposal, whilst it would be clearly visible from the neighbouring property, it is an existing facility already in place and therefore the additional impact would be considered limited.

6.4 Given the rural location of the site, the impact of the proposed ménage extension

on the countryside is a consideration. From the footpath to the north, it is possible to only have a glimpsed view of the existing ménage through the gaps in the hedge. Given the relatively open aspect of the site to the south and the site slopes downwards to the south, it is likely that the extension to the ménage would be visible from the footpath. However given the presence of the existing ménage, it is considered that although the extension to the ménage would have an impact on the countryside, this is not significant in itself to justify a refusal.

6.5 The ménage is located outside of the curtilage of the main listed house and barns.

However the impact on their setting is still a consideration. The information submitted as part of the application simply states that given the distance of the proposed ménage extension from the listed building it is not considered to cause ant significant harm to the setting or character of the listed buildings. In addition to this, the Design and Conservation Advisor has been consulted on the application. They suggest that although the information supplied is minimal, it is an “application for an extension to an existing ménage in an area which has other agricultural and countryside uses, the development would not detract from the setting of Glebe House, the listed barns nor the other aspects of the historic hamlet pattern”. In summary it would suggest that the impact of the proposed ménage extension is neutral.

6.6 Overall it is considered that the proposed extension to the ménage is acceptable

subject to conditions ensuring the private use of the site and for no floodlighting to the ménage extension. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed extension would clearly be visible from the neighbouring property to the north and within the wider countryside, given that there is an existing ménage this is not considered significant enough to justify a refusal. As a result it is considered that the proposal meets the aims of planning policy and it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 That planning permission is granted

1. A2: Full Permission (3 Years)

2. The materials and finishes of all new fencing and surface of the ménage hereby permitted shall match in type, colour and texture to those of the existing ménage Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

3. D10: No Floodlighting

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6

4. The ménage hereby permitted shall only be used for private, domestic purposes

in association with the use of ‘Glebe House’ as a dwelling and shall not be let out or used for commercial purposes or in connection with any form of riding establishment.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development.

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 ICAB2: The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring

occupiers of the character and visual amenities of the locality. Background Papers: DC/12/0926 Contact Officer Emma Greening

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1.

Contact: Stuart Corbey Extension: 5173




DATE: 19TH June 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Variation of Condition 2 (limiting operating hours) of planning permission DC/04/1118 (Change of Use from B8 Warehouse to B1 Light Industrial) to allow operation of plant and machinery 24 hours a day Monday to Saturday inclusive, but not on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays

SITE: Lamina delectronics Limited, Daux Road Industrail Estate, Daux Road, Billingshurst

WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley

APPLICATION DC/12/0752 REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To grant Planning Permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The application seeks full permission for Variation of Condition 2 (limiting operating

hours) of planning permission DC/04/1118 (Change of Use from B8 Warehouse to B1 Light Industrial) to allow operation of plant and machinery 24 hours a day Monday to Saturday inclusive, but not on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays

1.2 The intended increased in hours is to enable the development of sufficient

quantities of “triple caps” to meet customer requirements – the product is manufactured on a specialist machine to run quietly for 24 hrs a day.

1.3 There are no planned dispatches or deliveries, employee cars shall be parked at

the front of the building during the proposed extended hours.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.4 Lamina is a commercial manufacturing operation from a purpose built

warehousing/light industrial building. 1.5 The area is a mix of industrial units and residential dwellings, set in the built up

area of Billingshurst.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2.

1.6 The building to serves by car parking for employees along side Daux Road and further parking to the rear. The area of hard standing to the east of the building serves as a service and loading area.

1.7 The building has an air-conditioning unit to the rear/north elevation, and a

ventilation outlet to the far corner of the west elevation. 1.8 The sites most northern boundary abuts chestnut close and is screened by a mesh

fence and dense shrubs. The sites eastern boundary is separated by a close boarded fence with the occupiers at no.1 Daux Road.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 None relevant RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant Policies of General Development Control Policies Document 2007

include DC9 & DC20 2.4 The relevant policy of the Core Strategy is CP3 & CP11 PLANNING HISTORY 2.5 DC/04/1118 Change of use from B8 Warehouse to B1 Light Industrial Permitted:

23/07/2004

DC/04/1934 Variation of condition 2 of DC/04/1118 to allow working hours 0700 to 2100 hours Monday to Friday and removal of condition 3 of DC/04/1118 to allow raw materials, etc to be stored at the site, permitted 27th October 2004

DC/06/2339 Retention of internal alterations, security fencing and gates, 2 windows in east elevation to mezzanine accommodation, external flues and ventilation plant, chiller unit, drum store and restraint wall to service yard and ramps for means of escape from existing fire escape doors permitted 5th December 2006

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Environmental Health & Licensing:

The changes to the permitted hours of operation are being sought to enable the production of sufficient quantities of “triple caps” to meet customer requirements. The triple cap machines are internally located and do not require the operation of

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3.

the local exhaust ventilation and extraction plant the fans of which terminate outside the premises. The noise impacts from these operations can be adequately controlled to ensure they do not cause loss of amenity to nearby residents. I therefore do not object to this application subject to the following recommended conditions:

Only internally located plant and machinery to be operated between 1900 and 0730;

Doors and windows to be kept closed while machinery is being operated; No deliveries, dispatches, loading and unloading to be carried out between

1900 and 0730; No machinery to be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Billingshurst Parish Council submits its OBJECTION to this plan on the grounds of

adverse and detrimental noise levels in the late evening and at night. 3.3 WSCC Highways - raise no objection. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.4 14 occupiers of surrounding properties in Daux Road, Daux Way and Chestnut

Road: raise the following concerns: The extended hours of operation and change of use would provide an

unacceptable level of noise and disturbance detrimental to the amenity of surrounding occupiers.

Increase impact of Lighting and traffic movements would impact on the surrounding occupiers


RIGHTS 4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of private and family life) and Article 1 The First Protocol

(protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is integral part of the part of the planning assessment set out in Section 6 below.

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

5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact

on safety and security issues. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principal issues are the effect of the development on the amenity of

surrounding occupiers. 6.2 The officers note that the intended operation of the machinery to enable the

manufacture of the “triple caps” product would be located central to the internal floor area layout of the factory floor, well away from the periphery of the factory

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4.

floor, therefore limiting the omitted noise levels. In addition the operating machinery would not require the use of external extraction ventilation or air-conditioning limiting any omitted noise external to the factory floor.

6.3 The supporting statement also suggests that no dispatches of deliveries shall take

place during the extended hours and the only area external to the factory premises to be of use would be for the workers to park their vehicle to the front of the factory abutting Daux Way. Therefore as per the comments of WSCC Highways, no highways issues apply to the proposed application.

6.4 The officers consider by virtue of the operation and limited function of the building

during the extended hours the variation to the condition can be granted subject to condition. Environmental Health and Licensing have given a full assessment on impact and the officers support the condition recommended to limit the nuisance to residents within the surrounding area.

6.5 Suggested conditions include:

Only internally located plant and machinery to be operated between 1900 and 0730;

Doors and windows to be kept closed while machinery is being operated; No deliveries, dispatches, loading and unloading to be carried out between

1900 and 0730; No machinery to be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays

6.6 The objections are noted, and the officers are sympathetic to the concerns of the

Parish Council and surrounding neighbours. However, the officers are also aware that the noise impacts from these operations can be adequately controlled to ensure they do not cause loss of amenity to nearby residents. Current Government Policy strongly supports business uses and given that appropriate conditions can be imposed to safeguard neighbouring amenities, it is considered that the application should be supported.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the following

conditions:

01 A2 02 Only internally located plant and machinery to be operated between 1900

and 0730; Reason: In the interest of surrounding residential amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document of Horsham District Local Development Framework 2007.

03 Doors and windows to be kept closed while machinery is being operated; Reason: In the interest of surrounding residential amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document of Horsham District Local Development Framework 2007.

04 No deliveries, dispatches, loading and unloading to be carried out between 1900 and 0730;

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5.

Reason: In the interest of surrounding residential amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document of Horsham District Local Development Framework 2007.

05 No machinery to be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays Reason: In the interest of surrounding residential amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document of Horsham District Local Development Framework 2007.

06 No trees on site shall be wilfully damaged or uprooted, felled, topped or lopped without the previous written consent of the local Planning Authority. Reason : In the interests of amenity and the environment of the development in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document of Horsham District Local Development Framework 2007.

NOTE TO APPLICANT:

It applicant is requested to note that the permission hereby approved is strictly subject to the above conditions and it is unlikely that any variation will be permitted.

8. REASONS 8.1 IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Development Plan. 8.2 ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of the amenities of the

neighbouring occupiers or character and visual amenities of the locality. Background Papers: DC/12/0752 Contact Officer: Stuart Corbey

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1





DATE: 19 June 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Extension to existing works building and relocating parking area

SITE: Thornhill Works Billingshurst Road Coolham Horsham

WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley


APPLICANT: Woodward Brothers Engineering

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Agent Request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT



1.2 The application seeks to extend the engineering works and relocate the existing

parking area. The proposed building would measure 22.5metres by 12.2metres with an eaves height of 4metres and overall height of 5.7metres. The building would be constructed of olive green insulated sheeting with a roller door shutter on the north elevation.

1.3 The proposed building would be located to the north of the existing workshop,

where the parking area is currently located. Access would be created from the existing workshop into the proposed workshop. The parking area would be relocated into the adjacent field, to the north of the proposed new building.

1.4 The proposed parking area would measure approximately 16metres by 40metres. It

is proposed to remove part of the existing hedgerow to the north to create access to the parking area, and a new hedge has been planted around the perimeter of the proposed parking area.

1.5 The building is proposed so that the company can upgrade its facilities to meet

incoming EU legislation. This requires the company to separate out working areas

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2

from materials storage areas and to ensure that working practices follow specific guidelines.


1.6 The application site is located outside of the Built up Area, to the north of the A272

in a rural location, approximately 700 metres to the west of the Coolham Crossroads. The site is located off a track which serves three properties and a small industrial estate. The application site is set back from the A272 by approximately 25metres and is located within an existing field. The site slopes downwards to the north.

1.7 The site itself contains the existing workshop with a storage area for vehicles

located to the north of this and a parking area to the west. To the north and east of the application site are hedgerows. The boundaries of the field in which the site sits are marked by planting and hedgerows to the south, east and west. The site is relatively well screened from the A272 by the existing hedge.

1.8 To the north of the application site sits a number of former agricultural buildings

which have been converted into business units. To the east south and west there are a few dwelling houses, but the general character of the area is rural.

2. INTRODUCTION


RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012: Achieving Sustainable Development,

Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy) and Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)


2.3 Horsham District Council Core Strategy (2007): CP1 (Landscape and Townscape

Character, CP3 (Improving the quality of new development), CP13 (Infrastructure requirements), CP15 (Rural Strategy)

2.4 Horsham District Council General Development Control Policies (2007): DC1

(Countryside protection and enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character), DC9 (Development Principles), DC25 (Rural economic development and the expansion of existing rural commercial sites/ intensification of uses)

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 SP/36/95: In December 1995, planning permission was granted for the change of

use of the barn to storage and workshop for four Lorries

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3

2.6 SP/27/97: In August 1997, planning permission was granted for the permanent consent for the change of use of barn to storage and workshops for four Lorries

2.7 SP/28/99: In July 1999, planning permission was granted for the change of use of

barn to storage and workshop for four Lorries 2.8 SP/15/00: In May 2000, planning permission was granted for a single storey

extension 2.9 SP/16/00: In May 2000, planning permission was granted for an amendment to

condition 2 on SP/28/99 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Environmental Health:

Demolition and Construction Phases 1. There is the possibility that during development unforeseen contamination may be encountered. This may be due to the presence of underground structures, burial of waste in the past, soils impacted by oil contamination where tanks have leaked etc. Any such occurrences must be investigated by an appropriately trained person and if necessary dealt with to minimise risks to human health, the water environment and other ecosystems. In the event that remediation measures are necessary, a method statement shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority, then implemented. 2. A licensed waste removal contractor shall remove clearance debris and construction waste from site. 3. No burning of materials or waste on site. 4. Contamination - There should be no importation of soil and other fill materials, such as road planings, onto the development site unless the soil/fill has been certified as fit for purpose by a competent person and has been subject to analysis by an accredited laboratory to ensure that it is free from contamination. The proposal mentions the use of road planings in the construction of the parking area, but this is hazardous waste and must only be used if the applicant has consent from the Environment Agency. 5. Hours of demolition and construction activities (including deliveries & dispatch) should be limited to 8.00h – 18.00h Monday to Friday, 8.00h – 13.00h Saturdays, with no working on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Operational Phase No exterior floodlighting shall be used unless prior written approval from the local planning authority has been granted.

3.2 Landscape Officer:

Based upon the submitted information I object to this application in that it fails to conserve and enhance landscape character as required by policy.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4

In addition despite the site not being more widely visible from the road the proposal will add to existing adverse visual amenity impact on the nearest residential property to the west. The west elevation of the new building indicates its ridge height will be slightly higher than that of the existing building- there could be a slight risk as a result of opening up the new development to wider view Whilst current landscape character is eroded by the presence of the existing works and semi- industrial buildings on the northern field boundary a hedge alone around the new parking area (particularly if larger vehicles than cars are parked on it) is not sufficient to address the need to enhance landscape character or the visual amenity impact. There is a risk as proposed the development will just appear as an incongruent extension into the existing field In addition further information is needed anyway because of the change of levels across the site- levels and cross sections. That having been said, should the planning committee nonetheless be minded to grant permission my view is that the policy objection above might be overcome by provision of a more substantial landscape scheme that would more easily integrate the existing and proposed development with the surrounding area It is strongly recommended this should comprise: Creation of a new wooded shaw, woodland/small copse and provision of a wildflower seeded meadow around the existing works and new car park as marked upon on the attached plan It is also strongly recommended, should this course be taken the applicant indicates a commitment to the proposals in advance of the committee decision with only the final details and a management plan being subject to condition EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.3 West Sussex County Council Highways: This application has been dealt with in accordance with the Development Control Scheme protocol for small scale proposals which include up to 5 residential units or extensions to single units accessed from roads that do not form part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). As such the comments provided by Local Development should be considered to be advice only, with respect to this planning application. 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. I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5

This application seeks to extend the existing works building of Thornhill Works, Billingshurst Road, Coolham. The proposal will also involve the relocation of the existing parking area. The site is accessed via the A272, which is subject to a 40 mph speed limit at this point and vehicles approaching from both directions are restricted from overtaking. Historically West Sussex County Council has been consulted on Highways Matters for planning applications at this site. Please see the summary below SP/36/95 – Change of use from barn to workshop for Lorries SP/27/97 – Permanent consent for change of use from barn to workshop for Lorries SP/28/99 – Amendments of conditions attached to SP/27/97 A recommendation for refusal was attached to the 95 application; this application was granted a temporary permission by the LPA with conditions attached to improve the access. No overriding concerns were raised to the 97 application, subject to the adjoining eastern hedgerow being maintained, full consent was granted for this application by the LPA. The 99 application sought amendment to conditions to which no concern was raised. From inspection of these records it would appear that concerns regarding the visibility at this site and the access arrangements were overcome and the site appears to have been operating safety according to the most recently available verified accident records. From inspection of the information supplied it would not appear that this development would result in a significant increase in the number of vehicular movements experienced at the site. It has been suggested that this development would allow for the employment of 1 or 2 extra full time staff, however these movements may well be offset by the applicants ability so store more stock and reduce delivery numbers. The proposed parking and turning area seems to be comparable to the existing provision so therefore no concerns would be raised. From the information supplied there would be no overriding highway safety concerns raised to this proposal. Consultation following site visit Response: Advice / No Objection I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments. West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this planning application to which no overriding highway safety concerns were raised in a response dated 09/05/2012. This consultation response was considered by means of a desktop study, a site visit has now been conducted as per a request form the case officer. Speed Limit It has come to my attention that the speed limit at the pint of access onto Billingshurst Road is 60 mph, not 40 mph as stated in our previous consultation response.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 6

Visibility It is noted form the planning history that visibility concerns at this site were dealt with in previous consultations with WSCC for applications SP/36/95, SP/27/97 & SP/28/99. A condition was used in these instances to improve visibility at the point of access by transplanting the hedging to the east of the access point behind an agreed sightline. It was observed on site that this hedging could be trimmed back to improve visibility to the east. I would ask that a 2.4 x 160 visibility splay is conditioned as part of this application to ensure that visibility at this point of access is maintained in the interest of road safety. Summary of Contributions

Total TAD Contribution due£5,593

Total Access (commercial only) 9.4286Number of fire hydrants TBC

Net Parking Spaces 3Net Commercial Floor Space sqm 330

Net Population Increase 0.0

3.4 It is noted that the agent has queried the S106 contributions and further clarification

has been sought from WSCC on this. Any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting.


3.5 Shipley Parish Council has raised no objections to the proposals. 3.6 Four letters of support have been received from local customers of the Woodward

Brothers who state that they welcome the proposed improvement of the premises which will enhance the already high quality products they provide as well as increasing employment opportunities in the local area. In addition to this they comment that the new workshop will not be visible from the A272 as it will be hidden by the existing facilities and that it is ideally placed on an ‘A’ road and any increase in traffic will be minimal. Furthermore they state that they are not aware of any other local business which fulfils this market need the proposed expansion in these hard pressed financial times should indicated the value of their services.

3.7 One letter has been received objecting/ commenting on the application. They

commend the investment which is being made by the company. However they have concerns regarding the rationale for the proposed parking location, they suggest that by moving the parking area to the east, the impact on Thornhill and the properties on Mill Lane could be minimised. In addition it is disappointing to note there will be no additional planting or screening. In summary, we have no objection to the development as such. However, we would like to see the proposed new parking area located to the east of the site for provide a more compact and less visually obtrusive footprint. In addition we would like to see more substantial planning, in the form of trees, to soften the lines of the structure and further reduce the visual impact.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 7

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

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



impact on crime and disorder. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS 6.1 The application seeks to erect an additional warehouse building. The site is

currently occupied by a company who builds bespoke bodies on new chassis cabs. Under incoming EU safety legislation (2007/46/EC) the company is obliged to have specific approval for the bodies they manufacture. In order to meet the EU directive, the company will have to have areas within the workshop for goods inwards, quarantine areas, and areas for storing specific items related to the approval process, e.g. lights, certain steel and aluminium sections.

6.2 The company requires the additional space for the purpose of complying with EU

legislation and to remain competitive. The information accompanying the application states that there may be two or three additional employees but that they do not anticipate significant increase in traffic movements. They state that the majority of traffic movements relate to deliveries of materials and with the increase in space they will be able to carry larger stocks and therefore relatively less frequent deliveries.

6.3 In order to assess the application consideration needs to be given to Policy DC25

(Rural economic development and the expansion of the existing rural commercial sites/ intensification of uses). This policy states that: a) Proposals for development which delivers economic benefits to the rural area,

and extension of existing commercial sites outside the defined built up areas will be permitted where it relates to the needs of the rural local economy and in the case of company relocation the Council is also satisfied that the proposal constitutes the relocation of a currently badly sited use(s)

b) Proposals for the expansion of existing commercial buildings/ intensification of

uses outside the defined built up areas will be permitted were: i. The proposal meets criteria a) above for new commercial development and

extension of existing commercial sites outside defined built up areas; ii. Is limited to the expansion and/ or adaptation plans which are essential to

the operation of the established business; iii. Is of suitable scale for the level of activity proposed; iv. Can be accommodated satisfactorily within the existing employment site

boundary; and v. The car parking requirements can be accommodated satisfactorily within the

immediate surrounds of the buildings.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 8

6.4 Assessing the proposals under policy DC25, it is considered that parts i, ii, and iii

are broadly met. The proposed expansion of the business in order to meet EU legislation is seen as reasonably necessary and the overall level of activity on the site would not significantly increase. Therefore an extension to the existing workshop is acceptable, in principle. However in order to meet the aims of planning policy, all five requirements of DC25 need to be met.

6.5 Points iv and v of DC25 seek to ensure that any expansion can be contained within

the existing employment site boundary and the car parking can be accommodated satisfactorily within the immediate surrounds of the building. The site presently has a defined boundary marked by hedging and fencing between the existing employment area and the field surrounding the workshop. The application seeks to extend the existing employment area into the neighbouring field to create a car park to the north. The car parking would have to be extended into the countryside beyond, thus increasing the existing employment site boundary and meaning that the car parking could not be contained within the immediate surrounds of the building. As a result it is considered that the aims of policy DC25 have not been met.

6.6 The site was formally an agricultural barn. Planning permission was granted

temporarily in 1995 (SP/36/95) and 1997 (SP/27/97) for the change of use of barn to storage and workshop for four Lorries. Permanent permission was granted in 1999 under SP/28/99 for the change of use of barn to storage and workshop for four Lorries, with conditions 3 and 4 stating that: 3. All Lorries shall be parked within the building and shall not arrive or depart from the premises except between the hours of 06:30 and 18:00 on Mondays to Fridays and 09:00 and 13:00 on Saturday. No other work shall be carried on at the premises except between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 on Mondays to Fridays and 09:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and all maintenance shall be carried on inside the building and doors and windows shall be kept shut at all times except when vehicles are driving into or out of the building. Reason: In the interest of amenity 4. Before the use commences the proposed car parking area shall be provided in accordance with precise details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The car parking shall be reserved solely for the parking of employee cars and shall not be used for any form of lorry or van parking. Reason: In the interest of amenity

6.7 It was noted on the site visit carried out that vehicles are currently stored to the

north of the existing workshop, and cars are parked informally to the west of the workshop. As it currently stands the applicants are in breach of these conditions. Given that the vehicles should be stored within the existing workshop and that there are only a limited number of employee’s cars which need to be stored on the site, it is considered that if the above conditions are adhered to then it may be possible in principle to erect the additional building and car parking within the existing employment area without the need to extend the footprint of development into the neighbouring field. If however the applicant believes that the condition has been in breach for so long as for the use to become lawful then a Lawful Development Certificate should be applied for.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 9

6.8 The Highways Authority has commented on the application both by way of a desktop study and a site visit. They have not raised a specific objection to the proposal as the proposed extension would not result in a significant increase in traffic to and from the site. Following the site visit carried out by the Highway Authority they have requested that if planning permission were to be granted then a condition relating to visibility splays should be attached. The proposal in terms of highways grounds is considered acceptable.

6.9 Given that the proposal would involve the extension of the existing employment

area into the adjoining field. The Landscape Officer has raised an objection to the proposal as it is considered that the proposal fails to preserve or enhance the landscape character. Prior to the submission of the application, the applicant planted a hedge around the proposed new parking area. The hedgerow is a mixed traditional hedgerow mixture.

6.10 Whilst is it acknowledged that the existing landscape character is eroded in part by

the existing works and semi-industrial buildings to the north, a hedge alone around the new parking area is not considered sufficient enough to address the need to enhance landscape character and the visual amenity impact and there is a risk that the proposed development would appear as an incongruous addition to the existing field. Furthermore the west elevation shows that the eaves height of the proposed building would be slightly higher than that of the existing building and there could be a slight risk of opening up the new development to wider view. In addition it is suggested that additional information is required regarding the change of levels across the site. The Landscape Officer has suggested that a policy objection might be overcome by the provision of a more substantial landscape scheme which would integrate the existing and proposed development with the surrounding area; however this would be located outside of the red edge area as shown on the location plan.

6.11 The impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring

properties is also a consideration. There are a handful of properties located to the east, south and west of the application site. The nearest of these would be located approximately 56metres to the south, although the site would be most visible from the properties to the west. Whilst the proposed building would add to the existing adverse visual amenity, this is not considered significant enough in itself to justify a refusal. The letter of objection received raises concerns over the impact of the proposed new building and parking area, suggesting that if the parking area was located to the east it would be less visually intrusive. They also suggest that there should be more substantial planting to reduce the visual impact of the industrial development on a rural landscape.

6.12 Environmental Health Officers were consulted on the application and has made a

number of comments in relation to the construction and operational phases. They have not objected to the application but have suggested a number of conditions in relation to contamination, burning and hours of working during the construction phase. During the operational phase they have suggested that no exterior floodlighting should be used. No conditions have been suggested for the hours of operation of the business, however if members were minded to grant planning permission it is considered appropriate that a condition relating to the hours of use

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 10

should be attached in line with previous permissions on the site and to protect the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

6.13 Overall, whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed extension is acceptable in

principle, the proposal currently under consideration would see the extension of the existing employment site boundary into the countryside beyond. This does not appear to be essential given the requirements of the previous conditions as set out in paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7, but even if a case can be made for such expansion, it does not appear that an acceptable degree of landscaping is currently proposed to mitigate the visual impact of the proposal. The proposal is not considered to meet the aims of Policy DC25 which seeks to contain any extensions to rural commercial sites within the existing employment sites boundaries and it is also considered that the proposal fails to preserve or enhance the countryside location in which it sits thus failing to meet the aims of Policy DC2. As a result it is considered that the proposal does not meet the aims of planning policy and it is recommended that the application is refused.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 That planning permission is refused.

1. The proposed development could not be satisfactorily contained within the existing employment site boundary, thereby leading to the expansion of the site into the countryside beyond. It is therefore considered that the proposed extension would be an incongruous addition, which would have an adverse visual impact on the countryside location in which it sits. As a result it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC25 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

2. The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards

improvements to transport infrastructure. The proposal is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how the infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

Background Papers: DC/12/0790 Contact Officer: Emma Greening

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1



TO: Development Management Committee


DATE: 19 June 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Erection of tack room, office, client's rest room, changing room and facilities

SITE: Homelands Farm Stables Bines Road Partridge Green Horsham



APPLICANT: Mr Jonathan Miller

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Agent request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT



1.2 The application seeks to change the design of the previously permitted building to

incorporate a first floor office and rug store with a ground floor tack room and visitors changing facilities.

1.3 The proposed building would be sited approximately 5metres south of the grooms

accommodation and 10 metres to the north of the main stable barn. The building would measure 10.3metres by 7metres with an overall height of 6metres. The North West elevation would have double dormers with a pitched roof dormer window above and the south east elevation would have a cat slide roof with three roof lights. The building would be constructed on a brick plinth with feather edge boarding and hand finished roof tiles and oak windows.


1.4 The application site is outside of the Built up Area. 1.5 The application site is an equestrian centre in a rural location off Bines Road in

Partridge Green. The area which is the subject of this application is part of the

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2

courtyard; there is already a barn which has been converted to grooms accommodation. To the west of the proposed building is a grassed area and then car parking, to the south and east are barns.

1.6 There is a property located to the north of the site and the rest of the site is

surrounded by fields to the east, south and west. 2. INTRODUCTION



2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012: Achieving Sustainable Development, Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy) and Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)


2.3 Horsham District Council Core Strategy (2007): CP1 (Landscape and Townscape

Character and CP3 (Improving the quality of new development) 2.4 Horsham District Council General Development Control Policies (2007): DC1

(Countryside protection and enhancement), DC9 (Development Principles) and DC29 (Equestrian Development)

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/06/2895 Change of use from agricultural dairy to equine use,

construction of a sand school, parking and hard standing, repairs and enclosure cladding to existing barns

PER

DC/07/0833 Demolition of redundant dairy unit and erection of a tack

room and machinery store PER

DC/09/1017 Conversion of disused cart shed to form groom's

accommodation, relocation of tack room and store (approved under DC/07/0833) and enhancement of foaling boxes salvaged from the Atcost building to be demolished

PER

DC/11/1900 Retention of a toilet block and office building. PER

DC/11/2497 Non-material amendment to previously approved

DC/09/1017 (Conversion of disused cart shed to form groom's accommodation, relocation of tack room and store) to retain the tack room in a revised position

WDN

DC/11/2600 Minor material amendment to previously approved

DC/09/1017 (Conversion of disused cart shed to form groom's accommodation, relocation of tack room and store) to retain the tack room/office in a revised position

PER

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3


INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Public Health have raised no objections to the proposal 3.2 Any comments from Building Control will be reported verbally at the meeting

OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3.3 Environment Agency has no comment to make

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.4 West Grinstead Parish Council raises no objection to the proposal 3.5 One letter received from the property to the north of the application site ‘Farmgate

House’ raising no objections to the proposals. 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS 4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First



impact on crime and disorder. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS 6.1 The application seeks to amend the design of the previously approved building on

the site. The application site as a whole was granted permission for the change of use from agricultural to equestrian under DC/06/2895.

6.2 The principle of the building currently under consideration has been established

during previous applications. Planning permission for a tack room and machinery store was originally granted under DC/07/0833 although it would have been located approximately 25metres to the south of the current groom’s accommodation. Application DC/09/1017 proposed to locate the building further north so that it would be approximately 10 metres to the south of the groom’s accommodation. An application in 2011 (DC/11/2600) sought to move the building again so that it was approximately 5metres to the south of the grooms accommodation and slightly to the east. Given that the 2009 application is extant the principle of the building in the proposed location has been established. As a result the key consideration is the design of the proposed building and its impact on the countryside location in which it sits.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4

6.3 The original application (DC/07/0833) granted permission for a building measuring

8metres by 7metres with an overall height of 6metres. The application currently under consideration seeks to increase the overall size of the building so that it would measure 10.3metres by 7metres with an overall height of 6metres. The plans originally submitted have been amended during the application process to reduce the height from 7.3metres to 6metres, which is the same height as the originally approved building.

6.4 The plans originally submitted as part of the application showed a full height cart

door on the front elevation which was divided in part by doors at the ground and first floor level. Concerns were raised over the design of this and the plans have now been amended to show double doors with barns doors both sides and a hipped roof dormer window at first floor level.

6.5 The revised plans have sought to address the original concerns raised. However it

is not considered that these have been met. Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Polices (2007) states that proposals should ensure that “the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of a high standard of design and layout and where relevant relates sympathetically with the built surroundings, open spaces and routes within and adjoining the site”. The revised design is still too domestic in appearance with overly wide windows and doors which do not reflect the rural character of the area. In addition to this the proposed dormer on the north west elevation is considered an unsympathetic addition to the building, which should be more agricultural in appearance, to reflect the countryside location in which it sits and the other buildings in close proximity to it. The area in which the proposed building would sit is fairly open and it is likely that the proposed building would be visible within the wider landscape.

6.6 In terms of the impact of the proposals on neighbouring properties, the proposed

building would be located approximately 30metres from ‘Farmgate House’ which is to the north of the application site. Whilst there is a window proposed at the first floor level which would look towards the neighbouring property, given the separation distances, it is not considered that this would cause a significant level of overshadowing, although it is noted that an obscured glazing condition could be attached if it was considered necessary.

6.7 Overall, whilst the principle of a building on this site has been established, the

proposal currently under consideration is larger in size than what was previously approved and is overly domestic in appearance. The proposed building would be to serve an equestrian yard and as a result the design of the building should reflect and be sympathetic to the rural landscape in which it sits. As a result it is considered that the proposal does not meet the aims of planning policy and it is recommended that planning permission is refused.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 That planning permission is refused

1. The proposed building by virtue of its design is overly domestic in appearance and is considered an unsympathetic addition to the site which fails to reflect the

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 5

rural character of the area in which it sits. As a result it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Polices DC1, DC9 and DC29 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/12/0742 Contact Officer: Emma Greening

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

REPORT



DATE: 19 June 2012

DEVELOPMENT:

Retrospective application to retain an electricity generator and housing (South Downs National Park)

SITE: Barn Rackham Street Rackham West Sussex

WARD: Chantry


APPLICANT: Ms Jane Claxton

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT


1.1 The application seeks retrospective application to retain an electricity generator, which is sited to

the northern side of the existing barn and housed within a timber boarded structure with corrugated roof sheets and sits on a concrete base.


1.2 The site consists of a large agricultural field of approx 4.1 hectares, currently used for the grazing

of cattle and sheep with several buildings, mostly dilapidated. The field is located outside the built up area and within The South Downs National Park.

1.3 The main barn is located on the site has recently been extended and refurbished with the intention

of being more extensively used than has been in recent years. The barn sits parallel to Rackham Street with vehicle access into the site located to the south of the barn and to the north of a further agricultural building, albeit in a state of repair.

2. INTRODUCTION


APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are DC4, DC9 in Local Development Framework General

Development Control Policies (2007).

PLANNING HISTORY 2.4 DC/09/1450 - Lean-to rear extension to existing stone barn – Permitted

DC/10/2406 - Restoration of existing farm buildings (Agricultural Prior Notification) – refused

DC/11/0164 - Retrospective permission for lean-to rear extension to existing stone barn with minor alterations to original application, DC/09/1450 – Refused DC/11/0419 - Restoration of existing farm buildings including provision of pitched tiled roof on the shelter instead of the existing sloping steel roof – Pending Consideration


INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Horsham District Council’s Public Health & Licensing department made initial comments were they

requested further information by way of a BS4142 noise assessment. Following the receipt of this report the department were satisfied that the generator would provide little or no disturbance.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Parham Parish Council objects to the application.

Initial comments were made on 15 February 2012: “As such, it is in full view of passers-by and is not “relatively concealed” as described in the retrospective application. The generator is disproportionately large in relation to the adjacent barn, which is very small. The generator in its present site is detrimental to the character of the barn and to the amenity and enjoyment of this quiet rural lane in the South Downs National Park. As regards noise produced by the generator, representatives of the Parish Council attended a site meeting on 10th December 2011, referred to in the application, when decibel readings were taken as per the applicant’s schedule. However, an audible low pitch industrial sound could be heard outside the two closest properties: Rose Cottage and, in particular, The Old Schoolhouse, which was not picked up by the decibel reader. The decibel readings also showed an increase depending on the number of services being switched on in the barn: for example when the lights and water heater were switched on. Given that at least seven electrical power points have been installed in the little barn, the Parish Council is concerned that there is scope for considerable further increase in decibel levels. This and the low level industrial sound would constitute a loss of amenity to those who are subjected to it.” Further comments were received on 17 April 2012, following the Acoustic report undertaken by Peter Attwood on behalf of the applicant. The parish council were still concerned with the generator and the following paragraph formed part of their comments:

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3

“The Parish Council is very concerned to protect the amenity and tranquillity of this lovely country lane in the heart of the South Downs National Park for the enjoyment of people passing along the lane, whether local residents or National Park visitors. Such a level of noise, which would appear (according to the applicant’s own expert) to be of a seriously annoying level, is not appropriate adjacent to this little agricultural storage barn; not is it in keeping with the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park.”


3.3 In total 27 letters of representation have been received, all of which object to the application.

However the number of objectors is 19, as further comments have been received following the provision of the acoustic report. The letters of objection have been received mostly from neighbours plus the Wiggonholt Association and the South Downs Society. The main reasons for objection are as follows:

The size and position of the generator and its housing are out of all proportion for the

agricultural store. The industrial sized generator constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. The design, mass and position of the generator housing are inappropriate in this rural

location, and spoils the general amenity of the area. There are a number of alternative ways in which power could be provided to the

agricultural store that would not constitute an overdevelopment of the site and would not result in loss of amenity.

The noise from the generator would provide an unacceptable level in the countryside location.

The generator is out of keeping with the surroundings of the South Downs National Park. 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 is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.


It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS 6.1 The principal issue is the effect of the development on the rural character of the surrounding area

and the South Downs National Park. 6.2 The barn within the site, whilst currently not in use, is intended to be used for the purposes of

agricultural storage, as part of the surrounding agricultural land. The barn was recently extended following planning approval DC/09/1450 and along with the adjacent cow byre has been the subject of a fairly long planning history coupled with a large element of local interest in respect of their restoration and use. The generator was added to the site following the improvement works undertaken, as well as the addition of an oil tank, which was moved inside the building following compliance action. The applicant stated the generator was too large to be inside the building. It is also stated that this particular generator, was chosen due to its silent operation, where as smaller generators would provide a higher decibel readings than the current generator.

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4 6.3 The applicant undertook a decibel reading exercise by Messrs Faraday & Franklin prior to the

submission of the application on 10 December 2011 and was attended by members of Parham Parish Council. Readings were taken at 4 points in the local vicinity with the generator on and off. The results showed that when the generator is running the noise substantially increased at close proximity, however had little or no further increase when positioned at 120m & 300m away. Whilst this information is useful, it provided no further information to back up the readings and was considered to be insufficient by the Council’s Public Health Officer and requested further information be provided by way of a BS4142 assessment.

6.4 Thereby a further report was commissioned by the applicant to gain greater information in

accordance with BS4142. This was undertaken by Peter Attwood of Acoustic Associates on the evening of 14 March 2012. Readings were taken at the same locations as the previously given and following an in depth exercise, it was considered that the noise from the generator is inaudible at both properties and therefore would not give rise to noise nuisance. It was also considered that the noise generated is below that of the background level and the residual or ambient level. Following the report the Public Health Officer stated it would appear that their will be little if no disturbance from the generator. The issue of noise from the generator is clearly subjective and a concern from local resident’s perspective, however given the two reports undertaken and comments from the Council’s Public Health Officer, this issue would not be considered to adversely affect the character and residential amenities of the surrounding area and specifically the South Downs National Park.

6.5 The generator positioned on the northern side of the barn and approximately 8m from the road.

The generator is housed within a timber boarded structure with corrugated roof sheets and sits on a concrete base. The structure is 2.1m in depth with a width of 1.25m and including the concrete base is 2.1m in height with a pitched roof. The buildings appearance is similar to that of the extended element of the barn and is not dissimilar to agricultural buildings within a countryside location, not least the South Downs National Park and whilst it is not an agricultural building per se, it serves the adjacent buildings. The road facing rear of the barn has a row of young planting plus there is further vegetation to the north of the barn and along this part of the site boundary which partly screens the generator. Whilst the generator is currently visible upon passing the barn via various modes of transport, it is not considered to be obvious and would become less so by the growth of existing vegetation plus additional planting. The building in relation to the barn and the purpose it serves is considered modest in size and would not currently or in the long term be considered to have an adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the surrounding area and the South Down National Park.

6.6 The applicant states that the retention of the generator is vital to the use of the barn as an

agricultural storage facility, whilst also serving the adjacent Cow Byre, which is to be restored. Whilst the easiest and less obtrusive option would be to have electricity supplied to the site, this however would cost in the region of £30,000 and not considered a viable option. The barn and the adjacent byre would be used all year round and therefore the provision of lighting is considered essential to undertake various tasks in connection with the storage and preparation of animal feed, animal shelter and husbandry. There is also an element of health & safety plus security. It is therefore considered that the addition of the generator for the reasons mentioned above as well as within the application is fair and reasonable in relation to its use for the purposes of agricultural.

6.7 In conclusion, the site is located within a countryside location and importantly the South Downs

National Park, which provides a greater emphasis on the protection of the locality and additional development. Whilst the site is clearly in a rural position, there are a small number of residential dwellings sparsely arranged within an approximate ¼ mile radius. Evidence provided has shown that unless within a very close proximity to the generator, the noise emitted is minimal as to affect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings. The presence of the generator when viewed in close proximity is obvious, however is considered to have minimal or no impact upon the wider

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 5

area and is not considered out of keeping in the context of the adjacent agricultural building. A landscaping condition is proposed to further reduce the visual impact of the generator.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Permit

1) Within three months of the date of this permission or such extended time as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority details of soft landscaping works with particular regard to the western boundary adjacent to the barn, shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All (soft landscape works) required under the approved scheme shall be carried out within six months. Any plants, which within a period of five years from the date of this permission die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planning season with other similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

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

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS


ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance

of the street scene or locality. Background Papers: DC/09/1450, DC/10/2406, DC/11/0164, DC/09/1450, DC/11/0419

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1

Contact Officer: Doug Wright Tel: 01403 215522




DATE: 19 June 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing pavilion and erection of new pavilion building with the addition of solar panels

SITE: Recreation Ground Mill Road West Chiltington West Sussex

WARD: Chanctonbury


APPLICANT: Mr Tony Thomas

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Parish Council Application RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT


1.1 The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing pavilion and the erection

of a new pavilion building with the addition of solar panels.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.2 The site is located along the eastern side of Mill Road and sits adjacent to West Chiltington

village hall with access via two car parks to the south. 1.3 There are a number of residential dwellings along the eastern side of the Mill Road and to

the north of the village hall which back onto the recreation ground. 1.4 The current pavilion is positioned along the southern boundary of the recreation ground

and in close proximity to the village hall and car parks. 2. INTRODUCTION



APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are DC9, DC15 & DC22 in Local Development Framework

General Development Control Policies (2007).

PLANNING HISTORY 2.4 DC/08/0525 – Installation of 3 bay artificial nets - Permitted 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Horsham District Council, Head of Housing and Community Development supports the

application.

At the time of writing this report no further comments had been received. Any further comments would be given verbally at the meeting.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 At the time of writing this report no comments had been received. Any further comments

would be given verbally at the meeting.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.3 6 letters of support have been received from residents of West Chiltington and other

members of the public. Any further comments would be given verbally at the meeting 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 is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.


It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS 6.1 The principal issue is the effect of the development on the semi rural character of the

surrounding area. There would also be consideration with regards to the enhancement of an existing community facility.

6.2 The existing pavilion sits along the southern boundary of the recreation ground, which is

used mainly for the purposes of football in the winter and cricket in the summer plus various other activities. The current facility appears to have had an array of “add ons” since its original construction, which is unclear from the planning history. The building comprises an open ‘lounge’ area and kitchen with store room plus changing facilities for ‘home’ & ‘away’ teams plus an umpire/referee changing room which all include showers and WC’s. To the front of the building is a covered walk-way plus a paved seating area, separated from the playing surface by a low picket fence.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3 6.2 The proposed replacement building would sit in the same position as the current building,

though on a slightly larger scale. The front elevation of the building would give the appearance of 3 different sections with the central element sitting slightly forward of its ‘wings’ which have hipped pitched roofs with the central section slightly higher with a dormer clock tower. While the existing building has more of a sporadic appearance, the proposed building is symmetrical in its design, replicating a typical village cricket pavilion and whilst a larger and substantial building it is relatively modest in appearance and scale. The proposed building would provide additional and improved facilities, such as enlarged changing rooms including separate female changing, a larger social area with bar and kitchen plus further storage.

6.3 It would be considered that the proposed building would enhance a current facility, would

be considered to have served its purpose and thereby enables a facility with a greater capacity for its users and more suiting to its surrounding. It is therefore considered for the reasons given above that the proposed building is acceptable in terms of the relevant policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007).

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

01. A2 Full Permission 02. M6 Prescribed Materials

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

ICOM1 The proposal would improve the community facilities in the area. Background Papers: DC/12/0945

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 1.

Contact: Jocelyn Brown Extension: 5180


TO: Development Control (South) Committee

BY: Council Solicitor


DEVELOPMENT: Application for certificate of lawfulness relating to non-compliance with condition 7 of consent SH/10/93 (agricultural occupancy condition)

SITE: Land at Sake Ride Farm, Wineham Lane, Wineham, West Sussex



APPLICANT: Mrs Jacqui O’Connell

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Applicant is wife of and joint owner with Councillor Brian O’Connell

RECOMMENDATION: To delegate to the Council Solicitor the Grant of a Certificate of Lawfulness for non-compliance with condition 7 on application reference SH/10/93 (agricultural occupancy condition).

THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application.

1. The Application The application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness for non-compliance of condition 7 of consent SH/10/93 (agricultural occupancy condition) 2. The Proof required If a Certificate of Lawfulness is to be granted the Council must be satisfied that the applicant has proved on the balance of probability that the condition has not been complied with for a period of 10 years prior to the date of application.

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 2.

3. The Evidence submitted Statutory declaration of Brian O’Connell dated 16th March 2012 stating that he and his wife purchased the property in February 2002 and that since that time neither of them have been occupied in agriculture. He states that he is occupied as a builder and that his children are at school and university. The land has been used fro the sole purpose of stabling and grazing own horses used for personal use. Statutory declaration of Jacqueline O’Connell dated 16th March 2012 repeating all the details given in Brian O’Connell’s statement. Statutory declaration of Lorna Redvers dated 16th March 2012 (mother of Mrs O’Connell) stating that at no time have Mr and Mrs O’Connell been employed in, or derived income from, any form of agriculture or forestry. They have kept horses and ponies for pleasure since 2002. Mr O’Connell is employed in the Construction industry. Letter from Abbots Chartered Certified Accountants stating that they have acted for Mr O’Connell in excess of 20 years, and have known Mrs O’Connell for a similar period. As far as they are aware the O’Connells have never derived income from an agricultural source. Summary of Evidence submitted The evidence produced claims that the use of the land since 2002 has solely been for the grazing and stabling of recreational horses and that the agricultural condition has been breached since 2002. 4. The Council's evidence Enforcement Records There was a file relating to the site in 2002 regarding an agricultural occupancy condition breach. Planning History SH/10/93 was allowed on appeal and condition 7 stated that “the occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or forestry, or the widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants”. SH/11/02 – application by the O’Connells for single storey and 2 storey side extensions to the property. It is noted in the officer’s report that: “No agricultural justification has been put forward to warrant any increase in the scale of the dwelling. At the time of the site visit there was very little agric. [sic] activity on the site – there was a small number of sheep on the northern pasture but the remainder of the holding would appear to be used for equestrian purposes.

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 3.

Furthermore, the applicant confirmed that very little income was derived from agric. And in this respect it appears that there is a non-compliance with agric. occupancy condition – complaint file to be raised”. The application was refused. DC/09/1896 for change of use of two buildings to indoor stables and indoor turn out area, retention of sand school, livery use and amend Condition 7 on consent SH/10/93 to include a person working in equestrian employment. At that time the applicant submitted information that stated that agricultural viability of the site was poor and that she was running a livery yard. The Council requested further information regarding the business but the application was withdrawn. Questionnaires, Parish Council and Local Members Due to the nature of the application and the evidence on planning files supporting the applicants case it was not considered neccessary to request further information. 5. Conclusion Given the evidence on the Council’s own files to support the applicant’s case, it is considered that the applicant has proved on the balance of probability that the agicultural condition was breached for a period of 10 years prior to the date of the application.

7. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that grant of a Certificate of Lawfulness for non-compliance with condition 7 on application reference SH/10/93 (agricultural occupancy condition) be delegated to the Council Solicitor. REASON: No enforcement action can be taken and it is therefore lawful within the meaning of Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Contact Officer: Jocelyn Brown

development control (south) committee

Documents