(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 27/05
Public Document Pack JOHN WARD Head of Finance and Governance Services Contact: Graham Thrussell (Senior Member Services Officer) 01243 534653 [email protected] East Pallant House 1 East Pallant Chichester West Sussex PO19 1TY Tel: 01243 785166 www.chichester.gov.uk A meeting of Planning Committee will be held in Committee Rooms - East Pallant House on Wednesday 27 May 2015 at 9.30 am MEMBERS: Mr R J Hayes (Chairman), Mrs L C Purnell (Vice-Chairman), Mr G A F Barrett, Mr M A Cullen, Mrs J E Duncton, Mr T M E Dunn, Mr J F Elliott, Mr M N Hall, Mr L R Hixson, Mrs J L Kilby, Mr G V McAra, Mr S J Oakley, Mr R E Plowman, Mrs J A E Tassell and Mrs P M Tull AGENDA [Note The above-mentioned membership of the Planning Committee is subject to confirmation at the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 19 May 2015 at 14:30] 1 Chairman's Announcements Any apologies for absence which have been received will be noted at this stage The Planning Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting 2 Approval of Minutes The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday 29 April 2015 a copy of which will be circulated subsequent to the despatch of this agenda 3 Urgent Items The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 17 (b) 4 Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 2) Details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies are set out in the attached agenda report The details of interests are subject to change as a result of (1) the appointments to committees and outside organisations which are due to be made at (a) the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 19 May 2015 at 14:30 and/or (b) the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday 2 June 2015 at 13:30 and (2) any co-options to the membership of parish councils which might be made shortly The interests therein are disclosed by each member in respect of planning applications or other items in the agenda which require a decision where the council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular planning application or item Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests, prejudicial interests or predetermination or bias are to be made by members of the Planning Committee or other members who are present in respect of matters on the agenda or this meeting Planning Applications For details of how applications are referenced, see the end of the agenda front-sheets 5 SY/14/02186/OUTEIA - Park Farm Park Farm Lane Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 0HF (Pages 3 - 34) Hybrid planning application for comprehensive mixed-use development of land at Manor Road. Full application for Class A1 foodstore, car parking, Class A3/A4 pub/restaurant, petrol filling station, new access, landscaping and ancillary works. Outline planning application for up to 139 dwellings, hotel, Class D1 building, open space, landscaping and new access. 6 BO/14/04066/FUL - The Hamblin Trust Bosham House Main Road Bosham Chichester PO18 8PJ (Pages 35 - 43) Erection of 6 no holiday retreat lodges 7 BO/15/00720/FUL - Jersey and Bay Cottages Bosham Lane Bosham West Sussex PO18 8HY (Pages 44 - 49) Demolition of interior party wall between 2 no properties to create 1 no dwelling. External alterations including: front doors altered to form one front entrance, addition of conservation rooflights, recladding of rear dormer and replacement windows. 8 BO/15/00801/FUL - The Garden House Bosham Lane Bosham West Sussex PO18 8HG (Pages 50 - 55) Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 1 no dwelling and associated works. 9 E/14/03245/FUL - Land at Marsh Farm Barn Drove Lane Earnley Chichester West Sussex PO20 7JW (Pages 56 - 72) Use of land as a residential caravan site consisting of 4 no pitches and ancillary works. 10 SB/14/04213/FUL - Land South of Fair Acres Priors Leaze Lane Hambrook Chidham West Sussex (Pages 73 - 88) Proposed change of use of land to provide four travelling showmans yard family plots (comprising a total of 12 no mobile homes). 11 SI/14/04264/FUL - 76A Lockgate Road Sidlesham West Sussex PO20 7QQ (Pages 89 - 98) Erection of agricultural residential dwelling. 12 SDNP/14/06501/HOUS - Goldrings Kent House Lane East Harting Petersfield West Sussex GU31 5LS (Pages 99 - 112) Alterations, restoration and enhancement works including replacement extension and associated landscape works. 13 SDNP/14/06502/LIS - Goldrings Kent House Lane East Harting Petersfield West Sussex GU31 5LS (Pages 113 - 126) Alterations, restoration and enhancement works including replacement extension and associated landscape works. 14 SDNP/14/02332/HOUS - Springhead Marley Lane Camelsdale Linchmere Haslemere West Sussex GU27 3RE (Pages 127 - 134) Construction of new 2 storey rear extension following demolition of existing twostorey extension and re-roofing part of existing building of construction of new entrance porch 15 SDNP/15/01131/FUL - The Grange Midhurst Community and Leisure Centre Bepton Road Midhurst West Sussex GU29 9HD (Pages 135 - 144) Proposed single storey extension to The Grange Community and Leisure Centre for Use as Midhurst Neighbourhood Policing Base. 16 Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters (Pages 145 - 154) The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements. 17 Consideration of any late items as follows: o (a) Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection o (b) Items which the chairman has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting 18 Exclusion of the Press and Public Items for which the press and public are likely to be excluded NONE NOTES 1. The press and public may be excluded from the meeting during any item of business whenever it is likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in section 100I of and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 2. The press and public may view the agenda papers on Chichester District Council’s website at Chichester District Council - Minutes, agendas and reports unless these are exempt items. 3. Subject to the provisions allowing the exclusion of the press and public, the photographing, filming or recording of this meeting from the public seating area is permitted. To assist with the management of the meeting, anyone wishing to do this is asked to inform the chairman of the meeting of his or her intentions before the meeting starts. The use of mobile devices for access to social media is permitted but these should be switched to silent for the duration of the meeting. Those undertaking such activities must do so discreetly and not disrupt the meeting, for example by oral commentary, excessive noise, distracting movement or flash photography. Filming of children, vulnerable adults or members of the audience who object should be avoided. [Standing Order 11.3 in the Constitution of Chichester District Council] How Planning Applications are Referenced a) b) c) d) First 2 Digits = Parish Next 2 Digits = Year Next 5 Digits = Application Number Final Letters = Application Type Application Type Committee report changes appear in bold text Application Status ADV Advert Application AGR Agricultural Application (following PNO) CMA County Matter Application (eg Minerals) CAC Conservation Area Consent COU Change of Use CPO Consultation with County Planning (REG3) DEM Demolition Application DOM Domestic Application (Householder) ELD Existing Lawful Development FUL Full Application GVT Government Department Application HSC Hazardous Substance Consent LBC Listed Building Consent OHL Overhead Electricity Line OUT Outline Application PLD Proposed Lawful Development PNO Prior Notification (Agr, Dem, Tel) REG3 District Application – Reg 3 REG4 District Application – Reg 4 REM Approval of Reserved Matters REN Renewal (of Temporary Permission) TCA Tree in Conservation Area TEL Telecommunication Application (After PNO) TPA Works to tree subject of a TPO CONACC Accesses CONADV Adverts CONAGR Agricultural CONBC Breach of Conditions CONCD Coastal CONCMA County matters CONCOM Commercial/Industrial/Business CONDWE Unauthorised dwellings CONENG Engineering operations CONHDG Hedgerows CONHH Householders CONLB Listed Buildings CONMHC Mobile homes / caravans CONREC Recreation / sports CONSH Stables / horses CONT Trees CONTEM Temporary uses – markets/shooting/ motorbikes CONTRV Travellers CONWST Wasteland ALLOW Appeal Allowed APP Appeal in Progress APPRET Invalid Application Returned APPWDN Appeal Withdrawn BCO Building Work Complete BST Building Work Started CLOSED Case Closed CRTACT Court Action Agreed CRTDEC Hearing Decision Made CSS Called in by Secretary of State DEC Decided DECDET Decline to determine DEFCH Defer – Chairman DISMIS Appeal Dismissed HOLD Application Clock Stopped INV Application Invalid on Receipt LEG Defer – Legal Agreement LIC Licence Issued NFA No Further Action NODEC No Decision NONDET Never to be determined NOOBJ No Objection NOTICE Notice Issued NOTPRO Not to Prepare a Tree Preservation Order OBJ Objection PCNENF PCN Served, Enforcement Pending PCO Pending Consideration PD Permitted Development PDE Pending Decision PER Application Permitted PLNREC DC Application Submitted PPNR Planning Permission Required S64 PPNREQ Planning Permission Not Required REC Application Received REF Application Refused REVOKE Permission Revoked S32 Section 32 Notice SPLIT Split Decision STPSRV Stop Notice Served STPWTH Stop Notice Withdrawn VAL Valid Application Received WDN Application Withdrawn YESTPO Prepare a Tree Preservation Order Agenda Item 4 Chichester District Council Planning Committee Wednesday 27 May 2015 09:30 Declarations of Interests Details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies are set out in the attached agenda report The details of interests are subject to change as a result of (1) the appointments to committees and outside organisations which are due to be made at (a) the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 19 May 2015 at 14:30 and/or (b) the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday 2 June 2015 at 13:30 and (2) any co-options to the membership of parish councils which might be made shortly The interests therein are disclosed by each member in respect of planning applications or other items in the agenda which require a decision where the council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular planning application or item Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests, prejudicial interests or predetermination or bias are to be made by members of the Planning Committee or other members who are present in respect of matters on the agenda or this meeting Personal Interests - Membership of Parish Councils The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of the parish councils stated below in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where their respective parish councils have been consulted: Mr R J Hayes - Southbourne Parish Council (SB) Mrs J L Kilby – Chichester City Council (CCC) Mr G V McAra - Midhurst Town Council (MI) Mr S J Oakley – Tangmere Parish Council (TG) Mr R E Plowman – Chichester City Council (CC) Mrs L C Purnell – Selsey Town Council (SY) Page 1 Personal Interests - Membership of West Sussex County Council The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of West Sussex County Council in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where that local authority has been consulted: Mrs J E Duncton - West Sussex County Council Member for the Petworth Division Mr G V McAra - West Sussex County Council Member for the Midhurst Division Mr S J Oakley - West Sussex County Council Member for the Chichester East Division Personal Interests - Chichester District Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest as Chichester District Council appointees to the outside organisations or as members of the public bodies below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where such organisations or bodies have been consulted: Mr G A F Barrett - Chichester Harbour Conservancy Personal Interests – West Sussex County Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies The following member of the committee declares a personal interest as a West Sussex County Council appointee to the outside organisation stated below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where that organisation has been consulted: Page 2 Agenda Item 5 Parish: Selsey Ward: Selsey North SY/14/02186/OUTEIA Proposal Hybrid planning application for comprehensive mixed use development of land at Manor Road. Full application for Class A1 foodstore, car parking, Class A3/A4 pub/restaurant, petrol filling station, new access, landscaping and ancillary works. Outline planning application for up to 139 dwellings, hotel, Class D1 building, open space, landscaping and new access. Site Park Farm Park Lane Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 0HF Map Ref (E) 486495 (N) 94234 Applicant Mr M Fletcher RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR REVOCATION ORDER & S106 NOT TO SCALE Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803 Page 3 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Major application on which Officers consider decision should be by Committee Red Card Cllr Robertson - Exceptional level of public interest 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is situated on the northern edge of Selsey adjacent to the Settlement Policy Area Boundary which is formed by Manor Road. It comprises 9.05 hectares of agricultural land in total and is mostly flat incorporating a fall of approximately 3 metres from north-west to south-east. It is bounded to the north by the unmade Park Lane and the Nature's Way factory, to the west by the B2145 Chichester Road and Manor Road and to the east by Manor Lane. To the south lies the commercial development at Ellis Square. 2.2 The site comprises two distinct parcels of land separated by a substantial hedgerow and drainage ditch. The smaller land parcel comprises 1.54 hectares and the larger parcel 7.51 hectares. The site perimeter is predominantly enclosed by native hedgerows including hedgerow trees. There is an existing field access on the west boundary to Manor Road. The distinctive detached 2 storey property 'Four Ways' (or Show House) is sited adjacent to the north-west corner of the site. The two adjoining fields, which make up the application site, fall within Class 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. The site is located within the Environment Agency's Flood Zone 1 as having the lowest potential risk of fluvial or tidal flooding. 2.3 No statutory nature conservation designations are located within or immediately adjacent to the site itself. The nearest such designation to the site is the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site which is located approximately 650 metres east of the site. The SPA/Ramsar site is also designated as a SSSI and Local Nature Reserve. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The re-development of the site is proposed within a hybrid planning application comprising both commercial and residential elements. The elements to be considered in full and outline are set out as follows: Full Application A foodstore of 1,949 sqm (GEA) 1,866 sqm (GIA) (2-2.5 storeys) high with service yard An automated four pump petrol filling station with canopy (no kiosk) and below ground fuel storage tanks Two A3/A4 pub/restaurant units totalling 473 sqm (1.5 storeys high); Unit 1- 139 sqm Unit 2- 278 sqm 176 customer parking spaces which include: 10 parent/child spaces 9 disabled bays 2 electric vehicle bays 3 click and collect spaces Page 4 Cycle stands for 25 bicycles Outline Application Outline planning permission is sought for 144 dwellings. The proposed housing mix is as follows: 58 (40%) affordable dwellings comprising; 8 x 1 bed flats 20 x 2 bed houses 22 x 3 bed houses 8 x 4 bed houses 86 private dwellings comprising; 7 x 1 bed flats 21 x 2 bed houses 41 x 3 bed houses 17 x 4 bed houses The residential density of development is approximately 20 dwellings per hectare. 3.2 285 car parking spaces are to be provided (includes garages). Additionally the outline proposals include the following development; - 40 bed Hotel - 1368 sqm (GIA) 18 parking bays - Multi Use Clinic - 195 sqm (GIA) 16 parking bays - Surface water swale/balancing pond in south-east corner of site - Public open space including equipped playspace - 1 km perimeter dog walking track 3.3 'Access' is the only matter for consideration under the outline part of the application with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping being reserved matters. Three points of vehicular access are proposed. As part of the full application a new access is proposed off the existing roundabout at the junction of Manor Road and the B2145. The position of the roundabout itself would be be adjusted to ensure that vehicle movements and safety considerations as a result of the proposed development are addressed. The existing field access off Manor Road is to be improved and this will be the primary access from the west to the site. At the eastern site boundary provision for a future connection to Manor Lane at its junction with Drift Road is proposed. Two pedestrian access points are proposed along the north site boundary giving access onto Park Lane. 3.4 The following improvements to highway infrastructure also form part of the proposals: Page 5 widening of the Ferry Bends on the B2145 to facilitate two way movements by large vehicles, given the increase in HGV movements associated with servicing the new foodstore 3 x new bus stop laybys; 1 on the B2145 at the site, 1 adjacent to Farringdon Barn and 1 at Coles Farm a new toucan crossing on Manor Road to provide cycle access to both the food store and residential phases of development - a new cycle route north from the Manor Road/Chichester Road roundabout adjacent to the B2145 to connect into the wider cycle network 4.0 History 75/00015/SY REF Change of use - from chicken houses to furniture storage. 88/00248/SY PER Erection of canteen/rest room for agricultural workers, and temporary consent for workers hostel. Associated parking and landscaping. 90/00040/SY PER Winter storage of 8 caravans providing accommodation for seasonal agricultural employees. 90/00042/SY PER Hardstandings and services for 8 caravans providing accommodation for seasonal agricultural employees. 93/01994/FUL PER Demolition of redundant turkey house and construction of new farm building (crop and equipment store). 95/01732/FUL REF Erection of telecommunications mast and associated ancillary development. 97/01317/FUL REF Agricultural workers hostel. 04/01439/FUL PER106 Infill extension. 11/04954/OUT REF Outline application for 50 dwellings, access, landscaping and associated works 13/02810/P3MPA YESPAR Change of use from agricultural to Class M flexible uses. (Use classes A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 and D2) (243sqm). Page 6 13/02829/P3MPA YESPAR Change of use from agricultural to Class M flexible uses. (Use classes A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 and D2) (473sqm). 13/02831/P3MPA YESPAR Change of use from agricultural to Class M flexible uses. (Use classes A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 and D2) (224sqm). 13/03431/P3MPA YESPAR Change of use from agricultural to Class M flexible uses. (Use classes A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 and D2) (243sqm). 13/03438/P3MPA YESPAR Change of use from agricultural to Class M flexible uses. (Use classes A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 and D2) (224sqm). 13/04207/P3MPA YESPAP Change of use from agricultural to Class M flexible uses. (Use classes A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 and D2) (224sqm). 13/04208/P3MPA YESPAP Change of use from agricultural to Class M flexible uses. (Use classes A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 and D2) (243sqm). 14/00772/OUT APPRET Variation of planning condition 2 planning permission SY/11/04954/OUT. 14/00796/OUT APPRET Variation of planning conditions to enable time for consultation with neighbourhood planning group and community for an improved scheme. 14/03167/COUPMB YESPAR Part 3, Class MB: Conversion of agricultural building to provide 3 no. (3-bedroom) dwellinghouses. 14/04323/COUPMB YESPAP Part 3, Class MB: Proposed change of use from agricultural building to 3 no. dwellinghouses (C3 Use class). 12/00080/REF ALLOW Outline application for 50 dwellings, access, landscaping and associated works Page 7 5.0 Constraints Listed Building Conservation Area Rural Area AONB Strategic Gap Tree Preservation Order South Downs National Park NO NO YES NO YES NO NO EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 NO - Flood Zone 3 NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO 6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Selsey Town Council This application was taken in two parts SY/14/02186/OUTEIA (Detailed Full Application Proposals) Hybrid planning application for comprehensive mixed use development of land at Manor Road. Full application for Class A1 foodstore, car parking, Class A3/A4 pub/restaurant, petrol filling station, new access, landscaping and ancillary works. The Committee SUPPORT this application SY/14/02186/OUTEIA (Outline Application Proposals) Hybrid planning application for comprehensive mixed use development of land at Manor Road. Outline planning application for up to 159 dwellings, hotel, Class D1 building, open space, landscaping and new access. The Committee SUPPORT IN PRINCIPLE this application on CONDITION that the density of the dwellings be reduced to 90 as indicated in the draft Selsey Neighbourhood Plan; that existing hedgerows and trees be retained; that the following land is given for improvements to the B2145 as part of the Transport and Infrastructure S106 Contributions 1. Land on western side of B2145 adjacent to Ferry bend for widening/bend shallowing works 2. Land alongside B2145 to enable relocation of bus stops and slow moving vehicles off of the main carriageway at the site of existing bus stops as follows: o B2145 North and southbound, due south of junction with Rectory Lane adjacent to Natures Way Foods o B2145 North and southbound outside Trident Business Park o B2145 North and southbound outside Comptons farm shop o B2145 North and southbound outside Ferry Industrial Yard/Knight Fencing Page 8 3. 200m x 5m strip of land from the end of Golf Links Lane, running south to chain bridge sluice to connect to Medmerry scheme - for leisure walking/cycle links from North Selsey into Medmerry 4. Land for commuting cycle path from Selsey to join existing route from Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve; that the following schemes form part of the Transport and Infrastructure S106 Contributions 1. Subject to availability of land - delivery of Ferry bend widening scheme 2. Subject to availability of land - delivery of bus and tractor pull off points/stops 3. Subject to availability of land - delivery of a commuting cycle route to Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve 4. Purchase of land and creation of new bus stop on northbound B2145, north of Lockgate Road before junction with B2201 5. Purchase of land and creation of new bus stop on southbound B2145 between Southover Way and Meadow Close 6. Widening of the B2145 for 100m north and south of the junction with Foxbridge Drive, Hunston, to enable the passing of long vehicles on opposite carriageways 7. Funding for a forward plan for the B2145 to consider road and safety improvements along its length 8. Creation and signage for a designated on road cycle route from the new developments to Selsey Town Centre 9. Public realm improvements leading to and within Selsey High Street including wider, improved pedestrian areas/pavements and better footpath signage 10. Creation of a safe crossing point on Manor Road between junction with Chichester Road and Ellis Square, enabling pedestrian access to/from Park Farm and Drift Field 11. Traffic calming measures on Manor Road Following concerns raised by the Environment Agency regarding the proposed petrol filling station, the Committee wish to add a further comment that any attempt to site the fuel tanks above ground would create issues regarding visual aesthetics, safety and security and the Committee would strongly object to any move to do so and feel that a solution would have to be found allowing the tanks to be sited below ground. 6.2 Sidlesham Parish Council The PC wish to object in principle to the scale and mix of development proposed on the above site. This objection is primarily centred on the highway and drainage infrastructure and its frailty to support the development. Whilst it is appreciated that much of this proposal reflects the aspirations of Selsey as highlighted in their emerging Neighbourhood Plan its realisation cannot be considered solely as a Selsey issue. With Selsey as the primary settlement on the Manhood Peninsula, any significant development in the town impacts on the whole peninsula. In this case, factors such as the accumulative effect of increased traffic, demands on the foul drainage system, community issues such as health and education services and general environmental considerations all need to be taken into account. Page 9 CDC seeks to address these issues by its range of policies. However, the timing of this application pre-empts the inquiry into these policies and is of a scale and significance to distort their eventual outcome. The particular issues that surround the B2145 have been stated many times by this council and whilst being recognised by, for instance, actions such as WSCC's Traffic Regulation Order restricting vehicle speed within Sidlesham it is the bitter and increasing impacts that the road has on communities that it passes through that is the real measure of its non-sustainability. For a large period of the day it is becoming impossible for the less able to cross the road or for vehicles to enter onto it from adjoining properties. This is especially due to the constant two-way flow of traffic. The council would wish that a full traffic management study is undertaken jointly with WSCC and CDC linked to the Local Plan. This should also be in collaboration with the Peninsula Forum and Partnership and Neighbourhood Plans. This may be an item that can be sponsored through the WSCC County Local Committee with developer contribution through Section 106. In terms of foul drainage Southern Water continue to indicate "headroom" on capacity at the Sidlesham Water Treatment Works but with any significant rainfall large sections of the foul drainage cease to function. It is of some consolation that for once the developer has recognised the wide impacts of the development on, for instance, the road infrastructure. The parish council would therefore, should this develop be approved, wish to see this recognised impact mitigated by improvements to traffic management in Sidlesham. It will therefore be suggesting to the developer a number of measures that through a Section 106 agreement may be included in Heads of Terms that may form part of an eventual permission should this be the outcome. 6.3 Hunston Parish Council Hunston Parish Council would not normally comment on applications outside of the Parish. However in this instance the application will have a significant impact on the residents of Hunston and the Parish Council feels it appropriate to comment. Hunston Parish Council objects to this application on the following grounds. A large percentage of the traffic leaving Selsey comes along the B2145 to reach the A27. Traffic is frequently backed up through Hunston village which has an impact on the safety and operation of the strategic road network in particular the A27/B2145 Whyke roundabout. This development will significantly add to these problems. Para 32 of the NPPF requires that where a development creates significant amounts of movement it should take into account that; 'improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe'. The Parish Council believes that the introduction of a further 159 dwelling alongside a supermarket, hotel and petrol station will have a significant and severe impact on the local road network through Hunston where road improvements are unachievable due to the proximity of dwellings to the road. For the reason stated above the proposal also fails to meet the requirements of Policy 39 of the draft Chichester Local Plan. Page 10 Hunston Parish Council does not believe that this development is sustainable due to the significant creation of traffic movements. Sustainable developments would be placed near to local opportunities to work to reduce pressure on local roads. Jobs within Selsey itself and on the Peninsula as a whole have a tendency to be seasonal and are typically low paid. The Transport Assessment suggestion that jobs would be available hugely overestimates the availability of jobs in the area. Data appears to be based on the 2001 census which is significantly out of date. The reality of the situation is that the majority of people will be employed in the city of Chichester or beyond and therefore will add significantly to the increase in traffic on the road network. Para 34 of the NPPF states that; 'decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised'. A development where the majority of residents cannot find well paid local work, where the only sustainable mode of transport is a bus service and most residents would use their cars to get to work thereby increasing an already over used road network is not sustainable. Para 39 of the NPPF states that; 'where practical, particularly with large scale developments, key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties. Selsey only has two primary schools which are currently oversubscribed. This means new families moving into the Town are likely to have to drive their children to school adding further congestion to the road network. The Transport Assessment provided is flawed in that it does not mention the impact of traffic coming to Selsey to use the proposed Asda store. With the nearest Asda stores being Havant to the west and Ferring to the east it is likely that people will travel from Chichester/Bognor and the surrounding areas to use an Asda supermarket. Hunston Parish Council would urge the undertaking of an up to date independent traffic assessment that covers the entire length of the B2145 from the junction of the A27 to Selsey to establish the current impact of the traffic, on pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, before permission is granted to any further developments along or at the end of this very busy road. Hunston Parish Council therefore urges the District Council Planning Committee to reject this application. 6.4 North Mundham Parish Council North Mundham Parrish Council would not normally comment on applications outside the parish and its immediate neighbours. However this particular application, if it is allowed to proceed, will have widespread repercussions over the whole of the Manhood peninsula. We are particularly concerned about the effect of this proposed development on traffic flows. It is apparent that the B2145 is already over-burdened. Though we note that, in its response, Selsey Town Council has asked for a number of proposed improvements to the route, none of them will do anything to reduce the sheer volume of traffic. Although the proposed development may generate a number of local employment opportunities, we do not believe that they will provide sufficient additional employment to justify a further 159 dwellings, many of whose occupants will swell the numbers travelling out of Selsey for work. We note too that a proposed shopping development is quite likely to increase traffic from outside Selsey. In this context we note that many Page 11 of the 'support letters' for this proposal are merely a ticked list in an identical pro forma document in support of an Asda store. Parishes in the Manhood have long argued that development on the Peninsula should be restrained unless and until the appropriate infrastructure improvements are in place. In this case, we would submit that the existing road infrastructure is already inadequate, to the detriment of the quality of life in all the communities through which it passes. We have seen no proposals to mitigate the effect of further development, and without the introduction of radical measures such as the reintroduction of the Selsey Tram route we see no prospect of relieving the existing over-burdened road network. This principle of no further development without infrastructure improvement would be violated, yet again, if this proposed development is allowed to proceed. 6.5 Donnington Parish Council Donnington Parish Council objects to this application on four distinct grounds: Severe Traffic Impact Donnington PC's primary objection is due to the impact the development will have on the already critical traffic situation in our Parish. Donnington Parish includes the A286/B2201 "Selsey Tram" junction and the Stockbridge Road (A286) approach to the Stockbridge Roundabout of the A27. Both already suffer extreme cogestion from long tailbacks at peak times (which includes summer weekends due to traffic for the popular beach at West Wittering). Traffic backing up here can and does impact upon the safety and operation of the strategic road network, in particular the A27/A286 Stockbridge Roundabout. This development will feed more traffic onto the A286 via the B2201 which traffic to and from Selsey often use Donnington PC considers that this development will have a severe impact to traffic in our parish and on the strategic road network. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF[3] requires that where a development creates significant amounts of movement it should be taken account that: 'improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.'. The key roundabouts and junctions in Donnington Parish are already creaking under the weight of traffic and self-evidently there is no practical scope for making these more efficient. If there were, this bottle neck would have ceased to be a pinch point some years ago. For this reason the proposed development cannot meet the criteria in paragraph 32 of the NPPF. For the same reason this development can never satisfy multiple requirements of Policy 39 of the Chichester Local Plan[4]. Air Quality The continuous volume of traffic also severely affects air quality and the A286/A27 roundabout junction has already been declared by Chichester District Council for failure of the Government's air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide. Sustainability Page 12 The unsustainable nature of the proposed development has a direct effect on Donnington Parish due to the creation of traffic. A sustainable development would be one placed near to local opportunities to work to reduce pressure on local roads for years to come. In fact there are few jobs on the Peninsula and the jobs that come up are typically low paid and often seasonal. If successive Transport Assessment of the chances of finding work on the peninsula were correct, nearly half of the development's residents would need to cross the Stockbridge roundabout pinch point by car. However, these assessments woefully underestimate the distribution of jobs in the area. It is based on the 2001 census. In the intervening period there has been much housing development on the Peninsular, some firms (including Cobham Aerospace) have closed down and little new work has been created. The dubious basis of these figures leads to the incorrect assumption that more people from the development will find work locally than in the City of Chichester. Close to 80% of commuting journeys between 5 and 50 miles are undertaken by car [5] and the development is not within reasonable walk or cycle ride of the nearest Train Station so the overwhelming majority of these commuters would negotiate the bottleneck at the Stockbridge Roundabout by car. Paragraph 34 of the NPPF states "decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised." A development where the vast majority of residents cannot find local work and must instead aggravate a notorious traffic hot spot is not sustainable. Density Although the density of the site does not directly affect Donnington the Parish Council are interested in the quality of the area we live in and there seems little doubt that, if permitted, this will be an overcrowded, cramped development. This is primarily because dense housing cannot integrate with this traditionally rural setting. Conclusion To conclude Donnington PC think it's useful to consider just one statement from the NPPF. Developments must: "function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development". This development will be over crowded; it will languish the opposite side of a traffic bottleneck from the resident's employment and the majority of their leisure pursuits and it will reduce quality of life for everyone on the Peninsular. Rather than adding to the quality of the area it will detract from it. The NPPF and the Chichester Local Plan contain requirements to safeguard us from unsuitable developments. This development cannot meet several of these requirements. It should be rejected. 6.6 Highways England (formerly Highways Agency) No Objection. 6.7 Natural England Page 13 Provided this development falls within the agreed strategic approach [for off-site recreational mitigation] and your Council can secure adequate contributions from the applicant towards the strategy it should be possible to deliver an acceptable package of avoidance mitigation measures. The following package of on-site and off-site mitigation measures including the provision of in-perpetuity wardening, will enable Chichester District Council to conclude no likely significant effect on Pagham Harbour SPA from recreational disturbance. Off-site - Contribution to provision of a part-time, all year round warden post (to be provided in perpetuity and in place prior to first occupation of homes) - Contribution to delivery of access management, education and interpretation - Contribution to signage - Monitoring On-site The following on-site measures have been agreed and are considered acceptable mitigation for recreational disturbance for this proposal - a dog walking route around the site boundary - an off- lead dog exercise area - educational packs for new residents. Following an assessment of the value of the site as SPA supporting habitat, NE accept the report that Park Farm is unlikely to be used as a functional habitat by Brent Geese. On the basis that both on-site and off-site mitigation measures relating to recreational disturbance will be secured from the applicant and will be in place on occupation of the first dwellings, Natural England withdraws its holding objection to the development at Park Farm. 6.8 Environment Agency The revised drainage strategy operates under gravity and therefore does not require a pump to discharge surface water. We therefore remove our previous objection to this proposed development. [Planning Officer comment: the previous objection related to the proposal for pumped surface water drainage] 6.9 Southern Water Services Public sewer crosses the site and the exact position must be determined before the final layout is finalised. There is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to service the development. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. The appropriate infrastructure can be secured through the separate legal mechanism of S.98 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Condition and Informative recommended to this effect. 6.10 Sussex Police Page 14 Various comments/recommendations made about the layout to ensure good access, surveillance and security. Additionally a contribution of £31,521 is sought toward the costs of improving the local police infrastructure to meet and service the needs of the development. 6.11 NHS PCT Request made for a contribution of £63,893 to enhance health infrastructure in response to anticipated demands from residents of the new development. 6.12 WSCC - Highways Summary It is considered that the proposed development accords with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and no objection is raised, subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement. Access Access to the foodstore is to be taken through modification to the existing roundabout junction of Manor Road and Chichester Road where an additional arm is to be introduced in the north east corner. The size of the roundabout will be increased within land under the control of the Applicant or within the highway boundary. Capacity testing of the revised arrangement has been undertaken which demonstrates that the roundabout will work well within theoretical operating capacity. Access to the residential aspect of the development, phase 2, is proposed through a simple priority junction by upgrading the existing field access. The LHA are satisfied with the principle of a simple priority junction access at this location. Satisfactory visibility can be achieved in both directions. Traffic Impact The Chichester District Council Local Plan (LP) establishes an allocation of 150 dwellings in Selsey. Of this, 50 dwellings are already permitted through the original Park Farm development proposal and an additional 110 dwellings have been permitted through development to the north of Drift Road. Permission that was granted on appeal for 50 dwellings on the original Park Farm development site would be superseded should permission be granted, therefore, the proposal seeks permission for an additional 104 dwellings in excess of the LP allocation for Selsey. As the housing allocation has been met it is therefore necessary to consider the cumulative traffic impact that the proposed development would have on the LP traffic flows. The traffic assessment anticipates circa 90 movements for the residential element during the peak network hours. Movements generated by the hotel and A3 use will occur primarily outside of network hours. The foodstore would generate circa 315 movements in the peak hour. The foodstore is a key component of the traffic assessment. With the exception of Budgens located off Selsey High Street, the Peninsula does not have a large supermarket. The Retail Impact Assessment identifies that a majority of the proposed stores' trade will be drawn from the existing supermarkets located to the south of Chichester, approximately 8 miles from the site. The applicants survey of the existing shopping habits in Selsey revealed that 75% currently shop in Chichester or Bognor for the main food shop. Using the 75% as a guide, on the basis of the 315 movements that are anticipated to the proposed store during peak hours some 230 movements could currently be served from stores off the peninsula and therefore require trips through the previously identified sensitive junctions. Proposed store will reduce the need for both new and existing residents to Page 15 travel off the Peninsula for large food retail purchases, offsetting the impact generated by the residential aspect of the development. The LHA do not therefore consider that the proposed development will have a severe cumulative impact, as set out in paragraph 32 of the NPPF, on the operation of the local network in capacity terms and when considered cumulatively with the traffic flows associated with the LP. Accessibility and Highway Improvements The allocation of residential development has been considered through the Selsey 'Neighbourhood Plan' (NP). The plan is accompanied by a list of infrastructure priorities to support the introduction of residential development. In order to enhance sustainable infrastructure and deliver the infrastructure set out in NPs, a contribution is sought from the residential development using the Total Access Demand (TAD) methodology of £363,000. [Planning Officer comment: the infrastructure improvements to be secured through this development which meet the CIL Reg 122 tests are to be secured through the Section 106 Agreement and are set out in paragraph 3.3 and 8.30 of this report.] Layout and Parking HGV tracking of the internal roundabout junction has been provided by the Applicant and shown to work appropriately. 176 car parking spaces are proposed for the food retail element. The WSCC Parking Standards suggests that a development of this scale makes provision for 140 spaces. The overprovision is considered to be appropriate to cater for any overspill that may occur from the other uses. The provision of 25 cycle stands is in accordance with WSCC guidance. The site layout and parking provision for the residential phase is to be considered at reserved matters but WSCC are satisfied that the parking demand for a development of 144 dwellings can be accommodated within the confines of the site. Consideration should also be given to internal cycle connectivity and ensuring the internal spine road is to an adoptable standard so that it is suitable as a public link from Manor Road to Drift Road. 6.13 WSCC - Infrastructure The following infrastructure contributions are sought from the development; Primary Education £372,342 Libraries £41,430 Fire and Rescue £3,916 Total Access Demand (TAD) £363,000 6.14 CDC - Community Facilities The Selsey Centre which is the nearest to the proposed development requires an extension with another meeting/community room, appropriate staging and changing facilities and further storage. Request a contribution of £253,296. 6.15 CDC - Sport and Leisure There would be a requirement for £116,254 for sport and leisure, calculated using the Sport England Sports Facility Calculator. This money would be used to assist with the delivery of the Selsey Sports Dream football and cricket pavilion/clubhouse project which has been identified within the draft Selsey Neighbourhood Plan. There are no further Section 106 contributions for Leisure currently allocated to the Selsey Sports Dream Project. Page 16 6.16 CDC - Open Space The masterplan shows a combined play and open space of 1.11 acres (0.449 ha) which exceeds the Supplementary Planning Guidance requirements and is well positioned within the development. 6.17 CDC - Coast and Land Drainage Engineer The new scheme is a gravity system with restricted discharge and storage provided in an open pond. This approach is acceptable in principle. As part of the proposal the developer will be required to clear the existing ditch, the details of which can be agreed on site. Recommend conditions regarding approval of the details of the surface water drainage scheme which should follow building regs and SUDS manual. No dwelling to be occupied until surface water drainage serving that property is installed. Maintenance and management of the SUDs system to be submitted and approved before development commences. 6.18 CDC - Housing Enabling Officer Original There is a very great need for affordable housing in Selsey so the full 40% quota is required. The affordable housing mix is acceptable. The private housing mix does not align directly with SHMA in respect of the number of 4 bedroom dwellings proposed (too many). Amended I am satisfied that although the revised private mix is not exactly as the SHMA recommendations, it is acceptable in this case. 6.19 CDC - Economic Development Service Support the application. Development will encourage residents to stay within the area for their shopping and petrol requirements. It is also likely to encourage people who live outside of the Manhood Peninsula to visit Selsey, improving the economy further. Selsey High Street vacancy rate is considerably lower than the national average but EDS recognises the need to both protect and promote the high street. To encourage the sustainability and growth of a wide variety of shops, we would expect the space within the proposed A1 site to be controlled by including conditions to limit the sale of comparative goods. Selsey unemployment rate is 8.7%, higher than the average for Chichester District, which is 6.5%. Introduction of a hotel and a supermarket will give local residents opportunity to work at the site, both during the initial stages of the development and once the site is built. Essential conditions are imposed to ensure 100% of the commercial space is built, by the time 50% of the residential development has been occupied. It will be important for the development, as well as the town as a whole, to have the guarantee of employment opportunities locally, as soon as possible. New hotel accommodation is welcomed and will economically benefit the area. Staying visitors spend significantly more within a local economy than day visitors and help underpin the viability of associated businesses such as transport, entertainment, catering and retailing. 6.20 CDC - Archaeological Officer Page 17 Site of this size is bound to contain archaeological deposits. Condition should be imposed requiring an investigation before the commencement of any building works which shall include an initial trial investigation and for the preservation of significant deposits identified. 6.21 CDC - Environmental Strategy Various comments about the need to ensure protected species which may or may not be present on the site are safeguarded. Confirmation of need for a mitigation payment to offset environmental impact on Pagham Harbour SPA. 6.22 CDC - Environmental Health Officer Given size of site a comprehensive site investigation should be undertaken to confirm the ground conditions. This can be secured through the standard land contamination condition. An air quality assessment should be undertaken for the construction phase and this can again be secured by condition. Construction process should follow Code for Considerate Contractors. The petrol filling station will require a separate Environmental Permit issued by CDC. 6.23 61 Third Party Objections Petition with 397 signatures opposed to supermarket and objecting on infrastructure grounds. Too many houses Asda will harm Selsey high street shops Existing infrastructure cannot cope will make it worse Loss of agricultural land Too much traffic on already congested roads, can't sustain any more New residents will be harmful to wildlife at Pagham Will ruin peaceful nature of Selsey Housing will not benefit local people Petrol station and Asda will add to HGV traffic on B2145 Does Selsey really need another supermarket 6.24 64 Third Party Support Petition with 79 signatures supporting a new ASDA supermarket Village will retain shops who will be encouraged to shop locally Will create more employment and an increase in trade Will result in traffic decrease on B2145 Customers will come from surrounding area investing in and helping Selsey thrive Hotel will benefit local tourism and the existing high street shops and businesses There will be petrol available locally 6.25 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information In addition to the Design and Access Statement, the agent has submitted a comprehensive suite of reports on the various issues. The proposed development is considered to meet the applicable threshold for Schedule 2 Development (category 10 (b) urban development projects greater than 0.5ha) within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and is Page 18 therefore accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The supporting reports are available to read in detail on the Council's website and comprise: The Environmental Statement and its Non-Technical Summary comprising: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Lighting Statement Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment Ground Conditions Assessment Transportation Statement Ecological Assessment Noise Assessment Housing Statement Retail Statement Statement of Community Engagement Sustainability Statement 6.26 The applicant has worked closely with Selsey Town Council to develop proposals for a mixed use development which responds to the aspirations set out in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. There has also been community involvement through 2 local exhibitions, regular updates through the local media and regular meetings and consultation with key stakeholders. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for Selsey but at the time of writing it is understood that submission of that plan to the Council is imminent whereupon it will undergo its 6 week consultation period. The Committee will be updated at the meeting regarding progress in terms of timetabling. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE3 Archaeology BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features BE16 Energy Conservation RE1 Rural Area Generally RE6 Strategic Gaps RE7 Nature Conservation (Designated Areas) TR6 Highway Safety H4 Size and Density of Dwellings H5 Open Space Requirements H6 Maintenance of Open Space S6 East Wittering, Midhurst, Petworth and Selsey Shopping Centres T1 Accommodation and Facilities Page 19 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications was submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in May 2014. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and as it progresses through the Local Plan process towards adoption it will gain more weight for decision making purposes. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. 7.4 The hearings for the Local Plan Examination started on the 30 September 2014 and continued until December. During the public examination on the 8th October the Inspector indicated that she had not seen up to date evidence to justify the District Council's proposed housing figure of 410 homes per annum over the 15 year plan period. The Inspector invited the Council to initiate an audit of the evidence and to augment the evidence base where necessary. Evidence undertaken by the Council indicated that it was possible to increase the housing target by 25, to 435 per annum. This equated to 415 dwellings in total over the plan period. On this basis the Council considered it would be possible to increase the allocation within the plan period. In terms of Selsey there was no proposed increase in the overall housing numbers for the Plan period. 7.5 The Evidence Audit was approved for submission to the Planning Inspector for the Local Plan Examination by Council on the 24th November 2014. Proposed modifications to the Plan were approved by the Council for consultation on the 22nd December 2014. The consultation ran for six weeks from the 8th January until 19th February 2015. At the time of writing the representations arising from the consultation were being considered by the Planning Inspector who has confirmed there are no proposals to hold further hearings. Currently the estimated date for adoption of the Local Plan is Spring/Summer 2015. Chichester Local Plan Key Policies 2014-2029 (with modifications) Applicable policies from the submitted Chichester Local Plan include: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 7: Masterplanning Strategic Development Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 22: Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Manhood Peninsula Policy 23: Selsey Strategic Development Policy 29: Settlement Hubs and Village Centres Policy 30: Built Tourist and Leisure Development Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 38: Local and Community Facilities Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 42: Flood Risk Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Page 20 Policy 51: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area Policy 52: Green Infrastructure Policy 54: Open Space, Sport and Recreation National Policy and Guidance 7.6 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decisiontaking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.7 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 6-13 (Presumption in Favour of development); 17 (the Core Planning Principles); 23-24, 26-27 (Ensuring the vitality of town centres); 29-32, 34-37 and 39 (Sustainable Transport); 47-50 and 55 (Housing); 56-61 and 63-64 (Design); 69-70 and 73 (Healthy Communities); 93-101 (Climate Change and flood risk); 118-119 (Natural Environment); 183-185 (Neighbourhood Plans);188-195 (Pre-Application); 196-197 (Determining Applications); 203-206 (Conditions and Obligations) and Annex 1 (Implementation). National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) supplements and forms a companion guide to the NPPF. 7.8 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.9 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application: Page 21 The Provision of Service Infrastructure Related to New Development in Chichester District (Parts 1 and 2) Interim Statement on Planning for Affordable Housing Interim Policy Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Special Protection Areas and Identified Compensatory Habitats 7.10 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: A1 - A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow A2 - Employees with good skills relevant to local employers, prepared for national and international competition and with well-paid and secure jobs A3 - Vibrant and sustainable City and market towns, with a good range of business and retail types B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living B3 - Environmental Resources C3 - A culturally enriched and empowered community C6 - Health Protection D1 - Increasing housing supply D2 - Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods D3 - Housing fit for purpose D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs E1 - Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion E2 - There will be improved cycling networks and strong links to public transport to ensure that cycling is a viable alternative to using the car E4 - People will have easier access to services at a local level 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The planning application comprises a residential-led mixed use proposal. It is submitted partly in outline (predominantly the residential element but also including the proposed hotel and multi-use clinic) and partly in full (the foodstore, associated petrol filling station and the two A3 restaurants). The subsequent structure of this report considers the main issues in relation to both the outline and full components which are described in section 3 above. 8.2 The main issues raised by the application are: Page 22 o The principle of housing development in this location o The significance of the Neighbourhood Plan o The impact on the safety and function of the highway network o The impact of the commercial development on Selsey town centre and issues of sustainability o The impact of the development on the Pagham Harbour SPA o Surface and foul water drainage o Design, density and landscape impact Assessment Principle of housing development in this location 8.3 The required starting point for the Committee's consideration of this application is established in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications: 'should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise'. The development plan comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. The Local Plan only supports the principle of housing development taking place within Settlement Policy Areas through policies RE1, BE1 and H1. The site adjoins but is outside of the settlement boundary for Selsey so there is an automatic policy presumption against new housing. However, the current Local Plan is not up to date in terms of its housing policies because the District cannot demonstrate that it has a five year housing land supply (5YHLS) as it is required to do so by paragraph 49 of the NPPF (there remains a shortfall of approximately 442 dwellings which is equivalent to the Council having a 4.3 year supply). In the absence of a 5YHLS, the NPPF's central golden thread is that there should be a presumption in favour of allowing sustainable new development. This may include new housing and potentially significant new housing outside of established settlement boundaries. 8.4 The government's policy basis therefore starts with a presumption in favour of allowing the proposed development unless any adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Policies from the extant Local Plan cannot be relied on unless they are consistent with the NPPF and in terms of policies RE1, BE1 and H1 they are not. NPPF paragraph 216 advises that the weight in terms of decision making that may be given to policies in the new Local Plan is also dependent on their degree of consistency with the NPPF, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies. 8.5 The emerging Local Plan which will replace the saved policies in the 1999 Local Plan is at an advanced stage with the hearings process having been completed . Its policies therefore have weight commensurate with the advice in the NPPF. Policy 23 in the Chichester Local Plan Key Policies 2014-2029 (Selsey Strategic Development) is not subject to modifications. It envisages development at Selsey during the plan period comprising both housing (around 150 homes) as well as supporting community facilities and open space. Given the constraints of the existing settlement boundary this new development will need to take place on land outside of the settlement boundary within what is currently defined in policy terms as the Rural Area. 8.6 Going forward therefore, the principle of some new development outside of, but as an extension to the existing developed part of Selsey is considered to be both necessary Page 23 and acceptable. Given the context of the Council's 5 YHLS and the government requirement in NPPF para 49 in this regard, there are not considered to be strong grounds to conclude that bringing forward development at this time is premature or would jeopardise the local development plan process. The significance of the Neighbourhood Plan 8.7 Policy 23 of the emerging Local Plan makes it clear that the future growth of Selsey needs to be a collaborative process, with active stakeholder engagement and participation through the neighbourhood plan process. It also needs to be development that is masterplanned in accordance with Policy 7. The Selsey Neighbourhood Plan (SNP) at the time of writing this report is about to be submitted to the Council for the required 6 week consultation process under Regulation 16. The applicant has worked closely with the Town Council to prepare a plan which meets some of its future aspirations and the Committee will note that the Town Council supports the application subject to securing a number of infrastructure requirements regarding the components in the outline proposals and reducing the number of dwellings to 90. 8.8 The SNP has some weight as a material consideration insofar that the Final Submission document containing the aspirations for the local Community through the Local Plan period is now prepared and is about to be submitted to the Council. However, these aspirations have yet to be subject to the statutory consultation process. Following this the SNP will also then need to pass the examination and referendum stages prior to being made. At this stage the neighbourhood plan does not therefore carry the same weight as development plan policy and this status must temper the degree to which it can be relied on in the decision making process on this planning application in light of the advice in paragraph 216 of the NPPF. 8.9 The SNP is however a material consideration to be taken into account. It identifies two sites outside of the existing settlement boundary (Drift Road - the former Pye site to the east - and the current application site) as appropriate sites for new development. Collectively the two sites in the SNP which have been subject to local community consultation anticipate delivery of around 190 new homes through the Plan period. In terms of existing planning commitments there is an extant outline permission for 110 homes at Drift Field and 50 homes at Park Farm (the western most part of the current application site adjacent to the roundabout). The current application for 144 dwellings would therefore include the 50 dwellings permitted at Park Farm rather than being additional to them. Drift Field (110) plus this application (144) would result in a total of 254 dwellings for Selsey. This is 64 more than the SNP anticipates and 104 more than the emerging Local Plan figure (150). The emerging Local Plan figure of 150 however is not expressed as a 'maximum' and in light of the 5 YHLS position and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in para 14 of the NPPF the Council would need to demonstrate significant and adverse impacts associated with the development that would outweigh the clear benefits of providing an additional 104 dwellings that would contribute towards addressing the current housing shortfall. 8.10 It is relevant to note that the Strategic Housing Land Supply Assessment (SHLAA) in May 2014 which formed part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan identified theoretical capacity for 637 homes at Selsey. The Local Plan figure for around 150 homes is therefore a conservative figure in comparison with this but reflects potential constraints associated with Selsey's location on the Peninsula. These constraints include the fact that large areas are at risk of coastal flooding, the Page 24 potential environmental impact on Pagham Harbour and the highway impact on the B2145. The 3 sites assessed in the 2014 SHLAA totalling 637 homes comprise the current application site, the Drift Field Road site and land to the west of Park Farm/B2145. All 3 of these sites are in Flood Zone 1 and so are at the lowest risk of coastal flooding. The highway impact and the environmental impact on Pagham Harbour have been assessed in respect of the Drift Road (110 dwelling) and Park Farm (50 dwelling) sites and successfully addressed through a package of mitigation measures agreed with Natural England. 8.11 Policy ASP01 of the SNP allocates the application site for a mixed use development comprising; Up to 90 homes A 27,000 sq ft. (2,508 sqm) Supermarket 60 bed hotel with associated food & beverage provision Health/Dental Clinic The mix of uses in the SNP compares favourably with that proposed by the current planning application. The application proposes an additional 54 dwellings beyond the minimum requirement of the emerging Local Plan but again this must be considered in the context of the 5 YHLS position and the fact that the 150 allocation is not a 'ceiling' on development if is demonstrated that development with a higher number of dwellings is sustainable in other respects such as its highway impact and the environmental impact on Pagham Harbour SPA. Officers have concluded that in terms of the overall form of the development and mix of uses proposed, whilst the SNP is not yet made the proposed development aligns itself well with the community's aspirations. It is acknowledged that the total number of dwellings exceeds that envisaged by the SNP but this application should be judged on its individual merits and in light of the development management considerations discussed below. The impact on the safety and function of the highway network 8.12 The comments of the County Council as local highway authority are set out in detail at paragraph 6.12 above and are therefore not repeated in detail in this section. The Committee will note however that no objection is raised to either the commercial or residential components of the development. The consultation response considers access, traffic impact accessibility and highway improvements, layout and parking. In terms of the strategic road network (A27) no objection is raised by Highways England (para 6.6). 8.13 Significant attention has been paid to ensuring that the access to the foodstore, petrol station and restaurants from the existing roundabout at the junction of Manor Road/B2145 is fit for purpose in terms of its technical layout and from a safety perspective. This will result in a slight realignment/improvement of the roundabout to ensure that the correct geometry is achieved. In terms of traffic impact the Committee will note that the submitted traffic assessment (TA) anticipates circa 90 movements for the residential element during the peak network hours and that movements generated by the hotel and A3 use will occur primarily outside of network hours. The TA anticipates the foodstore would generate circa 315 movements in the peak hour and that this is a key component of the traffic assessment. The expectation is that the new foodstore will draw the majority of its' trade from the existing supermarkets located to the south of Chichester, approximately 8 miles from the site. This will reduce need for both new and existing residents to travel off the Peninsula for large food retail Page 25 purchases. The consequence of this is to offset the impact generated by the residential aspect of the development. On this basis WSCC Highways consider that the proposed development will not have a severe cumulative impact, which is the required test as set out in paragraph 32 of the NPPF, on the operation of the local network in capacity terms and when considered cumulatively with the traffic flows associated with the Local Plan. 8.14 In terms of accessibility and highway improvements the Committee will note that the Town Council's support for the outline component of the application is conditional on securing a number of off-site highway improvements. WSCC's response is that where such off-site improvements are reasonable and justified in the context of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) to make the development acceptable in planning terms, these will be secured through the Section 106 agreement associated with any planning permission granted for the development. The package of measures which has been agreed are set out in para 3.3 and again in the section on the S.106 legal agreement below (para 8.30). This package does not include all those matters listed in Selsey Town Council's representations on the application and is necessarily restricted to those which are necessary and reasonably related to the development to make the application acceptable in light of the requirements of the CIL regulations. The parking provision both for the commercial proposals and the residential component are acceptable and accord with the WSCC Parking Calculator. The comments from the Parish Councils on the Peninsula with regard to concerns about the impact of traffic arising from the development are not considered to be substantiated on the basis of the available transport evidence and officers are of the opinion that on the basis of the comments received from WSCC and Highways England the development is acceptable on highway grounds. The impact of the commercial development on Selsey town centre and issues of sustainability 8.15 The proposed commercial element of the development would be primarily delivered as part of the full application - foodstore, associated petrol filling station and 2 no. restaurants. The outline application proposes the 40 bed hotel and the health clinic. The balance of uses complies with aspirations set out in the SNP. The application advises that the proposed foodstore is to be occupied by Asda. The store would have a net sales area of 1,394 sqm (1,858 sqm gross) and be approximately 85% larger than the existing Budgens store in the retail centre of Selsey. Its focus would be on the sale of convenience goods with some comparison goods sales (the applicants retail statement anticipates approximately 25% comparison goods compared with typically 50% for a larger Asda store). The store although on the edge of Selsey's existing Settlement Policy Boundary will only be a 5 minute walk from the retail centre (this was the Planning Inspectors observation in paragraph 15 of the Park Farm appeal decision) and is the preferred location for a new foodstore in the SNP. Were the SNP made (adopted) then the sequential test required by the NPPF for the out of centre foodstore would not be required. It is relevant to note that in the appeal decisions at Park Farm for 50 dwellings (that is the western part of the current application site) and the 100 dwelling scheme at Drift Road (east of the current application site) both Inspectors concluded that new housing development was not unsustainably located in relation to access to the main facilities in Selsey within the meaning of the NPPF. More widely in the context of 'sustainable' development and access to facilities, the Committee will note that at the recent appeal decision in respect of 160 dwellings at Clappers Lane in Bracklesham (EWB/14/00457/OUT, APP/L3815/A/14/2219554) the Inspector concluded that 'Trips beyond it Page 26 [Bracklesham] to higher order services and facilities are only to be expected. Their inevitable existence does not necessarily demonstrate the appeal site to be in an unsustainable location. On the contrary, it could be as 'sustainable' as many other locations within, or on the edge of, this 'single large village'. Officers consider that a similar case to Bracklesham can be made for Selsey in that both are identified in the emerging Local Plan as 'settlement hubs'. 8.16 As the SNP is not yet a 'made' plan the applicant has carried out a sequential test to establish if there are other more sequentially preferable sites in the town centre or edge of centre that could meet the requirements of a foodstore of this size and which are available, suitable and deliverable. None of the sites which would potentially be of sufficient size to accommodate the store and the commercial components are achievable or deliverable. Your officers are satisfied that the retail assessment in respect of the potential availability of other alternative more centrally located sites has been carried out appropriately and therefore that the application site satisfies the sequential test. 8.17 The size of the foodstore falls below the NPPF requirement to carry out a formal assessment in terms of the likely impact of the development on the vitality and viability of Selsey's retail centre. The NPPF requires such an assessment to be undertaken for proposals of 2,500 sqm or more unless there is a locally set default threshold which in the case of Selsey there is not. The applicant has nevertheless carried out an assessment of 'impact' which has included a survey by an independent market research company to assess existing convenience shopping patterns in Selsey. The headline results of this survey revealed that the main food shop destinations for Selsey residents were to Tesco's and Sainsbury's, the average main food shopping time was 16-18 minutes each way. 60% of top up spend in the town goes to Selsey stores with existing Selsey foodstores retaining only 21-25% of the main food spend. The applicants figures reveal a background of substantial main food shopping leakage outside of Selsey to larger established foodstores on the edge of Chichester. The current proposals therefore seek to claw back this main food trade loss from the stores farther afield by keeping spending within Selsey. The Council's Economic Development Service (EDS) has assessed the application and considered the applicants retail assessment. EDS comments are reported in some detail at paragraph 6.19 and the Committee will note that following analysis of the proposals for not just the foodstore but the other commercial elements the application is supported. EDS consider that the development will both support and improve the local economy in terms of increased local spend, more jobs and more visitors. 8.18 The 'package' of commercial elements are considered to be an important component to the success of this strategic application overall in terms of it meeting the community's aspirations enshrined in the SNP. A housing development alone or in isolation notwithstanding the Council's 5 YHLS situation would not be considered acceptable without at least some of the supporting commercial infrastructure. It is considered important therefore that through planning conditions and the mechanism of the Section 106 agreement key triggers will be required to ensure that insofar as is reasonably practicable and enforceable, the delivery of the commercial components is achieved. The applicant has confirmed to the Council that supermarket operator Asda has signed a 20 year lease to develop the foodstore subject to planning permission. Early delivery of the foodstore is paramount to the development insofar as the basis of the transport assessment and WSCC Highways acceptance of this assessment is that it will result in a reduction in vehicle movements on the B2145 (by reducing the current leakage of main food retailing from Selsey) and thereby offset Page 27 some of the increase in vehicle movements associated with the proposed 144 dwellings. The Committee is therefore advised that a condition is proposed on this recommendation requiring that before occupation of the 51st dwelling subject of the permission (accepting that the applicant already benefits from an extant outline planning permission for 50 dwellings on the site) the foodstore shall be at practical completion. 8.19 In respect of the multi-use clinic, the restaurants and the hotel, the S.106 will require a marketing period to commence from the date of the permission to establish demand from potential commercial operators. For the multi-use clinic the anticipation is that if at the end of the marketing period a health care provider has been secured to provide the NHS medical services anticipated by the NHS PCT in its separate consultation response (requesting a contribution of £63,893), then that financial contribution will not be sought. If a health care provider is secured from the marketing period but that provider has no NHS component then the NHS PCT contribution will be required in addition to the new building. If at the end of the marketing period there has been no developer interest in delivering a health care building on the site then the NHS PCT contribution would be sought. The impact of the development on the Pagham Harbour SPA 8.20 The application site lies approximately 650 metres west/south-west of Pagham Harbour SPA where the Council is under a legal duty to protect wildlife, and bird populations in particular, from harm. The Habitat Regulations require the Council to consider whether development may have a "likely significant effect" on the Harbour and whether an "Appropriate Assessment" may be required (Regulation 61). 8.21 The Interim Policy Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Special Protection Areas and identified Compensatory Habitats (April 2014) provides an approach to assist the Council's consideration of whether planning applications may have a "likely significant effect" on SPA's. For Pagham Harbour SPA the Council has identified a 3.5km zone of influence. This zone of influence requires the Council for developments of one net new dwelling or more (within this zone) to assess the likelihood of an in-combination significant effect, including in-combination with development in Arun District. Where such an effect is considered likely a package of avoidance measures will have to be agreed and secured by legal agreement. The application site falls well within the zone of influence and therefore mitigating the potential recreational disturbance impact from people walking to the Harbour is a key consideration. There has been a significant amount of discussion on this important issue throughout the application process involving the applicant, the Council's Environmental Strategy service, Natural England, the RSPB and Arun District Council to arrive at a coherent approach for mitigating the potential impacts of large scale new housing developments including this application on Pagham Harbour SPA. 8.22 As a result of the negotiations a 'package' of on-site and off-site mitigation measures are proposed and these are detailed in paragraph 6.7 above. In terms of the off-site measures the applicants have agreed to a financial contribution of approximately £800 per dwelling i.e. 144 x 800 = £115,200 (though this figure maybe reduced if a lower figure is subsequently agreed with Natural England). Such a sum will be used inter alia towards the wardening of the Harbour and includes provision for an 'in perpetuity' contribution to satisfy that requirement in the Habitat Regulations. The Committee will note that Natural England has no objection to the application on the basis that the Council secures the package of recreational mitigation measures through the S.106 Page 28 agreement which it is proposed to do. On this basis the advice of Natural England is that an Appropriate Assessment is not required and officers are satisfied that whilst some impact from additional visitors to the SPA could be expected, the mitigation proposed will avoid a 'likely significant effect' and the requirements of the legislation have therefore been addressed. Surface and foul water drainage Surface Water 8.23 The site lies in flood zone 1 (sites with the lowest risk of fluvial and tidal flooding) and the Committee will note that the Environment Agency has raised no objection in this regard. In terms of surface water (SW) drainage for the full application (foodstore, filling station and restaurants) the proposal is for a gravity system with restricted discharge to the existing ditch system which will discharge to a storage area provided in an open swale/pond in the south east corner of the outline site. The Council's Drainage Officer has confirmed that this approach is acceptable in principle subject to control by condition and the Environment Agency has also raised no objection. For the residential part of the site covered by the outline application for housing the proposal is for the development to be drained by SUDs which the Council's Drainage Officer has confirmed is the required approach. The potential for infiltration drainage is preferred but if groundwater tests prove soakage to be inadequate the Drainage Officer has confirmed that attenuation with run-off restricted to no more than greenfield rates will be acceptable. A condition requiring the final details of the SUDs scheme is recommended in the event that planning permission is granted. Foul Water 8.24 The foul water drainage proposals are to drain to the existing mains network. As part of Southern Water's consultation response the Council is advised that following a level 2 capacity check there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to service the development and that additional off-site sewers or improvements to sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity. The need to provide new sewers or upgrades to existing off site sewers is not uncommon for large housing developments with the appropriate infrastructure secured through the separate legal mechanism of S.98 of the Water Industry Act 1991. The applicant has made a S.98 application to Southern Water to upsize/upgrade parts of the existing public sewer network at the East Beach Pumping Station and these works are currently being assessed in detail by Southern Water. A condition is recommended regarding approval of the detail of the drainage and off-site works including a timetable for implementation. 8.25 Officers are satisfied that on the basis of responses received from the Drainage Officer, Environment Agency and Southern Water the surface and foul water drainage arrangements are successfully addressed. Design, density and landscape impact 8.26 In terms of the detailed commercial components of the full application, the proposed foodstore is set back from the B2145 with the intervening ground laid out to car parking. An approximately 20 m swathe of land to the north of the foodstore is shown laid to grass. The principle elevations of the building are to be principally clad in timber and facing brickwork under a standing seam metal roof with a maximum height of approximately 8 metres. The shop entrance lobby is slightly elevated above the ridge of the main building at about 8.4 m. Page 29 8.27 The restaurant building at the front of the site adopts a curved form which addresses the relationship with the roundabout in the same way that the curved terrace of dwellings at Hunnisett Close opposite does. The building is proposed in similar materials to the foodstore with an overall roof height of 6.5m and includes an outside seating area. The siting of both the foodstore and the restaurant are set well back from 'Four Ways', the detached dwelling adjacent to the north-west corner of the site and are separated from it by a proposed landscaping buffer. Officers are satisfied that the residential amenities of Four Ways are safeguarded by the proposals. The canopy of the petrol filling station at 5.2 m high adopts a similar curved profile to the restaurant building again addressing the roundabout. The fuel storage tanks are to be located below ground. The existing boundary hedgerow treatment is to be retained and reinforced with new planting and an increased buffer between the filling station and Manor Road. Additional tree planting is proposed within the car parking area to soften the appearance of this part of the site. The internal roundabout adjacent to the filling station will potentially provide for a vehicular link through to the outline application site. 8.28 In terms of the outline application proposals, the illustrative masterplan concept drawing shows housing development of up to 2.5 storeys, an west-east spine road through the site linking Manor Road with Drift Road, swales/balancing ponds to the north-west and south-east, a large central area of public space including playspace and additional open space in the south-east corner. The proposed hotel and multi-use clinic are shown adjacent to Manor Road. However, 'layout' along with 'appearance, scale and landscaping' are not matters for consideration under this outline component of the hybrid application. What the illustrative layout is able to demonstrate is that the proposed mix of housing including the required car parking spaces can be accommodated on the site. The overall density of development is approximately 20 dph and whilst this is below the recommended 35 dph in the emerging Local Plan, a lower density is considered acceptable in this edge of settlement location and compares favourably with the 23 dph for the 110 dwellings allowed on appeal at the Drift Road site to the east. 8.29 The issue of landscape impact of developing the site was considered during consideration of both the Park Farm (50 dwelling) and Drift Road (110 dwelling) applications and subsequent appeals. In both instances the impact was considered acceptable. Park Lane to the north forms a definitive physical barrier containing future development to land to the south. To the north of this are the large packhouse buildings at Natures Way which by reason of their size have a significant impact. The Hankinson Duckett Landscape Capacity Study carried out for the Council in 2011 identified the application site as having only a 'negligible' contribution to the rurality of the surrounding landscape and being of only 'moderate' landscape sensitivity. The site lies within the Selsey-Pagham Strategic Gap (saved Local Plan policy RE6) but the issue of potential conflict with this policy in terms of the issue of coalescence has been assessed by the Planning Inspectors on both the previous Park Farm and Drift Road schemes and was not supported by them. No actual or perceived coalescence was considered to be a consequence of either scheme. Your officers are therefore satisfied that on the basis of the foregoing the landscape impact is acceptable. Significant Conditions 8.30 In order to control the impact of the development a detailed schedule of planning conditions are proposed. Key conditions proposed include a restriction preventing occupation of the 51st dwelling on the site unless and until the foodstore is brought Page 30 into use, a restriction on the amount of comparison goods which can be sold from the foodstore, a condition to ensure that the width and alignment of the east-west road linking Drift Road with Manor Road is appropriate to carry through traffic, a construction management plan, lighting in the car park, opening hours for the foodstore to the public restricted to 7am to 11pm, surface and foul water drainage. Section 106 Agreement 8.31 At the time of writing this report work was continuing on preparation of the S.106 agreement and the Committee will be updated if necessary with progress on this before the meeting. 8.32 The following heads of terms will be secured; 58 affordable dwellings with the mix as set out in paragraph 3.1 Primary Education £372,342 Libraries £41,430 Fire and Rescue £3,916 Community Facilities £253,296 Sport and Leisure £116,254 Sussex Police £31,521 NHS PCT £63,893 (subject to the caveats in paragraph 8.19) Pagham Harbour recreational mitigation package comprising a contribution of £800 per dwelling (or such lesser figure that may subsequently be agreed with Natural England) towards the following off site measures; Off site provision of a part-time, all year round warden post (to be provided in perpetuity and in place prior to first occupation of homes) delivery of access management, education and interpretation signage monitoring In addition the following on-site measures are to be secured; On site a 1 km dog walking route around the site boundary an off- lead dog exercise area educational packs for new residents. WSCC Highways off-site mitigation in part delivered through Total Access Demand (TAD) payment of £363,000 - widening of the Ferry Bends on the B2145 to facilitate two way movements by large vehicles, given the increase in HGV movements associated with servicing the new foodstore 3 x new bus stop laybys; 1 on the B2145 at the site, 1 adjacent to Farringdon Barn and 1 at Coles Farm a new toucan crossing on Manor Road to provide cycle access to both the food store and residential phases of development a new cycle route north from the Manor Road/Chichester Road roundabout adjacent to the B2145 to connect into the wider cycle network Page 31 Foodstore to be at practical completion before occupation of 51st dwelling Marketing exercise for commercial elements SUD's management and maintenance Open space areas and equipped play area - provision, management and maintenance Conclusion 8.33 Officers consider that this hybrid planning application comprises a potentially significant investment in the future development of Selsey delivering much needed affordable housing together with a mix of commercial uses which have stemmed from discussions with the Town Council. The site is now a preferred site for mixed use development in the Selsey Neighbourhood Plan which is about to be submitted to the Council. The proposals represent a net increase on this site of 94 dwellings over the extant outline planning permission for 50 dwellings. In the context of the Council's 5YHLS shortfall and the now out of date housing policies in the Development Plan, paragraph 49 of the NPPF - the presumption in favour of sustainable development - is engaged and the application cannot be considered as being premature. The site is considered to be sustainably located in relation to Selsey's existing facilities, a fact borne out by successive Planning Inspectors in the 2 appeals at Park Farm and Drift Road further to the east. Key considerations regarding traffic impact and impact on the protected status of Pagham Harbour SPA have been assessed in detail by the respective consultees and are capable of being addressed by appropriate conditions and through the S.106 agreement. The application has attracted a high level of third party representation both in support and objection and officers recognize that it raises some significant issues. Officers in carrying out the planning balance and factoring in the comments of third parties, the Town Council other Manhood Parish Council's and consultees have concluded that the development is acceptable and is recommended for permission subject to the signing of the S.106 agreement and expiration of the publicity period for the Environmental Statement which is 30th April. Human Rights 8.34 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. Recommendation 8.33 The Environmental Statement publicity for this application expires the day after the Committee meeting i.e. on 30th April 2015. The Committee are advised that officers would be minded to permit this application (subject to any further representations being received) and subject to a section 106 agreement as detailed in the above report. It is on this basis and given the constraint of the additional one days publicity, that the formal recommendation on the application is to delegate to officers. 8.34 The resolution of the Planning Committee at its meeting on 29th April 2015 was to delegate refusal of the application to officers after expiration of the Environmental Statement publicity period on 30th April. The Committee resolved to delegate to officers to determine provided no further representations are received which raise new issues not already taken into account. The Committee expresses the view that the application should be refused for the following reasons: Page 32 1) that the development would have a harmful traffic impact in relation to the B2145 2) that the development would be detrimental to the retail viability of Selsey town centre. Following the Committee resolution and before expiration of the publicity period the applicant submitted additional information comprising a substitute masterplan and accompanying letter. The revised masterplan shows a housing development of up to 139 dwellings on the outline part of the application, a reduction of 5 dwellings. The 139 units comprise 83 private dwellings and 56 affordable dwellings (40%). The mix of units will accord with that previously agreed with officers. The indicative layout now also shows the proposed circular dog walking track located entirely within the red lined application site rather than using part of Park Lane. Following the reduction in dwellings, the 'heads of terms' outlined at paragraph 8.32 will be adjusted and this information will be provided in the Committee Agenda Update sheet. Officers have considered the re-submitted information in light of the Committee resolution and have taken legal advice on this. It is considered that the proposed amendments result in an application which is materially different from that on which the Committee based its resolution and that in this regard, officers as a matter of prudence should refer the application back to Committee for decision. Re-consultation on these changes has taken place with Selsey Town Council, Highways England, the Environment Agency, Southern Water and WSCC Highways. The Committee will be advised of any additional responses received pursuant to those already detailed in the report above but given that the application is now for fewer dwellings overall it is not anticipated that there will be any significant change to the content of these responses. Officers therefore remain of the opinion that the proposed development as now amended is acceptable. The recommendation on this application is therefore to defer for the revocation of extant outline planning permission reference SY/11/04954/OUT for the 50 dwellings in the north-west corner of the current application site and for completion of the S.106 agreement then permit. RECOMMENDATION DEFER FOR REVOCATION ORDER & S106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 U93135 - Time Limit - Full Permission U93136 - Time Limit - Outline Permission U93137 - Time Limit - Reserved Matters U93138 - Approved Plans U93220 - Materials/Finishes Site A U93140 - Full Application - Provide Access U93141 - Outline Application - Access U93142 - Car Parking - Full Application U93143 - Cycle Parking - Full Application U93144 - Construction Management Plan Site A U93221 - Construction Management Site B Page 33 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 U93145 - Travel Plan U93146 - Foodstore Use Only U93147 - Opening of Foodstore U93149 - Comparison Goods Restriction U93150 - Internal Link Road U93154 - Car Park Management Scheme U93163 - Landscaping Scheme - Full Application K02G Landscaping U93165 - Foodstore Opening Hours U93174 - Lighting Scheme Foodstore Car Park U93179 - Acoustic Treatment of Service Yard U93180 - Surface Water Scheme U93181 - Management of SUDs system U93182 - Access to Watercourse U93183 - Land Contamination U93184 - Construction Phase - Air Pollution U93205 - Surface and Foul Water Drainage U93185 - D1 Building - Use Restriction U93187 - Hotel - Use Restriction U93189 - Restaurant Building - Use Restriction U93204 - Public Art U93222 - Archaeology U93223 - Sustainable Development U93760 - Site Levels W04F Need for separate Advertisement Consent W36H Wildlife INFORMATIVES 1 2 3 4 5 6 U93208 - Informative - Positive/Proactive U93210 - Environmental Permit U93212 - Informative - Southern Water U93213 - Informative - Public Sewer U93214 - Informative - S.278 Agreement U93215 - Informative - Temporary Construction For further information on this application please contact Jeremy Bushell on 01243 534734 Page 34 Agenda Item 6 Parish: Bosham Ward: Bosham BO/14/04066/FUL Proposal Erection of 6 no. holiday retreat lodges. Site The Hamblin Trust, Bosham House Main Road Bosham Chichester PO18 8PJ Map Ref (E) 480605 (N) 105429 Applicant Trustees Of The Hamblin Trust RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT NOT TO SCALE Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803 Page 35 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is located on the northern side of Main Road, to the north and west of the main settlement of Bosham. The site is accessed via a side road off Main Road, and opposite the harbour inlet of the Bosham Channel. 2.2 The site largely comprises woodland, with numerous mature trees and shrubs. There is a metalled access driveway serving Bosham House to the west of the site, and a woodland path traverses the middle of the site. The western part of the site is more open, with areas of grassland, whilst the eastern part (proposed siting of the lodges) is more wooded in appearance. The site's frontage comprises a mature, well established hedgerow with a small grassed parking area behind. To the immediate east of the site lies the front garden area of Kenwood House. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the erection of 6no. retreat holiday lodges, situated within the wooded area to the eastern half of the front garden area of The Hamblin Trust site. The proposed lodges would be aimed at those seeking a quiet reflective holiday experience and for those associated with the Trust, whose membership is widely spread, geographically. The lodges would be carefully sited within the woodland area to ensure minimal impact on the retained trees. Car parking would be provided at an existing overflow car park at the southern end of the site, adjacent to the access road. 4.0 History 84/00068/FU REF Temporary siting of caravan or mobile home. (Parish boundary changed) 84/00062/FU REF Temporary siting of caravan or mobile home. (Parish boundary changed) 98/00196/OUT PER Replacement of offices with smaller single storey unit and demolition of existing. 98/01792/FUL PER Replacement of offices with smaller single storey unit and demolition of existing. 03/01653/FUL PER Extension to existing building to form meeting room with ancillary facilities. 07/01670/PD REC Summerhouse. Page 36 07/02966/FUL PER Erection of summerhouse. 11/03363/PD REC Flag pole and signage. 11/05101/ADV PER 1 no. flag. 5.0 Constraints Listed Building Conservation Area Rural Area AONB Strategic Gap Tree Preservation Order South Downs National Park NO NO YES NO YES NO NO EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 - Flood Zone 3 Historic Parks and Gardens NO NO NO 6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council Bosham Parish Council sees this as a commercial development and should be accompanied with a business plan for turnover, usage etc. which may impinge on the amenities of the neighbours and thus objects. 6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy Initial Consultation Response 9 March 2015 At its 9.3.15 meeting the Conservancy's Planning Consultative Committee resolved the following: That a holding objection be made owning to insufficient information being provided as to: i. What trees were actually being felled and lack of a replacement planting design; ii. Whether any protected flora was being disturbed, as the Hamblin Vision website claims rare green winged orchids are present at the site; iii. Provision to be made for foul sewerage and whether this might be discharged into the harbour; iv. Whether seasonal use was being proposed to avoid occupation from the beginning of November to the end of February, in the interests of avoiding disturbance to over-wintering birds in Chichester Harbour and also reduce the potential for later claims of year round residential occupation within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). Second Consultation Response 1 April 2015 Page 37 On the basis of this additional information, the Conservancy removes its holding objection, subject to Conditions, including limiting the use of the lodges, materials and finishes to be agreed, tree felling and replacement planting scheme, details on foul sewerage and external lighting details. 6.3 CDC Economic Development The Economic Development Service supports this application. There is a requirement for good quality tourist accommodation within the District and locating this within Bosham will aid the sustainability of this popular visitor destination. Visitors who stay within the District spend significantly more within a local economy than day visitors and help underpin the viability of associated businesses such as transport, entertainment, catering and retailing. In Chichester District, only 18.5% (1.2 million) are staying visits account for 51% of total visitor spend. 6.4 Third Party Comments The application has received 2no. third party objections, both from the occupier of the neighbouring property to the east, Kenwood. Given that there is no boundary fence or hedge between the two sites, their outlook would be diminished by looking at the back of the 6no. lodges. These comments were re-iterated on the second response. 6.5 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information The application has been supported by a suite of documents in addition to the planning application forms and plans. The application includes the Design and Access Statement having regard to the sites location, access, the design of the proposed lodges and the impact on the neighbouring occupiers. In addition, extracts from the Business Plan has been provided, together with a short planning assessment of the proposals setting out the objectives for the provision of the lodges, and the local tourist market, and the need for additional tourist facilities. Finally, the application has also been supported by a detailed tree survey, which highlights those trees required to be felled or lopped to accommodation the development, together with details for root protection during construction. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for Bosham Parish at this time. 7.2 The principle planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE11: New Development BE14: Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE1: Rural Area Generally RE6: Strategic Gaps Page 38 RE7: Nature Conservation (Designated Areas) RE12: Rural Diversification TR6: Highway Safety T1: Accommodation and Facilities T3: Provision in Rural Areas T6: Occupancy Periods for Holiday Accommodation 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan (Key Policies and Proposed Modifications) 2014 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 30: Built Tourist and Leisure Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 41: Off-site Renewable Energy Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decisiontaking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), and Sections 3 (Promoting a prosperous rural economy), 7 (Requiring good design) and 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) generally. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application: Page 39 Interim Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Interim Policy Statement on Development and Disturbance on Birds in Special Protection Areas and Identified Compensatory Habitats Bosham Village Design Statement 2012 7.8 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: A1: A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources C2: Encourage healthy and active lifestyles for all C3: A culturally enriched and empowered community C5: Accessible health and wellbeing services in rural areas C6: Health Protection E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) ii) iii) iv) v) Principle of providing tourist accommodation in this location; Impact on the visual qualities of the landscape; Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; Highway safety and traffic; and, Design and appearance of the proposals. Assessment i) Principle of providing tourist accommodation in this location 8.2 The application proposes the provision of 6no. one-bedroom holiday lodges on land to the south of the main Hamblin Trust building, within an area of woodland. Policy 30 of the emerging Local Plan states that provision for new tourist and leisure development will be granted where it complies with the criteria of the policy, including that it is sensitively designed, has minimal impact on the natural environment, particularly the AONB, provides a high quality facility and encourages an extended tourist season. Additionally, within the countryside, such development should be of a scale appropriate to its location, and support the objectives of rural diversification. 8.3 The application proposes 6no. small timber clad lodges, measuring only 8.5m by 4.2m with a ridge height of only 3.9m. Each lodge would provide a bedroom, small bathroom and living area with a small kitchenette. The site area measures 37m in width, and 98m in length. All the lodges would be located in the wooded part of the site, being dispersed between the trees. The lodges would be located over 5m apart, and spread out north - south along the length of the main part of the site, with the southernmost lodge being located over 25m from the sites frontage on Main Road. Based on the size of the site, coupled with the relative spacing between the lodges, it is considered that proposal has been sensitively designed, minimising the impact on the natural environment, and would support rural diversification. The proposals would Page 40 also encourage an extended tourist season with the Hamblin Trust offering talks and workshops throughout the year. 8.4 Therefore, it is considered that the proposals are broadly in compliance with the provisions of Policy 30 of the emerging Local Plan, and would contribute towards supporting a robust rural economy, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF. ii) Impact on the visual quality of the landscape 8.5 Whilst the site is located outside the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the site lies close to its boundary, and in close proximity to the Harbour, and therefore it is important to have regard to the potential impact of the development on the visual qualities of the Harbour, and the wider landscape setting. Following the submission of additional information, the objection from the Harbour Conservancy was lifted. Whilst the site lies immediately adjacent to the AONB, given the extent of boundary planting (mature hedgerow along the road frontage), coupled with the further buffer of trees and shrubs on the roadside verge between the access road and Main Road, it is considered that the level of visual impact on the landscape would be minimal. This level of screening is enhanced further by the retention of a significant number of the mature trees within the woodland area, which, coupled with the timber cladding of the proposed structures, and their linear siting will ensure wider landscape views of the buildings are minimised. 8.6 None of the trees on the site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order, and the application is supported by a detailed tree survey highlighting those to be felled, and that the applicant would support the provision of a detailed landscaping strategy condition to ensure provision of new tree planting to mitigate against the loss of those on the site. Further, the siting of the lodges has been carefully considered, having regard to the Tree Report, to ensure that the longevity of the trees are not harmed by the installation of the lodges. 8.7 It is therefore considered that the proposals will not have a significant visual impact on the wider landscape setting, with views from the harbour lessened by the existing boundary vegetation, and wider views mitigated by the siting of the lodges within the wooded area of the site. iii) Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers 8.8 The application site is bounded by two residential properties to the east and west (Kenwood to the east and Bosham House to the west). Both properties are located broadly in line with the northern boundary of the application site, with the main Hamblin Trust building being located to the north of the application site. Kenwood is located approximately 20m from the eastern boundary, and would be located approximately 25m from the eastern elevation of the most northerly proposed lodge. All the lodges are orientated with windows looking to the south and west, ensuring no overlooking to the front garden area of Kenwood, and whilst there is no defined boundary between Kenwood and the application site, the siting of the lodges within the wooded area, together with provision for additional landscaping on the boundaries would ensure the impact on outlook from Kenwood would not be so significant to warrant a refusal on this issue. 8.9 The impact on the amenity of Bosham House to the west would also be mitigated by the separation distance, together with the boundary planting between the two sites. Page 41 Whilst the main windows serving the lodges are orientated towards Bosham House, the lodges are all located over 20m (and up to 30m) from the western boundary. 8.10 It is therefore considered that the level of impact on the amenity of the two neighbouring occupiers would not be significant, and whilst the buildings would be visible from the neighbouring properties, particularly Kenwood, there are no rear windows which would overlook the property, and any views of the lodges would be at a considerable distance from the property, and be seen within a woodland setting. iv) Highway Safety and Parking 8.11 The site is accessed via a dedicated slip road from Main Road (the A259). Whilst the speed limit onto the A259 in this location is unrestricted (National Speed Limit), the access provides a dedicated central turning reservation, and offers significant visibility splays to enable long distance views along the road to provide safe and convenient access to the main road. It is therefore considered that the proposals will not have a significant impact on highway safety. 8.12 In terms of car parking, the site at Hamblin Trust has a large dedicated metalled car park to the north of the lodges (outside the application site but within the Trust's ownership). To the southern part of the site, provision for 8no. car parking spaces is to be provided in what is presently a grassed overflow car park. The level of car parking is considered sufficient to serve a development of this scale, however, conditions would be imposed to ensure the parking is available for the users of the lodges, and that any works to the car parking are undertaken with care so as to prevent damage to the boundary hedge at the site's frontage. v) Design and appearance 8.13 The 6no. lodges would be constructed with natural timber weatherboarded elevations, under a slate effect tiled roof. The finished appearance would be to resemble a timber cabin, and to respect the woodland setting in which they are set. The finished materials would be subject to a condition requiring their approval by the Council before development commences. 8.14 The simple design and finished appearance of the buildings will ensure that the development blends sympathetically into the local environment, and would reflect the appearance of the existing permitted office/meeting room on the site. It is therefore considered that the overall simple design and appearance of the lodges, integrated into the woodland setting would ensure they do not detract from the natural environment in which they are set. 8.15 Overall, it is considered therefore that the provision of the 6no. holiday lodges would contribute positively to enhancing the prosperity of the local rural economy, whilst providing a sympathetic addition to an area of woodland that would result in enhancements to the woodland itself, without materially harming the natural environment or the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. Significant Conditions 8.16 The application is recommended for approval subject to a number of planning conditions relating to the use of the lodges for purely holiday accommodation, together Page 42 with conditions on external materials and finishes, provision for car parking, external lighting and landscaping. Conclusion 8.17 Based on the above, it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.18 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. 8.19 In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded there would be no breach if planning permission were to be granted. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A01F Time Limit - Full U93860 - No Departure from Plans F01F Materials/Finishes U93862 - Holiday Accommodation Only U93863 - No Windows without Approval K01H Landscaping K02G Landscaping U93864 - Retention of Hedge K28F Replacement Planting Details/Approved K34F Tree Protection - Earthworks U93865 - Hand Digging - Foundations U93866 - Porous Driveway/Path L03F Drainage U93867 - Car Parking as Plans U93868 - Details of External Lighting INFORMATIVES 1 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Peter Kneen on 01243 534734 Page 43 Agenda Item 7 Parish: Bosham Ward: Bosham BO/15/00720/FUL Proposal Demolition of interior party wall between 2 no. properties to create 1 no. dwelling. External alterations including: front doors altered to form one front entrance, addition of conservation rooflights, recladding of rear dormer and replacement windows. Site Jersey And Bay Cottages Bosham Lane Bosham West Sussex PO18 8HY Map Ref (E) 480560 (N) 103874 Applicant Mr Andrew Leigh RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT NOT TO SCALE Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803 Page 44 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site comprises two terraced properties set within the Settlement Policy Area, Conservation Area, Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Flood Zones 2 and 3. The dwellings are set close to the highway on the eastern boundary with historic paving materials running south along the front of terraces. 2.2 The existing materials of the dwellings consist of white painted render, brick base and a clay tiled roof with white upvc windows. The properties are currently set over three floors. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The proposal seeks to convert the 2no dwellinghouses into one dwelling. There are external works proposed including the alteration of the front access to replace a door with a window, the addition of conservation rooflights to the front elevation and alterations to the rear dormer windows to provide one single dormer finished in a timber cladding. The replacement windows and doors will be light grey painted timber. The elevations will remain as existing. 3.2 The porch element has been removed from the proposal due to officers concerns regarding the design and its prominence in this sensitive location. 4.0 History No relevant history 5.0 Constraints Listed Building Conservation Area Rural Area AONB Strategic Gap Tree Preservation Order South Downs National Park EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 - Flood Zone 3 Historic Parks and Gardens 6.0 NO YES NO YES NO NO YES YES Representations and Consultations Parish Council - Bosham Parish Council objects to the proposed new frontage which is out of character with the conservation area. We believe that the existing façade should be maintained. Page 45 Chichester Harbour Conservancy - No objection Natural England - No objection 1 Third party comment - 1 support comment -disturbances/parking of tradesman/noise should be considered 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for Bosham at this time. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE6 Conservation Areas BE11 New Development BE12 Alterations, Extensions and Conversions RE4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 33: New Residential Development National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decisiontaking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. Page 46 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles) and paragraphs 56 and 61. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.6 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application: The Design Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions in the Chichester Harbour AONB (updated August 2010) Bosham Village Design Statement (VDS) 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) ii) iii) iv) Principle of development Impact on the AONB and Conservation Area Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers Flooding Assessment Principle of development 8.2 The creation of 1no. dwelling from 2no. dwellings does not in itself require planning permission however the physical alterations to the buildings make this application necessary in this instance. The dwelling is located within the settlement boundary where the development would be acceptable subject to acceptable design particularly within the Conservation Area and the AONB, the impact to neighbouring properties and flooding. Impact on the AONB and Conservation Area 8.2 In response to the Parish Council comments, the front porch has now been removed from the proposal. The proposal therefore relates to the replacement of all the windows and front door, including the replacement of a front door to a window. The existing façade would remain unaltered with regard to the brick, render and roof tiles. 8.3 The replacement windows would be constructed of grey painted timber fenestration and would represent an improvement upon the existing upvc fenestration. The replacement of the front door with a window would not detract from the simple character and appearance of the dwelling. The changes would also reflect the appearance of the attached neighbouring property and would effectively result in the formation of 2no. semi-detached properties. It is considered that the works result in an overall design sympathetic to the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding environment and would not cause demonstrable harm to the visual quality of the streetscene and wider landscape setting of the AONB. Page 47 Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers 8.4 Given the level of proposed works which do not result in any additional openings on balance the works would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Flooding 8.5 The site is situated with Flood Zones 2 and 3. As there are no additions proposed to the ground floor it is not considered that any flood proofing measures are necessary. With regard to the internal changes, the Agent has confirmed that the proposed floor levels will be set to match the existing with raised electrics throughout the ground floor. There are removable floor barriers in place at both front doors and the rear access alley to the south which are retained. Significant Conditions 8.6 A number of conditions are proposed including those relating to details of materials for the windows, cladding and walls. Conclusion 8.7 It is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies, it makes efficient use of the site and results in a design and layout which respects the character and appearance of the area and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded there would be no breach if planning permission were to be granted. In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded that the decision to refuse permission/consent is justified and proportional to the harm that would be caused if planning permission/Listed Building Consent were to be granted. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 2 3 U93723 - Time limit U93724 - Approved plans U93725 - Materials/Finishes INFORMATIVES Page 48 For further information on this application please contact Sophie Locke on 01243 534734 Page 49 Agenda Item 8 Parish: Bosham Ward: Bosham BO/15/00801/FUL Proposal Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 1 no. dwelling and associated works. Site The Garden House Bosham Lane Bosham West Sussex PO18 8HG Map Ref (E) 480883 (N) 104419 Applicant Mr & Mrs Manzoni RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT NOT TO SCALE Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803 Page 50 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site consists of a rectangular parcel of land occupied by a chalet bungalow which is approximately 0.1 hectares. The property is sited within the Bosham boundary and the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The southern and eastern boundaries consist of mature hedgerows and trees which provide extensive screening. The eastern boundary is characterised by a lower hedge and fence with the Bowls Club sited beyond this boundary. There is also a line of fruit trees to north eastern side. The northern boundary remains very open and adjoins open farmland which is identified as the Strategic Gap. The site is set within Area D (rest of Bosham) and abuts area A (rural area) of the Bosham Village Design Statement (VDS). There is an existing double garage located by the site access. There is an existing swimming pool in the south eastern corner. 2.2 The existing dwelling is a detached chalet bungalow with white painted render to the elevations and a slate clad gable end. There is a flat roof dormer to the north facing roof slope. Vehicular access to the dwelling is provided via a private track to the south which currently serves 3 other dwellings. The dwellinghouses in the vicinity are varied in form with a mix of designs, roof forms and materials including clay, concrete and slate tiles and thatch. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse and the erection of a new dwellinghouse. The garage would be retained. The dwelling would be two storey with a flat wildflower meadow green roof, solid timber cladding, render in a light grey colour and slate elevations with windows in charcoal grey frames. There would be solar panels attached to one section of the roof however their profile would be hidden by a roof parapet. The swimming pool would be infilled and used for rainwater harvesting. There is a Public Right of Way which is sited a substantial distance away which runs to the west. 4.0 History 15/00801/FUL 5.0 PDE Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 1 no. dwelling and associated works. Constraints Listed Building Conservation Area Rural Area AONB Strategic Gap Tree Preservation Order South Downs National Park NO NO NO YES YES Page 51 EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 - Flood Zone 3 Historic Parks and Gardens 6.0 NO NO NO Representations and Consultations Parish Council - Bosham Parish Council objects to this application as the design does not fit comfortably within this village setting and is at odds with the general ethos of the Bosham Village Design Statement 2.4. Chichester Harbour Conservancy - No objection, subject to the Council agreeing satisfactory tree/hedge protection during the build, delivery of the sustainable items, recording any archaeology disturbed and the approval of appropriate external materials. Natural England - No objection 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for Bosham at this time. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty TR6 Highway Safety 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Page 52 National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decisiontaking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles) and paragraphs 56, 60 and 61. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application: The Design Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions in the Chichester Harbour AONB (updated August 2010) Bosham Village Design Statement (VDS) 7.8 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) ii) iii) Principle of development Impact on the AONB Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers Assessment Principle of development 8.2 The application represents a one-for-one replacement dwelling which would be acceptable in this location within the settlement boundary, subject to the material considerations set out below. Impact on the AONB Page 53 8.3 The Applicant has sought advice from the Chichester Harbour Conservancy directly prior to the submission of the application. Based upon the response from the Harbour Conservancy the advice given has generally been applied. 8.4 The new dwellinghouse would occupy approximately 14% of the plot and would represent a 38% increase in footprint closer to the eastern boundary which is within the Conservancy's guideline of up to 50%. The line of fruit trees would be retained. The increase to the silhouette would be 25% which meets the Conservancy's guidelines. 8.5 The dwellinghouse would balance modern architecture with natural materials, constructed of four connecting blocks of differing heights to create visual interest with a varying roof line. The majority of the new dwelling would be set lower in height than the existing ridge height of the dwelling with a parapet roof to conceal the proposed solar panels. The dwelling would have a footprint of 272sqm, compared to the original of 198sqm. The increased floorspace results in further projection to the east elevation however with a lower ridge line. The house would be constructed of a flat wildflower meadow green roof with solid timber cladding, render in a light grey colour and slate elevations with windows in charcoal grey frames. The building has been designed with a horizontal emphasis with the use of natural dark materials to the elevations and windows which seek to blend in with the natural environment. The differing orientation and roof levels break up the elevations to provide a varied and interesting design. 8.6 The maintenance and reinforcement of the boundary landscaping also seeks to break up the north elevation. A full landscaping plan would be necessary and would form a condition within any decision. There would be solar panels attached to one section of the roof however their profile would be hidden by a roof parapet. Further details of the materials would form a condition. 8.7 The use of such materials together with varied roof lines all ensure an overall design sympathetic to the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding natural environment designed to minimise visual impact within the landscape. Whilst the new dwelling is larger than the original, the increase is not visually prominent from within the wider landscape setting and is not considered to result in any additional harm when viewed from the public right of way. 8.8 The dwelling is set within a large plot, is set back away from the highway to the south where is substantial vegetative screening and views from the north are very limited and therefore would not result in material harm to the AONB and the Chichester Harbour Conservancy do not object on this basis. The proposal has been assessed against the Bosham Village Design Statement (VDS). The VDS recommends that new houses should be designed to blend with their surroundings and to use traditional, natural materials. In response to the comments made by the Parish Council, it is recognised that the design of the proposed dwelling would move away from the traditional character and appearance of the village, however given the position of the property set back from the streetscape and distant views from the north, it is considered that the site is suitable for this type of modern architecture provided that the overall scale, detail and materials are appropriate. 8.9 It is therefore considered that the proposed replacement dwelling which is be innovative in its appearance would not cause demonstrable harm to the visual quality of the wider landscape setting of the AONB Page 54 Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers 8.10 The proposed dwelling would at its closest point, be approximately 18.5m from the western boundary and 18m from the southern boundary. Given the level of separation between the proposed dwelling and its immediate neighbours and the extensive screening to all shared boundaries, and the general siting of the replacement dwelling which would be comparable with the existing property, on balance the replacement dwelling and associated buildings would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in terms of overlooking or being overbearing. 8.11 An amended floorplan has been requested due to the discrepancy between the floorplan and western elevation fenestration. Further details will be provided within the Update Sheet. Significant Conditions 8.12 A number of conditions are proposed including those relating to details of materials, landscaping and construction management. Conclusion 8.13 It is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies, it makes efficient use of the site and results in a design and layout which respects the character and appearance of the area and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded there would be no breach if planning permission were to be granted. In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded that the decision to refuse permission/consent is justified and proportional to the harm that would be caused if planning permission/Listed Building Consent were to be granted. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 U93672 - Time limit U93673 - Approved plans U93674 - Materials U93675 - Landscaping U93676 - Landscaping U93859 - Construction method statement INFORMATIVES For further information on this application please contact Sophie Locke on 01243 534734 Page 55 Agenda Item 9 Parish: Earnley Ward: East Wittering E/14/03245/FUL Proposal Use of land as a residential caravan site consisting of 4 no. pitches and ancillary works. Site Land At Marsh Farm Barn Drove Lane Earnley Chichester West Sussex PO20 7JW Map Ref (E) 482050 (N) 96063 Applicant Mr And Mrs Valler RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT NOT TO SCALE Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803 Page 56 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site lies in the designated rural area approximately 0.6km to the north east of Bracklesham and 0.7km south east of Earnley. A public footpath from Earnley to the coast runs along Stoney Lane, approximately 275m to the west. 2.2 Four mobile homes which are positioned on the site are currently occupied by the applicant and extended family members. 2.3 The surrounding area is characterised by the flat open rural landscape, however the area is not devoid of development. Within 100m to the south west of the application site lies the Medmerry Park Holiday Village, which comprises a significant number of holiday chalets in addition to resort buildings, including a public house. There is also a detached dwelling 30m to the north east and a converted barn with outbuildings directly adjoining the application site to the south. To the north is a field, within the ownership of the applicant, within which is sited a metal clad agricultural building. 2.4 The application site lies on part of an area which has a lawful use of mixed residential and for the stationing of caravans. The larger area included land to the south and Marsh Farm Barn, which is a dwellinghouse. The current application site has subsequently been separated from Marsh Farm Barn and therefore a change of use has occurred from the mixed domestic and caravan use to a single use for the stationing of caravans. The caravans are to be occupied by Gypsies and Travellers. Planning History 2.5 The application site was previously the subject of an enforcement notice that was served by the local planning authority in December 2005 in response to the change of use of the land to a mixed or dual use as garden land to the dwellinghouse known as Marsh Farm Barn and for the stationing of two mobile homes for the purposes of human habitation. The notice required that the use of the two mobile homes for the purposes of human habitation be discontinued and for the removal of the said mobile homes and the wooden extensions and porches from the land. 2.6 An appeal (ref: APP/L3815/C/06/2007748) was lodged against the enforcement notice under ground (d); that at the time the enforcement notice was issued it was too late to take enforcement action against the matters stated in the notice. The appeal which was considered by way of a Public Inquiry was allowed. The enforcement notice was quashed. 2.7 The Inspector found that: "The appeal site was a disused agricultural barn with associated land around it. When the Valler family bought the land and moved their caravans on to it, the barn had the benefit of planning permission for conversion to a dwelling but nothing had been done to implement that permission. Once they began work the land became a building site with caravans parked on it. As the agricultural use had ceased, and Section 336 of the Act says that 'use' does not include the use of land for the carrying out of any building operations on it, the only use being made of the land for the purposes of the Page 57 Act was use for the stationing of caravans for human habitation. The Act defines land so used as 'a caravan site'. I conclude that in 1993 the use of the land changed from agriculture to use as a caravan site; that was a material change for which planning permission was required." 2.8 The Inspector therefore found that the land had been used for a mixed residential and caravan site use for a period of over 10 years, and as a result this had become the lawful use of the land. The Inspector concluded; "I direct that the enforcement notice be corrected by deleting the words "as garden land to the dwellinghouse known as Marsh Farm Barn" in clause 3 and inserting in their place the words "for the purposes of a dwellinghouse". Subject to this correction I allow the appeals, and direct that the enforcement notice be quashed." 2.9 The decision of the Inspector means that there is an established lawful use of the land for a mixed residential and caravan site use on the land. Therefore, in the event that the land which forms the current application site had not been separated from Marsh Farm Barn, the land could lawfully be used for the stationing and occupation of an unlimited number of caravans. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application seeks planning permission for the use of the site as a residential caravan site consisting of 4no. Gypsy and Traveller pitches and ancillary works. The proposed works within the site include the provision of hard surfaces areas, including an access track through the site and 8 car parking spaces, landscaped areas to the sides of each pitch and the provision of gates on an existing access track. 4.0 History 90/00048/E PER Conversion of redundant farm building to single dwelling. 93/00141/FUL PER Conversion of redundant farm building to single dwelling. 96/00673/FUL PER Conversion of barn to new dwelling house (amendment to previous permission). 06/02730/FUL REF Landscaped bund. 07/00632/FUL PER Works to access to include the laying of scalpings. 10/05573/FUL PER Retention of an agricultural metal shed sited on agricultural land. 11/05394/FUL REF Engineering works to ditches at Marsh Farm Barn, construction of a new vehicle access and track and retention of a hardstand. Page 58 13/01023/FUL REF Proposed extension and alteration to curtilage of permitted caravan site along with re-organisation of units in order to meet site license requirements and to facilitate siting of replacement twin units on concrete hardstandings. 14/01860/DOM PER Repair/rebuild outbuilding. 06/00036/ENF ALLOW Appeal against Enforcement Notice 12/00058/REF DISMIS Engineering works to ditches at Marsh Farm Barn, construction of a new vehicle access and track and retention of a hardstand. 13/00090/REF DISMIS Proposed extension and alteration to curtilage of permitted caravan site along with re-organisation of units in order to meet site license requirements and to facilitate siting of replacement twin units on concrete hardstandings. 5.0 Constraints Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap YES Tree Preservation OrderNO South Downs National NO Park EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 YES - Flood Zone 3 YES Historic Parks and Gardens NO 6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council Initial response received Objection - At its meeting on 27th November 2014, Earnley Parish Council resolved to object to this application on the following grounds: 1. Density of the whole site Page 59 2. In particular unit 3 which is likely to result in harm to the living conditions to the occupiers of Marsh Farm Cottage, contrary to LP Policy BE11 Additional comments received 25th March 2015 Further to our objections already submitted this Council wishes to raise several points relating to the plan submitted as there are a number of anomalies and omissions. - Some caravans appear closer than 3m from the boundary and 6m apart which we understand to be the legal requirements. However, there seems to be no scale by which we can accurately check. - There are no designated parking spaces for four cars as would be required - We cannot find reference to a waste bin storage area. - It appears that the feature flint will on western boundary is to be demolished as it does not appear. - There is no marked location for the sewerage treatment plan and this is fundamental to the health and safety requirements for the site. - It is unclear as to which is the main access to the site. The Council are puzzled as to why gates are to be installed halfway down the western side drive and not to the eastern side. - There is no planting scheme for the subsequent screening. - For all these discrepancies we are hopeful that the council will not accept this plan in its current form. 6.2 Environment Agency I can confirm that we have no objection to the proposal. The proposed development will only meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework if the following measure(s) as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission. Condition 1: The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 5 January 2012, Daniel Brown, Hemis and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: Finished floor levels are set no lower than 4.1 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The Environment Agency does not normally comment on or approve the adequacy of flood emergency response procedures accompanying development proposals, as we do not carry out these roles during a flood. Our involvement with this development during an emergency will be limited to delivering flood warnings to occupants/users covered by our flood warning network. In all circumstances where warning and emergency response is fundamental to managing flood risk, we advise local planning authorities to formally consider the emergency planning and rescue implications of new development in making their decisions. 6.3 WSCC - Local Development Division Page 60 The application seeks approval for the change of use of land to accommodate the siting of 4 x residential caravans with ancillary works. The access road is single track for the majority of its length but has several passing places to facilitate two way flows. The nearest public highway is Clappers Lane which would appear adequate to support the small amount of vehicles that would be expected to and from the site. It is also not considered that the proposed development would result in a significant increase in vehicle movements from those that have historically occurred on the site. Therefore no concerns wish to be raised to this application from a highways perspective. 6.4 CDC - Environmental Health Officer Some concern about proximity of the caravan site to neighbouring properties. It seems that Marsh Farm Cottage and the converted barn will be subject to noise and activity associated with the four dwellings in close proximity, where previously there was an agricultural field. I do not anticipate any industrial or commercial noise, but nevertheless there will be a loss of tranquillity that was previously enjoyed. There is some partial information about the proposed drainage system, the information lists a WPS Diamond DMS2 sewerage treatment system. This causes concern as this is only a small sewerage treatment system. An undersized system would not treat sewerage adequately and result in environmental pollution. Recommend condition requiring foul drainage to be approved. 6.5 CDC - Drainage Engineer Flood risk - the development is within flood zone 2, at risk of tidal flooding. The Environment Agency should be consulted. Surface Water Drainage - the proposed means of surface water drainage is via soakaways, this approach is acceptable in principle and should be design based on groundwater monitoring and percolation tests. The accompanying FRA makes reference to ditches in a poor condition which are to be cleared, it does not mention any alterations to the watercourses. If any alterations are proposed then land drainage consent would be required. The layout must also ensure adequate access for future maintenance of all watercourses. Recommend conditions regarding impact on watercourses. CDC - Licensing The Council is in receipt of a Caravan Site Licence application which can only be approved once the status of the application is known. Recommend an advisory that if planning permission is granted that a Caravan Site Licence will be required. 6.6 There have been 21 letters of objection received concerning the following matters: Increase in traffic Lack of infrastructure Inappropriate location Disturbance to neighbours Loss of agricultural land Page 61 Increase use year round Lead to pressure for more Delightful rural location spoilt by encroaching development Disturbance caused by caravans, lorries and commercial vehicles Strain on drainage Dangerous precedent for future development Cess pit undersized and unlikely to be maintained No proper access In strategic gap Landscape plans not to scale Screening of site not adequate Density of site When purchasing March Farm Barn led to believe there would only be 2 caravans occupied for 6 months per year 6.7 There have been 12 letters of support received, including letters from doctors, concerning the following matters: - Respected family within the community - Lived on site for 20 years - Family have health problems to take into account - Receives care at East Wittering Medical Centre and St Richards Hospital - Family supports local shops, the community and carries out charitable work for the Church - Applicants now live with sons and grandchildren - Have support of village - Need to be settled due to ill health - No more traffic than last 22 years - One resident works in a local care home 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for Earnley at this time. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as f ollows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE11: New Development BE14: Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE1: Rural Area Generally RE8: Nature Conservation (Non-designated Areas) TR6: Highway Safety 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Page 62 Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and Proposed Modifications 2014 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas Policy 52: Green Infrastructure National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decisiontaking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles), 7.6 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application. 7.7 In addition to the overarching policies of the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (PPTS), published at the Page 63 same time as the NPPF. The overarching aim of the PPTS is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers, in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of the settled community. 7.8 The PPTS lists the Government's key aims in relation to Traveller sites, including: - To promote private traveller site provision while recognising that there will always be those travellers who cannot provide their own sites - To increase the number of traveller sites in appropriate locations with planning permission, to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply - To reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities in planning decisions - To enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure. - To have due regard to the protection of local amenity and the local environment. 7.9 In terms of provision, paragraph 25 confirms that if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission. This came into force 12 months after publication that is March 2013. 7.10 Policy H: 'Determining planning applications for traveller sites is particularly relevant. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.11 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application: Interim Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours 7.12 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources C3: A culturally enriched and empowered community D1: Increasing housing supply D4: Understanding and meeting community needs E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site; ii) Current Gypsy Site Provision; iii) Impact upon character and appearance of the area; iv) Flood Risk; v) Impact on neighbouring amenity; vi) Highways; and, vii) Other matters. Page 64 Assessment i) Principle of development, including sustainability of the site 8.2 As set out in paragraph 2.4 of this report the land previously benefited from a lawful mixed residential and caravan site use, however due to the creation of a new planning unit separate from the dwelling known as Marsh Farm Barn a material change of use has occurred. The use of the land has therefore now changed to being a caravan site. The information submitted with the application demonstrates that the caravans proposed on the site would be occupied by Gypsies and Travellers. The main consideration is therefore whether the proposed use and the associated operational development accord with the requirements of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) and the development plan. There should also be regard to the previous use of the site as a mixed residential and caravan site use, which could have resulted in an unlimited number of caravans on the application site. 8.3 Policy H of the PPTS relates to determining planning applications for traveller sites and is outlined at paragraphs 20-26 of the PPTS. This policy requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (paragraph 20). It also advises that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and this planning policy (policy H) for traveller sites (paragraph 21). 8.4 Paragraph 22 of Policy H advises that planning authorities should consider a number of issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller's sites. These are listed below and assessed in terms of the current application: a. The existing level of local provision and the need for sites b. The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants c. Other personal circumstances of the applicant d. That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites e. That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections. 8.5 The two public Gypsy and Traveller sites in Chichester District (Easthampnett and Westbourne) are fully occupied and therefore no public pitches are available to the applicant. The applicant and his family have resided on the site for a considerable length of time and are settled within the local community. In addition representations have been received stating that the applicant and family members are receiving ongoing medical treatment at the local medical practice and St Richards Hospital, which indicates that continuity of care is desirable and in the applicant's best interests. These personal circumstances should be taken into consideration, in addition to the general lack of available pitches in the District (as set out in paragraph 8.23 of this report) in accordance with parts a-c of Paragraph 22. 8.6 In respect of part d of Paragraph 22; there is no current adopted policy in the Local Plan 1999 for new sites and Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Presubmission 2014-2029 currently has limited weight. Policy 36 specifically sets out 6 Page 65 criteria for assessing the suitability of sites, each of which is considered briefly in turn below: 1) Well related to existing settlements/close to major roads and/or public transport 8.7 The application site lies in the rural area, however the settlement of East Wittering and Bracklesham is nearby, where there are a range of services and facilities available, and there is a bus service from Bracklesham Lane to East Wittering and also to Chichester. It is considered that the site is not well related to an existing settlement, however it is also not so divorced from the nearby settlements to mean that the needs of the future occupiers could not be met locally. 2) Safe and Convenient vehicular access 8.8 There are adequate access arrangements onto Drove Lane with satisfactory visibility. 3) Reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for occupiers and neighbours 8.9 The site is screened by a mixture of fencing and planting, which is to be supplemented to minimise the impact in terms of visual and residential amenity. 4) Does not compromise nationally important features 8.10 There are no landscape designations, historic features or impact on nature consideration sites that will result from the proposal. 5) Avoid areas of Flood Risk 8.11 The proposed caravans would be situated with flood zone 2, however for the reasons set out below, due to circumstances specific to this site this is not considered to be a constraint for the development. 6) Not dominate settled community 8.12 The site is set away from but not isolated from the settled community and therefore would not dominate the settled community. 8.13 In respect of part (d) of Paragraph 22; the future occupants are likely to be the applicants, who have a local connection, however it is not recommended that the accommodation would be restricted occupation of the site to gypsies and travellers due to the significant need highlighted in the GTTSAA. 8.14 Paragraph 23 of policy H advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. LPAs should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure. The application site is currently occupied by 3 mobile homes and a touring caravan and it is fairly well contained between the dwelling to the south, the agricultural building to the north, a dwelling to the east, and hedgerow along the western side of the site. Although the site lies in the rural area it does not dominate the settled community and it is not of a scale that would place undue pressure on local infrastructure. Page 66 8.15 Paragraph 24 of Policy H advises that 'when considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to 4 matters, which will be assessed below: a. Effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land 8.16 The site is within the rural area, however it has a lawful use for the stationing of caravans and domestic use and therefore, the land was previously developed for a mixed use not significantly different to the current proposal. The proposal would make use of the existing site upon which it would previously have been possible to provide any number of caravans (subject to separate licencing requirements) to develop a site for 4 caravans only, and this would be the subject of a condition, which would go towards meeting the small remaining shortfall in the number of pitches required. The proposal would therefore make effective use of previously developed land. b. Sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness 8.17 The site is already well screened with extensive tree and hedge planting along the western and northern boundaries, and further planting is proposed which will provide additional screening and enhancements to biodiversity. c. Promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children 8.18 The proposed caravans would have a small area of amenity space surrounding them. Given that there are countryside footpaths and the beach, offering recreational opportunities, within walking distance of the site it is considered that the provision is acceptable for this location. d. Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community. 8.19 The site has a significant landscape buffer on its western and boundary comprising mature trees, and there are areas of close boarded fence to the southern and eastern boundary of the site. However the site does not have the appearance of being deliberately isolated from the rest of the community given that it is so well related to the 2 neighbouring properties and the gates on the access road are set back from Drove Lane. 8.20 Paragraph 25 of Policy H of the PPTS states that if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission. It should be noted that this is not an application for temporary planning permission. However, the lack of a five year supply of deliverable sites is a relevant consideration and this is considered a significant material consideration in the determination of this application. 8.21 Policy C of the PPTS relates to sites in rural areas and the countryside and is outlined at paragraph 12 of the PPTS. This policy requires local planning authorities, when assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi-rural settings, to ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community. As set out above, due to the scale of the proposal and its relationship with the nearby settlements of Earnley, Page 67 East Wittering and Bracklesham it is considered that the provision of 4 gypsy pitches would not over dominate the nearest settled communities. Consideration must also be given to the impact upon the neighbouring dwellings. It is considered that the proposed 4 pitches would not over dominate these properties due to the size of the overall site and the way in which the pitches would be contained. This is set out in greater detail later in this report. 8.22 In conclusion, the proposal is not considered to conflict with the objectives of the PPTS. It is therefore considered, given the clearly identified need for the District Council to provide additional pitches, that the principle of allowing this site to be used for 4 permanent gypsy and traveller pitches is considered acceptable. ii) Current Gypsy Site Provision 8.23 There is an accepted need for a minimum of 59 pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 37 pitches before 2017. This figure was established after the Council, together with the other West Sussex coastal authorities commissioned a Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTTSAA) in April 2013. The Council has granted permission for 35 pitches which means there is a shortfall of 2 compared to the GTTSAA requirements (as outlined in Policy 36) until the year 2017. As the Five Year Supply is rolled forward the Council currently has a 3.8 year supply of pitches. There is therefore a need for 2 pitches (up to 2017) and a further 6 for the period 2018 - 2020. On this basis there is inadequate provision for gypsy and traveller pitches in Chichester district at present and therefore an outstanding need for pitches, to which this proposal would make a significant contribution. This need must therefore be weighed against other material considerations. iii) Impact upon character and appearance of the rural area 8.24 The application site is visible from the public footpath to the west of the application site due to a lack of screening along the western boundary of the site. However, the site is viewed in the context of the barn conversion to the south, the neighbouring dwelling to the east, and an agricultural building to the north. Therefore the site does not stand out as an isolated caravan site, and instead it is read in conjunction with the surrounding development. The site can also be seen from the south, however this too is not viewed as an isolated site that has an incongruous impact upon the flat open landscape because within the same landscape the holiday park that lies to the south east of the application site is also visible. 8.25 The landscape proposals submitted with the application show that a new native buffer of planting would be provided alongside the western end of the development. The application has confirmed that the land is within his ownership, and it is therefore considered that the provision of the proposed landscaping should be conditioned to agree specific details of the species to be planted and their frequency and layout. 8.26 Consideration should also be given to the impact of the lawful use of the land as a caravan site. It is considered that whilst the proposed gyspy and traveller site would be visible from some public vantage points, it would not have a greater visual impact than the lawful mixed use, and in any event its impact would be minimised by the location of the site close to other buildings. It is also considered that the use of the land as a Gypsy and Traveller site, compared to the authorised caravan site would not have a similar impact upon the character of the area. Page 68 8.27 For the reasons set out above it is considered that the impact of the proposal compared to the lawful use of the land upon the character and appearance of the area would not warrant refusal of the application. iv) Flood Risk 8.28 The application site lies within Flood Zone 2 and adjacent to a watercourse. Although national and local planning policies seek to direct new development away from areas at most risk of flooding the Environment Agency has no objection to the proposed development given the previous lawful use of the land as a mixed residential and caravan site use. The previous use of the land surrounding Marsh Farm Barn included caravans within Flood Zone 3, and there was no restriction on the number of caravans on the land. The proposed development as a result of there being a maximum of four caravans, and their location within Flood Zone 2 only, therefore constitutes a betterment in terms of the level of flood risk. In addition, the flood risk assessment sets out appropriate measures to ensure safe egress in the event that flooding occurs. It is recommended that a condition be included to ensure that the works are carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the flood risk assessment. 8.29 The Council's drainage engineer also has no objection to the proposed use of soakaways to drain the site, subject to their design being informed by ground water monitoring. The applicant is aware of the need to maintain the ditches that run alongside the site, and is in the process of carrying out maintenance works. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not increase risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere. The proposal therefore accords with national and local policies in this respect. v) Impact upon residential amenity 8.30 The application site lies adjacent to 2 dwellings. Regard must be had to the impact of the proposal upon the amenity and living conditions compared to the authorised use of the land as a caravan site. The site is separated from the barn to the south by a 1.8m fence, and there is also an existing fence along part of the eastern boundary and a further fence is proposed around the north east corner of the site to increase the screening from Marsh Farm Cottage. 8.31 The proposed caravans would be situated at least 3m from the site boundary, which means that the caravans would be no closer than 7m to Marsh Farm Barn to the south of the site, and 25m from Marsh Farm Cottage to the north east of the site. The impact upon the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings has been considered carefully. There would be a fence and mature planting between proposed caravan on the eastern edge of the site and the neighbouring dwelling at Marsh Farm Cottage and it is considered that this form of boundary treatment and the separation distance between the proposal and the neighbouring dwelling would minimise the impact of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupiers of Marsh Farm Cottage. There is an existing close boarded fence along the boundary with Marsh Farm Barn and no objections have been received from the occupier of the dwelling in respect of noise and disturbance or overlooking. 8.32 Regard has been given to the objections received, however on balance, it is considered that when taking into account the previous lawful use of the site for the Page 69 stationing of caravans, the provision of improvements to boundary treatments, and the extent of the site which is contained within the former caravan site rather than being spread across the adjoining agricultural land to the north of the site, that the proposal would not a sufficiently adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbours to warrant refusal of the application or to outweigh the other relevant material planning considerations. vi) Highways Impact 8.33 The Highways Authority has advised that the proposed use of the land as a gypsy and traveller site would not result in a material change to the level of traffic coming to and from the site and that the proposed access arrangements are acceptable. The proposal would therefore not have an adverse impact upon highway safety or the highway network vii) Other matters 8.34 The site lies within 5.6km of the Chichester Harbour and Langstone Special Protection Area 'zone of influence' where new development may have a significant effect on the Special Protection Area, SSSI, SAC and Ramsar site from future occupiers. However, the proposal would not result in an increase in the residential use of the site, given that it has a lawful use as a caravan site which could be occupied by a greater number of caravans and therefore in accordance with policy 50 of the emerging local plan mitigation in the form of a financial contribution is not required. 8.35 The Parish Council has raised a number of concerns regarding; the accuracy of the plans, details of the bin storage, landscaping, access, removal of a flint wall and distance between the caravans. These issues are addressed below. 8.36 There is concern about the accuracy of the plans submitted, in particular a landscape plan that was submitted during the course of the application. The site has been measured and it is considered that the extent of the site is accurately reflected on the submitted site plan, and therefore it will be possible to achieve the 3m distance required between the caravans and the site boundaries. The plan submitted does show a distance of only 5m between caravan 1 and 4 on the site plan, and a corrected plan is due to be submitted. It is considered that it would be possible to achieve the 6m distance between the caravans which is required by licencing and an update on the plan will be provided to the Planning Committee in the Update Sheet. 8.37 The landscape plan submitted during the course of the application was not marked up with a scale, and the layout differed to that shown on the site plan submitted. The landscape plan does not form part of the plans that are to be determined as part of the planning application, it is a supplementary plan that indicates the location of landscaping. Notwithstanding the submission of the landscape plan, due to its inconsistencies with the proposed site plan a landscaping condition is proposed to ensure that an accurate landscaping scheme is implemented. 8.38 With respect to the proposed drainage; the drainage and the environmental health officers are satisfied that these matters can be dealt with by condition, to ensure that appropriate foul and surface water drainage provision is made on site. It is also considered reasonable to condition the provision of bin storage within the site since there is space to the sides of the proposed caravans. Page 70 8.39 The proposed access to the site would be from the access outlined in red on the submitted site plan. Although the applicant has a right of access over an access track that lies to the east of the site, this is to the agricultural field to the north of the site only, and therefore the applicants do not intend to use that access to serve the caravan site, and indeed it does not form part of the application site. 8.40 Therefore, in conclusion the comments made by the Parish Council have been taken into account during the course of the application and these matters have been addressed in the proposed conditions where appropriate. Significant Conditions 8.41 The application is recommended for approval, subject to a number of controlling conditions. These include restricting the occupancy of the site to gypsy/traveller families, restricting the number of caravans on the site, restricting any commercial uses and also conditions requiring details of the proposed landscaping and drainage. Conclusion 8.42 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and the relevant development plan policies. Furthermore the unmet need for gypsy and traveller pitches in general is afforded weight in favour of the proposal. Therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.43 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. Equalities 8.42 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant. "In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty: (1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act. Page 71 (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c)Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. 8.43 These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A01F Time Limit - Full B01G No Departure from Plans U93159 - Occupation restriction U93161 - Number of pitches U93164 - No fences K01H Landscaping K02G Landscaping U93166 - Boundaries treatments U93167 - No commercial activities U93244 - Surface Water U93168 - Foul drainage N34F Bin Storage/Secure Cycle Parking U93169 - Car parking U93170 - No external lighting U93175 - Maintenance of ditch INFORMATIVES 1 2 U93176 - Consent for works to watercourses W44F Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Fjola Stevens on 01243 534734 Page 72 Agenda Item 10 Parish: Southbourne Ward: Southbourne SB/14/04213/FUL Proposal Proposed change of use of land to provide four travelling showmans yard family plots (comprising a total of 12 no. mobile homes). Site Land South Of Fair Acre Priors Leaze Lane Hambrook Chidham West Sussex Map Ref (E) 478368 (N) 106005 Applicant Mr Alfie Matthews RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT WITH S106 NOT TO SCALE Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803 Page 73 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is located at the southern end of the existing grouping of permitted Travelling Showperson pitches on the southern side of Priors Leaze Lane. The site is within the defined rural area, with open fields to the east and west, with a new large residential development to the south. 2.2 The site is accessed via an unmade track from Priors Leaze Lane, and passes the existing permitted Travelling Showpeople's sites to the east and west of the access road. The proposed site is framed to the north by a mature line of conifers, and is presently laid to grass as paddocks. There is an existing permitted Plot with associated stables and barns to the east of the site. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the sub-division of the site into 4no. plots (comprising 12no. mobiles homes) which would be made available to the wider Traveller Showpeople community. Each plot would make provision for 3no. static mobile homes, together with space for touring caravans, car parking, a maintenance and storage yard for their equipment and a private recreational area. The design and layout of the plots accords with the provisions of the Governments Design Guide for such pitches. Additional landscaping would be provided to the boundaries to limit views of site from the surrounding existing and future housing developments. 4.0 History None 5.0 Constraints Listed Building Conservation Area Rural Area AONB Strategic Gap Tree Preservation Order South Downs National Park NO NO YES NO YES NO NO EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 - Flood Zone 3 Historic Parks and Gardens NO NO NO Page 74 6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Southbourne Parish Council Objection: The application site was outside the Settlement Policy Area. 6.2 Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council - neighbouring Parish Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council strongly objects to the Application on the following grounds: 1. The site of the proposed development is within the Parish of Southbourne. However, the development would have negative consequences for Chidham and Hambrook Parish. 2. The site is in the Chichester to Emsworth Strategic Gap. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 12 of the emerging Local Plan, especially with regard to the final bullet point which states: 'The individual identity of settlements, actual or perceived, is maintained and the integrity of predominantly open and undeveloped land between settlements is not diminished.' 4. The proposed development would constitute a further encroachment into the Strategic Gap in this rural area outside a Settlement Policy Area. 5. Access to the site is along Priors Leaze Lane. This is a narrow lane and will not sustain the significant additional traffic or cars and large travelling showmen's vehicles that the development would generate. 6. Planning applications for housing should be assessed with respect to the adequate provision of amenities, including schooling, social, recreation and leisure facilities, public open spaces and public transport. Sustainability is an important factor. 7. The proposed development would not be sustainable. The application refers to good pedestrian access to facilities. Priors Leaze Lane is dangerous for pedestrians and, in any event, all the amenities listed above, with the exception of a small very limited shopping facility in Broad Road, Hambrook, are certainly not within a convenient walking distance. 8. The site is in an unsustainable location and the proposal is in direct contravention of the National Planning Policy Framework. 9. The proposed development constitutes an entirely unsustainable venture that would increase existing traffic difficulties in a narrow country lane and cause nuisance to residents living between the site and Broad Road. The Parish Council strongly recommends refusal of the application. 6.3 Environment Agency I can confirm that we have no objections to the proposal as submitted. 6.4 WSCC Highways Initial Consultation - 12 January 2015 West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application SB/13/02886/FUL to which no objections were raised. Page 75 The 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. This proposal would see a total of 12 pitches created for travelling showpersons. West Sussex County Council policy for proposals creating 10 or more units where it is anticipated to cause an intensification of the existing access is that a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit should be completed and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for inspection. Second Consultation - 11 March 2015 West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under this planning application number, to which further information was requested, including a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. The audit that whilst carried out by engineer, did not appear to explicitly state that the engineer was certified to carry out an audit, highlighted an area of concern regarding the position of a tree within the nearside visibility splay. The presence of this tree is a serious concern, and an increase in movements using this access would be detrimental to other highway users. Within the designer's response it was stated that the tree was located in land outside the control of the applicants. An alternative of relocating the access was also deemed not available. Therefore for the application to progress, the applicants' shall be required to contact the land owner with whom the tree belongs for permission to remove the tree. The tree may also be supported by a Tree Preservation Order, so all correspondence with the landowner should also be sent to the Local Planning Authority. Whether or not the neighbouring land owner agrees for permission for the tree to be felled, the Highway Authority shall be in a position to further advise the applicants as to how to further progress their application. Please re-consult with the Highway Authority after correspondence with the neighbouring landowner has been established regarding removal of the tree. Third Consultation - 14 May 2015 As there have been two suggestions with the access I shall try and deal with them separately. The original submission where the tree issue was raised in the RSA, we should be able to secure an Exception [to the RSA] Report, but I think we need to do a few more things before that is possible. I have seen the revised RSA incorporating a slightly modified access by means of moving the mouth further into the carriageway. I have no issue with that, but there hasn't been a Designers Response included within that report, and I need that before I can continue. As the revised RSA does not highlight any significant issues, I think we will in time withdraw our objection to the proposal. 6.5 CDC - Land and Coastal Drainage Officer Surface water drainage should be implemented in accordance with the 'Drainage' section of the Good Practice Guide submitted with the application. Surface water infiltration drainage should be investigated for the site, incorporating winter groundwater monitoring and percolation testing. The surface water system Page 76 should contain the 1 in 100 year storm event plus 30% for climate change, for all impermeable areas on site. Condition suggested. 6.6 CDC - Planning Policy The proposal is for a change of use of land for 4 family plots. Each plot incorporates the stationing of three mobile homes, two touring caravans and one specialist Showman caravan together with a storage and maintenance area; each pitch with include a suitable area for parking and manoeuvring. It is considered that the main considerations are whether there is a need for the development and coalescence. The Development Plan The Development Plan currently comprises saved policies in the Chichester District Local Plan 1999. There is not a saved policy which relates specifically to travelling showpeople. The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission document contains Policy 36 Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The policy sets out a criteria based approach to identifying sites within the plan area as part of a forthcoming Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocation DPD and for determining planning applications. This is consistent with paragraph 10 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) which says "Criteria should be set to guide land supply allocations where there is identified need…" The application should be judged against the criterion within Policy 36 of the emerging Local Plan, the site is considered to be related to Hambrook and within easy distance of facilities at Southbourne and Emsworth which provide a number of services. Advice should be sought from West Sussex Highways Authority in respect of vehicular access. Policy 48 is relevant in that the individual identity of settlements, actual or perceived is maintained. Consideration should be given to the recent residential planning permission at Hambrook, however as the proposal is for a modest extension to an existing site on balance it is not considered that its development will lead to coalescence. Other relevant Local Plan policies include: 1, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 49 and 50. Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) and Five Year Supply As part of the Council's assessment of need, the Council in partnership with the Coastal West Sussex Authorities (Arun, Adur and Worthing) and the South Downs National Park Planning Authority with support from West Sussex County Council, commissioned a Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Assessment (GTAA) (2012/13). The GTAA identified a total need for 59no. pitches for gypsies and travellers and 18no. plots for travelling showpeople within the Plan area during the plan period; with a specific need for 11 travelling showpeople plots before 2017. The Council has permitted 7no. plots since 2012 with a remaining shortfall of 4no. plots between 201517 when compared to the GTAA requirements (as outlined in Policy 36). Page 77 As the Five Year Supply is rolled forward we currently have 2 years supply of plots. There is therefore a need for 6no. plots for the period 2015-2020. Conclusion It is acknowledged that there is a need for travelling showpeople sites within the plan area. There is a need however to plan positively through the preparation of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocation DPD in order to select the most suitable sites for the District. Nonetheless the proposal is for an extension to an existing site in a sustainable location, there is therefore not a policy objection to the proposal subject to development management considerations e.g. access. 6.7 CDC - Tree Officer I refer to the issue of the 1 no. Oak tree (T1) now provisionally subject to SB/15/00068/TPO and part of a well tree'd area of Priors Leaze Lane which has a reasonable amount of amenity within the locality. The Oak tree is within the verge area on the eastern side of the entrance into Fair Acre off Priors Leaze Lane. It is a mature specimen of its kind and the tree does shows signs of stress and/or possible decline - due to compaction of the ground to the north (road), west (driveway/entrance), to the east compaction of the ground due to vehicular movement. There is a drain cover to north-west which may have damaged roots when installed. The tree's canopy overhangs the road to the north and entrance to the site to the west. At the time of my inspection there was the evidence that a Ganoderma spp. bracket (fruiting body) which had been attached on the tree (now detached) - this fungus causes root and butt rot in living trees. The tree was starting to flush (foliate) but there was significant die back (deadwood) around the crown and canopy edge which can indicate that the roots may be damaged/in decline. There were signs of storm damage and possibly high sided vehicles had knocked a couple of limbs on the north/north-west sectors. The Tree report from (PJC Consultancy, dated 1 April 2015) notes that the tree has a viable life span of up to 20 years. This could be considered a reasonable amount of time for its retention. However, the tree could have further testing (sonic test/resistograph) to assess the impact that the Ganoderma fungus has on the tree (strength of the wood within the butt and lower stem area) and/or deadwood the tree to assess how significant the tree's decline is with the canopy. This could help determine whether to fell and replace the tree is a more prudent option at this time. The issue is the tree's retention impacts on the sightlines for the coming and going into the site and is impacted by vehicular movement into the adjacent grain store site which is eroding the verge area adjacent to the tree. The tree is in decline due to the vehicular movement. However, the planting of another Oak tree to the south by the hedge would enhance the area in the future and would possibly mean that the District Council should consider not to confirm the current provisional order on the tree. Page 78 6.8 Third Party Letters of Objection 2no. third party objection letter received from a local resident and the Hambrook District Residents Association. They highlight concerns regarding traffic generation, the relationship with the settled community, sustainable transport, and the amount, scale, appearance and layout of the proposal. 6.9 Third Party Letters of Support 6no. third party letters of support have been received from the Showmen's Guild and from Traveller's supporting the provision of additional plots, and also highlighting a desire to take up a plot should planning permission be granted. 6.10 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information The planning application has been supported by a detailed Planning, Design, Access, and Utilities Statement. The Statement includes details regarding the history of travelling showpeople in the Country together with the identified need for additional permanent plots within the Chichester District area. The statement also includes details regarding the design, amount, layout, scale of the development proposal, together with planning policy considerations, sustainability of the site, access and landscaping, flooding and infrastructure within the site. Following a request from WSCC, a detailed Stage 1 Road Safety Audit was also provided together with a detailed Tree Survey of the mature oak tree at the site's entrance. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for Southbourne Parish at this time. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: RE1 Rural Area Generally RE6 Strategic Gaps RE21 Safeguarding Existing Travelling Showpeople's Sites RE23 Safeguarding Existing Gypsy Sites TR6 Highway Safety R4 Public Rights of Way and Other Paths 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and Modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and Proposed Modifications 2014: Page 79 Policy 1: Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area 7.4 National Policy and Guidance Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decisiontaking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles). 7.6 In addition to the overarching policies of the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites, published at the same time as the NPPF. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources C3: A culturally enriched and empowered community D4: Understanding and meeting community needs E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) ii) iii) iv) Level of current provision; Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site; Impact on the landscape of the area; Impact on the amenities of surrounding properties; Page 80 v) vi) Highway implications and means of access; and, Impact on Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area. Assessment i) 8.2 Level of current provision There is an accepted need for a minimum of 18no. plots for travelling showpeople in the District by 2027, including 11no. pitches before 2017. This figure was established after the Council, together with the other West Sussex coastal authorities commissioned a Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment. The report was undertaken by Opinion Research Services and Peter Brett Associates and was completed in April 2013. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of travelling showpeoples plots. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 6no. plots in order that the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply between 2015 and 2020. This application would provide a further 4no. permanent plots to contribute towards meeting this requirement. 5no. permanent plots have been provided by the grant of planning permission or at appeal since September 2012. This need must therefore be weighed against other material considerations, including landscape harm. ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site 8.3 Policy H of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) documents relates to determining planning applications for traveller sites and requires planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Paragraph 20). It also advises that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and the planning policy for traveller sites (paragraph 21). 8.4 Paragraph 22 advises that planning authorities should consider a number of issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites; a) The existing level of local provision and the need for sites b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections 8.5 As set out in paragraph 8.2 above, there is an accepted need for a minimum of 18no. travelling showpeoples plots in the District by 2027, including 11no. plots before 2017. Whilst the District Council has now permitted 7no. plots since September 2012, (including 3no. new plots on land to the northwest of this application site) there remains a significant shortfall in provision. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of travelling showpeople plots. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 6no. travelling showpeople plots in order that the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply up until the end of 2020. Page 81 8.6 The plots would be occupied by the Applicant and his family, who presently reside in part at Fair Acre. Fair Acre has become increasingly overcrowded in recent years and the provision of these additional plots would enable the family group to remain together, whilst enabling the group to spread out onto 2no. adjoining plots. The remaining three plots would be made available to other Showmen, and the applicant has had several letters of interest from practising Travelling Showpeople who are member of the Showman's Guild. The level of interest clearly shows a high demand for additional suitable plots within the Chichester District area. No other available permanent sites have been identified either by the applicant or the Council. 8.7 Paragraph 23 of Policy H advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. LPAs should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure. Although the application site is comparatively large in terms of its area at over 1ha, the Settlement Policy Areas for Nutbourne and Hambrook are around 300m away. The site layout is based on the Model Standards with each plot providing a recreation area, and the remaining land to the south, east and west of the site remaining open. Furthermore, there is a demonstrated need for a site and the expansion of an existing site is considered to be a reasonable approach to meeting some of the shortfall. 8.8 Paragraph 24 advises that in considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to 4 matters, which will be assessed below: a) Effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land 8.9 The majority of the site is considered to be agricultural land and not brownfield but is adjacent to an existing site used predominantly by Travelling Showpeople. The majority of the views of the site would be against this backdrop. b) Sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness 8.10 The new plots are proposed to be designed in accordance with the Model Standards advocated by the Showmen's Guild, and are considered acceptable in terms of their landscaping and design. The boundaries of the plots and the access road would be softened with hedgerow planting, with the main storage and maintenance areas located on the northern parts of the plots, ensuring they are further away from the boundaries, to lessen their impact. The surrounding land would remain as open agricultural land, which would act as a buffer between the settled residential communities to the south and east. c) Promote opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as adequate landscaping and play areas for children 8.11 Each plot would be well landscaped and provide a recreation space. The plots as stated above would be bounded by landscape planting and complies with the Model Standards in terms of provision of open space for the residents. d) Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community Page 82 8.12 As stated above the plots would be bounded by landscaping (hedging to be conditioned) rather than fencing/walls or other hard landscaping. It is anticipated a degree of secure fencing will be required in order to secure the storage and maintenance area, however, this would be softened by hedging to minimise its visual impact on the wider landscape setting. Policy H encourages the use of planning conditions or planning obligations. 8.13 The proposal is therefore generally considered to be in conformity to the four above criteria, and given the urgent need for additional permanent accommodation, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable, which is well designed and supported by the Showman's Guild. Further enhancements could be achieved by the imposition of relevant conditions relating to landscaping, and fencing details. 8.14 In terms of compliance with the current Development Plan, there is no current adopted policy in the Local Plan 1999 for new sites and due to the advanced stage of the emerging Local Plan, Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and proposed modifications 2014 carries significant weight. Given the relevance of Policy 36 and its general conformity to PPTS, further regard to this policy is set out below. 8.15 Policy 36 specifically sets out 6no. criteria for assessing the suitability of sites, criteria 1, 2, 5 and 6 relate to the principle of development. Considering these in turn; they require that the development should: 1) 2) 5) 6) be well related to existing settlements/close to major roads and/or public transport; safe and convenient vehicular access; avoid areas of Flood Risk; and not dominate the settled community. 8.16 Whilst the site is located outside and away from any defined Settlement Policy Area (as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review, 1999), Priors Leaze Lane is within 500m of Broad Road, and is therefore only 525km from the nearest local shop (Hambrook Post Office and Store). Broad Road provides direct access to Nutbourne Railway Station, is served by buses and is within walking distance to Main Road, which is well served by regular buses connecting Havant and Chichester. 8.17 Having regard to the definition of sustainability as set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF, and paragraph 11 of the PPTS, the site would not be sustainable for most forms of residential use and would not meet the requirements set put in paragraphs 18-219 of the NPPF for permanent settled residential accommodation. However, given the relative nomadic habit of life associated with Travelling Showpeople, and given the existing presence of other Travelling Showpeople in this location, the suitability of the site to accommodate additional travelling showpeople, there are other material considerations which would outweigh this, coupled with the fact that the location would meet with their specific sustainability requirements. 8.18 In respect of the access arrangements, the site is a well-established Travelling Showmans location, having been used by Showpeople since the 1980s. The County Council has raised no objections to the increased use of the site in the past. The current objection relates to the impact of a mature oak tree at the site entrance, which obstructs the east visibility splay. The applicant cleared the surrounding vegetation and undertook a further assessment of the visibility where it was agreed that the Page 83 Chichester Grain Store (whose entrance lies opposite the application site) had eroded the roadside verge up to the tree trunk, therefore demonstrating that the verge actually extends a further 1.8m beyond the tree trunk, enabling a clear view before and after the tree trunk. However, the removal of the tree, which has already been considered to be in declining health by the Council's Tree Officer, within an area already well tree'd, would see the objection from the County Council removed, and provide sufficient visibility onto Priors Leaze Lane. 8.19 The site is not located within any known area of flood risk and no objection has been received from the Environment Agency. 8.20 In addition to criteria 6 of Policy 6 to the emerging local plan, Policy C of the PPTS (Sites in rural areas and the countryside) seeks to ensure that 'the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community'. The site is located in an established area of Travelling Showpeople, who have, for the past 30 years lived harmoniously with the surrounding settled community. With the development of the Lion Park estate (80no additional houses), coupled with the recent Appeal Decisions for a further 60no. houses to the east of the site along Broad Road, the number of people in the settled community of Hambrook is likely to increase significantly, and therefore it is considered that the provision of 4no. additional Travelling Showpeople plots along Priors Leaze Lane is unlikely to overwhelm the settled community. 8.21 In conclusion, on this point, the current scheme is not considered to conflict with the objectives of the PPTS and Policy 36 of the emerging Local Plan. It is therefore considered, given the existence of this existing Travelling Showpeople plots along Priors Leaze Lane, and the clearly identified need for the District Council to provide additional plots, that the premise of allowing this on a permanent basis is considered acceptable. iii) Impact on the landscape of the area 8.22 Criteria 4 to Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires that development does not compromise nationally important features. Paragraph 23 of Policy H to the PPTS advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. However where sites are within the rural area LPAs should ensure that sites respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure. 8.23 The site is located outside any specific landscape designations, although does lie within the Chichester to Emsworth Strategic Gap. Strategic Gaps are policy designations not being carried forward in the emerging Local Plan, although Policy 48 highlights the need to maintain the separate identity of individual settlements. Given the relatively flat nature of the prevailing landscape, additional development in the open countryside could have the potential to significantly impact on the character and appearance of the rural landscape. However, given the existing travelling showpeople plots to the north of the site, which has been well established for the past 30 years, and the additional development permitted along Broad Road, against which the proposals would be set and in the context in which they would be viewed, the proposals would not have a significant impact on the visual landscape. Additionally, there are public rights of way located to the east and west of the site. Both are located almost 100m away from the site, and whilst these offer views across the open field to the site, the provision of enhanced landscaping to the boundaries of the site Page 84 would ensure a good level of mitigation against the visual impact of the proposal. It should also be noted that the planning permission granted in 2013 for the 3no. additional plots to the northwest of the current application site included detailed landscaping conditions to enhance the landscaping buffer between the public right of way to the west of the site and the permitted plots. This would ensure a significant improvement to future users of this public right of way. 8.24 Southbourne Parish Council raised no objection to the landscaping impact of the development, neither did the neighbouring Parish (Hambrook and Chidham). Whilst the proposal does increase the level of development within the identified rural area, the siting of Travelling Showpeople's sites within or immediately adjacent to settlements could result in increased conflict, in terms of visual impact and noise and disturbance. The current site is long established as a travelling showpeoples site, and its divorced nature from the settled community enables a better coexistence between the two. The area of open land between the two, particularly to the south and in the future, to the east would be retained as a suitable buffer, and would ensure the visual impact is minimised, in part due to the separation and the proposed level of additional boundary landscaping proposed. iv) Impact on the amenities of surrounding properties 8.25 Policy BE11 of the adopted Chichester District Local Plan requires that the relationship between existing and proposed development would be harmonious. Criteria 3 of Policy 36 of the emerging Local Plan requires that development would provide for a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for occupiers and neighbours. 8.26 The closest neighbouring residential properties would be the new residential estate of Lion Park to the south of the site, the nearest property of which lies almost 150m away. The Travelling Showpeople community have lived and worked from this location for the past 30 years, and the number of permanent residents of the settled community has grown significantly over this time. The relative level of separation would be reduced by the addition of these plots, however, the main storage and maintenance areas are located to the northern part of the plots, to ensure minimal impact on the amenity of the surrounding occupiers. The occupiers to the north are existing travelling showpeople who are familiar with the potential noise and disturbance issues associated with such sites. No objections have been received for the other occupiers of Priors Leaze Lane, and only 1no. third party objection has been received, from a resident some 320m to the east. To the east, 58no. additional dwellings on the western side of Broad Road were allowed by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal (applications 12/04778/FUL and 13/03376/OUT). This would for the most part obscure views of the site from Broad Road, but all the new occupiers would be located over 270m from the eastern edge of the application site. The land in between already includes two agricultural buildings (belonging to the applicant) and would, together with the additional landscaping, reduce the impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Over time, both the Travelling Showpeople community at Priors Leaze Lane and the settled community in the Hambrook area has grown (particularly since the implementation of the 86no. dwellings at Lion Park). This slow growth has reduced the overall impact of the Travelling Showpeople site's development on the settled community, and allowed for a gradual integration into the locality, without significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. Page 85 8.27 It is therefore considered that the proposal would be sufficiently distanced, orientated and designed so as not to have an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, in particular to their outlook, privacy, available light or additional noise generated by the development, which is also residential in nature. iv) 8.28 Highway implications and means of access Criteria 2 to Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires, amongst other things that development would provide for safe and convenient vehicular access. The access has been assessed by WSCC Highways which has been used by the existing occupiers of the site since the 1980s. WSCC has raised concern regarding the location of a mature oak tree within the eastern visibility splay. The surrounding vegetation has been cut back enabling clear views along the eastern visibility splay before the tree, and following further examination of the junction onto Priors Leaze Lane, it was evident that the heavy vehicles entering and exiting the Chichester Grain Store (on the northern side of Priors Leaze Lane) had heavily eroded the southern roadside verge, up to the truck of the tree. Therefore the applicant undertook a further Highway Assessment to determine the exact edge of the adopted highway, establishing that it was actually sited almost 1.8m north of the tree trunk. This would enable sufficient space for vehicles leaving the application site to have clear views along Priors Leaze Lane. WSCC Highways have now acknowledged that subject to a designers response to this realignment, the objection would be withdrawn. However, whilst the objection from WSCC remains, should planning permission be granted, the tree obstructing the visibility splay could be felled, ensuring unimpeded eastern views along Priors Leaze Lane, which would address the objection from WSCC. 8.29 Further, following the initial comments from WSCC regarding the imposition of the tree, a Provisional Tree Preservation Order was placed on the tree. This was a precautionary measure to ensure the tree's retention whilst its suitability for a TPO was assessed. Having considered further details by the applicant and undertaken a detailed visual inspection of the tree, it is the view of the Council's Tree Officer that the tree is not in a good condition, and of declining health, partly due to the fungal infection and the continued compaction of the root systems. Further, whilst the large tree does have a visual amenity presence, given its location within a relatively well treed setting, its loss would not materially harm the character and appearance of the street scene. v) Impact on the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas 8.30 The site is located within 5.6km of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas, where it has been identified that additional permanent residential accommodation will have significant environmental effects on the Harbours. The applicant has provided mitigation in the form of a S106 agreement and made appropriate payment to overcome this impact. Significant Conditions 8.31 Conditions are recommended to limit the occupation of the site to Travelling Showpeople given the special circumstances of the case. These include; a limitation of the number of mobile homes to be present on the site to 12no. mobile homes and 12no. touring caravans, a condition limiting the uses of the storage areas, the recreation area and the materials proposed for the permanent works (to limit the Page 86 impact on visual amenity, the withdrawal of permitted development rights for fencing to limit the impact on visual amenity), the submission of a detailed landscaping scheme in the interests of visual amenity and promoting the use of native species, parking and access and conditions to secure foul and surface water drainage. Finally a condition will be imposed restricting external lighting, given the rural location. Conclusion 8.32 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that although the proposal conflicts with adopted development plan policies, the unmet need for Travelling showpeople plots in general is afforded weight in favour of the proposal, it complies with draft policy advice and the advice in the NPPF and PPTS and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.33 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of any affected parties have been taken into account. The proposal requires engagement of the1998 act, however, taking account of rights under Article 8 of Section 1 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. Equalities 8.34 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant. "In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty: (1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act. (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. 8.35 These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level. Page 87 8.36 However, the duties do not require a particular outcome. What the decision making body chooses to do once it has had the required regard is for it to decide subject to the ordinary constraints of public and discrimination law. 8.37 In conclusion, the actual needs of the applicant need to be weighed against the harm that this development would cause to neighbours, along with all of the material planning considerations. The decision must be proportionate in the light of all the circumstances of this case". RECOMMENDATION PERMIT WITH S106 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A01F Time Limit - Full U93869 - No Departure from Plans U93870 - Occupation limitation U93871 - Mobile home and tourer limit U93872 - Siting of plots U93873 - Use of plots U93874 - Surfacing Materials U93875 - No fencing pd rights U93876 - Landscaping U93877 - Landscaping implementation U93878 - Foul drainage scheme L04F Surface Water Scheme U93879 - Refuse disposal facilities U93880 - Height restriction on development U93881 - Limitation on hours of work U93882 - External lighting scheme U93883 - Parking U93884 U93884 - Access INFORMATIVES 1 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions 2 For further information on this application please contact Peter Kneen on 01243 534734 Page 88 Agenda Item 11 Parish: Sidlesham Ward: Sidlesham SI/14/04264/FUL Proposal Erection of agricultural residential dwelling. Site 76A Lockgate Road Sidlesham West Sussex PO20 7QQ Map Ref (E) 484163 (N) 99482 Applicant Mr B De Geus RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT WITH S106 NOT TO SCALE Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803 Page 89 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site is located on the northern side of Lockgate Road, a street largely defined by horticultural nurseries, and surrounded by open arable farmland. The site forms a rectangular overgrown field immediately on the northern side of Lockgate Road, situated between the road and the main nursery glasshouse. The site is bounded by hedging to the road with glasshouses and access road to Ann's Plants to the north and east. The existing agricultural workers dwelling associated with Ann's Plants is located beyond the access road, to the east of the site. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application proposal seeks to erect a simple, two storey, 3-bedroomed detached dwelling providing 3no. bedrooms and 2no. bathrooms at first floor level, and living room, dining room, kitchen, farm office and washroom at ground floor level. The dwelling would be constructed of traditional materials and finishes, including a plain tiled/slate roof and bricked elevations. The need for the new dwelling is set out in more detail in Section 8.0 of this report below. In summary the need follows the retirement of the existing shared owner of the Nursery holding, who is entitled to remain within the existing agriculturally tied property having last been employed in agriculture prior to retirement. 4.0 History SI/00007/75 REF Siting of caravan. SI/00002/76 REF Caravan. SI/00036/86 REF Lounge/bedroom extension and granny annexe. SI/00062/91 REF Stationing of 2 mobile homes to be occupied as a single residential unit. SI/00008/92 PER Change of use of land from horticultural use to garden. 93/01879/DOM PER Single storey brick built double garage adjacent to house. 95/00911/FUL PER Extend an existing glasshouse. 96/01698/FUL PER Extend an existing glass house. 97/01497/FUL PER Replacement of old wooden greenhouse to match existing. 03/00491/DOM REF 2 storey side extension and porch. Page 90 03/00940/DOM PER Two storey side extension and porch. 08/04330/FUL PER Garages and machinery store with office and seed store above. 5.0 Constraints Listed Building Conservation Area Rural Area AONB Strategic Gap Tree Preservation Order South Downs National Park EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 - Flood Zone 3 Historic Parks and Gardens NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council Sidlesham Parish Council discussed the above application at its Parish Council meeting on 21st January 2015. The Council objects to this application on the grounds that it does not consider a 2 acre site with 1 acre greenhouse large enough to support a dwelling such as this. In addition, no agricultural or business assessments were available to support the application. 6.2 WSCC - Highways This application seeks the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling to serve Ann's Plant. The site is located on Lockgate Road which is an unclassified road subject to a 40mph speed limit. The road is rural in nature, unlit and not served with pedestrian footways. The road appears to be lightly trafficked. The proposed dwelling would utilise an existing point of access. From a desktop study this access point appears to be a field access, it is not constructed in a bound surface and does not look to be generating, or have generated, a significant number of vehicle movements in recent years. In the first instance visibility splays of 2.4 x 120 metres in both directions would be considered appropriate in this location. This length of splays would appear to be achievable. The access must be improved and constructed in a bound surface to current WSCC specifications. These works must be conducted under licence and the required specification can be obtained from WSCC Highways I would ask that the access be constructed in a bound surface for a minimum of 5 metres from the back edge of the Lockgate Road carriageway. Page 91 From inspection of the plans provided appropriate vehicle parking and turning facilities have not been specifically demonstrated but do appear to be achievable. It is noted that the site access is protected with a field gate. I would ask that this gate be at least 5.0 metres from the back edge of Lockgate Road and open inward of the site. I would ask this detail be secured via condition to ensure a vehicle can be fully removed from the highway while the gate is opened. This may require the gate to be moved from its present location. The site is located in a rural where access to services and facilitates including public transport is limited. Therefore occupants of the proposed dwelling will be mainly reliant on the car. This is contrary to policies promoting sustainability. The Planning Authority may wish to consider whether in policy terms the provision of the dwellings outweighs the sustainability issues. From inspection of the plans provided no anticipated highway safety or capacity concerns would be raised to this proposal. If the LPA are minded to grant planning consent, I would ask several conditions and informatives be noted. 6.3 CDC - Environmental Health Given the former land uses at the site, Condition N21G should be applied. All waste arisings must be disposed of in accordance with current Waste Regulations. It is not stated how the dwelling will be heated - if an oil powered boiler is to be installed condition L09F should be applied. During construction of the dwelling, measures should be taken to minimise emissions to air from dust. Lorries transporting dusty materials should have their loads covered and roads should be swept to avoid dust being tracked off-site. There should be no on-site bonfires and if there are any asbestos containing materials to be disposed of, the Asbestos Regulations should be adhered to. 6.4 Agricultural Adviser The nursery offers both retail and wholesale plants. Mr de Geus [the Applicant] informed me that direct selling to the public from the nursery is the principal source of revenue for the business. Plant plugs, plant cuttings and seeds are all grown at the nursery. This helps to guarantee there is a wide range of growth stages of plants at the unit. Mr de Geus operates the business himself with some casual help at peak times. The greenhouse is divided into zones namely: - Sales (plant display, plants for sale with public access); Growing On (no access to the public); Propagation (no access to the public); Cold Store (no access to the public); and, Storage (no access to the public). Having all these areas within the greenhouse is a clear sales advantage as the customer is able to see the plants development in the different zones prior to being Page 92 available for purchase. This allows the customer to have some visual link with the plants they purchase and is clearly a useful marketing ploy exploited by Mr de Geus. Assessment of Need: Ability: It was clear in my discussions with Mr de Geus that he has considerable experience in nursery management and the propagation of plants. The layout of the nursery illustrated an understanding of nursery production cycles and detailed knowledge of the needs of the plants being grown and subsequently sold at the nursery. The nursery has been in situ for some time and clearly has a reputation for quality with a strong customer base. Sustainability: The facilities are well maintained and have been kept in a good condition. The business has generated sufficient levels of income to maintain an investment programme. The Chichester area is one of the most important locations in the country for nursery production and is now probably the only remaining region with substantial areas of production under glass. The reasons for this include good transport connections, and having the highest annual average houses of sunshine recorded in the UK. Most of the glasshouse production in the area is whole sale and sent across the UK. Having a diverse range of growers who can and do direct sales is crucial for the area. The general public have in recent years preferred to shop local so being able to buy locally grown plants direct from the grower is important. The nursery at 76(a) Lockgate Road run by B de Geus is therefore providing a valuable service to the community. For these reasons I consider the nursery sustainable and have every chance of remaining so. Viability: Financial information is no longer a prerequisite for agricultural and horticultural dwelling assessments. The nursery unit subject to this application must be viable and capable of remaining so. During the site visit it was evident that Mr de Geus had a clear understanding of the commercial aspects of the business and I was told the current turnover and profit levels. On this basis I consider the business to be viable and capable of remaining so. Need for the dwelling: It was evident to me during the site visit and my discussions with Mr de Geus that his application is genuine and that there is a genuine and essential need for this nursery business to live on site. Based on the evidence I therefore consider the application for an agricultural/horticultural dwelling at 76(a) Lockgate Road, Sidlesham justified. Conclusions: 1. This is a well-managed and operated nursery business selling direct to the public; 2. It is important to have a diverse range of glasshouse businesses in the area; and, 3. Having a new agricultural/horticultural dwelling attached to the nursery is justified. 6.5 No letters of objection have been received. Page 93 6.6 The application has received 1no. third party letter of support. The letter is from the neighbouring occupier on the south side of Lockgate Road. The letter highlights its support for the scheme, but would like to see the overall design improved. 6.7 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information In addition to the plans and form submitted with the application, the applicant has also provided additional supporting information including a Supporting Planning Statement. The Supporting Statement highlights the history of the site as a Horticultural Nursery, together with an assessment of the Planning Policy and details the essential need for a new agricultural workers dwelling on the site. The application is also supported by a short Design and Access Statement and separate Biodiversity Report. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for Sidlesham Parish at this time. 7.2 The principle planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: RE1: Rural Area Generally RE12: Rural Diversification BE11: New Development TR6: Highway Safety 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan (Key Policies and Proposed Modifications) 2014 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 37: Accommodation for Agricultural and other Rural Workers Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas Policy 51: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area. National Policy and Guidance Page 94 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decisiontaking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), together with Sections 3, 6, and 7 generally. 7.6 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: A1: A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow B1: Managing a changing environment D4: Understanding and meeting community needs E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) The principal of supporting a new agricultural workers dwelling; Page 95 ii) iii) iv) v) Impact on the character and appearance of the locality; Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; Highway safety and car parking; and, Impact on the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area. Assessment i) The principal of supporting a new agricultural workers dwelling 8.2 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a 3-bedroomed, family home for an established horticultural nursery, known as Ann's Plants located in Sidlesham. The site, a former Land Settlement Association (LSA) holding has operated as a nursery for 50 years. The nursery business was jointly operated by Mrs Ann Meager and Messrs Henk de Geus and Ben de Geus, with Mrs Meager providing the supervisory role living on site at 76 Lockgate Road. Mr Henk de Geus relinquished his controlling share of the business to his son, Mr Ben de Geus due to poor health, and now Mrs Meager has retired from horticulture, and has also relinquished her share of the business to Mr Ben de Geus. The property at 76 Lockgate Road is privately owned by Mrs Meager and has no direct connection with Mr B de Geus or his operation of the nursery. 8.3 The nature of the operation, as defined by the Council's Agricultural Adviser, Mr Marshall, clearly acknowledges the essential need to provide a permanent dwelling on the site to ensure the continued operation of the business without compromising the viability of the crops. The continued investment into the business as outlined in the Planning Statement demonstrates the viability of the business, and whilst the glasshouses are not extensive, the extensive range of plants, and the various means of propagation require continuous monitoring in extremely carefully controlled environments, and if necessary immediate action in the event of a failure of electrical supply. 8.4 Mr de Geus is the sole full time employer of the site, and whilst additional seasonal workers are required during the summer months, during the winter months, living on site is considered essential to ensure the viability of the crop and the continued operation of the business. Therefore, having regard to the advice in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy 37 of the emerging Local Plan, it is considered that the provision of a new dwelling in the rural area is acceptable, and would meet the needs for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. ii) Impact on the character and appearance of the locality 8.5 The site is located on a disused field situated between the glasshouse and Lockgate Road. Lockgate Road is predominantly characterised by open fields, glasshouses and a scattering of residential properties along the length of the road. Most properties are related to a farmstead or horticultural activity. The site's road frontage comprises a well-established hedgerow with a single gated access point into the site. The proposed dwelling would be sited approximately 15.5m from the front of the site, and 21m from the edge of the highway. The existing mature Oak tree on the sites frontage would be retained as part of the development of the site. Given the location of the site, with the substantial glasshouses to the north of the property, and the extent of the boundary vegetation to the south and east, with a wider area of vegetation to the west, views of the property would be limited, and largely restricted to the site entrance. Page 96 8.6 The provision of enhancements to the landscaping along the main access road to the Nursery (to the east of the site) would further minimise any visual impact on the character and appearance of the rural character of this part of Lockgate Road, which is predominantly characterised by a scattering of residential properties along its length. It is therefore considered that the provision of a new agricultural workers dwelling, set in a well landscaped site would not significantly alter the visual appearance of the wider landscape setting, and would not therefore detrimentally impact upon its character or appearance. Additionally landscaping could be provided to further enhance the existing boundary treatment. iii) Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers 8.7 The nearest neighbouring property is that of Mrs Meager at 76 Lockgate Road. 76 Lockgate Road is located approximately 55m to the east of the proposed site of the new agricultural workers dwelling. The main access road is situated between the two properties and therefore, it is considered that the likely level of impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers would be minimal, and therefore unlikely to have a detrimental impact on their residential amenity. iv) Highway safety and parking 8.8 The site area outlined to be defined as the new residential curtilage for the dwelling measures 33m by 35.5m, with the remaining land within the applicant's ownership being in agricultural use associated with the Nursery. The comments from WSCC Highways have been noted and the provision of a bound surface for the driveway and the positioning of the gates would be subject to appropriately worded Conditions. 8.9 Given the line of the road, and the width of the verge beyond the site's front hedgerow, it is considered that the enhancement of the existing field access would not result in additional harm to the safety of other road users. In terms of car parking provision, whilst no specific details on car parking provision has been provided, there is sufficient space on the site to provide the required level of car parking and turning, the details of which would be required by Condition. 8.10 It is therefore considered that the provision of a new agricultural workers dwelling on the site would not compromise highway safety, and subject to appropriately worded conditions, can provide sufficient space for parking, turning, alterations to the access and secure cycle parking. v) Impact on Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area 8.11 The site lies within 5.6km of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area, where there is a requirement to provide mitigation against recreational disturbance as a result of the net increase in residential accommodation. Accordingly, the Applicant has provided a signed S106 Unilateral Undertaking and made financial contributions towards the mitigation. Significant Conditions 8.12 The application is recommended for approval subject to a number of conditions including the restriction on the occupation of the proposed dwelling by a person solely or mainly working in agriculture (including horticulture). Other conditions shall include Page 97 materials and finishes of the proposed dwelling, landscaping details, access improvements, and cycle and vehicle parking. Conclusion 8.13 Based on the above assessment, it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.14 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. 8.15 In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded there would be no breach if planning permission were to be granted. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT WITH S106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A01F Time Limit - Full U93801 - No Departure from Plans U93802 - Agricultural Occupation U93803 - No Extensions without Approval U93804 - No Walls/Fences without Approval K01H Landscaping K02G Landscaping U93805 - Access Details U93806 - Car Parking/Turning N34F Bin Storage/Secure Cycle Parking U93807 - No external Lighting INFORMATIVES 1 2 3 U93810 - Need for Highway Authority Consent W23F Residential Curtilage W44F Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Peter Kneen on 01243 534734 Page 98 Agenda Item 12 Agenda Item Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 27 May 2015 By Head of Planning Local Authority Chichester District Council Application No: SDNP/14/06501/HOUS Validation Date 17 December 2014 Target Date: 11 February 2015 Applicant: Mr and Mrs Elliott Proposal: Alterations, restoration and enhancement works including replacement extension and associated landscape works. Site Address Goldrings Kent House Lane East Harting Petersfield West Sussex GU31 5LS Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision Recommendation: That the application be Refused for the reasons set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report. Executive Summary This application proposes external and internal works to a Grade II listed building including a two storey side extension and replacement of windows and works to the roof at Goldrings, East Harting. The proposals are considered to result in harm to the character and appearance of a property of significance in the South Downs National Park. The application involves a significant extension to the side of the property which will replace an existing single storey side extension with double gable and a single storey rear extension with flat roof. On balance, the side extension is not considered to be in conflict with local or national policy. However, the redevelopment proposals include the wholesale replacement of windows within the listing building with slim profile double glazing which would result in a material change to the character and appearance of the building. This would result in less than substantial harm to the listed building but does not result in public benefit. The application when considered as a whole results in development which is in conflict with national and local policy which seeks to protect Page 99 heritage assets. This is application is considered to also be in conflict with the first purpose of the National Park designation. 1. 1.1 Site Description The site Goldrings is a Grade II listed building sited in the Rural Area, as defined by the Development Plan. The application site lies just outside the Conservation Area of East Harting and 500m east of the Settlement Policy Area of South Harting. 1.2 The property lies to the South of Kent House Lane where the Grade II listed property Kent House is located (240m north). The property is also in close proximity to The Grade II listed 'The Mead House' (90m to the south east). 1.3 Kent House Lane is a single track road with access to the small number of dwellings on it. The road is also used to access the South Harting Water Treatment Works. A Public Right of Way runs west to east approximately 150m from the dwelling. 1.4 The property Goldrings is a detached Grade II listed property which is accompanied by the following listing details: "Goldrings (Formerly listed as 18.6.59 Goldring) II House. C17 or earlier timberframed building with infilling of clunch and red brick with curved braces. Flush brick stringcourse. Hipped tiled roof with pentice at north end. Casement windows. One storey and attic. Three windows. Two dormers." 1.5 Both the listing and the Listed Building Assessment submitted with the application make reference to the dwelling being constructed earlier than the 17th Century. Page 20 of the applicants Listed Building Assessment makes reference to 8 phases of the dwelling, with the first (construction) around 1500 AD as a three bay timber framed house with central hall and upper floors at either end. This a particularly unique form of 'box type' construction of which its internal architectural interest is thought to be very rare in West Sussex. Goldrings represents one of the earliest examples of this construction type in the County (Applicants Listed Building Assessment). 1.6 The property has been extended since its initial construction, though the historic core of the building remains legible and intact. The property now appears as a two storey dwelling with 3 dormer windows to the front elevation with a cat slide projection to the north and east. The property has two chimney stacks one from the hip/ridge projection and one is externally added to the south. The rear of the property has three small dormer windows within the roof profile. 1.7 There is a single storey double gable side extension on the south elevation of the property. This forms a garden room and bedroom. The side extension was initially one gable; a second gable was granted permission in 1999 under planning references 99/00880/DOM and 99/00879/LBC and provides an additional bedroom at ground floor level. There is no available information on whether the pre-commencement conditions regarding the approval of materials were ever formally agreed, which would have included the type of glazing. The extension includes the use of double glazing. The extension is constructed of brick and faced with local stone and reclaimed clay tile. The extension is shielded from view Page 100 by vegetation which also provides some privacy for those using the outdoor swimming pool which is directly to the south of the existing extensions. 1.8 There is also a single storey flat roof extension to the rear of the property (C. 1970s). 2. Relevant Planning History SDNP/14/01715/LIS. Alterations and ground floor single storey rear extension and associated landscape works. Withdrawn SDNP/14/01713/HOUS. Alterations and ground floor single storey rear extension and associated landscape works. Withdrawn SDNP/13/03893/LIS. Alterations and ground floor single storey rear extension and associated landscape works. Withdrawn SDNP/13/03891/HOUS. Alterations and ground floor single storey rear extension and associated landscape works. Withdrawn SDNP/12/02806/LDE. Use of land as residential garden land. Permit 3. Proposal 3.1 This application proposes significant works to Goldrings including the demolition of the flat roof extension to the rear and the side extension to the south of the property. The resulting replacement extension will include a family room, breakfast room and kitchen with utility room and a toilet. A bedroom with ensuite will be formed within the roof with stairs central to the extension. The extension would have a depth of 5.7m and a width of 13.8m, an eaves height of 1.9m and ridge height of 6.8m. The roof profile would be hipped with flat roofed dormers on the north, west and south elevations of the extension. 3.2 Also proposed as part of the works to the house is the replacement of the windows throughout the whole property with double glazing with the intended use of the product 'Slimlite glazing', a slim profile double glazing. There are currently 17 windows on the historic property 14 are timber casement and a further 3 are later additions of metal framed or Crittal. Nine of the windows are early examples of double glazing but do not have the benefit of any listed building consent. Also proposed is the installation of roofing underlay and the fixing of existing holes in the roof which have caused damp and rusting in some of the window casements. 3.3 An application for Listed Building Consent for the same development runs parallel to this application-SDNP/14/06502/LIS. 4. Consultations Design & Implementation - Historic Buildings Advisor - CDC Consultation response to application Goldrings is a medieval building at the west end of the early medieval hamlet of East Harting. Whilst it is acknowledged that simplifying and consolidating the Page 101 extension is likely to represent a benefit to the listed building, as stated in the advice in response to the Preliminary Enquiry (SDNP/14/03342/PRE) it is important to keep the extension subordinate to the original building, with the height of the ridge kept to the minimum feasible to maintain viable headroom. It was also advised that the application should include a roof plan showing how the connection between the new and existing roof forms will be resolved and that the fenestration, particularly to the side (south) elevation should be reviewed, especially the triple bi-fold doors and the form of the dormers which do not have to copy those on the house. Additional detail should be provided in support of this application, particularly in respect of a larger scale detail or section indicating how the junction between the two roof forms is to be resolved and a section indicating headroom which dictates the overall height of the extension. The fenestration to the south should also be reviewed in line with previous advice. The dormers as drawn add further bulk and massing to the roofscape, particularly that to the west hipped end and as stated in the PE Advice, the dormers should be reduced in size so that they are of a less bulky design, possibly matching those on the house which sit under a slightly raised roof slope representing less intrusion or interruption of the roofscape. Please be advised that glazing to the dormer cheeks would be avoided. Given the high level of significance and amount of surviving historic interest, a condition should be added to provide for a full schedule of the works affecting the historic fabric and structure of the original building to be approved prior to commencement. Please also condition the following: o Approval of window and door details throughout, including where existing windows/doors are to be replaced in timber. Within the envelope of the listed building all windows and doors are to be in single-glazing, unless it can be established that the existing double-glazing has listed building consent. o Approval of a sample panel of new stonework o Provision of dormer details o Approval of material samples to include brick and tile Email Correspondence from the Conservation and Design team to the applicant, 31 March 2015 There remains fundamental concern with the proposed use of double-glazing to the core of the listed building as detailed in my email of 12 March, unless it can be substantiated that the extant double-glazing exists in an authorised capacity. It is certainly problematic to replace single-glazing, even in modern windows, with double-glazing. Whilst slim-lite double-glazing is acceptable to the extension in Page 102 this instance, 16mm should be resisted as this normally requires exaggerated glazing bar details to allow support this thickness. The principle of resisting double glazing to listed buildings was agreed with Development Management in 2008 and we need to be consistent and equitable to all applicants. We would expect one of the conservation benefits arising from the agreement to an extension to be the opportunity that it presents to replace inappropriate modern glazing. We would generally only consider it in special circumstances, for example bringing a redundant building back into a viable use such as old industrial buildings with specific conservation issues (at Risk). Email Correspondence from the Conservaiton and Design Manager to the Applicant 21 April 2015. "In terms of impact, windows are key to the character of historic buildings. A minor change like increasing the thickness of glazing bars can have a dramatic impact on the character of a window. Reflections are also extremely important: in a smallpaned window, each pane reflects at a slightly different angle, resulting in broken reflection lines across the window. This variation is lost when dummy glazing bars are planted onto the face of a large sheet of glass. Old glass itself has a unique character: crown glass has radiating ripples and is widely found in small-paned Georgian windows, while the cylinder glass commonly found in windows made after 1845 has parallel ripples. Both distort reflections across the pane, adding character to the appearance of the building." Parish Council Consultee No objection - the Committee was pleased to see the removal of the 20th Century extensions. 5. Representations 1 representations received. No third party representations received 6. Policy Context 6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010 Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight Page 103 should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks. 6.2 National Park Purposes The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are: To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes. 6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010 In addition to the above, the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are considered to relevant to the determination of this planning application: Paragraphs 14, 17, 58, 64, 131, 132, 133, 134 Section 7,11,12 Section 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is also relevant to the determination of the application. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF, the following policies of the Development Plan are considered to be consistent with the Framework: 6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case: General Policy 1 Conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures. General Policy 9 The significance7 of the historic environment is protected from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are exploited. 7. Planning Policy The following policies of the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999) are relevant to this application: Page 104 CHBE11 (CH)New Development CHBE12 (CH)Alterations, Extensions And Conversi CHBE4 (CH)Buildings Of Architectural Or Histor CHBE5 (CH)Alterations To Listed Buildings CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Genera 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 In the determination of this proposal the principle planning issues are: - The impact of the scale and design of the side extension on the significance of Goldrings - The proposed materials to be used in the extension and the replacement of existing windows within the building with double-glazed units - The impact of the development on the South Downs National Park. The impact of the scale and design of the side extension on the significance of Goldrings 8.2 The extension is considered to be sympathetic to the host dwelling and whilst representing a significant increase in floor space, it does not result in a loss of historic fabric of the listing building and replaces and consolidates existing extensions which are less sympathetic. The design has responded to the advice from the Conservation and Design Team to improve the scheme and some amendments have been made from the originally submitted scheme. 8.3 The scale, though larger than the existing side extension, does not result in a form of extension which will further harm the host dwelling and the main listed element of the building. The extension benefits from being slightly detached from the host dwelling and is subservient in profile, albeit on higher ground. The main mass of the building is projected to the rear and away from the main vantage points. It is noted that the established hedge line, if retained, would continue to prevent wider views of the development. 8.4 The design of the extension is thought to reflect some of the more modern additions to the host dwelling such as dormers and historic elements such as a low eaves line. The hipped roof profile also echoes the host dwelling. The fenestration detail is slightly different which contributes, with the different built profiles, for a visual distinction between old and new. 8.5 The proposal includes the removal of a single storey flat roof projection to the rear and the re-instatement of an external wall where the materials and finishes are proposed to match the existing. This is considered to be beneficial to the listed building, and allows the original form of the historic building to be read more easily. 8.6 It is considered, on balance, that whilst this proposal results in a significant extension to a listed building it results in the removal of less sympathetic elements and replacement with a consolidated more detached form. The design of the extension would not result in further harm to the character and appearance of the listed building or result in an irreplaceable loss of historic fabric. This is consistent Page 105 with policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review (1999). The proposed materials to be used in the extension and the replacement of existing windows within the building with double-glazed units 8.7 Materials proposed in the extension The materials to be used in the construction of the extension are proposed to match the existing host dwelling. Plan 3112-107 details that where there is a need for new tiles (in the repair of the roof and in the new extension) these will be handmade plain clay tile to match existing. The existing stone work on the dwelling includes Clunch and information suggests that a natural stone to match existing is proposed. Sussex stone features in the dressing around the stone work and a replica Sussex brick would also be used. These materials are considered appropriate and will weather over time to blend with those on the host dwelling. They are considered appropriate and consistent with policy. 8.8 This application proposes the extensive restoration of the property as a whole, of which the extension forms a significant part. Also proposed is the replacement of windows on the host dwelling. The windows and doors proposed in the extension are to be slim double glazing at 16mm. 8.9 The extension is seen as visually separate from the host dwelling and the use of double glazing ('Slimlite' 16mm in depth) is considered to be acceptable in this part of the proposal. This is a new structure which replaces an existing extension and therefore whilst attached to the listed building is not thought to result in harm to the appearance of the listed building. The glazing is to be set into painted timber casements which are considered appropriate in the extension. 8.10 8.11 Materials proposed in the host dwelling. In principle, the use of double glazing is strongly resisted in the host dwelling as it is considered that it results in less than substantial harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the building and therefore adversely affects the character and appearance of the listed building. The windows in the building at present are typically singular glazed in timber casements though there is also a mix of metal and crittal and some early double glazing which does not appear to have ever had Listed Building Consent. It is considered that better U values can be achieved for the listed building which better retain the historic character of the building without the use of double glazing. Whilst double glazing might enable better U values, improvements can also be achieved through less invasive measures that simultaneously protect the buildings character, appearance and integrity. By virtue of its Grade II listed status Goldrings is significant to the cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park. Its historic core represents an early construction type which is attributed to the second half the 15th Century. Its later additions and extension are also significant and represent the change of agricultural rural dwellings over the last 500 years. It is known to have housed farm workers and more than 2 families with a total of 16 adults at one time. It now forms a dwelling for one family and since its listing in 1959 has undergone some modification. Page 106 8.12 On page 74 of the applicants Listed Building Assessment the following is written under the title 'Impact Assessment'. "The applicant has accepted that the significance of the Listed Building could be adversely affected by the proposal if historic fabric were not protected from unnecessary loss or damage and if the character of the building was not protected from inappropriate additions, alterations or intrusions." 8.13 The applicant wishes to use double glazing and considers it to be an environmentally sustainable solution and a significant enhancement to the property. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is a mix of double glazed timber, metal and crital windows with a mix of glazing types, the loss of appearance and character from single glazing to double glazing is considered to cause harm to the character and appearance of the building. 8.14 Historic England has provided guidance on the updating, treatment and care for historic buildings in a response to climate change. In their most recent guidance issued in April 2015 'Traditional Windows: Their Care, Repair and Upgrading' they note in reference to slim profile Insulated Glass Units (IGUs) , "if used in multipaned windows, IGUs will generally be less efficient than secondary glazing…many replacement windows are made instead with a single IGU with timber glazing bars or leaded lights applied to the surface. It is highly unlikely that this arrangement will be acceptable for listed buildings and is very likely to severely affect the integrity of historic buildings in conservation areas and elsewhere". 8.15 In the same document Historic England also state, "Windows glazed with slimprofile IGUs do not replicate the qualities of historic single glazing. Their detailing cannot precisely match that of historic fenestration. Therefore, where the significance of a building warrants an accurate copy of a historic window, this should be single glazed and consideration given to draught sealing or secondary glazing or compensatory measures to enhance energy efficiency in other parts of the building." 8.16 The advice issued by Historic England is not new advice but has been re-issued due to the increasing demand for slim profile glazing in listed buildings. In 2012 Historic England stated, "windows make a major contribution to character of historic buildings and every effort should be made to retain them…the replacement of existing windows with double glazed can in many cases lead to a change in appearance, particually the flatness of new glass and the need for thick timber sections glazing bars" (English Heritage, 'Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings: Secondary glazing for windows', 2012). 8.17 In terms of sustainability, it is considered that the current design of IGUs (Slimprofile glazing) in terms of energy used in their construction have pay back periods that greatly exceed their design life, especially for units filled with inert gases- which is applicable to Goldrings with the use of Krypton and Exenon which are heavy elements (Letter from Douglas Briggs Partnership, 23 April 2015; Historic England, 2015). The units are also difficult to repair and recycle which is not environmentally friendly when considering the whole life-cycle (Historic England, 2015). The lifespan of current IGUs is estimated to be between 15 and 25years. It is therefore considered that the use of slim profile double glazing is not considered to deliver sustainable benefits that significantly outweigh the harm they Page 107 generate to the significance of Grade II listed buildings generally and in the specific case to that of Goldrings itself. 8.18 It is considered that if the replacement of windows within the listed building were to be double glazed units this would cause harm to the character and appearance of the property. The view taken by officers on this matter is consistent with other cases the Council has dealt with across the whole District, Historic England Advice and National and Local Planning Policy. 8.19 The Historic Building Advisor has been consistent in the responses given to the application and continued to resist the use of double glazing in the host dwelling and this is a position that has been supported previously at appeal. It is also considered a reasonable approach given that the use of double glazed units in the extension is considered to be acceptable. The comments provided by the HBA are: "Given the high level of significance and amount of surviving historic interest, a condition should be added to provide for a full schedule of the works affecting the historic fabric and structure of the original building to be approved prior to commencement. Please also condition the following: - Approval of window and door details throughout, including where existing windows/doors are to be replaced in timber. Within the envelope of the listed building all windows and doors are to be in single-glazing, unless it can be established that the existing double-glazing has listed building consent." 8.20 In the light of these comments, the harm from the use of IGUs in Goldrings is considered against policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review (1999). This application is in conflict with policy BE4 because the replacement of single glazing with slim profile IGU is not considered to preserve the buildings special architectural and historic features and the alteration is not sufficiently justified. The proposal is also in conflict with Policy BE5 because the detailing of materials, in this case the glazing in the listed building, is not appropriate to the character of the listed building. The replacement of existing inappropriate and harmful windows with another form of windows which themselves result in harm to the character and appearance of a listed building is also in conflict with the first purpose of the National Park to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park. 8.21 National Policy in the National Planning Policy Framework in paragraph 131 states that in the determination of planning applications the Local Planning Authority should take account of the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality. An appeal decision for the Grade II listed building in Hambledon, Waterlooville within the South Downs National Park for the use of slimlite glazing was dismissed. The Inspector found that the replacement of the windows would provide limited economic benefit. The Inspector also accordingly found that the replacement of windows would cause significant harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the building (APP/Y9507/E/13/2208915). There is no supporting information within the application that the replacement of windows from single glazing to IGU would result inn an improvement in energy consumption that could not be reasonably achieved through other methods and therefore there is limited demonstrated economic benefit of the scheme. The Inspector subsequently dismissed the appeal (APP/Y9507/E/13/2208915) noting that, "...The fact that Page 108 double glazed units, which are inherently modern in concept and give a different appearance to single glazing, are proposed in a window designed to replicate a vernacular window does not, to my mind, achieve the objective of restoration as the new windows would simply be a replacement of one inappropriate feature with another. This would fail to better reveal the significance of the asset." 8.22 It is concluded that the use double glazing would result in significant harm to the significance of Goldrings. Paragraph 134 states Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Public benefit should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. The National Planning Guidance on public benefit explains it as the following: Public benefits may include heritage benefits, such as: o sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting o reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset o securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset in support of its long term conservation 8.23 In this application the use of the property as a viable dwelling is not prevented by the use of single glazing. The use of double glazing, which causes less than substantial harm, does not sustain or enhance its significance, reduce or remove risks to the heritage asset. This proposal and the use of double glazing in the listed building do not result in public benefit which outweigh the harm that would be caused to the listed building. 8.24 In conclusion the use of double glazing units in the new extension is considered to be acceptable however the use of double glazing, albeit slimmer in profile, is considered not to deliver a public, economic or sustainable benefit by their introduction to the Grade II listed building that would outweigh the harm caused by their use as an inappropriate replacement and loss of historic fabric of a building. 8.25 The impact of the development on the South Downs National Park. The National Park places great weight on the preservation of the historic environment. The first purpose of the National Park is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. One of 7 special qualities of the South Downs National Park and its reasons for designation is the well-conserved historical features and rich cultural heritage. Policy 9 of the Partnership Management Plan is to protect the significance of the historic environment from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are exploited. It is considered that given the resulting harm from the use of double glazing to the character and appearance of the listed building this application is in conflict with the purpose of the National Park, and its reasons for designation and policy within the Partnership Management Plan. 9. Conclusion 9.1 No objection is raised, on balance, to the proposed extension. However, the replacement of existing windows within the listed building to slim profile IGU is considered to harm the character and appearance of the building. This application is in conflict with Policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Plan First Page 109 Review (1999). It is also in conflict with the South Downs National Park reasons for designation and its first purpose to; 'conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage'. The application has been considered against the National Planning Policy Framework and is found to be in conflict with it and the staturory tests set out at sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This application is therefore recommended for refusal. 10. Recommendation It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons: 1. The application as been assessed and determined on the basis of the following plans: Plan Type Plans - Reference 3112-106A Version Date on Plan 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-107A 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-104A 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-103A 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-108 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-109 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-110 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-111 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-112 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-113 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-114 04.03.2015 Status Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Reasons: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 02. It is considered that despite the limited harm that the new extension exerts and the historic gain from the removal on inappropriate extensions the replacement of existing historic fabric in regards of the windows within the listed building to slim profile IGU is considered to significantly harm the character and appearance of the property. This application is in conflict with Policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Plan First Review (1999). It is also in conflict with the first statutory purpose of the South Downs National Park and policy 9 of the South Downs National Park Partnership Management Plan. The application is Page 110 also in conflict with paragraphs 115, 131, 132 and 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 11. Crime and Disorder Implications 12. Human Rights Implications 13. Equalities Act 2010 Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority Case Officer Details Name: Rhiannon Jones Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected] Page 111 Appendix 1 Site Location Map This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Downs National Park Authority, Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale). Page 112 Agenda Item 13 Agenda Item Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 27 May 2015 By Head of Planning Local Authority Chichester District Council Application No: SDNP/14/06502/LIS Validation Date 17 December 2014 Target Date: 11 February 2015 Applicant: Mr and Mrs Elliott Proposal: Alterations, restoration and enhancement works including replacement extension and associated landscape works. Site Address Goldrings Kent House Lane East Harting Petersfield West Sussex GU31 5LS Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision Recommendation: That the application be Refused for the reasons set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report. Executive Summary This application proposes external and internal works to a Grade II listed building including a two storey side extension and replacement of windows and works to the roof at Goldrings, East Harting. The proposals are considered to result in harm to the character and appearance of a property of significance in the South Downs National Park. The application involves a significant extension to the side of the property which will replace an existing single storey side extension with double gable and a single storey rear extension with flat roof. On balance, the side extension is not considered to be in conflict with local or national policy. However, the redevelopment proposals include the wholesale replacement of windows within the listing building with slim profile double glazing which would result in a material change to the character and appearance of the building. This would result in less than substantial harm to the listed building but does not result in public benefit. The application when considered as a whole results in development which is in conflict with national and local policy which seeks to protect Page 113 heritage assets. This is application is considered to also be in conflict with the first purpose of the National Park designation. 1. 1.1 Site Description The site Goldrings is a Grade II listed building sited in the Rural Area, as defined by the Development Plan. The application site lies just outside the Conservation Area of East Harting and 500m east of the Settlement Policy Area of South Harting. 1.2 The property lies to the South of Kent House Lane where the Grade II listed property Kent House is located (240m north). The property is also in close proximity to The Grade II listed 'The Mead House' (90m to the south east). 1.3 Kent House Lane is a single track road with access to the small number of dwellings on it. The road is also used to access the South Harting Water Treatment Works. A Public Right of Way runs west to east approximately 150m from the dwelling. 1.4 The property Goldrings is a detached Grade II listed property which is accompanied by the following listing details: "Goldrings (Formerly listed as 18.6.59 Goldring) II House. C17 or earlier timberframed building with infilling of clunch and red brick with curved braces. Flush brick stringcourse. Hipped tiled roof with pentice at north end. Casement windows. One storey and attic. Three windows. Two dormers." 1.5 Both the listing and the Listed Building Assessment submitted with the application make reference to the dwelling being constructed earlier than the 17th Century. Page 20 of the applicants Listed Building Assessment makes reference to 8 phases of the dwelling, with the first (construction) around 1500 AD as a three bay timber framed house with central hall and upper floors at either end. This a particularly unique form of 'box type' construction of which its internal architectural interest is thought to be very rare in West Sussex. Goldrings represents one of the earliest examples of this construction type in the County (Applicants Listed Building Assessment). 1.6 The property has been extended since its initial construction, though the historic core of the building remains legible and intact. The property now appears as a two storey dwelling with 3 dormer windows to the front elevation with a cat slide projection to the north and east. The property has two chimney stacks one from the hip/ridge projection and one is externally added to the south. The rear of the property has three small dormer windows within the roof profile. 1.7 There is a single storey double gable side extension on the south elevation of the property. This forms a garden room and bedroom. The side extension was initially one gable; a second gable was granted permission in 1999 under planning references 99/00880/DOM and 99/00879/LBC and provides an additional bedroom at ground floor level. There is no available information on whether the pre-commencement conditions regarding the approval of materials were ever formally agreed, which would have included the type of glazing. The extension includes the use of double glazing. The extension is constructed of brick and faced with local stone and reclaimed clay tile. The extension is shielded from view Page 114 by vegetation which also provides some privacy for those using the outdoor swimming pool which is directly to the south of the existing extensions. 1.8 There is also a single storey flat roof extension to the rear of the property (C. 1970s). 2. Relevant Planning History SDNP/14/01715/LIS. Alterations and ground floor single storey rear extension and associated landscape works. Withdrawn SDNP/14/01713/HOUS. Alterations and ground floor single storey rear extension and associated landscape works. Withdrawn SDNP/13/03893/LIS. Alterations and ground floor single storey rear extension and associated landscape works. Withdrawn SDNP/13/03891/HOUS. Alterations and ground floor single storey rear extension and associated landscape works. Withdrawn SDNP/12/02806/LDE. Use of land as residential garden land. Permit 3. Proposal 3.1 This application proposes significant works to Goldrings including the demolition of the flat roof extension to the rear and the side extension to the south of the property. The resulting replacement extension will include a family room, breakfast room and kitchen with utility room and a toilet. A bedroom with ensuite will be formed within the roof with stairs central to the extension. The extension would have a depth of 5.7m and a width of 13.8m, an eaves height of 1.9m and ridge height of 6.8m. The roof profile would be hipped with flat roofed dormers on the north, west and south elevations of the extension. 3.2 Also proposed as part of the works to the house is the replacement of the windows throughout the whole property with double glazing with the intended use of the product 'Slimlite glazing', a slim profile double glazing. There are currently 17 windows on the historic property 14 are timber casement and a further 3 are later additions of metal framed or Crittal. Nine of the windows are early examples of double glazing but do not have the benefit of any listed building consent. Also proposed is the installation of roofing underlay and the fixing of existing holes in the roof which have caused damp and rusting in some of the window casements. 3.3 An application for planning permission for the same development runs parallel to this application-SDNP/14/06501/HOUS. 4. Consultations Parish Council Consultee No objections - the Committee was pleased to see the removal of the 20th century extensions Page 115 Design & Implementation - Historic Buildings Advisor - CDC Consultation response to application Goldrings is a medieval building at the west end of the early medieval hamlet of East Harting. Whilst it is acknowledged that simplifying and consolidating the extension is likely to represent a benefit to the listed building, as stated in the advice in response to the Preliminary Enquiry (SDNP/14/03342/PRE) it is important to keep the extension subordinate to the original building, with the height of the ridge kept to the minimum feasible to maintain viable headroom. It was also advised that the application should include a roof plan showing how the connection between the new and existing roof forms will be resolved and that the fenestration, particularly to the side (south) elevation should be reviewed, especially the triple bi-fold doors and the form of the dormers which do not have to copy those on the house. Additional detail should be provided in support of this application, particularly in respect of a larger scale detail or section indicating how the junction between the two roof forms is to be resolved and a section indicating headroom which dictates the overall height of the extension. The fenestration to the south should also be reviewed in line with previous advice. The dormers as drawn add further bulk and massing to the roofscape, particularly that to the west hipped end and as stated in the PE Advice, the dormers should be reduced in size so that they are of a less bulky design, possibly matching those on the house which sit under a slightly raised roof slope representing less intrusion or interruption of the roofscape. Please be advised that glazing to the dormer cheeks would be avoided. Given the high level of significance and amount of surviving historic interest, a condition should be added to provide for a full schedule of the works affecting the historic fabric and structure of the original building to be approved prior to commencement. Please also condition the following: o Approval of window and door details throughout, including where existing windows/doors are to be replaced in timber. Within the envelope of the listed building all windows and doors are to be in single-glazing, unless it can be established that the existing double-glazing has listed building consent. o Approval of a sample panel of new stonework o Provision of dormer details o Approval of material samples to include brick and tile Email Correspondence from the Conservation and Design team to the applicant, 31 March 2015 There remains fundamental concern with the proposed use of double-glazing to the core of the listed building as detailed in my email of 12 March, unless it can be substantiated that the extant double-glazing exists in an authorised capacity. It is certainly problematic to replace single-glazing, even in modern windows, with double-glazing.Whilst slim-lite double-glazing is acceptable to the extension in this instance, 16mm should be resisted as this normally requires exaggerated glazing bar details to allow support this thickness. Page 116 The principle of resisting double glazing to listed buildings was agreed with Development Management in 2008 and we need to be consistent and equitable to all applicants. We would expect one of the conservation benefits arising from the agreement to an extension to be the opportunity that it presents to replace inappropriate modern glazing. We would generally only consider it in special circumstances, for example bringing a redundant building back into a viable use such as old industrial buildings with specific conservation issues (at Risk). Email Correspondence from the Conservaiton and Design Manager to the Applicant 21 April 2015. "In terms of impact, windows are key to the character of historic buildings. A minor change like increasing the thickness of glazing bars can have a dramatic impact on the character of a window. Reflections are also extremely important: in a smallpaned window, each pane reflects at a slightly different angle, resulting in broken reflection lines across the window. This variation is lost when dummy glazing bars are planted onto the face of a large sheet of glass. Old glass itself has a unique character: crown glass has radiating ripples and is widely found in small-paned Georgian windows, while the cylinder glass commonly found in windows made after 1845 has parallel ripples. Both distort reflections across the pane, adding character to the appearance of the building." 5. Representations 0 representations received. No third party representations received 6. Policy Context 6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010 Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks. 6.2 National Park Purposes The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are: Page 117 To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes. 6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010 In addition to the above, the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are considered to relevant to the determination of this planning application: Paragraphs 14, 17, 58, 60, 61, 64, 131, 132, 133, 134 Sections 7,11,12 Section 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is also relevant to the determination of listed building and planning applications. These state respectively: 'In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.' and 'In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.' In accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF, the following policies of the Development Plan are considered to be consistent with the Framework: 6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case: 7. Planning Policy The following policies of the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999) are relevant to this application: CHBE11 (CH)New Development CHBE12 (CH)Alterations, Extensions And Conversi Page 118 CHBE4 (CH)Buildings Of Architectural Or Histor CHBE5 (CH)Alterations To Listed Buildings CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Genera 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 In the determination of this proposal the principle planning issues are: - The impact of the scale and design of the side extension on the significance of Goldrings - The proposed materials to be used in the extension and the replacement of existing windows within the building with double-glazed units - The impact of the development on the South Downs National Park. The impact of the scale and design of the side extension on the significance of Goldrings 8.2 The extension is considered to be sympathetic to the host dwelling and whilst representing a significant increase in floor space, it does not result in a loss of historic fabric of the listing building and replaces and consolidates existing extensions which are less sympathetic. The design has responded to the advice from the Conservation and Design Team to improve the scheme and some amendments have been made from the originally submitted scheme. 8.3 The scale, though larger than the existing side extension, does not result in a form of extension which will further harm the host dwelling and the main listed element of the building. The extension benefits from being slightly detached from the host dwelling and is subservient in profile, albeit on higher ground. The main mass of the building is projected to the rear and away from the main vantage points. It is noted that the established hedge line, if retained, would continue to prevent wider views of the development. 8.4 The design of the extension is thought to reflect some of the more modern additions to the host dwelling such as dormers and historic elements such as a low eaves line. The hipped roof profile also echoes the host dwelling. The fenestration detail is slightly different which contributes, with the different built profiles, for a visual distinction between old and new. 8.5 The proposal includes the removal of a single storey flat roof projection to the rear and the re-instatement of an external wall where the materials and finishes are proposed to match the existing. This is considered to be beneficial to the listed building, and allows the original form of the historic building to be read more easily. 8.6 It is considered, on balance, that whilst this proposal results in a significant extension to a listed building it results in the removal of less sympathetic elements and replacement with a consolidated more detached form. The design of the extension would not result in further harm to the character and appearance of the listed building or result in an irreplaceable loss of historic fabric. This is consistent with policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review (1999). Page 119 The proposed materials to be used in the extension and the replacement of existing windows within the building with double-glazed units 8.7 Materials proposed in the extension The materials to be used in the construction of the extension are proposed to match the existing host dwelling. Plan 3112-107 details that where there is a need for new tiles (in the repair of the roof and in the new extension) these will be handmade plain clay tile to match existing. The existing stone work on the dwelling includes Clunch and information suggests that a natural stone to match existing is proposed. Sussex stone features in the dressing around the stone work and a replica Sussex brick would also be used. These materials are considered appropriate and will weather over time to blend with those on the host dwelling. They are considered appropriate and consistent with policy. 8.8 This application proposes the extensive restoration of the property as a whole, of which the extension forms a significant part. Also proposed is the replacement of windows on the host dwelling. The windows and doors proposed in the extension are to be slim double glazing at 16mm. 8.9 The extension is seen as visually separate from the host dwelling and the use of double glazing ('Slimlite' 16mm in depth) is considered to be acceptable in this part of the proposal. This is a new structure which replaces an existing extension and therefore whilst attached to the listed building is not thought to result in harm to the appearance of the listed building. The glazing is to be set into painted timber casements which are considered appropriate in the extension. 8.10 Materials proposed in the host dwelling. In principle, the use of double glazing is strongly resisted in the host dwelling as it is considered that it results in less than substantial harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the building and therefore adversely affects the character and appearance of the listed building. The windows in the building at present are typically singular glazed in timber casements though there is also a mix of metal and crittal and some early double glazing which does not appear to have ever had Listed Building Consent. It is considered that better U values can be achieved for the listed building which better retain the historic character of the building without the use of double glazing. Whilst double glazing might enable better U values, improvements can also be achieved through less invasive measures that simultaneously protect the buildings character, appearance and integrity. 8.11 By virtue of its Grade II listed status Goldrings is significant to the cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park. Its historic core represents an early construction type which is attributed to the second half the 15th Century. Its later additions and extension are also significant and represent the change of agricultural rural dwellings over the last 500 years. It is known to have housed farm workers and more than 2 families with a total of 16 adults at one time. It now forms a dwelling for one family and since its listing in 1959 has undergone some modification. 8.12 On page 74 of the applicants Listed Building Assessment the following is written under the title 'Impact Assessment'. "The applicant has accepted that the significance of the Listed Building could be adversely affected by the proposal if historic fabric were not protected from Page 120 unnecessary loss or damage and if the character of the building was not protected from inappropriate additions, alterations or intrusions." 8.13 The applicant wishes to use double glazing and considers it to be an environmentally sustainable solution and a significant enhancement to the property. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is a mix of double glazed timber, metal and crital windows with a mix of glazing types, the loss of appearance and character from single glazing to double glazing is considered to cause harm to the character and appearance of the building. 8.14 Historic England has provided guidance on the updating, treatment and care for historic buildings in a response to climate change. In their most recent guidance issued in April 2015 'Traditional Windows: Their Care, Repair and Upgrading' they note in reference to slim profile Insulated Glass Units (IGUs) , "if used in multipaned windows, IGUs will generally be less efficient than secondary glazing…many replacement windows are made instead with a single IGU with timber glazing bars or leaded lights applied to the surface. It is highly unlikely that this arrangement will be acceptable for listed buildings and is very likely to severely affect the integrity of historic buildings in conservation areas and elsewhere". 8.15 In the same document Historic England also state, "Windows glazed with slimprofile IGUs do not replicate the qualities of historic single glazing. Their detailing cannot precisely match that of historic fenestration. Therefore, where the significance of a building warrants an accurate copy of a historic window, this should be single glazed and consideration given to draught sealing or secondary glazing or compensatory measures to enhance energy efficiency in other parts of the building." 8.16 The advice issued by Historic England is not new advice but has been re-issued due to the increasing demand for slim profile glazing in listed buildings. In 2012 Historic England stated, "windows make a major contribution to character of historic buildings and every effort should be made to retain them…the replacement of existing windows with double glazed can in many cases lead to a change in appearance, particually the flatness of new glass and the need for thick timber sections glazing bars" (English Heritage, 'Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings: Secondary glazing for windows', 2012). 8.17 In terms of sustainability, it is considered that the current design of IGUs (Slimprofile glazing) in terms of energy used in their construction have pay back periods that greatly exceed their design life, especially for units filled with inert gases- which is applicable to Goldrings with the use of Krypton and Exenon which are heavy elements (Letter from Douglas Briggs Partnership, 23 April 2015; Historic England, 2015). The units are also difficult to repair and recycle which is not environmentally friendly when considering the whole life-cycle (Historic England, 2015). The lifespan of current IGUs is estimated to be between 15 and 25years. It is therefore considered that the use of slim profile double glazing is not considered to deliver sustainable benefits that significantly outweigh the harm they generate to the significance of Grade II listed buildings generally and in the specific case to that of Goldrings itself. 8.18 It is considered that if the replacement of windows within the listed building were to be double glazed units this would cause harm to the character and appearance Page 121 of the property. The view taken by officers on this matter is consistent with other cases the Council has dealt with across the whole District, Historic England Advice and National and Local Planning Policy. 8.19 The Historic Building Advisor has been consistent in the responses given to the application and continued to resist the use of double glazing in the host dwelling and this is a position that has been supported previously at appeal. It is also considered a reasonable approach given that the use of double glazed units in the extension is considered to be acceptable. The comments provided by the HBA are: "Given the high level of significance and amount of surviving historic interest, a condition should be added to provide for a full schedule of the works affecting the historic fabric and structure of the original building to be approved prior to commencement. Please also condition the following: - Approval of window and door details throughout, including where existing windows/doors are to be replaced in timber. Within the envelope of the listed building all windows and doors are to be in single-glazing, unless it can be established that the existing double-glazing has listed building consent." 8.20 In the light of these comments, the harm from the use of IGUs in Goldrings is considered against policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review (1999). This application is in conflict with policy BE4 because the replacement of single glazing with slim profile IGU is not considered to preserve the buildings special architectural and historic features and the alteration is not sufficiently justified. The proposal is also in conflict with Policy BE5 because the detailing of materials, in this case the glazing in the listed building, is not appropriate to the character of the listed building. The replacement of existing inappropriate and harmful windows with another form of windows which themselves result in harm to the character and appearance of a listed building is also in conflict with the first purpose of the National Park to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park. 8.21 National Policy in the National Planning Policy Framework in paragraph 131 states that in the determination of planning applications the Local Planning Authority should take account of the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality. An appeal decision for the Grade II listed building in Hambledon, Waterlooville within the South Downs National Park for the use of slimlite glazing was dismissed. The Inspector found that the replacement of the windows would provide limited economic benefit. The Inspector also accordingly found that the replacement of windows would cause significant harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the building (APP/Y9507/E/13/2208915). There is no supporting information within the application that the replacement of windows from single glazing to IGU would result inn an improvement in energy consumption that could not be reasonably achieved through other methods and therefore there is limited demonstrated economic benefit of the scheme. The Inspector subsequently dismissed the appeal (APP/Y9507/E/13/2208915) noting that, "...The fact that double glazed units, which are inherently modern in concept and give a different appearance to single glazing, are proposed in a window designed to replicate a vernacular window does not, to my mind, achieve the objective of restoration as the new windows would simply be a replacement of one Page 122 inappropriate feature with another. This would fail to better reveal the significance of the asset." 8.22 It is concluded that the use double glazing would result in significant harm to the significance of Goldrings. Paragraph 134 states Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Public benefit should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. The National Planning Guidance on public benefit explains it as the following: Public benefits may include heritage benefits, such as: o sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting o reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset o securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset in support of its long term conservation 8.23 In this application the use of the property as a viable dwelling is not prevented by the use of single glazing. The use of double glazing, which causes less than substantial harm, does not sustain or enhance its significance, reduce or remove risks to the heritage asset. This proposal and the use of double glazing in the listed building do not result in public benefit which outweigh the harm that would be caused to the listed building. 8.24 In conclusion the use of double glazing units in the new extension is considered to be acceptable however the use of double glazing, albeit slimmer in profile, is considered not to deliver a public, economic or sustainable benefit by their introduction to the Grade II listed building that would outweigh the harm caused by their use as an inappropriate replacement and loss of historic fabric of a building. 8.26 The impact of the development on the South Downs National Park. The National Park places great weight on the preservation of the historic environment. The first purpose of the National Park is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. One of 7 special qualities of the South Downs National Park and its reasons for designation is the well-conserved historical features and rich cultural heritage. Policy 9 of the Partnership Management Plan is to protect the significance of the historic environment from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are exploited. It is considered that given the resulting harm from the use of double glazing to the character and appearance of the listed building this application is in conflict with the purpose of the National Park, and its reasons for designation and policy within the Partnership Management Plan. 9. Conclusion 9.1 No objection is raised, on balance, to the proposed extension. However, the replacement of existing windows within the listed building to slim profile IGU is considered to harm the character and appearance of the building. This application is in conflict with Policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Plan First Review (1999). It is also in conflict with the South Downs National Park reasons for designation and its first purpose to; 'conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage'. The application has been considered against the Page 123 National Planning Policy Framework and is found to be in conflict with it and the staturory tests set out at sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This application is therefore recommended for refusal. 10. Recommendation It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons: 1. The application as been assessed and determined on the basis of the following plans: Plan Type Plans - Reference 3112-107A Version Date on Plan 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-106A 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-104A 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-103A 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-108 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-109 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-110 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-111 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-112 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-113 04.03.2015 Plans - 3112-114 04.03.2015 Status Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Not Approved Reasons: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 02. It is considered that despite the limited harm that the new extension exerts and the historic gain from the removal on inappropriate extensions the replacement of existing historic fabric in regards of the windows within the listed building to slim profile IGU is considered to significantly harm the character and appearance of the property. This application is in conflict with Policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Plan First Review (1999). It is also in conflict with the first statutory purpose of the South Downs National Park and policy 9 of the South Downs National Park Partnership Management Plan. The application is also in conflict with paragraphs 115, 131, 132 and 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 11. Crime and Disorder Implications Page 124 12. Human Rights Implications 13. Equalities Act 2010 Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority Case Officer Details Name: Rhiannon Jones Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected] Page 125 Appendix 1 Site Location Map This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Downs National Park Authority, Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale). Page 126 Agenda Item 14 Agenda Item Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 27 May 2015 By Head of Planning Local Authority Chichester District Council Application No: SDNP/14/02332/HOUS Validation Date 25 April 2014 Target Date: 20 June 2014 Applicant: Mr and Mrs Hardwick Proposal: Construction of new 2 storey rear extension following demolition of existing two-storey extension and re-roofing part of existing building of construction of new entrance porch. Site Address Springhead Marley Lane Camelsdale Linchmere Haslemere West Sussex GU27 3RE Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision Recommendation: That the application be Approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report. Executive Summary The application is to be determined by the Planning Committee as the applicant is a Member of the Council. Springhead is a Grade II Listed Building set within large, landscaped grounds and within the Camelsdale and Hammer Conservation Area. Planning permission and Listed Building Consent are sought for the demolition of an existing flat roofed two storey extension, the construction of a pitched roof extension and associated internal alterations, and the demolition of the existing porch and provision of a new porch. The existing flat roof elements to be demolished are contemporary additions to the property, and the proposed extension is acceptable in relation to the character of the host property. The revised design of the porch has addressed previous concerns regarding the scale and design of the proposed replacement porch. As such the proposal is considered to comply with the applicable national and local plan policies. Page 127 1. Site Description 1.1 Springhead is sited close to the northern boundary of Chichester District, south of Shottermill Ponds and west of Marley Lane. The site lies within the Camelsdale and Hammer Conservation Area and just within the boundaries of the South Downs National Park. 1.2 Springhead House is Grade II listed, and was originally a timber framed house dating from the 15th century. The property was extended in the C17, refaced and altered in the C18 and extended further in the C19 and C20. The dwelling as it currently stands comprises two floors with the first floor partly contained within the roof. The building is faced with coursed sandstone with galletting, red brick dressings and quoins, under a hipped clay tiled roof with small gablets. The east elevation has three gabled dormers and a gable roofed bay each with decorative and plain clay tile hanging. Two large chimneys are visible. There is a 2m tall historic stone wall to part of the north eastern boundary of the dwelling mostly concealed by ivy. Because of the existing mature hedging on the site boundaries and the vegetation within the verge to the east, only the roof of the dwelling is currently visible from Marley Lane. The dwelling is set close to the northern boundaries of the roughly triangular site that is approximately 168m when measured north to south. 1.3 The garden lies to the south of the property rising up to the south and most notably up to the west. This western part of the garden contains a vegetable patch and is seperated by a 3m high hedge, with the land rising sharply to the western boundary.The existing vehicular access is 15m to the south east of the dwelling and provides access to Marley Lane (D class) via an unclassified road and public footpath known as Brinksway that runs parallel to the eastern boundary of Springhead southwards to Marley Common. There is an additional point of pedestrian access onto Marley Lane in the north eastern corner of the site. Marley Lane is a D class road. 2. Relevant Planning History SDNP/13/05733/PRE - Construction of two storey rear extension following demolition of an existing two storey rear extension. Pre-application advice given. SDNP/13/04395/HOUS - Swimming Pool - Approved 2013 SDNP/13/02477/PRE - Replace derelict tanks/pool and pond and filtration system with semi-submerged swim unit and build shed for pump unit/changing - Preapplication Advice 2013 09/05087/DOM - Proposed timber gates onto Marley Lane - PER 2010 07/03369/LBC - Walls demolished, doors opened up and blocked in, level change removed, flat roof dormer replaced, oak framed glazed roof over existing courtyard, plastic guttering replaced with cast iron - PER 2007 97/01416/DOM - Demolition of greenhouses and erection of garage outbuilding with garden store/playroom above and modification of entrance gates - PER 1997 Page 128 3. Proposal 3.1 The application seeks planning permission and Listed Building Consent for the demolition of an existing flat roof element with a basement below, and the replacement of this structure with a two storey extension with a pitched roof. The existing structure has a footprint of 3.7m x 5.5m. The replacement structure would have a footprint of 5.6m x 5.8m. Alterations also include a replacement roof over the games room, internal alteration to facilitate the new layout, and the removal of a chimney. 3.2 Revised plans have been received during the course of the application to reduce the scale of the proposed porch on the east elevation, and revising the design or a gable of similar proportions to the dormer above. 4. Consultations Design & Implementation - Historic Buildings Advisor - CDC D No Objection subject to amendment There remains some concern with regards to the scale of the replacement porch to the principle (east) elevation, which is the oldest part of the cottage. Whilst replacement in principle is not problematic, this appears oversized and crowds the bay, dormer and windows to the elevation here. This should be reduced in scale. Please condition: o material samples o door, rooflight and window details o dormer details Parish Council Consultee This application was considered by Lynchmere Parish Council at a meeting on 3rd June 2014; no objection is raised providing that Listed Building Consent is obtained. 5. Representations 2 representations received. One third party comment has been received,neither objecting to or supporting the Planning Application. This comment states: In line with future proofing good practice and to improve access, the Chichester Access Group (CAG) requests that level access is provided to at least one entrance of the new Extension, together with the fitting of 900 mm doorways, where new, and that regard is given to the height of the fitting of new electrical outlets, in line with Part M. CAG also requests that the Shower/WC is replaced by a Wet Room or a Wheelchair Accessible Shower Room, with WC to facilitate access to wheelchair users and other disabled residents and visitors. Page 129 6. Policy Context 6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010 Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks. 6.2 National Park Purposes The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are: To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes. 6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010 National Planning Policy Framework: Core Principles: Section 7 (Good Design), 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) and 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment). Sections 66 and 72 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation) Act 1990 6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case: Page 130 General Policy 1 Conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures. General Policy 9 The significance7 of the historic environment is protected from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are exploited. 7. Planning Policy The following policies of the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999) are relevant to this application: CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Genera CHBE4 (CH)Buildings Of Architectural Or Histor CHBE5 (CH)Alterations To Listed Buildings CHBE6 (CH)Conservation Areas CHBE11 (CH)New Development CHBE12 (CH)Alterations, Extensions And Conversi CHH12 (CH)Replacement Dwellings And Extensions 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 There are considered to be two main issues within this proposal. These are: - The siting, scale and design of the proposed alterations and extensions and their impact on the character and fabric of the Listed Building and character of the Conservation Area; The impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties Issue 1: Siting, scale and design and impact on the character and fabric of the Listed Building and the impact on the character of the Conservation Area. 8.2 Initially the proposal was subject of a pre-application enquiry. Officers noted that cartographic records confirm that the flat roof volume is contemporary with the significant scope of early twentieth-century extension to the rear (west) of the building, though its overtly contrasting roof form and relationship with the adjacent volumes appears to suggest it was a later addition. On this basis and given the relationship with the more historic parts of the building, removal of the addition and chimney here and internal rearrangement (stairs, glazed double doors) did not appear problematic. In respect of the porch, it was advised that The size and scale of the replacement porch should be reduced so it sits more proportionately against the eastern elevation and enabling a gap to be created between the ridge of the porch and the first floor window. 8.3 The proposed alterations and extensions to dwelling are considered to be modest, appropriate additions to the dwelling, which appear subservient and would preserve the character and fabric of the Listed Building. Page 131 8.4 The design of the porch has been revised through discussions with officers during the course of the application and is now of a size, design and position where it reflects the design of the gabled dormers above, and does not dominate that roofslope. As such it is considered to be acceptable. 8.5 Although the property is within the Conservation Area it is well screened from public viewpoints by mature boundary vegetation, especially on the western boundary. Therefore in the context of its setting it is considered that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not adversely impact on the wider landscape character of the area. Issue 2: Impact on neighbour amenity 8.6 In terms of the impact on neighbours, given the position of the proposed extension, set back from the northern boundary, and the existing boundary treatment and position of neighbouring development, there is not considered to be any adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties as a result of the proposal. 9. Conclusion Taking the above into consideration, the proposal is considered suitable in terms of visual impact and impact upon the setting of a listed building. The character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be preserved. It is therefore recommended that the application is approved subject to appropriate conditions. 10. Recommendation It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below 01. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Plan Type Plans - Proposed floor plans Plans - Proposed sections and elevations Plans - Existing Plans, Sections and Elevations Plans - Block and Location Plan Reference 13-1375-10 Version D Date on Plan 09.04.2015 Status Approved 13-1375-11 E 09.04.2015 Approved 13-1375-01 B 25.04.2014 Approved 13-1375-03 A 25.04.2014 Approved Reasons: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 02. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Page 132 Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)./ To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 03. No development shall be carried out unless and samples of materials and finishes to be used for external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall be undertaken in complete accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and to ensure a building of visual quality. 04. No development shall take place unless and until full details of the proposed windows, rooflights and dormers have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall be undertaken in complete accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interests of the Listed Building. 11. Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that this planning application does not raise any crime and disorder implications. 12. Human Rights Implications This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. 13. Equalities Act 2010 Due regard, where relevant, has been taken of the National Park Authority's equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010. Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority Case Officer Details Name: Mr Martin Mew Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected] Page 133 Appendix 1 Site Location Map This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Downs National Park Authority, Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale). Page 134 Agenda Item 15 Agenda Item Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 27 May 2015 By Head of Planning Local Authority Chichester District Council Application No: SDNP/15/01131/FUL Validation Date 5 March 2015 Target Date: 30 April 2015 Applicant: Chichester District Council Proposal: Proposed single storey extension to The Grange Community and Leisure Centre for use as Midhurst Neighbourhood Policing Base. Site Address The Grange Midhurst Community And Leisure Centre Bepton Road Midhurst West Sussex GU29 9HD Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision Recommendation: That the application be Approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report. Executive Summary This planning application seeks permission for a new single storey extension to the Grange Leisure Centre for use by Sussex Police as their new policing base for Midhurst. The proposal is for a modest extension to the existing building and is considered to be acceptable in principle, being a use appropriate to a town centre location. The design and appearance of the proposal is sympathetic to the host building and is considered appropriate to the character of this part of the Midhurst Conservation Area, which is preserved by the development. Page 135 Overall the building is considered to be a well designed and appropriate form of extension to the main leisure centre building that will enhance the character and appearance of the area. Reason for Committee Referral: Parish Objection 1. Site Description The Grange site is located to the south of Midhurst town centre and to the east of the A286. To the north of the site is the former Court House building, the Post Office and Grange House. The Grange Leisure Centre has been operational since March 2014 and the proposed extension is located on the north-east side of the existing building, close to Grange Road. 2. Relevant Planning History 3. Proposal 3.1 This planning application seeks permission for a single storey extension to the Grange Centre for use by Sussex Police as their new policing base in Midhurst. The project's aim is to relocate the Midhurst Police Station from its current Bepton Road location to the proposed site. The siting of the extension has been identified as being the most accessible by the public from the town centre whilst causing minimal disruption to the main leisure centre both in terms of its function and appearance. The extension is of a size that meets the minimum size requirements of the police whilst being sufficiently flexible to meet future changes of use if required. 3.2 The building is partially set into the ground and has a form that is functional with a separate entrance and is consistent in style to that of the main leisure centre building. It is proposed to construct the building from the same brick as the main leisure centre building with timber panels to match those on the south side of the building. The roof will be formed from metal sheeting that is consistent with the existing centre. 3.3 The building will contain all the facilities and public services already provided by Sussex Police at their current location in Bepton Road and will contain the following facilities: a lobby/waiting area for the public, interview room, general office, locker room and kitchen. For operational reasons the facility is required to be separate from the main leisure centre. Landscaping of the external area adjacent to the building will be enhanced as part of the proposal. 3.4 The proposal has been the subject of negotiations between the applicant and the LPA prior to the submission of the planning application. 4. Consultations WSCC - Highway The proposal outlined above will re-locate the existing policing base on Bepton Road to a new location at Midhurst Leisure Centre. Page 136 The single storey extension will be smaller than the current policing base and will provide a 60sqm community base for the police and local residents. 2 car parking spaces will be created for the policing base along the leisure centre service road, which does not form part of the public highway. These are in line with WSCC parking standards for 1 parking space for every 20sqm. Access to the proposed site can be made on foot via three routes - Grange Road from the north, Bepton Road via the car park, and Jubilee Walk. Vehicular access is made from the main leisure centre car park, which holds 303 spaces, and Grange Road via the service roads either side of the Old Court House which do not form part of the public highway. On-street parking is restricted here and although these small service roads could see an increase in drop off and pick up activity related to the policing base, enforceable parking restrictions on Grange Road are in place where stationary vehicles could cause obstructions. The site caters for sustainable travel by the policing staff and visitors. 4 cycle stands will be provided and storage for police bikes made available. The site is also sustainably located with local bus services close by given its town centre location. The proposal will not adversely affect the use of footpath 1107, which may see a slight increase in use as it provides a good link into the Jubilee Way. In summary WSCC raise no highway objection to the above proposal. WSCC Infrastructure/EIA/PROW/Minerals No response received. Community Safety Branch - CDC No response received. Design And Implementation Manager - CDC No response received. Sport and Leisure Development Manager - CDC No response received. Parish Council Consultee The Town Council welcomes the proposal to create a neighbourhood policing base but is very disappointed with the standard of the design of this proposal. The proposed extension does nothing to enhance the existing building and the roof line does not fit well with the general appearance. Members felt that there may be an alternative site to construct this extension which would better accommodate it. The Town Council OBJECTS to the application which it considers ill fitting and unsympathetic to the Conservation Area. 5. Representations 0 representations received. Page 137 6. Policy Context 6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the . The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010 Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks. 6.2 National Park Purposes The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are: To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes. 6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010 In addition, the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant to the determination of this application: Paragraphs 14, 17, 115 Sections 2, 7, 12 It is also necessary to have regard to the statutory duties set out at Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case: Page 138 General Policy 1 Conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures. General Policy 9 The significance7 of the historic environment is protected from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are exploited. General Policy 49 Maintain and improve access to a range of essential community services and facilities for communities in the National Park. General Policy 50 Housing and other development in the National Park should be closely matched to the social and economic needs of local people and should be of high design and energy efficiency standards, to support balanced communities so people can live and work in the area. 7. Planning Policy The following policies of the are relevant to this application: CHBE1 (CH)Settlement Policy Areas CHBE6 (CH)Conservation Areas CHBE11 (CH)New Development 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 The proposed Neighbourhood Policing Base is considered to be a community facility and is intended to replace the existing Police Station on Bepton Road. The site is located within the Midhurst Settlement Policy Area, the Midhurst Conservation Area and the South Downs National Park. 8.2 The main issues with this application are considered to be: o The need for the community facility and whether the principle of the development is acceptable; o The design and appearance of the proposed extension and its impact on the character and appearance of the Midhurst Conservation Area; o The impact of the proposal on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. Issue 1 - The need for the community facility and whether the principle of the development is acceptable 8.3 Within Settlement Policy Area's the principle of new development is supported subject to the details of the proposal being acceptable. Policy BE1 of the Local Plan defines the settlement policy areas and advises that development will be permitted within these areas provided it is in accordance with various other policies of the plan. The proposal is a replacement facility which is considered to be an appropriate one to be located within a town centre. It is situated within a Page 139 sustainable location in the centre of Midhurst where it can be accessed by the greatest number of people. The proposal represents the replacement of an existing community facility and as such is considered to comply with National Planning Policy as outlined in the NPPF which supports the provision of community facilities within town centre locations and policies BE1 and BE11 of the CDLP. 8.4 It is therefore considered that in principle this is an appropriate location for this facility to be relocated and that it is in accordance with policy BE1 of the Local Plan. Issue 2 - The design of the building and its impact on the character and appearance of the Midhurst Conservation Area 8.5 Policy BE1 of the Local Plan also requires that to be acceptable, proposals must accord with the other built environment policies of the plan and of particular relevance to the consideration of this planning application are policies BE6 and BE11. Policy BE6 considers development within Conservation Areas and policy BE11 considers new development generally. Policy BE6 requires that within designated Conservation Areas the District Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special architectural or historic character or appearance of the area. Policy BE11 requires that new development will not detract from its surroundings. 8.6 The impact of the building on its immediate surroundings has been a key consideration taken into account during the design process and its design has been amended following negotiations with planning officers. The building has been designed to reflect the design of the main leisure centre building and will match in terms of design detailing but also in the materials to be used in its construction which includes a good quality brick, timber detailing and metalled roof as used on the existing building. The size and shape of the building has to a degree been determined by the requirements of its function but also by a restrictive covenant directly to the east and north of the building. The natural contours of the site have been used to reduce the apparent mass of the building sinking it into the ground and as such it is considered that the scale of the building will be in proportion to some of the other significant buildings located nearby and also that it represents an appropriate form of extension to the current building. 8.7 As a consequence, the proposals are considered to preserve and enhance the character of this part of the Midhurst Conservation Area. The impact of the development on the South Downs National Park would be localised and acceptable within this urban context and the scheme therefore accords with the relevant National Park principles and complies with policies BE11 and BE6 of the Local Plan. Overall the building is considered to be well designed and appropriate form of extension to the main leisure centre building that will enhance the character and appearance of the area. Issue 3 - The impact of the proposals on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties 8.8 Policy BE11 of the Local Plan requires that new development will not detract from its surroundings including the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties. The proposal is for a replacement facility and is sited within the town centre where there are a variety of different uses including leisure, office, retail Page 140 and residential uses. It is not anticipated that this use will result in significant noise and disturbance issues that would detract from the character of the area or from the amenities of nearby residential properties. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the requirements of Policy BE11 of the CDLP 1999. 9. Conclusion 9.1 The proposal is considered to represent an appropriate form of extension to the existing building that will provide an important local facility with this town centre location. The extension is well designed and does not detract from the character and appearance of the existing building or the character and appearance of the immediate area. The proposal preserves the character of the Midhurst Conservation Area and does not detract from the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. On balance, the proposal is considered to be an acceptable form of development which will provide for the needs of the Police Service and the residents of Midhurst. 10. Recommendation It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Plan Type Plans - Location Plan (A3) Plans - Existing Site Plan (A3) Plans - Proposed Site Plan (A3) Plans - Proposed Ground Floor Plan (A3) Plans - Proposed Roof Plan (A3) Plans Plans - Proposed Views (A3) Plans - Proposed Site Visualisations (A3) Plans - Existing Site Elevations (A1) Plans - Proposed Site Elevations (A1) Plans - Existing Site Sections (A1) Plans - Proposed Site Sections (A1) Reference P100 Version A Date on Plan 05.03.2015 Status Approved P101 A 05.03.2015 Approved P201 B 05.03.2015 Approved P202 B 05.03.2015 Approved P203 A 05.03.2015 Approved P204 P950 B A 05.03.2015 05.03.2015 Approved Approved P954 A 05.03.2015 Approved P220 A 05.03.2015 Approved P221 A 05.03.2015 Approved P222 A 05.03.2015 Approved P223 A 05.03.2015 Approved Reasons: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Page 141 02. No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishes and, where so required by the Local Planning Authority, samples of such materials and finishes to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed building(s) and where appropriate surfacing materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and to ensure a building of visual quality. 03. Any walling shall conform with a sample panel of brickwork and mortar treatment which shall be erected on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work to walling is commenced and shall be maintained as approved unless any variation has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To preserve the special character of the building for the future. 04. No development shall take place unless and until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include a planting plan and schedule of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities. Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development and to comply with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. 05. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants, including any existing trees or hedgerows indicated as being retained in the approved scheme, which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development 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: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development. 06. No external lighting shall be installed either on the building or anywhere within the site. This exclusion shall not prohibit the installation of sensor controlled security lighting which shall be designed and shielded to minimise light spillage beyond the site boundary. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity. Note: Any proposed external lighting system should comply with the Institute of Lighting Engineers (ILE) guidance notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution. 11. Crime and Disorder Implications Page 142 It is considered that this planning application does not raise any crime and disorder implications. 12. Human Rights Implications This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. 13. Equalities Act 2010 Due regard, where relevant, has been taken of the National Park Authority's equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010. Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority Case Officer Details Name: John Saunders Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected] Page 143 Appendix 1 Site Location Map This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Downs National Park Authority, Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale). Page 144 Agenda Item 16 Chichester District Council Planning Committee Wednesday 27 May 2015 Report of the Head of Planning Services Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters This report updates committee members on current appeals and other matters. It would be of assistance if specific questions on individual cases could be directed to officers in advance of the meeting. Note for public viewing via Chichester District Council web site To read each file in detail, including the full appeal decision when it is issued, click on the reference number (NB certain enforcement cases are not open for public inspection, but you will be able to see the key papers via the automatic link to the Planning Inspectorate) WR H I ( ) * – – – – – Written Representation Appeal Hearing Inquiry Case Officer initials Committee level decision 1. NEW APPEALS Reference/Procedure Proposal CC/14/02551/FUL WR (C Boddy) Land Adjacent to 1 Kings Avenue Chichester West Sussex PO19 8EA - Proposed 2 bedroom detached house. * EWB/14/01806/OUT I (J Bell) Land East of Barton Way Clappers Lane Earnley West Sussex - The erection of 110 residential dwellings, new vehicular access, open space, and other ancillary works. SI/14/04214/DOM WR (M Tomlinson) Bird Pond Cottage Selsey Road Sidlesham Chichester West Sussex PO20 7NF- Erection of outbuilding comprising double garage and workshop with games over. SB/14/02843/OUT WR (V Colwell) Land East of Breach Avenue Southbourne Hampshire Development of up to 34 dwellings, access, retention of orchard, public open space and other associated works on land at Breach Avenue. SB/14/03611/DOM WR (M Tomlinson) 1 Kings Court Emsworth Hampshire PO10 8FD - Open glassroom and open glazed canopy. SDNP/14/05301/HOUS WR (C Cranmer) Petworth 4 Wellfield Cottages Tipper Lane South Harting Petersfield West Sussex GU31 5QN - Loft conversion with rear dormer and front porch amendment to refused application SDNP/14/ 03063 rear dormer reduced in size. Page 145 2. DECISIONS RECEIVED Reference/Decision BO/14/02085/DOM Pheasant Lodge Old Park Lane Bosham – proposed entrance WR (S Locke) porch. ALLOWED "...The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an entrance porch at Pheasant Lodge... The main issue is the effect of the proposed porch on the character and appearance of Pheasant Lodge and the setting of Church Farm (now Field House) which is listed grade II. Pheasant Lodge is a residential conversion of a former cart shed...lightweight construction with fully glazed windows and doors... no significant detrimental impact on the modest rural character of the building that is an important element of its heritage significance and the contribution it makes to the setting of Field House... adverse impact on the natural beauty of the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or the rural setting of the listed farmhouse...conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and special interest of the cart shed and preserve also the setting of Church Farm (now Field House)..." PS/14/03297/OUT WR (F Stevens) ALLOWED Bradstow Lodge The Drive Ifold Loxwood Billingshurst Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 3 no detached dwellings. "...The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of 3 No detached dwellings at Bradstow Lodge, The Drive, Ifold, Loxwood, Billingshurst, West Sussex RH14 0TE... The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and whether it would be likely to adversely affect protected wildlife species...The proposal would clearly increase the density of development on the plot but it would still be of an acceptably low density comparable with recent housing schemes in the area and would not result in an over development of the site. All the new houses would have good sized private gardens, similar to those of the dwellings in the more recent backland developments. The parking and access arrangements, whilst different from that on the linear plots in the area, would be an appropriate design solution to this triangular shaped corner plot. The proposed new houses would not be particularly prominent given their modest height and the retained landscaping screen, despite the site's location on the corner of the two roads. Their scale and density would be in keeping with recent development in the area. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area... The Council considered the appellants' initial biodiversity survey to be deficiently lacking in detail, a view with which I concur. However, they have submitted as part of this appeal a full preliminary ecological appraisal or Phase 1 Habitat Survey1. This concludes that whilst there are likely to be bats on-site a detailed mitigation strategy would be devised as part of a Phase 2 summer dusk emergence Survey. It also suggests ecological enhancements for the benefit of wildlife... I consider this can be adequately tackled by a condition requiring such a Phase 2 survey prior to development commencing and the putting in place of an appropriate bat mitigation strategy should such a survey reveal roosting bats... I therefore conclude that, subject to such a condition, the proposed development would not be likely to adversely affect legally protected wildlife species..." Page 146 Reference/Decision TG/14/03166/COUPJ WR (S Harris) DISMISSED Lincoln House City Fields Way Tangmere Chichester Change of use of existing building 2 storey office building, Class B1, (approx. 672 sqm) to Class 3, 8 no units comprising 4 no 1 bed units and 4 no 2 bed apartments TG/14/03148/COUPJ WR (S Harris) DISMISSED Exeter House 220 City Fields Business Park Tangmere Part 3, Class J: Change of use of existing building (approx 816 sqm) from Class B1 (offices) to Class C3 (dwelling houses), 12 no apartments comprising 2 no 1 bed unit and 10 no 2 bed apartments (6 units on each floor). TG/14/03149/COUPJ WR (S Harris) DISMISSED Salisbury House Tangmere Chichester - Change of use of existing building (approx 1055 sqm) Class B1 offices, to Class C3, 11 no apartments comprising 1 no 1 bed unit and 10 no 2 bed apartments. "…There separate applications were submitted in respect of adjacent buildings and this has resulted in three appeals being lodged. The Council refused all the applications for the same reason and evidence presented on appeal, by both parties, is the same in each case. I have found no reason to reach a different conclusion in relation to any of the schemes and so I have issued one comprehensive decision. The proposals seek to make use of the permitted right conferred by Part 3, Class J of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. Subject to the exceptions set out in paragraph J1., Class J provides that development consisting of a change of use falling with Class C3 (dwelling houses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order (UCO) from a use falling within Class B1(a) (offices) of that Schedule is permitted development...the applications are refused on the basis that Condition of the original grant of planning permission for the buildings effectively removes permitted development rights rendering the prior approval regime nonapplicable. The Council makes this case in light of Article 3(4) of the GPDO, which states that "nothing in this Order permits development contrary to any condition imposed by any planning permission granted or deemed to be granted under Part III of the Act otherwise than by this Order"... the main issue in all three cases is whether Condition 9 of the original grant of planning permission is effective in removing permitted development rights under Part 3, Class J of Schedule 2 to the GPDO... In respect of the issue of whether the condition acts to prevent the exercise of permitted development rights, the Council has drawn my attention to an appeal decision concerning a proposed change of use from offices to residential under Class J in Bosham, Chichester. In that case, a condition of the original grant of planning permission read" the premises shall be used only for the purposes within Use Class B1 as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987", with the reason being "to comply with the area". Referring to the Judgement in the case of the Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited v SSCLG (2013) EWHC 3597, the Inspector concluded that the condition before him did go far enough in restricting the use of the land so that a change of use to residential would be contrary to Article 3(4) of the GPDO. In putting the contrary argument that the wording of Condition 9 now at hand does not withdraw permitted development rights, the appellant refers to an appeal decision in Oxford in which the Inspector found that a restrictive condition acted simply to specify the use granted by the original planning permission.... Clearly then, the appeal decisions upon which the parties rely appear to conflict and in determining the relative weight to be given to them, I have considered the London Mutual Judgement it in its entirety... In the case before her, Mrs Justice Patterson found that the use of the phrase "shall be for" was prescriptive; and that the word "only" precluded uses other than the bulky trades specified (paragraph 28)... she regards the use of the word "only" emphatic, because when given its plain Pageas147 and ordinary meaning, it means solely or exclusively...Therefore, following the Judge's reasoning in respect of the condition now before me, I consider that the use of the words "shall be used", followed by the word "only" in relation to Use Classes B1 and B8, clearly impose an enduring restriction on the use of the appeal premises for any other purpose... For the reasons given above, I conclude that Condition 9 of the original grant of planning permission is effective in removing permitted development rights under Part 3, Class J of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. To grant approval in this case would therefore be contrary to the terms of Article 3(4) of the GPDO and so the appeals should be dismissed..." Page 148 3. OUTSTANDING APPEALS Reference/Status Proposal BI/14/23356/PLD WR (F Stevens) In progress Martins Lea Martins Lane Birdham Chichester, PO20 7AU Construction of driveway to Lock Lane, in connection with additional hard surfacing. BO/14/03124/OUT WR (P Kneen) In progress Ruddles Sunnyway Bosham Chichester, PO18 8HQ Construction of chalet bungalow in part of garden. *CC/14/02201/FUL WR (P Kneen) In progress Garage Compound South of 39 to 45 Cleveland Road Chichester West Sussex - Proposed residential development to form 3 no 3 bedroom detached houses with associated gardens and garages. *CC/14/02308/FUL WR (M Tomlinson) In progress 36 Stirling Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 7DT Replacement of redundant old garage with a single dwelling of chalet design. CC/14/03359/PDE WR (H Chowdhury) Awaiting decision 18 Juxon Close Chichester West Sussex PO19 7AA - Single storey rear extension (a) rear extension - 4.0m (b) maximum height - 3.7m (c) height at eaves - 2.3m. CC/14/03646/TPA WR (H Whitby) In progress 7 Donegall Avenue Chichester West Sussex PO19 6DE Fell 1 no Lime tree (tag T642) within Group, G1 subject to CC/06/00025/TPO. CH/13/03978/FUL WR (S Harris) In progress Land on The East Side of Cot Lane Chidham - Residential development comprising 25 no. dwellings, change of use of land to form area of off-site public open space and associated work. CH/14/01342/FUL I (N Langford) Buildings B C and D Lion Park Broad Road Hambrook Chidham Chichester West Sussex PO18 8RG Development of 25 no dwellings (4 no 1 bed and 21 no 2 bed) with associated parking and amenity space, in place of commercial blocks B, C and D approved under 09/04314/ OUT and 11/01764/REM (resubmission of 13/00984/FUL). CH/14/02138/OUT I (V Colwell/J Bell) In progress Land East of Broad Road Hambrook West Sussex Residential development of 120 single and two storey dwellings comprising 48 affordable homes and 72 market price homes, garaging and parking together with retail unit, sports pavilion, community facility, new vehicular and pedestrian access to Broad Road, emergency and pedestrian access to Scant Road West, sports facilities, 2 tennis courts, football pitch and 4 cricket nets, children’s play area, public open space and natural green space on a site of 9.31 ha. Page 149 Reference/Status Proposal *SDNP/14/01085/FUL WR (D Price) Ebernoe In progress Wassell Barn Ebernoe Petworth GU28 9LD – Replacement dwelling. SDNP/14/03530/HOUS WR (C Cranmer) Furnhurst In progress Baldwins Ropes Lane Fernhurst Haslemere West Sussex GU27 3JD – Erection of detached outbuilding. * LX/13/03809/OUT I (N Langford) Public Inquiry to be held 8-11 Sept, CDC Com Rm 2 at 10 am Land South of Loxwood Farm Place High Street Loxwood – erection of 25 no residential dwellings comprising of 14no private residential dwellings and 11 no affordable residential dwellings, associated private amenity space and parking. LX/14/01214/FUL WR (M Tomlinson) In progress Brewhurst Mill House Brewhurst Lane Loxwood Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0RJ - Part conversion of Brewhurst Mill to dwelling. LX/14/01215/LBC WR (M Tomlinson) In progress Brewhurst Mill House Brewhurst Lane Loxwood Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0RJ - Part conversion of Brewhurst Mill to dwelling. SDNP/14/04890/HOUS & SDNP/14/04891/LIS WR ( C Cranmer) Lurgashall In progress Wheelwrights House Hill Grove Lurgashall Petworth GU28 9EW - Demolition of existing two storey addition and conservatory; erection of two storey extension and conservatory at rear. SDNP/14/02271/HOUS Midhurst WR (M Mew) In progress The Old Cottage Bepton Midhurst GU29 0JB – Conservatory Linked to SDNP/14/02272/LIS. SDNP/14/02272/LIS Midhurst WR (M Mew) In progress The Old Cottage Bepton Midhurst GU29 0JB - Conservatory Linked to SDNP/14/02271/HOUS. SDNP/14/03765/FUL WR (M Mew) Milland In progress Fairleads Wheatsheaf Enclosure Liphook Hampshire GU30 7EJ - Replacement dwelling substituting existing 4 bed house to create a 5 bed home. SDNP/13/04972/FUL Northchapel H (J Saunders) In progress Hillgrove Stud Farm London Road Northchapel West Sussex GU28 9EQ - Retention of agricultural workers mobile home for temporary period of 3 years. Page 150 Reference/Status Proposal SDNP/14/00373/OPDEV WR (R Hawks) Petworth In progress Stillands Shillinglee Road Shillinglee Northchapel Godalming West Sussex GU8 4SX - Creation of a bank. PS/14/01968/OUT WR (P Kneen) In progress Land West of The Lane Ifold Loxwood – residential development comprising 4 dwellings with associated car parking and landscaping. Formation of new access from The Lane. PS/14/02579/FUL WR (M Tomlinson) In progress Kings Copse Loxwood Road Plaistow Billingshurst RH14 0PE - Construction of tennis court with 2.7 m high chain link fence. SDNP/14/04194/HOUS Rogate WR (M Mew) In progress Tollgate Cottage Durleigh Marsh Petersfield Hampshire GU31 5AX - Single storey rear extension and various works. Linked to SDNP/14/04195/LIS. SDNP/14/04195/LIS Rogate WR (M Mew) In progress Tollgate Cottage Durleigh Marsh Petersfield Hampshire GU31 5AX - Single storey rear extension and various works. Linked to SDNP/14/04194/HOUS SI/14/00012/CONMHC WR (R Hawks) In progress Willowdene Fletchers Lane Sidlesham Chichester West Sussex PO20 7QG – Mobile home. *WE/14/00911/FUL I ( J Bell) In progress Land on The North Side of Long Copse Lane Westbourne West Sussex - Erection of 16 no dwellings, vehicular and pedestrian access, car and cycle parking and landscaping WH/14/03736/LBC WR (S Locke) In progress 6 Old Place Lane Westhampnett Chichester PO18 0NL Proposed 4 no Conservation rooflights along with minor alterations. WW/13/00232/CONCOM WR (S Archer) In progress Bramber Plant Centre Chichester Road West Wittering – Portacabins being used as office – appeal against Enforcement Notice. WW/14/03344/FUL WR (P Kneen) In progress 34 and 34A Marine Drive West Wittering Chichester West Sussex PO20 8HQ - Demolition of existing residential property (two flats) and erection of 2 no 4 bedroom dwellings. WR/14/01365/FUL WR (M Tomlinson) In progress Winterfold Durbans Road Wisborough Green – replacement dwellinghouse to copy existing building with original external finishes (as amended by granted WR/13/01722). Page 151 Reference/Status Proposal WR/14/01765/FUL WR (M Tomlinson) In progress Westholme Farm Newpound Wisborough Green Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0QJ - Removal of condition no 7 of application 05/04886/FUL. WR/14/02859/FUL WR (M Tomlinson) In progress Roosters Store Durbans Road Wisborough Green Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0DG - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission WR/99/00567/FUL. 4. VARIATIONS TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS NONE 5. CALLED-IN APPLICATIONS Reference Proposal Stage NONE 6. COURT AND OTHER MATTERS Injunctions Site Breach Stage Land at Premier Site Birdham Road Stable and other preparatory works in the AONB without planning permission. Affidavit and application lodged for initial consideration by court, hearing date requested. Site Breach Stage Nell Ball Farm Plaistow Failure to comply with planning enforcement notice Prosecution was prepared, but due to the ill-health of the defendant the matter was suspended. A planning application has now been refused and legal instructed to prosecute. Final warning issued. Compliance not achieved by 5 May 2015 as required. Prosecution proceedings under way. Prosecutions Page 152 Prosecutions Site Breach 11 Milland Lane Liphook Section 43 Listed Building Compliance works started. Court Act breach proceedings prepared, Court trial date set to 5 June 2015 for trial but matter withdrawn as compliance achieved to satisfaction of client department. Dean Ale and Cider House West Dean 12 Second Avenue Emsworth Failure to comply with planning enforcement notice Failure to comply with section 215 notice. 2 Whitehart Cottages Failure to comply section 215 notice Kellys Farm Bell Lane Birdham Land at Brackenwood Fernhurst The Barnyard Stage Court proceedings prepared and authorised, Court hearing 22 May 2015. Court proceedings prepared and authorised, court hearing 22 May 2015. with Court proceedings prepared and authorised, adjourned for committal hearing on 8 July 2015. Failure to comply with Court proceedings prepared and planning enforcement authorised, Court hearing 22 May notice 2015. Failure to comply with Court proceedings prepared and planning enforcement authorised. Defence statement notice obtained from Defendant and new planning application made. Prosecution initially suspended pending further consideration of case. Prosecution withdrawn as planning application submitted and accepted by authority. Display of unauthorised Court proceedings prepared and adverts. authorised. Court date requested. Hearing 22 May 2015. High Court Site Matters Prohibited by the Stage Order Planning injunction: NONE Page 153 Magistrates Court Site Breach Stage 2 White Hart Cottages Appeal against section 215 First appeal hearing held. Application notice by subject of that statements lodged with Council 17 notice. March 2015. Following exchange of evidence case postponed until July as undertaking given to comply. 7. POLICY MATTERS NONE Page 154
© Copyright 2024