Development Control (North) Committee€¦ · Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 1ST MAY 2012 AT 5.30p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, ... site would connect the development with the

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

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation

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

Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 1ST MAY 2012 AT 5.30p.m.

COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman)

Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman) John Bailey

Andrew Baldwin Peter Burgess John Chidlow Christine Costin Helena Croft Leonard Crosbie Malcolm Curnock Laurence Deakins Duncan England Frances Haigh David Holmes

Ian Howard David Jenkins Christian Mitchell Josh Murphy Godfrey Newman Jim Rae Stuart Ritchie David Sheldon David Skipp Simon Torn Claire Vickers Tricia Youtan

You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA 1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 20th

March 2012 (attached) and 3rd April 2012 (to follow)

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

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

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

may be necessary:

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

Item No.

Ward Reference Number

Site

A1 Roffey North DC/11/1660 Enterprise House 80 Lambs Farm Road Horsham

A2 Rudgwick DC/09/1623 Windacres Farm Church Street Rudgwick

A3 Rudgwick DC/12/0006 Farnbrakes Church Street Rudgwick

A4 Nuthurst DC/12/0498 Garwyns Farm Church Lane Plummers Plain

A5 Trafalgar DC/12/0427 3 Victory Road Horsham

A6 Southwater DC/12/0186 Kirbys Two Mile Ash Horsham

A7 Southwater DC/12/0216 52 Warren Drive Southwater

A8 Trafalgar DC/11/2356 Greenway School Greenway Horsham

A9 Nuthurst DC/10/1784 Flat 1 The Warren Horsham Road Handcross Nuthurst DC/10/2126 Flat 1 The Warren Horsham Road Handcross

A10 Southwater DC/12/0210 1 Andrews Road Southwater

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

should be considered as urgent because of the special circumstances.

DCN120320

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 20TH MARCH 2012

Present: Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman), Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman),

John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Peter Burgess, John Chidlow, Christine Costin, Helena Croft, Leonard Crosbie, Malcolm Curnock, Laurence Deakins, Duncan England, Frances Haigh, David Holmes, David Jenkins, Christian Mitchell, Godfrey Newman, Stuart Ritchie, David Sheldon, Claire Vickers, Tricia Youtan.

Apologies: Councillors: Ian Howard, Josh Murphy, Jim Rae, David Skipp,

Simon Torn DCN/121 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS There were no declarations of interest. DCN/122 ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. DCN/123 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/2243 - ERECTION OF 35 DWELLINGS

(27 X 3-BED AND 8 X 4-BED) PHASE 1A OF OUTLINE PERMISSION DC/09/2138 (1044 DWELLINGS) ON LAND WEST OF WINDRUM CLOSE, HORSHAM (APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS) SITE: LAND EAST OF A24 WORTHING ROAD HORSHAM

APPLICANT: BERKELEY HOMES (SOUTHERN) LTD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services and the Head of Strategic Planning & Performance reported that, in August 2010, outline planning permission had been granted, subject to a planning agreement that secured a range of benefits associated with the proposal, for the development of up to 1044 dwellings including provision of employment floorspace, fire station, community centre and expanded school facilities along with associated highway infrastructure, public footpaths, landscaping, recreational and community facilities on 48.20 hectares of land to the east of the A24 (DC/09/2138). The scheme was to be delivered over eight phases, over a 12/13 year period completing in 2022/23. In January 2011, a Reserved Matters application for the first phase of the development comprising 196 units, including affordable units; creation of a new vehicular/pedestrian/ cycle access from Hills Farm Lane; internal highway network, footpaths, and drainage works; and formation of the related landscaping, open space and recreation facilities, including additional facilities for Tanbridge House School had been granted. The current application sought Reserved Matters approval for 35 affordable dwellings on land known as Phase 1a. The application comprised 27x 3-

Development Control (North) Committee 20th March 2012

2

DCN/123 Planning Application: DC/11/2243 (cont.) bed units and 8x 4-bed units. The timescale for the delivery, type of dwelling, tenure, location and size of site for the affordable units was specified within the planning agreement attached to the Outline planning permission. The application sought approval for all reserved matters: access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, and was supported by a number of technical reports. A number of plans had been submitted to with application illustrating the site layout, street scenes, floor plans and elevations of the proposed dwellings, together with access and parking provision of 46 car parking spaces and refuse and recycling storage/ specified collection points. Indicative details had also been provided of the strategy for hard and soft landscaping. A pedestrian link to the north of the site would connect the development with the community sports pitches and a further pedestrian link to the south of the site would link this phase with subsequent residential phases. The strategic allocated site was located approximately 1.5 kilometres from Horsham Town Centre and was bordered by the A24 on its western boundary; the Brighton/ London mainline railway to the south; Tanbridge House School to the north; and Hills Farm Lane, Henderson Way and Windrum Close to the east. Hills Farm Lane, Henderson Way and Windrum Close to the east of the development site marked the existing built up boundary, where a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties of two and to a lesser extent three storeys in height were served off a series of cul-de-sacs. The site the subject of this application fell within the southern section of the wider development site. It was accessed directly from Windrum Close, a small cul-de-sac development connected to Henderson Way by means of a T-junction. The site was bounded by Windrum Close to the east. The remainder of the development site to the south, north and west was currently agricultural land. Government Policies PPS1, PPS3, PPS7, PPS 9, PPG13, PPG17, PPS23, PPG24 and PPS25; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP 7; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC 2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC9 and DC40 were all relevant to the determination of this application. The Land West of Horsham Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (2008) and the Land West of Horsham Design Principles and Character Areas Supplementary Planning Document (2009) provided specific guidance on the visions for the development and design matters. Details of the relevant planning history were submitted. The Arboricultural Officer, Public Health & Licensing and West Sussex County Council Archaeology raised no objections to the proposal and their comments were noted. The Landscape Architect had objected to the


3

DCN/123 Planning Application: DC/11/2243 (cont.) scheme as originally proposed; provided comments in respect of additional information subsequently received; and suggested a number of conditions should the application be granted. The Design & Conservation Advisor expressed disappointment in respect of the architectural quality and layout of the proposed development. The comments of the Housing Strategy & Development Manager, West Sussex County Council Ecology, Natural England, Southern Water, Sussex Police and Saxon Weald were noted. Leisure Services supported the application. Whilst West Sussex County Council’s Highways Department raised no highway objections in principle to the application, their comments, including those in respect of car parking provision/allocation and the management of building works and construction traffic, were noted. Gatwick Airport, the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency raised no objections to the proposal. The Horsham Society and the Neighbourhood Council objected to the application and their comments were noted. Three letters of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application. It was noted that the outline planning permission had established, through the parameter plans and supporting technical information, the key principles relating to the location and scale of the main land uses, vehicular access and circulation, the pedestrian and cycle strategy, landscape strategy together with density and building heights. As a Reserved Matters application, the infrastructure and other contributions were linked to the planning agreement secured in connection with the outline planning permission DC/09/2138. This agreement set out the number, type, location and timescale for delivery of the proposed 35 affordable dwellings. The site was located within Character Area 2, as defined within the Land West of Horsham Design and Character Areas SPD, which included land adjoining Henderson Way/Windrum Close and the edge of Denne Neighbourhood to the east. This area was visually more remote from the urban edge of Horsham as it extended to the south. Details of the specific design guidance for Character Area 2 were submitted. The site layout had evolved and been amended in response to the comments of officers and Denne Neighbourhood Council. However, Members considered that the layout and design of the proposed dwellings was poor and would result in the proposal being isolated from both the existing development to the east and the new development, which would eventually be constructed to the west.

Whilst the current application proposed vehicular access from Windrum Close, Members considered that the option of providing temporary access from Windrum Close initially, with permanent access eventually being


4

DCN/123 Planning Application: DC/11/2243 (cont.) provided from the West of Horsham development should be explored. It was also noted that the County Council considered the proposed parking provision of 46 spaces for 35 three and four bed dwellings to be on the light side and Members concurred with this view. It was noted that, in order to achieve the early delivery of affordable housing in this location, construction access would need to be taken from Windrum Close as insufficient infrastructure would be in place to allow access across the site from the A24. Whilst the applicant had submitted a Construction Environmental Management Plan in support of this current phase of development, it was considered that further information would be required clearly indicating on-site areas to be used for the storage of plant and materials, temporary parking and loading and unloading of vehicles together with wheel washing facilities. Whilst the applicant had sought to address the concerns of the Council’s Landscape Architect in respect of the landscaping proposals for the site, Members considered that further improvements could be made, particularly if the layout was amended. It was noted that the surface water drainage for this phase would include features such as rainwater re-use. Members therefore considered that further work was needed, in the form of a Design Brief, to ensure that the proposed development was of an acceptable standard and well related to existing/future developments.

RESOLVED That consideration of application DC/11/2243 be deferred to secure, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee; the local Members; and Denne Neighbourhood Council, a Design Brief which considered alternative options for the layout and design of the proposed dwellings and issues relating to landscaping, access and parking, prior to reconsideration by the Committee.

The meeting closed at 7.20pm having commenced at 5.30pm. CHAIRMAN

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 1ST MAY 2012

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

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

2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service DC/11/2606 Front and rear single storey extension, front first floor extension,

incorporating replacement wall cladding. 5 Kingfisher Way, Horsham, RH12 2LT. For: Mr Mark Feltham

3. Informal Hearings

None

4. Appeal Decisions None

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1.

Contact: David Taylor Extension: 5166

TO: Development Management Committee North

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 1st May 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Change of use from retail/office (Use Class A1/B1) to a hot food

takeaway (Use Class A5) and erection of associated chimney to side elevation to service extract duct

SITE: Enterprise House, 80 Lambs Farm Road, Horsham

WARD: Roffey North

APPLICATION: DC/11/1660

APPLICANT: Mr John Relleen REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer Referral RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. Background: 1.1 This planning application was previously considered by Development Management

Committee North on the 1st November 2011 and the 6th March 2012. The resolution of the committee following the 6th March meeting was that the application be delegated for approval and during the delegation period the end user to be identified and extract and ventilation system assessed. Furthermore an additional condition was to be imposed regarding a scheme for litter management on the forecourt area in the vicinity of the application site. A copy of the previous committee reports and relevant appeal decision are attached. An assessment of the planning merits of the proposal are set out in the attached committee report. Since the application was last considered by committee a number of letters have been received expressing concerns regarding the consideration of the application. The main points raised and your officers responses are attached to this report for members information.

2. Current Position: 2.1 Condition 05 as resolved to be imposed under the previous committee resolution

stated that, “No works in connection with the A5 use hereby permitted shall take

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2.

place unless and until the precise nature of the A5 use proposed to be undertaken at the premises, together with precise details of the extraction and ventilation system proposed to be installed in connection with the A5 use, including a maintenance regime, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the use shall not be undertaken prior to the installation of the extract and ventilation system, which shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved details, unless the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variation. Thereafter both the use, together with the extract and ventilation system, including its maintenance regime, shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. No variation of the approved extract and ventilation scheme, including any changes to the type of A5 use or the cooking methods employed, shall be undertaken without prior approval in writing being obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variation, following the submission of revised details as set out above, for consideration by the Local Planning Authority. Noise from the extraction system shall not exceed 49dB(A) at 3m as measured in a free field condition and should not emit any tonal noise as defined by BS 7445 :part 2 :1991 ISO 1996-2 1987.” Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

2.2 The applicant advises that as any occupier of the unit is unknown and that the unit

would need to be advertised, the proposed condition would make any such marketing difficult. Likewise, marketing the unit without planning permission to establish an end user also would be difficult.

2.3 In order to overcome the concerns over the type of A5 user in the unit and the

adequacy of the previously proposed extract and ventilation system, the applicant has upgraded the proposed extraction system in order to be appropriate for the requirements of odour abatement for any potential A5 user.

2.4 The Councils Public Health and Licensing Department have confirmed that the

system now proposed, subject to adherence to the maintenance regime which has been provided, meets the suggested requirements to offer odour abatement, satisfactory to protect amenity for cooking types including Italian, French or pizza restaurant, steakhouse, public house, kitchens producing excess of onion or garlic smells from cooking, kebab, Cantonese, Japanese or Chinese, fried chicken, Indian, Vietnamese or Thai, kitchens producing large amounts of fried foods and fish and chips. Your officers are therefore of the view that given the nature of the revised extraction system being proposed, it would be unreasonable to restrict the precise type of A5 user by the terms of condition 05 previously suggested, provided the proposed system is installed and maintained in accordance with the most recently submitted details.

2.5 The system now proposed is considered acceptable by the Councils Public Health

and Licensing Department. Your officers are therefore of the view that condition 05 of the previous report (appended) should be amended to restrict the use to a general A5 Use by way of a more standard worded condition. In light of the revised extract and ventilation details, it is considered that the previously recommended condition is now unnecessary and therefore unreasonable and over-onerous in

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3.

terms of its requirements on the applicant. A separate condition can be applied to control the level of noise emanating from the extraction system, as previously recommended as part of condition 05.

3. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted and to include the following

conditions:

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02 No development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of

materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls of the proposed chimney have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.

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

03 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall

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

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

04 The premises shall not be open for trade or business except between the

hours of 0900 – 2200 hours Monday to Saturday inclusive and at no time on Sundays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

05 The premises shall be used only for purposes within Use Class A5 as

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

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and because other uses would be contrary to policy DC9 of the

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4.

Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

06 Noise from the extraction system shall not exceed 49dB(A) at 3m as

measured in a free field condition and should not emit any tonal noise as defined by BS 7445 :part 2 :1991 ISO 1996-2 1987.


07 Prior to the use hereby permitted commencing, the extraction and ventilation

system hereby approved shall be constructed and thereafter retained and maintained all strictly in accordance with the approved details and the maintenance regime set out in the application details for the life of the development, unless the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variation. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

08 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no development shall commence, until

precise details of the proposed chimney stack, to include precise dimensions including height and method of construction have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and thereafter implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details.



precise details of the proposed bollards, to include their height, materials and precise positioning have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and thereafter implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details before the use commences.

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

10 The takeaway counter shall be installed and thereafter retained in the

position as shown on plan number DP/1702/RG/01D received 25th January 2012 unless written agreement is received from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5.


11 The unit shall not be occupied until a management plan for dealing with litter

on the forecourt area in the vicinity of the unit has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Upon commencement of the use hereby permitted, the management plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and thereafter operated in accordance with the approved details for the life of the development unless the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variations.


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

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

Background Papers: DC/11/1660 Contact Officer: David Taylor

APPENDIX 1




DATE: 6th March 2012




WARD: Roffey North


APPLICANT: Mr John Relleen REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. Background: 1.1 This planning application was previously considered by Development Management

Committee North on the 1st November 2011, whereupon the recommendation to grant planning permission was deferred for consideration of the implications of construction of a chimney adjacent to a staircase providing access to flats above (with further consultations to be undertaken with the Councils Building Control Department and the Fire Brigade). Further consultation was also to be undertaken with Public Health and Licensing, to clarify the adequacy or otherwise of any proposed extract and ventilation system and also to try and establish the precise type of A5 use proposed to occupy the premises. Further investigation was also to be carried out into an alleged accident in the vicinity involving a vehicle and a pedestrian which involved the police. Further consultations were also required with West Sussex County Council regarding highway safety and the potential inconvenience to highway users arising from inappropriate parking, together with the safety issues of vehicles crossing the pavement to the three parking spaces. Finally, consideration was also to be given to the localism agenda in light of the number of public representations received. A copy of the previous committee report and appeal decision is attached at the end of this report.


APPENDIX 1

2. Current Position: 2.1 Building Control – Two different options regarding the construction of the proposed

chimney were provided by the applicant. Option 1 involves the proposed chimney extending to ground level. The Building Control Department have stated that this is acceptable providing the width between the chimney and the outside wall is at least the width of the existing stairs. The width of the stairs is just under 1m and the width between the proposed chimney and outside wall would be in excess of 1.2m, this option is therefore considered acceptable by the Building Control Department.

Option 2 would involve the base of the proposed chimney ‘finishing’ at approximately the floor level of the first floor. This option is also considered acceptable subject to appropriate structural support. It is considered appropriate, should planning permission be granted, that the chosen design be controlled by way of a planning condition.

2.2 Fire Brigade - A meeting has been held between your officers and the Fire Safety

Officer of West Sussex County Council who has confirmed in writing, that the Fire Service has no objection to the proposed change of use. There was no objection to an A5 use under the flat or its access balcony or stairs. It was pointed out that there are a number of other A5 uses with flats above in the town, similar to this proposal.

2.3 Public Health and Licensing – The applicant has been in discussions with the

Councils Public Health and Licensing Department. It is not known who the end user of the premises would be and therefore the applicant has confirmed that in a ‘worst case’ scenario in terms of the A5 user, the extract system can be further upgraded to cope with any potential A5 use. This could be achieved without the requirement to change the dimensions, height, or the external appearance of the chimney. The precise system could adequately be controlled by condition. The Public Health and Licensing Department have confirmed that it is possible to run an adequate system through the proposed chimney stack and the imposition of a suitable condition, requiring that prior to the business commencing and before the system is installed details are submitted for approval that this would enable the Public Health and Licensing Department to ensure that a satisfactory efflux velocity can be achieved. Advice has also been sought from an environmental consultant who has stated that noise, odour and smell could adequately be controlled by way of condition. Your officers are therefore of the view that the imposition of a condition is appropriate in this regard.

2.4 West Sussex County Council Highways – Concerns were raised by members

regarding the potential inconvenience to highway users and pedestrians as a result of the proposed change of use. It is re-iterated that the previous use of the premises was an A1/B1 use and has 3 parking spaces on the front forecourt, in front of the unit. The proposed change of use is not considered to result in a material increase in traffic movements compared to the current permitted use.

2.5 The applicant has provided amended plans seeking to address the safety issues

raised of cars driving across the pavement to gain access to the 3 proposed car parking spaces, by proposing to block these spaces by the erection of bollards.

APPENDIX 1

Staff parking is available at the rear of the premises, as indicated on the submitted block plan. The Highways Department have commented that, on a site visit with your officers, the principle of bollards being put in place as a measure to stop indiscriminate access onto the forecourt unit was agreed and therefore re-iterate that there is no objection to the proposal on highway grounds. They have also confirmed that there are no records of any accidents in the vicinity of the site. It is noted that the Inspector did not consider highway or parking issues to be a major issue in the determination of the previously dismissed appeal. It is also considered the loss of the 3 parking bays on the forecourt would not result in such a level of increased on street parking or inconvenience to highway users such to justify a refusal of planning permission.

Consideration of Localism Agenda: 2.6 As part of the deferral when the application was previously considered at

committee, members requested that consideration be given to the localism agenda in light of the number of public representations. While it is noted that there has been a high level of public interest in the planning application, members are respectfully reminded that the merits of the proposal needs to be assessed on planning grounds. The applicant has demonstrated, in the view of your officers and relevant consultees, that the proposed change of use would not have a material adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers, such to justify a refusal of planning permission. Whilst the level of concern is noted and understood, in light of the above considerations and comments from consultees, your officers remain of the view that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its planning merits.

2.7 Reference is made to paragraph 27 of “The Planning System: General Principles”

which accompanies PPS1 which states that; “The members of the local planning authority are elected to represent the whole community in planning matters. When determining planning applications they must take into account planning considerations only. This can include views expressed on relevant planning matters. However, local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid planning reasons.”

Other Matters: 2.8 Concerns were raised regarding the provision of a ‘soda bar’ within the unit.

Amended plans have been received removing this proposal from the scheme which now only involves the provision of a takeaway counter. This is considered to address the concerns that a large volume of food would be consumed on the premises and the amendment is welcomed by your officers. It is also noted that the relocation of the counter reduces the public area at the front of the shop.

Conclusions: 2.9 In conclusion, the applicant has demonstrated that it is possible to overcome the

Inspectors only reason for refusal under the previously dismissed appeal which related to the proposed extractor and the potential for odours causing a harmful impact on adjoining residential occupiers. The Councils Public Health and

APPENDIX 1

Licensing Department and an outside consultant have stated that these matters can be controlled by condition to ensure no adverse affect to occupiers of adjoining properties. Other matters set out above and in the previous report (attached) have also been considered and the proposal is considered, having regards to its planning merits, to be appropriate.


conditions:




materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls of the proposed chimney have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.








05 No works in connection with the A5 use hereby permitted shall take place

unless and until the precise nature of the A5 use proposed to be undertaken at the premises, together with precise details of the extraction and ventilation system proposed to be installed in connection with the A5 use, including a

APPENDIX 1

maintenance regime, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the use shall not be undertaken prior to the installation of the extract and ventilation system, which shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved details, unless the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variation. Thereafter both the use, together with the extract and ventilation system, including its maintenance regime, shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. No variation of the approved extract and ventilation scheme, including any changes to the type of A5 use or the cooking methods employed, shall be undertaken without prior approval in writing being obtained from the Local Planning Authority for any variation, following the submission of revised details as set out above, for consideration by the Local Planning Authority. Noise from the extraction system shall not exceed 49dB(A) at 3m as measured in a free field condition and should not emit any tonal noise as defined by BS 7445 :part 2 :1991 ISO 1996-2 1987.


06 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no development shall commence, until precise details of the proposed chimney stack, to include precise dimensions including height and method of construction have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and thereafter implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details.



precise details of the proposed bollards, to include their height, materials and precise positioning have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and thereafter implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details before the use commences.


08 The takeaway counter shall be installed in the position as shown on plan

number DP/1702/RG/01D received 25th January 2012 unless written agreement is received from the Local Planning Authority for any variation.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the

APPENDIX 1


4. REASONS IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan. Background Papers: DC/11/1660 Contact Officer: David Taylor

APPENDIX 2.




DATE: 1st November 2011




WARD: Roffey North


APPLICANT: Mr John Relleen REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The application seeks permission for the change of use from retail/office (Use

Class A1/B1) to a hot food takeaway (Use Class A5) and erection of associated chimney to side elevation to service extract duct.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.2 The application site is located in Lambs Farm Road within the built up area of

Horsham. The unit is positioned on the southern side of Lambs Farm Road within a small parade of shops, with the other units in the parade currently occupied by a sports shop and a ‘one-stop’ convenience store with residential flats above. A forecourt area exists to the front of the parade of shops with 3 delineated parking spaces serving the application site. The surrounding area is predominantly residential with a mix of terraced, semi detached and detached dwellings in Lambs Farm Road and the immediate vicinity.


APPENDIX 2

PLANNING HISTORY 1.3 HU/347/68 – New shopfront – Permitted on 09/08/1968.

NH/8/93 – Continued use of premises at ground floor level for retail use (A1) and office (B1) with ancillary storage – Permitted on 09/03/1933

NH/17/04 – Erection of side wall and gate enclosing bottom of external staircase – Permitted on 04/03/2004 DC/10/1724 – Change of Use to a food takeawy – Refused on 22/12/2010, Appeal dismissed on 05/07/2011

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 PPS1, PPS4, PPG24 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1,

CP3 and CP17. 2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document are DC9 and DC37. 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1 and CC4. 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Public Health and Licensing, initial comments 05/09/2011 – “The Application is a

resubmission of DC/10/1724, and this document should be read in conjunction with this Department’s previous comments during that consultation. The Application relates to the change of use of the ground floor of the two storey building, from its current use as a print shop, to a business preparing and selling food for consumption off the premises (A5 use).

Any cooking process involved in this process will likely need to be served by adequate extract ventilation, and this formed the majority of my examination of the Application in relation to odour and noise. The basis of any conclusions on this point are made with consideration to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)’s ‘Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from

APPENDIX 2

Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems’ document, which will be referred to as ‘the Guidance’. 2.0 Findings

2.1 Potential for Odour from the Proposed Ventilation System

It has been noted that additional information regarding the ventilation system has been submitted in support of the Application, in addition to understanding that the food business is to operate as an Indian takeaway.

The submitted information is sufficient to allow for the Annex C ‘Risk Assessment for Odour’ in the Guidance to be calculated. This suggests that a ‘high level’ of odour control is required, and the rating is based on the observations that the stack discharges at 1 (ONE) metre above ridge height, the estimated level of trade, and types of cooking odours, while taking into account that the closest sensitive property is less than 20 metres away.

While adequate stack height and discharge velocity forms the critical basis for effective odour abatement, a 'High level of control' is detailed in the Guidance as additionally benefiting from at least 'Fine filtration or ESP [Electrostatic precipitator] following [sic] by carbon filtration (rated with 0.2 – 0.4 second residence time)', which will be suitable for kebab, Vietnamese, Thai or Indian establishments.

Examination of the documented plans indicate that point-of-source grease filters, additional grease and particulate pre-filters, and a carbon cell with 0.3 second residence – or ‘dwell’ – time has been proposed, as well as a ESP system to benefit grease and smoke/dust particle collection. However, it is unusual for the ESP system to be located downstream of the carbon cell, as the purpose of particulate filtration is to prevent grease and smoke contacting and fouling the activated carbon, which will greatly reduced its efficiency in removing odour molecules.

To this end, the system should be redesigned to relocate the ESP to before the carbon filtration, to ensure its involvement in the particulate stage. Ideally, any pre-filter should be fitted before the ESP system to provide protection from large contaminants that may pass through the point-of-source grease filters of the canopy.

In addition to the above, the Applicant will also need to confirm to this Department the EU Classification or Eurovent Rating of the proposed and any additional pre-filters, as well as detailing the expected exit velocity at the discharge point of the stack, based on the potential pressure drop resulting through modifications to the system or filters which the airflow will be drawn through.

This Department does not object to the Application in principle on the aspect of cooking odours adversely affecting the local amenity, although the requested information and alterations to the extraction system should be acted on prior to commencement of the business, should the Application be approved.

APPENDIX 2

This should be secured by Condition, as should ensuring that the indicated ongoing cleaning and maintenance programme is adhered to. It is strongly recommended that records of such maintenance are formally organised to allow their examination by this Authority.

2.2 Potential for Noise from Proposed Ventilation System

During the previous consultation response, the control of noise from the proposed system was of particular concern to this Department, and included how the Applicant intends to mitigate noise and vibration from the mechanical plant from impacting the domestic flat above the premises.

It has been noted that acoustic insulation to the internal ceiling of the premises has been introduced to address the issue directly from the fan motor, and an attenuator will be fitted to ducting to reduce noise and vibration transfer along the remaining stack. The use of anti-vibration mounting has also been included, and no external plant is proposed.

This Department is also pleased to note a reduction in the proposed hours of operation of the premises, to the new timings of 09.00am until 22.00pm Monday through Saturday inclusive, with no operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Further to Section 2.1 above, the installation of the extract ventilation systems should be undertaken as proposed, ensuring all of the noise and vibration mitigating design elements indicated in the plans (taking into account any modifications made and approved by this Authority with regard to Section 2.1) are included in the build, and this be secured by Condition.

In addition, this Department recommends that proposed working hours of 9.00am until 22.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive become a condition, should the Application be approved, in order to avoid disturbance to the local amenity when back ground noise levels are reduced.

2.3 Other noise considerations – Customer, Vehicle movements

The proposed business would be the only one of its type in the locale, with

sensitive properties in close proximity. The assumption that customers and vehicles will be visiting the premises later than the other businesses in Lambs Farm Road was considered in the previous Application, but these opening hours have since been revised.

The principle concern still remains the operation of delivery vehicles, resulting in an increase of vehicle movements in connection with the premises, particularly the higher-pitched mopeds which may be pulling off at speed during a delivery, although any impact on domestic properties is likely to be reduced due to the new opening times.

To this end, and further to the hours of operation Condition suggested in Section 2.2 above, this Department reinforces its recommendation that proposed operating

APPENDIX 2

hours of 09.00am until 22.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive become a condition, should the Application be approved,

3.0 Conclusion

3.1 HDC Environmental Health Commercial Team supports the Application should the Conditions suggested in Section 2.0 be applied; Namely, (1) working hours of 09.00am until 22.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive, (2) details of the extract ventilation system as requested in Section 2.1 are submitted to and approved by this Department prior to the business beginning to trade, including the proposed ongoing cleaning and maintenance regime, (3) all installations and works are to be completed to the specification laid out in designs and plans approved by this Department, and (4) that the indicated ongoing cleaning and maintenance programme approved by this Department is adhered to.”

Further comments received 18/10/2011 – “As discussed, since the ultimate use of the premises is now uncertain, this Department's previous comments should be for the most-part discarded; Without knowing the potential odour or grease loading, any determination of the suitability of the proposed system cannot be made.

This is due to the risk assessment that was previously undertaken being based on the use as an Indian TA - If the the nature of the food or equipment used is ultimately different from this, then the system as proposed may not be adequate. However, the plans suggest that the premises will benefit from a high level stack, and therefore EH&L does not Object to the Application in principle, although a further Condition for details of the odour abatement system to be submitted to and approved by this Authority, prior to the business beginning operation, will be required. I stress again that the system as proposed may not be suitable for all cooking types, and therefore the Applicant is advised not to undertake the installation of any plant, filtration or other odour abatement techniques until the Conditioned approval is discharged, should the Application be granted.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 North Horsham Parish Council – “The Parish Council has considered this new

application in respect of these premises; and also taking into account the views expressed by local residents would strongly object to the proposed development on the following grounds:

1. It is considered that the change of use from retail to hot food takeaway is

inappropriate to the location on the grounds that the proposal would change the character of the existing shop in this small neighbourhood shopping parade.

The Parish Council is concerned that at one the one hand that District

Council documentation identifies the proposed development as an Indian takeaway, but on examination of the floor plan, a Soda Bar is clearly identified. This could be the precursor to on-site eating.

APPENDIX 2

2. The proposed change of use is also inappropriate to the location, as the surrounding area is completely residential.

3. The Parish Council would express concern regarding the impact of additional parking requirements that would be generated by such an operation, in an area that already sees parking on the footpath outside the shops, particularly as it would be concerned for pedestrian safety if regular parking movements were to be established on the private forecourt.

4. The location of the proposed development is also extremely close to two

junctions out onto Lambs Farm Road that could, potentially, cause additional traffic issues from the point of view of visibility and the safety of pedestrians.

5. The Parish Council is disappointed to note the continuation from the

previous application (DC/10/1724) of the comments of West Sussex County Council’s Highway’s Department. The comments made bear no relation to the actual proposed development or surrounding area.

Both to the east and west, at a distance of approximately half a mile, the only ‘food outlets’ are long-established public houses, both of which offer food and have done so for many years. The next available take away outlet would be within the centre of Roffey, a recognised secondary shopping area, in the form of a Chinese and Fish and Chip take away. Then one would have to travel to Horsham Town. The Parish Council does not support the contention of West Sussex County Council that “customers to the takeaway will use more sustainable modes of transport to access the site”.

6. The Parish Council would express concerns regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed development with regard to cooking smells and litter, that similar outlets present.

7. The Parish Council is concerned that the proposed development may

generate higher levels of youths gathering at this location and the potential for anti-social behaviour and noise.

8. The Parish Council notes that the current application states a closing time

for the operation as 10pm. There is concern that at a future time, this could be extended to a later hour; and that there is a potential for an application for a licence to sell alcohol, which could create further additional problems.

In conclusion, the Parish Council is not satisfied that there is a need for a hot food take away outlet to be situated within the heart of this residential area. The existing retail outlets by their very nature, blend in well with the social and economic needs of the immediate community and the granting of permission for this proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the community as a whole and could lead to a deterioration of this residential area.”

3.3 West Sussex County Council Highways – No objections, do not consider there would be any significant concerns with this proposal.

APPENDIX 2

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.4 25 objections from 20 properties and a petition signed by 183 people have been

received, objecting to the proposal on the following grounds: It is the same application as the previously refused application Shortage of parking and problems with access Additional traffic movement and subsequent danger to pedestrians and

motorists Litter and rubbish Additional noise in the area Appearance of the proposed chimney Smells emanating from proposed use Sufficient number of fast food outlets in area Residential area not suitable for such a use Nuisance to immediate neighbours Use would exacerbate the problem of anti social behaviour in the area Not comparable with shopping parade in Fitzallan Road Adjoining properties will be unable to open their windows Additional noise if a delivery service is proposed Concerns over provision of a ‘soda bar’ within the premises Increased traffic congestion De-valuation of adjoining properties Potential for application to attract vermin No detail of nature of hot food trade under consideration Concerns over access and egress from flats above Concern that repeated applications being submitted to wear down the

Planning Authority

1 letter of support has been received on the grounds that there is a precedent for this type of development and that traffic would be spread over the evening time.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS

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

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 2

6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development and the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities and character of the locality, its impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers and highway safety.

6.2 The proposal consists of the change of use from retail/office (Use Class A1/B1) to a

hot food takeaway (Use Class A5) and erection of associated chimney to side elevation to service extract duct. The proposal has been submitted following the refusal of a previous application reference DC/10/1724 and the subsequent dismissal on appeal. The application has sought to overcome the refusal reasons of the Inspector in the appeal above. A copy of the appeal decision is attached at the end of this report.

Principle of Development 6.3 Policy CP17 of the Core Strategy relates to the vitality and viability of existing

centres. It states that appropriate development will be encouraged if it does not cause unacceptable levels of disturbance to the local community or damage the townscape character. Under policy DC37 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007, proposals for change of use will only be permitted provided that the proposal will not result in the loss of local amenity particularly in terms of noise, litter, smell, parking and traffic creation and trading hours. Furthermore, in terms of a proposal for a change of use of an A1 unit (Shops) to A5 (Hot Food Takeaways), the Council is satisfied the retail unit is no longer viable as a consequence of the unit having been marketed at a reasonable price for 12 months prior to the application submission.

6.4 In his report, the Inspector noted that the mixed use nature of the shop unit

provided “a very minor A1 retail function and the loss would have no material impact on the vitality and viability of this area of neighbourhood shops.” He therefore concluded that the proposed development would not harm the vitality and viability of this area of neighbourhood shops and afforded little weight to the lack of marketing due to the nature of the use of the unit. As no changes have been proposed regarding the use of the unit from the appeal proposal, it can therefore be concluded that the principle of the change of use is considered acceptable and does not conflict with the aims of policy CP17 and DC37 or the overarching aims outlined in Government guidance through PPS4.

Impact on the Character of the Area 6.5 Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document states that

planning permission will be granted for developments which, amongst other matters, do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers of nearby property and land and where the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of a high standard of design and layout.

6.6 The appeal proposal (DC/10/1724) incorporated a steel extractor chimney on the side (western) elevation of the building. The Inspector noted that while such a structure would detract from the buildings appearance, this could be mitigated by painting it an appropriate colour, thus avoiding harm to the surrounding area and causing no harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The

APPENDIX 2

current proposal incorporates the ducting within a chimney to be erected on the western elevation of the building which would extend slightly above the ridgeline. The chimney would have the appearance of a residential chimney with materials to match the existing building. This is considered to be an improvement in visual terms than the previous proposal and there is therefore considered to be no additional material adverse impact on the visual amenities of the streetscene or the character of the area.

Impact on the Amenities of Adjoining Occupiers

6.7 Concern has been expressed by adjoining residential occupiers regarding the impact on amenities, particularly in regard to odours and noise emanating from the unit as a result of the use of the site. The applicant has submitted details regarding the extraction unit to be installed in association with the proposed use. The Councils Public Health and Licensing Department have confirmed that there would be no objection to the principle of the application, although further details would be required in order to ensure the system was adequate so as not to materially harm the amenities of any adjoining occupiers.

6.8 In relation to noise, the previous application altered the proposed opening times

during the lifetime of the application to 0900-2200 hours on weekdays and 1200-2100 on Sundays. The inspector considered the impact on adjoining occupiers on this basis and stated that “the One Stop shop is open until 2200 hours daily and I would expect it to be a generator of activity well into the evening. If the development’s opening hours were limited by condition to those now proposed, there would be no activity later than that which already occurs and the effect on neighbours’ living conditions would be acceptable.”

6.9 The applicant has stated that the proposed opening hours would be 0900-2200

Monday to Saturday inclusive. These opening hours would be controlled by condition and it is therefore considered that the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers would not be materially harmed, due to the opening hours of adjoining premises.

Highway Safety 6.10 Concerns have been raised by neighbouring properties regarding the impact of the

proposal on highway safety and parking issues in the area. It is noted the previous use of the premises was used as an A1/B1 use and has 3 parking spaces on the front forecourt, in front of the unit. The proposed change of use is not considered to result in a material increase in traffic movements compared to the current permitted use and West Sussex Highways Department have stated they have no objection to the proposal. It is noted that the Inspector did not consider highway or parking issues to be a major issue in the determination of the previously dismissed appeal.

Conclusions 6.11 In conclusion, the applicant has demonstrated that it is possible to overcome the

Inspectors only reason for refusal under the previously dismissed appeal which related to the proposed extractor and the potential for odours causing a harmful

APPENDIX 2

impact on adjoining residential occupiers. The Councils Public Health and Licensing Department have stated that these matters can be controlled by condition to ensure no adverse affect to occupiers of adjoining properties. It is therefore your officers view, that there is no substantial justification in a refusal of planning permission.


conditions:




materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.








05 The use, hereby permitted, shall not be commenced until further details of

the extract ventilation system including the proposed maintenance programme for the system are submitted to and agreed in writing with the

APPENDIX 2

Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented and retained in accordance with the approved details.


8. REASONS IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan. Background Papers: DC/11/1660 Contact Officer: David Taylor

Appendix - DC/11/1660 – Enterprise House, 80 Lambs Farm Road. Concerns Raised and Officers Responses

As stated in the preceding Committee Report, a number of concerns have been raised expressing concerns regarding the consideration of the application. The main points of which are:

1) No evidence was submitted that the property had been marketed correctly.

2) Similar applications (DC/09/0420) have been refused planning permission in the locality.

3) Highway safety issues. 4) Concerns over odour abatement and noise from the proposed extract

system. 5) Lack of consultation with Sussex Police 6) Visual appearance of the proposed chimney

Your officers would provide the following information in relation to the above:

1) This matter was dealt with in detail in section 6.4 of the report considered at committee on 01/11/2012. The report is also available in the appendices attached.

2) Application ref DC/09/0420 related to a change of use to a restaurant. As it relates to a different site, there are materially different issues to be considered however the assessment of the application would have been carried out in the same manner.

3) West Sussex County Council Highways had no objection to the proposed change of use. This followed on site meetings with officers of the planning department.

4) The applicant has provided details of an extraction system that is capable of dealing with odour abatement for any potential A5 user which the Public Health and Licensing Department has stated is of a suitable nature. Issues of noise have been assessed by the Councils Public Health and Licensing Department and have been considered acceptable. A condition limiting the level of noise from the extract system is proposed.

5) It is not considered that a crime review with the police is necessary given the scope of the application is for a proposed change of use from a shop to a take away. However, the Anti-Social Behaviour Team were consulted on the application with regards to incidents reported in the vicinity of the parade of shops. This found that in the past year there was one incident relating to a group becoming rowdy on 28th January 2012, other incidents related to shoplifting.

6) The appearance of the proposed chimney has been considered during the consideration of the planning application and was considered appropriate by Council officers.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.

Contact: Steve Booth Extension: 5169



DATE: 1st May 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Redevelopment of site with mixed use scheme including demolition of existing 2 dwellings, derelict farm buildings and workshops and erection of 36 dwellings, parking barns, 3 x B1 office units and 3 x B1 shed units, a community facility (meeting rooms, coffee shop) and extension to existing industrial unit

SITE: Windacres Farm, Rudgwick

WARD: Rudgwick


APPLICANT: Cllr John Bailey REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development/Applicant is a Council Member. RECOMMENDATION: That the application be delegated with a view to approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement securing necessary infrastructure contributions, appropriate control and management of the sheltered housing units, appropriate footpath link(s) adjacent to Church Street from the site and matters relating to the appropriate development of the site. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The application has previously be considered by the Committee firstly on the 2nd

November 2010 whereupon it was resolved that application be determined by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Councillor Jenkins, to enable negotiations regarding a suitable legal agreement; further clarification on issues identified in the report, particularly with regard to advising the Rudgwick Preservation Society of progress during the delegation period; the submission of a business plan indicating that the community interest company is viable in the long term; further consideration of phasing and the length of time it will take to complete the development; the provision of three rented affordable units; clarification on the pedestrian route to Highcroft Drive and to Rudgwick village centre; issues to be addressed regarding the feeling that there


APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.

had been a lack of local involvement, particularly by involving the Parish Council in delegation; and to ensure that the community interest company is set up before the development commences and is fully funded prior to the start of development. The application would be reported back to the Committee once the delegation period had ended, to enable the Committee to endorse decisions made during the delegation period. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted."

1.2 The application was further considered by the Committee on the 4th October 2011 whereupon it was resolved to delegate the application for approval, in consultation with a Member Panel as previously set up. Members concluded that the legal agreement should include the "standard" clauses required by the Council in respect of the affordable housing element. During delegation period further discussion to be undertaken to establish if the existing access can be closed off from the proposed access although Members recognise this was not in itself a matter able to be controlled under planning legislation in light of existing rights of way. Review of conditions, in particular those relating to construction of the access before any other development is undertaken; if the private access is to remain open, satisfactory details seeking to control its inappropriate use; further details to be submitted and considered with regard to the off site footway works. Parish Council and Rudgwick Preservation Society to be kept advised of progress under delegation.

1.3 With regard to the legal agreement, amongst other matters, negotiations to be

undertaken on provision of appropriate county and district infrastructure contributions generated by the development, the provision of sheltered and affordable housing, the mechanism for the management and delivery of the sheltered and affordable housing, management of the landscaped areas, management and provision of on-site community facilities, management of surface water drainage systems, ecological matters, control over necessary access bollards in connection with the private right of way, a bond with regard to the imposition of waiting restrictions on Church Street if such restrictions are deemed to be required following implementation of the development, the provision of improved footpath links adjacent to Church Street. The formal comments of Southern Water on the adequacy of water supply to the development were also awaited. The relevant reports are attached.

1.4 Following negotiations regarding the above matters and in particular the mechanisms to secure the provision of affordable housing and other ‘community facilities’ within the development, the applicant unilaterally amended the application in January 2012, the principal amendments being the withdrawal from the application of the 7 affordable units previously proposed at the site frontage, the withdrawal of the ‘community facilities’ accommodation (principally comprising a ‘community’ office, museum area etc) formally located adjacent to the proposed café within the site and the change of 8 X 2 storey dwellings at the rear of the site from free market units to sheltered units.

1.5 It should be noted, as set out in the previous reports, that the affordable housing

units, community office/museum and open market housing now deleted from the application by the applicant did not form part of the development proposals for the

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.

site, as set out in the sites allocation within Policy AL 9 of the Local Development Framework.

1.6 Since the Committees last consideration of the application, previous National planning guidance contained within Planning Policy Statements and Notes has been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework, it is not considered that this proposal conflicts with current guidance contained within the NPPF.

2. CURRENT POSITION

2.1 In light of the amendments to the application it has been necessary to undertake re consultation on the revised proposal and it is also necessary for the Committee to consider the revised application. Following re consultation on the amended application the following comments have been received INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

2.2 Public Health and Licensing Access Officer: No additional comments to make. OUTSIDE AGENCIES

2.3 Rudgwick Parish Council: Advised on the 4th April 2012 that the Parish Council is disappointed that the affordable housing has been removed from the application and hope that further consideration may be given to its provision, under village control, at a later date. The removal of the community building, the provision of the footway on the east side of Church Street and the traffic calming measures are supported by the Parish Council.

On the 7th April the Parish Council further reported that the Rudgwick Parish Council Planning Committee considered the revised application in a full and open discussion. This resulted in unanimous agreement to no objection and in a second vote to a majority in support of the application. In doing so some positive points regarding the application were made such as the application is much more in line with the Planning Inspector’s decision. The fact that there is scope for a future application for shared ownership housing at a later date and support for the revised footpath arrangement on Church Street.

2.4 Environment Agency. We have no further comments to make to our letter dated 25 October 2011

2.5 Southern Water: Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.

The public sewer is a combined system, receiving both foul and surface water flows, and no flows greater than currently received can be accommodated in this system. However, it is possible that by removing some of the existing surface water entering the sewer, additional foul flows could be accommodated. i.e. no net increase in flows. If the applicant wishes to investigate this option, the applicant will be required to provide Southern Water with a topographical site survey and/or a CCTV survey. The survey should show the existing roof, drive and highway areas draining to the sewer and their connection points, pipe sizes, gradients and calculations confirming the proposed flows will be no greater than the existing flows received by the sewer. As an alternative to the above, additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers can be provided to service the development. Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a legal mechanism through which the appropriate infrastructure can be requested (by the developer) and provided to drain a specific location. Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public sewer. The applicant is advised to contact Atkins Ltd, Angle St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk. This initial assessment does not prejudice any future assessment or commit to any adoption agreements under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991. The planning application form makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). Under current legislation and guidance SUDS rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Therefore, the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system, which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system. Thus, where a SUDS scheme is to be implemented, the drainage details submitted to the Local Planning Authority should:

Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the SUDS scheme.

Specify a timetable for implementation. Provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the

development. This should include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or

statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5.

The Council’s Building Control officers/technical staff or Environment Agency should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

The application details for this development indicate that the proposed means of

surface water drainage for the site is via a watercourse. The Council’s technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local watercourse.

We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following

condition is attached to the consent: “Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed

means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water.”

Following initial investigations, Southern Water can provide a water supply to the

site. Southern Water requires a formal application for connection and on-site mains to be made by the applicant or developer. We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent:

“A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in order to

service this development. Please contact Atkins Ltd. Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk.”

2.6 Sussex Police: Have been in pre-application consultation with the applicant and would like to offer the same advice to you.

The location has average levels of crime and anti-social behaviour when compared to the rest of England and Wales.

The development has in the main been designed with in-curtilage parking and a

small number of designated parking courts. This will lead to the road layout being free and unobstructed from parked vehicles. It will be important that the parking courts are well lit and are provided with clear arcs of surveillance from active rooms with the overlooking dwellings. To remove the possibility of unauthorised parking, anti vehicle devices could be employed on verges and areas around the change in road direction of the access road.

It is important that the boundary between public space and private areas are clearly

indicated. It is desirable for dwelling frontages to be open to view, so walls, fences and hedges will need to be kept low or alternatively feature a combination (max height 1m) of wall, railings or timber picket fence.

Vulnerable areas such as side and rear gardens need more and robust defensive

barriers by using walls or fencing to a minimum height of 1.8m. In circumstances that require a more open feature, 1.5m fencing topped by 300mm of trellis can achieve both requirements. Gates that provide access to the side of the dwelling or

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6.

rear access to the gardens must be robustly constructed of timber, be the same height as the fence and be lockable. Such gates must be located on or as near to the front of the building line as possible. Consideration to be given to wooden palisade constructed gates that give observation in both directions.

It is important to avoid the creation of windowless elevations and blank walls

adjacent to space to which the public have access. These can have the effect of attracting graffiti and inappropriate loitering. An addition of a first floor window or a buffer zone can assist in reducing these concerns. Buffer zones can take the form of railings or defensible planting or a combination of both, i.e. the railing to indicate the private space and the planting to prevent direct access, this is also very effective approach to vulnerable windows.

As there will be a percentage of the dwellings requiring Secured by Design (SBD)

accreditation, I direct the applicant’s attention to our website at www.securebydesign.com for further information. It may be beneficial from a marketing viewpoint to apply the SBD award to the whole development. It will be very helpful to be familiar with SBD New Homes 2010 document as this will assist greatly in the understanding and completion of the SBD application form.

I will of course be able to provide more in depth specific advice at reserved matters

and be able to respond to the retail element of the development once a more precise decision has been made as to its purpose and end user. At present it would be very difficult to comment when the use of the retail buildings are not known, however as a minimum standard of security I recommend external doors, ground floor and any easily accessible windows conform to LPS 1175 SR2, monitored intruder alarms to be fitted and CCTV to be considered with fit for purpose lighting installed.

I note that the proposed housing is to be allocated to sheltered housing, should

consent be given I will be able to provide specific crime prevention measures for these dwellings at reserved matters.

Finally, lighting throughout the development will be an important consideration, both

in the car parking area, around the buildings, communal and retail areas and should conform to BS 5489-1 2003.

2.7 West Sussex County Council

Highways: Further to our responses of 10th November 2011, I can confirm that the lay-by parking opposite the Chapel has been removed from the plans. Traffic management measures have now been included within the site, however as the internal road has not been proposed for adoption, therefore it is not the responsibility of WSCC to comment. However, WSCC Fire Service may have some issues as access is required in an emergency. The details of the amended application have been forwarded to WSFS and their comments will follow in due course.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7.

In the event additional comments are required, or there are any other alterations which proposed which have not been mentioned above, please re-consult. Archaeology: No objection subject to condition PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

2.8 In response to the latest revisions to the application the following representations have been received: Two letters of objection on the following grounds: Proposal results in a further multiple access onto Church street close to others No need for additional meeting room Coffee shop would result in extra traffic Design Highway, Access and Parking Privacy, light and noise Trees and Landscaping Questioning further changes to the application Development offers little or nothing to community and makes a joke of real meaning of a Community Interest Company

2.9 The Rudgwick Preservation Society: Rudgwick Preservation Society is pleased that the Community Facility and Care building is now smaller, and its use more restricted, but apprehensive about future use of the space behind, which could be an eyesore for some unforeseeable period of time, and should be landscaped as soon as practicable. The apartment block is still in the plan, and is to be built across the road from the above site. The architect repeatedly states in its defence that it would be a ‘counterpoint’ to the mass of the industrial barns to the north and the Community Facility opposite. Now that the Community Facility and Café building is smaller, this does not apply to the same extent, and the apartments could well outlive the industrial barns. It is not so much a counterpoint as the same point (too large). We therefore revert to our previous opposition to the design and scale of the three storey apartment building which is in conflict with Rudgwick Design Statement Policy 11. The issue of a footway on the east side of Church Street has become a matter for recent debate and concern. The village is not clamouring for it, yet it is assumed to be a benefit. The Parish Design Statement Policies 30 and 31 are worded to avoid just this kind of creeping suburbanisation. The current plans suggest this will be built to the north, towards the church. It will spoil sensitive Conservation Area frontages and historic wide verges. Rudgwick is desperately short of green space. The majority of local people I have spoken to, or who have contacted me by email, see it as a waste of money. Both current and potential pedestrian users of Church Street are too few to justify these works.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8.

We are pleased however, that our suggestion to improve the footway gap to the south is apparently now a possibility. Rather than impose a solution favoured by the developer, which WSCC (Debbie Farrell, Strategic Planning, dated 10.11.2011), on HDC website) seem to have allowed him to impose, we suggest a village consultation on this sensitive topic is the least the parties involved should do. This issue is nothing whatsoever to do with the developer. We have suggested before, and I reiterate, that creation of a short gravel Permissive Path from the development to the rear gate of the churchyard on land owned by the developer (along the edge of one field) would be desirable and a benefit. We also wish to remind the Parish and District Councils that there is already a short length of stone path of some antiquity on the approach to the church which might be restored and brought back into use. We have worked vigorously for there to be more rentable affordable houses in this development, but now that the affordable housing has been removed from the plans, we are in one sense pleased as the parish can now lobby for a truly affordable development elsewhere in the village. We are already engaged in a dialogue with Andrew Smith, HDC Housing Strategy and Development Manager, on this matter. On the other hand, a need for low cost rentable housing was proven as long ago as 2008 in a Housing Needs Report, so the loss of this element of the development will be keenly felt in the parish. The next and urgent step should be a new Housing Needs Survey. The point made above about landscaping of the area behind the Community Facility applies equally to the land abutting Church Street which previously was to be occupied by houses. We ask that early instalment of planting should be a priority condition placed upon the developer, in line with Design Policies 17, 18, 19, etc., relating to its frontage onto Church Street. This location is a sensitive one in the street-scene. Finally, I note again from the document from Debbie Farrell, WSCC, that the road into the development is to remain unadopted by WSCC Highways Department. Is there any benefit for the village in this? This raises the issue of the management of the site. Why would the developer prefer to place a considerable burden on the residents to maintain the road through their service charges, especially as his own vehicles are the only heavy vehicles likely to use the roads on a regular basis. The role of the Community Interest Company, if that is still proposed, will continue to require greater clarity, both for HDC and for the residents of Rudgwick. I note that HDC have requested this. One letter of support has been received in respect of the proposed off site footway One letter of no objection has been received requesting conditions relating to precluding use of the existing access by the development and requiring of closure of boundary between the site and the adjacent existing access.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9.

3. CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 The Committee previously resolved on the 4th October 2011 to delegate the application for approval in consultation with the member panel, subject to the completion of an appropriate legal agreement together with the further discussion to be undertaken to establish if the existing access can be closed off from the proposed access although Members recognise this was not in itself a matter able to be controlled under planning legislation in light of existing rights of way. Review of conditions, in particular those relating to construction of the access before any other development is undertaken; if the private access is to remain open, satisfactory details seeking to control its inappropriate use; further details to be submitted and considered with regard to the off site footway works. Parish Council and Rudgwick Preservation Society to be kept advised of progress under delegation.

3.2 With regard to the legal agreement, amongst other matters, negotiations to be

undertaken on provision of appropriate county and district infrastructure contributions generated by the development, the provision of sheltered and affordable housing, the mechanism for the management and delivery of the sheltered and affordable housing, management of the landscaped areas, management and provision of on-site community facilities, management of surface water drainage systems, ecological matters, control over necessary access bollards in connection with the private right of way, a bond with regard to the imposition of waiting restrictions on Church Street if such restrictions are deemed to be required following implementation of the development, the provision of improved footpath links adjacent to Church Street. The formal comments of Southern Water on the adequacy of water supply to the development were also awaited.

3.3 The application as amended and currently under consideration is essentially the same development, but with the 7 affordable dwellings and the community office/museum elements deleted from the proposal by the applicant, and the 8 X 2 storey dwellings, previously proposed as open market units, now to be occupied as sheltered accommodation. Whilst the deletion of the affordable housing and some of the ‘community’ facilities within the development is regretted, it is recognised that these elements of the development do not form part of the proposals for the site as set out under LDF Policy AL9. Likewise LDF policy AL9 does not include non sheltered open market housing on the site. As such the deletion of all these elements from the scheme does not compromise the objectives of policy AL9 for the site, indeed they results in a scheme that is closer aligned to the objectives for development on the site set out within the policy. As such it is not considered that the revisions to the scheme conflict with the aims of this policy.

3.4 The comments of consultees on the revised proposal are noted.

3.5 In these circumstances as the remainder of the scheme is essentially as previously considered by the committee, it is considered that the revised proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to its planning merits, as set out in the previous reports (attached). Likewise it is considered that the previous reports set out the planning considerations in respect of the public consultations received in respect of the amended scheme.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10.

3.6 With regard to the committee’s previous request that further consideration be given to establish if the existing access can be closed off from the proposed access, this would require the agreement of those parties who currently benefit from such rights of way. At the present time it is understood that agreement between all the parties has not been achieved and as such this cannot be achieved through the imposition of planning requirements as an acceptable alternative solution in planning terms has been provided by the applicant. This would not preclude future closing off of the access if agreement is reached between the private parties concerned.

3.7 It is also noted that previous queries about a Community Interest Company associated with the development related principally to its role in connection with the provision, management and sustainability of the previously proposed affordable housing and ‘community facilities’ elements of the proposal. It is considered that the deletion of these elements also therefore reduces the significance, in planning terms and considerations, of any Community Interest Company on the development.

3.8 The lay-by opposite the Chapel on Church Street, previously included in the off site footway works has now been deleted, overcoming the previous objection of the highway authority in this regard. It is considered the detailed design and finish of the footway can be agreed following discussions between the Highway Authority, the Parish Council, the Applicant and other interested parties.

4. RECOMMENDATION 4.1 It is recommended that the application be delegated with a view to approval to the

Head of Planning and Environmental Services subject to: the completion of a S106 legal agreement relating to amongst other matters the provision of appropriate County and District Council infrastructure contributions generated by the development, the mechanism for the management and delivery of the sheltered housing, landscaped areas, on site facilities, surface water drainage, ecology, necessary access bollards etc, the ability to impose waiting restrictions on Church Street, improved footpath links adjacent to Church Street, together with he following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

five years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 (As Amended). 02 Before development commences accurate details of the finished floor levels

of the buildings in relation to nearby datum points shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

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

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 11.

03 No development shall take place until details of screen walls and/or fences have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screen walls and/or fences associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

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

04 Each building hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking

turning and access facilities associated with that building together with access to the highway within the site have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved (or in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the parking turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose.

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

05 No individual building, hereby approved, shall be occupied until details of

the car parking for that building has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The car parking shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for its designated use.

Reason: To provide car-parking space for the dwelling and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

06 H1 Access Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40

of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

07 No individual dwelling or building hereby permitted shall be occupied

unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins for that dwelling has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

08 No work shall be carried out on site unless there is available within the site

provision for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and the storage of materials and equipment associated with the building works; all in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commences. The approved facilities shall be retained and available for use throughout the period of work required to

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 12.

implement the development hereby permitted unless alternative details are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

09 No work shall be carried out on the site unless and until an effective vehicle

wheel-cleaning facility has been installed in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such facility shall be retained in working order and operated throughout the period of work on the site to ensure that vehicles do not leave the site carrying earth, mud or other materials on their wheels in a quantity which causes a nuisance, hazard or visual intrusion from material deposited on the road system in the locality.

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

10 Before development commences, details of the provision of facilities for the

parking of cycles shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose.

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

11 No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and

soft landscaping works, including the surface treatment of the access, parking and turning areas, have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

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

12 No development, including works of any description, including demolition

pursuant to the permission granted, ground clearance, or bringing equipment, machinery or materials onto the site, shall take place until the following preliminaries have been completed in the sequence set out below:

All required arboricultural works, including permitted tree felling and surgery

operations and above ground vegetative clearance within such areas set out for development as indicated on the approved site layout drawing to be completed and cleared away.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 13.

As appropriate according to the phasing of the development and in accordance with details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval all trees on the site targeted for retention, as well as those off-site whose root protection areas ingress into the site, shall be fully protected by tree protective fencing affixed to the ground in full accordance with section 9 of BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (2005). Once installed, the fencing shall be maintained during the course of the development works and until all machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Areas so fenced off shall be treated as zones of prohibited access, and shall not be used for the storage of materials, equipment or machinery in any circumstances. No mixing of cement, concrete, or use of other materials or substances shall take place within any tree protective zone, or close enough to such a zone that seepage or displacement of those materials and substances could cause them to enter a zone. No alterations or variations to the approved tree works or tree protection schemes shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

13 Before development commences an ecological and landscape

management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibility and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small privately owned domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

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




15 The dwellings shall achieve a Code Level 3 in accordance with the

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

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 14.

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


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

17 Prior to commencement of any works which may affect reptiles or bats, a

detailed reptile/bat mitigation strategy shall be undertaken. All works shall proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.

18 Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the

site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.

Reason: In accordance with the principles of Planning Policy Statement 25 - "Development and Flood Risk" (PPS25), PPS23 - "Planning and Pollution Control", PPS1 - "Delivering Sustainable Development" and PPS9 - "Biodiversity and Geological Conservation". To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of these and to accord with policies DC7 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

19 No dwelling shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage for the

dwelling has been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained and to comply with DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 15.

20 Prior to the commencement of development, the approved site access junction onto Church Street shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawings plan unless any variation to the approved details is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


21 No street lighting shall be installed on the site without the prior written

approval of the Local Planning Authority by way of an application on that behalf.

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

22 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, no gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected or constructed in front of the forward-most part of any proposed building which front or face onto a highway or vehicular access serving the site unless planning permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application in that respect.

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


Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, the building(s) shall not be extended on any elevation which front or face onto a highway or vehicular access serving the site, unless planning permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on application in that respect.

Reason: To maintain control over the development in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

24 No development or preparatory works shall begin until a suitably licensed

ecological clerk of works has been engaged to oversee the great crested newt mitigation, supervising the erection of a great crested newt exclusion fence, creation of a receptor site, translocation of newts and the destructive search. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the great crested newt mitigation statement (S5 & 6) submitted to support the application and a method statement to be agreed by Natural England. Reason: To maintain the conservation status of European protected species in accordance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (1994/2010); and HDC policy DC5.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 16.

25 No development or preparatory works shall begin until a suitably licensed ecological clerk of works has been engaged to oversee the bat mitigation plan, provision of temporary roosts, and undertake a final check for bats. Demolition will not occur between November start and February end in any year and will be undertaken by hand as appropriate and under the direction of a suitably licensed bat worker. No development or preparatory works shall begin until a plan showing new permanent roosting areas detailing roost types, numbers and locations and the locations of any external lighting provision is provided. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the outline bat mitigation statement (S3) submitted to support the application and a method statement to be agreed by Natural England. Reason: To maintain the conservation status of European protected species in accordance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (1994/2010); HDC policy DC5.

26 No ground excavations landscaping works or infrastructure works pursuant to the planning permission will commence on the site until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation which has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and agreed in writing. Reason : To ensure appropriate investigation and recording of archaeological Heritage Assets on the site prior to commencement of new building works.

27 L3 Trenches

28 L8 Foundation details - Special construction method for access road within root protection areas of trees

29 Any B1 use of the building hereby approved shall be limited to an area to

be indicated on a plan to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority

Reason: To restrict the use of the building for industrial purposes in the interest of amenity.


Permitted Development) Order 1995 or orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, the commercial building shall not be extended or altered in any way unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application in that behalf.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 31 No raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing

materials or waste should be stacked or stored on the site except within the buildings or storage areas at any time approved by the Local Planning Authority .

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 17.

32 Before the use commences, the building shall be sound insulated in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained at all times. A scheme shall also be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the use of the site and thereafter retained unless the prior written agreement with the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the building does not have a harmful environmental effect.

33 No plant or machinery shall be operated on the premises except between

the hours of: 0700 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive 0700 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and no working shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays Reason: In the interests of amenity.

Informative: The applicant is advised that in respect of both great crested newts and bats a European Protected Species licence will be required before works can commence.

Informative:

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

Background Papers: DC/09/1623 Contact Officer: Steve Booth

APPENDIX A.


abcd



DATE: 2nd November 2010

DEVELOPMENT: Redevelopment of site with mixed use scheme including demolition of existing 2 dwellings, derelict farm buildings and workshops and erection of 43 dwellings (comprising 33 x 2-bed; 8 x 3-bed and 2 x 4-bed residential units), parking barns, 3 x B1 office units and 3 x B1 shed units, a community facility (Parish Council office, small museum/ library, coffee shop) and extension to existing industrial unit.


WARD: Rudgwick


APPLICANT: Cllr John Bailey REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development/Applicant is a Council Member RECOMMENDATION: That the application be delegated with a view to approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services subject to further negotiation and clarification on the issues identified in the report, and the completion of a S106 legal agreement relating to the development of the site. 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning applications.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATIONS

1.1 The application proposes redevelopment of site with mixed use scheme including demolition of existing 2 dwellings, derelict farm buildings and workshops and erection of 43 dwellings (comprising 33 x 2-bed; 8 x 3-bed and 2 x 4-bed residential units), parking barns, 3 x B1 office units and 3 x B1 shed units, a community facility (possible Parish Council office, small museum/library, coffee shop) and extension to existing industrial building and new access.


APPENDIX A.

2

1.2 Two existing dwellings are proposed to be demolished in order to facilitate the

construction of a new access to serve the proposed development. The access would run from Church Road, through the curtliage of the existing dwelling and then divide into two main branches, one to provide access to the existing and proposed commercial units and the other to serve the main residential elements of the scheme.

1.3 Adjacent to the access and close to the site frontage with Church Street, 7 two bed affordable housing units are proposed with parking, located in the relatively narrow area of land between the proposed access to serve the site and the southern site boundary, which is adjacent to the existing access that currently serves Windacres Farm and a number of other dwellings (this existing access is outside the current application site and is not in the ownership of the applicant).

1.4 The 2 existing dwellings proposed to be demolished are shown to be replaced with 2 four bed units.

1.5 In addition to the 7 affordable housing units and the 2 replacement dwellings referred to above, the proposal includes 26 two bed sheltered dwellings. It has recently been confirmed that these units will meet the normal definition of sheltered accommodation in terms of their use and management etc.

1.6 The final residential element of the proposal comprises 8 three bed residential units. In support of the application the applicant advises these units could provide flexibility in providing accommodation to meet the needs of Rudgwick within the scheme, it has also recently been clarified that in considering the proposal these units should be considered as open market units.

1.7 The commercial elements of the scheme comprise an extension to the existing Rudgwick Metals business on the site together with 3 B1 office units adjacent to the part western boundary of the site and 3 B1 ‘shed’ units.

1.8 In addition the proposal incorporates a community facility building comprising an office area (stated to be a possible Parish Council office and facility for the Community Interest Company, proposed to manage and run the development) together with a small museum/library and coffee shop area (stated to principally be intended to serve the sheltered housing on the development although also open to other customers.

1.9 The proposal also incorporates a number of ‘car barns’ together with open parking areas, internal access ways and open areas.

1.10 It is proposed that the development would be managed and run by a community interest company (CIC). It is proposed the CIC would manage the development, including the ongoing management and running of the completed development, including the new commercial units, the sheltered accommodation, the affordable units at the front of the site, the community facilities together with the communal areas and areas of unadopted accesses within the development. The management of affordable housing in particular by a community interest company rather than a

APPENDIX A.

3

social housing landlord is a departure from normal practise and the mechanism by which the aims could be achieved would need to be carefully considered and included within any S106 legal agreement before any permission for the development could be granted.

1.11 It is understood that Community Interest Trusts have previously been used to manage various forms of community developments/ businesses in the country, however it is understood that the use of a Community Interest Company to manage a development of this nature is less common. Further information has been requested and submitted with regard to the aims and principles of operation of the proposed Community Interest Company and this is attached to the report.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.12 The site lies on the north side of Rudgwick to the east of Church Street and

currently contains 2 dwellings, the Rudgwick Metals business contained within portal frame, corrugated clad industrial buildings, a number of substantial open fronted and enclosed agricultural barns together with a farm office building. The remainder of the site is mainly open rough land.

1.13 The site contains a number of trees, in particular on the boundaries, which are also marked by hedges.

1.14 The front of the site is adjacent to the Rudgwick Conservation Area and also lies within the Defined Built up Area of Rudgwick (defined as Category 2 settlement in the LDF). The majority of the site, is outside the Defined Built Up Area.

1.15 To the South of the site lies residential development accessed off Summerfold and Windacres Drive. To the north and west of the irregularly shaped site lies further residential development accessed from Church Street and Highcroft Drive. Land to the east is predominantly agricultural, with the exception of the dwelling Windacres that is located in relatively close proximity to the south eastern corner of the site.

PLANNING HISTORY 1.16 A number of applications have been submitted relating to the existing commercial,

residential and agricultural uses on the site, but none are considered directly relevant in the consideration of the current proposal.


APPENDIX A.

4

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development; PPS3- Housing; PPS5 - Planning for

the Historic Environment; PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas;PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; PPG13 - Transport; PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control, together with PPS 25 – Development and flood risk .

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CP1 - Landscape and

Townscape Character; CP2 - Environmental Quality; CP3 - Improving the Quality of New Development; CP5-Built Up Areas and Previously Developed Land; CP8 - Small Scale 'Greenfield' Sites; CP10 Employment Provision; CP12 Meeting Housing Needs; CP11 - Employment Sites and Premises; CP13 - Infrastructure Requirements; CP14- Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities and Services; CP15 - Rural Strategy CP16-Inclusive Comunities;and CP19 - Management Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport.

General Development Control Policies DC1 - Countryside Protection and Enhancement; DC2 - Landscape Character; DC5-Biodiversity and Geology; DC7-Flooding;DC8 - Renewable Energy and Climate Change; DC9 - Development Principles; DC12-Conservation Areas;DC18 - Smaller Homes/Housing Mix; DC25 Rural Economic Development; DC28 House extensions and replacement Dwellings; DC40 - Transport and Access.

Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) policy AL9 Land at Windacres Farm Rudgwick which states. Land amounting to 2.5 hectares is allocated for residential development and employment use. At a density of 30 dwellings per hectare, this site is expected to accommodate around 30 dwellings as described below. Development will be subject to the following: a. retention of existing business on the site; b. the provision of sheltered accommodation for the elderly; c. contribution to local employment in the form of new small employment units

(B1); d. retention and enhancement of the existing mature hedgerows; e. access to be from Windacres Farm, south of Windacres Lodge onto Church

Street; f. the careful siting, design and separation of employment uses and housing; g. improvements to cycle and pedestrian links to the village from the site; h. the provision of replacement dwellings if demolition is necessary to achieve

access to the site; and i. contributions will be required towards the improvement of infrastructure,

including the provision of more sustainable transport choices, services and community facilities unless it is demonstrated that the site or local

APPENDIX A.

5

circumstances do not justify such a provision, in accordance with Core Policies CP13 and CP20.

Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document. Rudgwick Parish Design Statement 2009.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

Access Forum: If possible it would be good to remove any ramps/steps internally in communal buildings. The Councils Strategic and Community Planning Section comments The application needs to be considered against policies in the Local Development Framework, in particular the Core Strategy (2007), the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) Development Plan Document (DPD), the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, and the Planning Obligations SPD. National and regional policies are also relevant to the consideration of the application, in particular those within PPS3: Housing, PPG13: Transport and PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development.

Policy AL9 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land DPD is the key policy in considering this application, as it sets out the criteria against which the application should be considered and I shall go through each point in turn. As a starting point you should also be aware of the Inspectors Report (published September 2007) into the SSAL DPD which gives the background to the proposals. It states:

This allocation for a mixed employment and residential use stems from a study by the local community, endorsed by the Parish Council. The 2006 Rudgwick Parish Plan, which included a questionnaire survey, identified a need for smaller homes and for sheltered housing. There was also considerable support for local employment within the Parish.

We accept that local needs have been identified and there is community support for this project. We also accept that this is perhaps one of the more relatively remote localities in the District and Rudgwick acts as a minor service centre. We recognise that sheltered housing requires a ‘critical mass’ in terms of the number of units necessary to achieve viability. Thus in all the circumstances here we find this allocation sound under Test 7. That said, we find no justification for ‘normal’ single persons/couples/family market housing in this Category 2 Settlement and it is important that this scheme should meet the identified local needs. If meeting these needs is not deliverable, we firmly believe the scheme should not progress for the reasons explained in the second part of 4.25 above.

Paragraph 4.25 relates to Meiros Farm the second part reads:

Nonetheless it is a finely balanced judgement as the consequence is the location of some 20 market homes in a village which is likely to result in travel – predominantly by private car – to other areas for work, main shopping, secondary education and entertainment. The aim of reducing the need to travel will not be met and schemes such as this should not be seen as any sort of precedent for future negotiations elsewhere.

APPENDIX A.

6

“Land amounting to 2.5 hectares is allocated for residential development and employment use. At a density of 30 dwellings per hectare, this site is expected to accommodate around 30 dwellings.”

The policy states that the site is expected to accommodate around 30 dwellings. This allows for flexibility. From a policy perspective, it is acceptable to agree with a higher number of dwellings where circumstances allow. It is noted here that the government has removed minimum requirements for housing density. On the allocated site itself 36 dwellings are proposed (two replacement dwellings for those demolished elsewhere to form the access road), with a further seven one bed units on the Church Road frontage; these lie outside of the allocated area as shown on the proposals map and this area was not considered for development at the Site Specific Allocations of Land hearings. In principle, there is no objection to the number of units proposed, and as the units outside of the allocation would fulfil a local need there is no objection in principle to them. It is, of course, a matter for your judgement as to whether this number of units will sit comfortably on this site, as well as reflecting the character of the area.

A retention of existing business on the site:

Rudgwick Metals will remain on the site and their premises will be improved as part of the development. This, then, accords with the adopted policy.

B the provision of sheltered accommodation for the elderly:

I understand that the proposed sheltered housing meets the definition of sheltered housing required to comply with the policy. In order to secure the sheltered housing on the site a planning obligation under Section 106 should be sought.

C contribution to local employment in the form of new small employment units (B1):

The proposal includes new small employment units. These are welcomed and appear to fulfill the policy requirement.

D retention and enhancement of the existing mature hedgerows:

The scheme indicates the retention of the existing hedgerows. The advice of the Council’s Arboricultural officer and the Landscape Officer should be sought to ensure that there would be no harmful impact from the proposed layout.

E access to be from Windacres Farm, south of Windacres Lodge on to Church Street: The access is shown in this location; in accordance with the policy. I understand that the

advice of the Highway Authority has been sought in respect of the detail. F the careful siting, design and separation of employment uses and housing:

The employment uses and housing are shown to be physically separated, with the employment uses on the western side and the housing on the eastern side. The issues of the layout and design are matters for you following a site visit and in light of the advice of the Design and Conservation Officer. The development principles in Policy DC9 should be applied.

APPENDIX A.

7

G improvements to cycle and pedestrian links to the village from the site:

Other than the main pavement there is currently little evidence of this forming part of the proposals; however, I note that contributions are to be made in respect enhancements southwards from the scheme and this may fulfill the policy requirement. I would recommend that further details from the agent should be sought. Appropriate conditions and an appropriate planning obligation clause should ensure that these improvements take place.

H the provision of replacement dwellings if demolition is necessary to achieve access to the site:

Replacement dwellings are shown as part of the proposal in accordance with the policy. Again, the issues of the layout and design are matters for you following a site visit and in light of the advice of the Design and Conservation Officer. The development principles in Policy DC9 should be applied.

Contributions will be required towards the improvement of infrastructure, including the provision of more sustainable transport choices, services and community facilities unless it is demonstrated that the site or local circumstances do not justify such a provision, in accordance with Core Policies CP13 and CP20.

A Section 106 legal agreement will be required in this respect. The agents indicate they are aware of the need for such contributions.

Other Policy Issues

Policy CP12

The policy, AL9, does not require the sheltered units to be affordable. It was considered at the time of the SSAL hearings that private sheltered accommodation met a local need. With regard to the other housing proposed, this needs to be considered in light of Policy CP12, which requires that in settlements with a population of less than 3000, permission will only be granted for schemes providing 100% affordable housing, unless it is demonstrated that market housing is required under Policies CP5 or CP8. In such cases the target of 40% affordable housing provision will apply to developments of five dwellings or more. In this case, excluding the sheltered provision, there are 2 replacement dwellings, 7 affordable units (on the Church Street frontage within the built up area boundary of Rudgwick where housing for local need can be acceptable in principle), and 8 open market houses. If we were considering the open market housing alone, this would clearly be contrary to the Council’s policy; however, put forward as part of a wider package which is considered to offer benefits to the community, it could be considered acceptable within the policy framework. If the overall scheme was considered to fulfil the aims of policies CP5 and CP8, in terms of local needs and the gradual evolution of the community, and accepting that without the open market housing the overall scheme would be unlikely to go ahead, of the 15, not sheltered or replacement, units, 7 would be affordable, that is over 40%, and therefore within the overall remit of the Council’s policies.

APPENDIX A.

8

As it is also the case that the Inspectors’ report, referred to earlier, states there is community support for the project now embodied in Policy AL9, there is an argument for supporting the proposals under the government’s new localism agenda providing that significant community support continues, despite the element of open market housing. Rudgwick Parish Design Statement

I would also draw your attention to the Rudgwick Parish Design Statement SPD, which was adopted on the 18th September 2009. It is important that any proposal is considered in light of this.

Other issues: Such as the impact and acceptability of the access, impact on the Conservation Area and landscape, trees, and ecology, are better judged by the Case Officer following a site visit and in light of General Development Control Policies (2007). Moreover, in terms of detail, the proposals should also accord with other General Development Control Policies, including DC5 Biodiversity and Geology, DC8 Renewable Energy and Climate Change, DC9 Development Principles, DC12 Conservation Areas, and DC18 Smaller Homes/ Housing Mix. I would be happy to offer further advice on these issues if necessary. Overall: The principle of development is supported on this allocated site. It is considered that the proposals before us now largely meet the strategic objectives of the policy in the SSAL DPD. There are a number of issues that you will need to be satisfied can be achieved and there will need to be appropriate conditions and a Section 106 agreement to ensure the proposals are delivered to meet the policy criteria. Overall, though, I am now satisfied that an acceptable scheme can be achieved. The Councils tree officer comments as follows:

I am pleased to see that this application has been accompanied by a full tree survey, as well as drawings indicating the routes of underground services. This information is required at this stage under our recently adopted Validation Requirements List and makes assessment of the arboricultural implications straightforward. However, I have not found any details submitted showing the provision for tree protective fencing in accordance with BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (2005); this information should be requested prior to determination.

The great majority of the trees on this site are on its peripheries and represent old field boundaries; exceptions are the garden trees within the existing properties Windacres Lodge and Windacres Barn. A number of these will require removal to facilitate development, 24 in total. However, a close analysis of this number indicates that 13 of these are rightly classified (using the model within the BS) as category R, that is, trees which should be removed for reasons "of sound arboricultural management" whether the site is developed or not. Clearly, this is acceptable. Of the remaining 11, 8 are classified as category C (those of low quality and value), rightly in my view, leaving only three trees within category B and none of category A. Given the size of the development proposal, this appears reasonable and confirms that, in general terms, the trees on the site have been paid due regard.

The three category B trees to be removed include the two oaks to the west of the existing access driveway into the site (T35, T36) and the Scots pine in the north-western corner of the garden to Windacres Lodge (T3). Although all three of these trees are in reasonable condition, I do not assess that they are of particular or especial merit, and though T3 has some external public amenity value, I do not feel on balance that its worth is such that it

APPENDIX A.

9

should be retained, given that this would require the shifting of the proposed access driveway into the site by around 9m to the south, thereby sterilising this area for residential development. I thereby record no objection to the removal of these three trees.

In terms of the proximity of the proposed buildings to existing trees, again it appears that suitable consideration has been given to this. The only two locations where buildings foul the root protection areas (RPA's) of trees are in the cases of specimens T13 and T86. However, in both cases, the degree of ingress accords with the recommendations at BS 5837 [2005] and is therefore acceptable.

In some areas, hard surfaces will ingress within the RPA's of certain trees. In some cases, where ingress is limited given the sizes of the RPA's of adjacent specimens, such as along the proposed access driveway, this is a very limited concern only and is acceptable. However, in the cases of trees T33, T38, T39, T40, T41, T42, T47, T53, T54 and T86 ingress is considerable and in these cases hard surfaces will only be acceptable using a 'no-dig' above ground installation process using a three-dimensional Cellular Confinement system such as that indicated in the publication Arboricultural Practice Note APN12, 'Through the Trees to Development' (Patch & Holding, 2007) published by the Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service. Details of this surfacing should be requested from the developers and assessed for suitability.

I have examined the below ground foul drainage plan (drawing 2009288/EXT02) and note that the system is at an acceptable distance from the trees within the main of the site. However, where it sited beneath the proposed access road, it is shown in fairly close proximity to the northern boundary and fouls, in places, the RPA's of a number of the trees to be retained along this boundary (trees T7, T20). Although not catastrophic, it would represent better practice to shift the position of this underground service slightly to the south, still within the roadway, by around 2m.

In summary, this proposal appears acceptable save for the requirements noted above to:

Provide information on tree protective fencing;

Provide information on the use of special surfaces where required within the RPA's of trees;

Shift the siting of the foul drain along the access roadway slightly to the south.

Subject to these refinements, I feel that the scheme respects the existing tree stock overall, and is moreover unlikely to lead to post development pressure for tree removal. I therefore record NO OBJECTION to the scheme. OUTSIDE AGENCIES The Parish Council on the 19 January stated that it accepted the principle of development and welcomed the business units and formation of a village trust to manage the development. However it objected to the proposal due to concerns of the housing mix with to many sheltered units, more rented accommodation needed, the affordable housing units at the front of the site are outside the AL9 policy area, the 3 storey building would be contrary to the Rudgwick Parish Design Statement policy 11, lack of storage for houses with no garages a concern, concerns relating to surface/foul water drainage, increased pressure on village water supply which is prone to loss of supply in summer, community building may not be sustainable and may impact on existing facilities in the village, lack of discussion with the Parish Council, pedestrian access poor and footpath should be provided, access opposite

APPENDIX A.

10

Chapel which generates on street parking. The Parish would welcome greater involvement given the importance of the allocated site to the village. On the 20 October the Parish Council provided further comments following submission of additional details. It stated an overwhelming majority of members have no objection to the proposed development, subject to clarification of issues below and consultation with the Parish Council in the delegation period should Committee resolve to grant planning permission. Further investigation to ensure satisfactory foul and surface water drainage, investigation into adequacy of water supply, further information required with regard to Community Interest Company to ensure greater transparency, green space to be maintained between 4 bed houses and units on site frontage, access of vehicles and pedestrians, further information needed on viability and sustainability of community buildings, possibility of provision of some rented accommodation, notes 3 storey building is contrary to Rudgwick Parish Design Statement whilst understanding the reasons for its design. Rudgwick biodiversity project team wishes to be involved in the biodiversity of the site.

Sussex Police note the site is in a low crime area and raises no major concerns. However notes disappointment that the design and access statement does not make a reference to crime prevention measures contrary to the advice in PPS1. They would be pleased to offer advice to the applicant/agent on addressing this omission. Environment Agency recommends that the Local Planning Authorities Drainage engineers need to be satisfied with the surface water drainage of the site, in particular the small area in the south of the site, no objections subject to conditions. Southern Water state if planning permission granted please include the following informative”The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service the development”. There are no surface water sewers in the area, drainage to watercourse may be required, soakaways may not be appropriate due to the sub soil. If Sustainable Urban Drainage System is used, arrangements for the long term maintenance should be established. Condition should be imposed on foul and surface water drainage matters. West Sussex County Council note the site is an Allocated site, commenting that a safety audit is required for access, drawings are required for proposed footway improvements. The proposal has 59 parking spaces for the B1 and B2 uses and 82 spaces for the residential which is considered to be within the required standards. It recommends a condition relating to archaeological investigation, and that further information is required on ecological issues, as great crested newts are recorded within ponds adjacent to the site. Mitigation must be resolved for newts use of the site, and a method statement for mitigation of bats is also required, the surveys and mitigation must be resolved before any approval is granted. Contributions of £196,398 are required for Education, Fire and Transport infrastructure requirements generated by the development. Following the receipt of a safety audit on the access, the following comments were received from the County Council. In response to the safety audit most issues can

APPENDIX A.

11

be addressed at the detailed design stage. Two problems would benefit from further discussions at this stage; firstly the possibility of parking along Church Street resulting in conflict between parked vehicles attempting to enter the site, waiting restrictions could therefore be appropriate if the problem arises, via an obligation in a legal agreement. Secondly the issue of improvements to the pedestrian footway in Church Street.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

28 letters of objection were received on the basis of the application as originally submitted and a further 15 letters of objection were received following reconsultation, from 29 addresses, on the following grounds: Removal of trees unacceptable Surface and foul water drainage issues Drift from LDF provision Length of proposed implementation Limited pre application consultation Excessive amount of building for the site Increase in traffic, noise, light and disturbance Highway Safety Cost and viability of community facilities Change in character of village Impact on conservation area Conflict with Rudgwick Design Statement Long Term Management unclear No need for community facilities Three storey building inappropriate Increase in housing over LDF Policy New road Lack of pre application consultation Affordable housing isolated from main scheme Only 2 bed affordable units provided, lack of mix Rented affordable housing needed 40% affordable housing should be provided under policy CP5 Over development Small developments of affordable housing for local people required Does not comply with Policy AL9 Original consultation undertaken by Parish Council was flawed No accommodation schedule with unit sizes Proposal does not meet local need requirements identified by housing need survey No one bed units despite demand No viability information provided to support affordable housing provision 100% affordable housing should be provided as population of Rudgwick is under 3000 persons and such a scheme would be viable. Control of continuation of agricultural and commercial uses required Access should be amended to remove direct access to agricultural land Not compliant with LDF for meeting local need Category 2 settlement and development should therefore meet local need

APPENDIX A.

12

Urbanised form of development No mention in policy AL9 of restaurant, museum, Parish Council office Roundabout at access should be provided Wall around business area required Layout and design inappropriate Community facilities could be deleted to aid viability and allow affordable housing within AL9 site and compliance with policy What happens if Community Interest Company fails Amendments do not overcome objections Local Councillor is applicant Represents missed opportunity if community views are not taken into account 10 letters of comment have been received from 9 addresses commenting as follows Lack of traffic calming Ensure privacy is retained Relocation of bin storage Control over use of existing access by traffic from development Design vernacular and not stimulating Use of existing access inappropriate Existing access outside site boundary Surface water drainage needs resolving Should involve wider Rudgwick Community Provision of bus stops Control over commercial uses Not set president Site plan needs clarifying Protection of trees Controls over lighting Further landscaping needed B1 use only adj to residential Security of electricity supply Can school cope with extra demand Who is funding development Who are trustees Who is builder Proposal fait accompli Each element of scheme should be considered individually to assess acceptability 20 letters in support of the proposal have been received from 17 addresses.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

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

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

APPENDIX A.

13



6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The application needs to be considered against policies in the Local Development

Framework, in particular the Core Strategy (2007), the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) Development Plan Document (DPD), the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, and the Planning Obligations SPD. Also of relevance is the Rudgwick Parish Design Statement. Relevant National planning guidance is also a material consideration.

6.2 The access, sheltered housing, B1 uses and retention of Rudgwick metals are all

within the objectives of Policy AL9 of the LDF, their specific merits in the form put forward in this application therefore need to be considered.

6.3 Consideration needs to be given to the planning merits of the proposed 7 affordable

housing units proposed in this application at the front of the site, located within the Built Up Area of Rudgwick, and adjacent to the boundary of the Rudgwick Conservation Area

6.4 The justification for the community facility elements of the current scheme and the 8

three bed ‘open market’ units, proposed to be located on the site outside the Defined Built up Area of Rudgwick also needs to be considered, together with their merits in terms of relevant policy requirements.

6.5 With regard to the affordable housing units to the front of the site, these dwellings being within the Defined Built up Area can be considered in the context on normal Development Management policies, and being affordable units can be considered to meet a local need.

6.6 The community facilities proposed, the applicant maintains, constituting an office and meeting place/café/ small library, would be required in connection with the sheltered housing element of the scheme to meet the reasonable needs of the occupiers. The small museum represents, it is maintained, a further modest community facility, as does the potential office accommodation for the Parish Council. However the applicant advises that should the Parish Council for example not choose to utilise the space this would not prejudice the overall scheme. As such seen in the context of the development of the sheltered accommodation in particular and the development as a whole, it is not considered there is an objection in principal to these elements, subject to the proposal as a whole representing an appropriate package of development.

6.7 The remaining element of the current application that falls outside the criteria of policy AL9 are the 8 three bed ‘open market’ units. These units proposed to be built outside the Defined Built Up Area, in the countryside, as noted in the comments of the Councils Strategic Planning Teams comments would, if considered alone,

APPENDIX A.

14

clearly be contrary to the Council’s policy; however, their comments continue, put forward as part of a wider package which is considered to offer benefits to the community, it could be considered acceptable within the policy framework. If the overall scheme was considered to fulfil the aims of policies CP5 and CP8, in terms of local needs and the gradual evolution of the community, and accepting that without the open market housing the overall scheme would be unlikely to go ahead, and taking into account that of the 15, not sheltered or replacement, units, 7 would be affordable, that is over 40%, and therefore within the overall remit of the Council’s policies. If members were satisfied that the overall scheme fulfilled the aims of CP 5 and CP8 this aspect of the proposal in itself would represent a conflict with policy such to warrant refusal.

6.8 With regard to the scheme as a whole and the sheltered housing units in particular, a number of representations received relate to the level of affordable housing provision, questioning if the development should provide 100% affordable housing in this Category 2 settlement, 40% affordable housing in accordance with the level of affordable housing normally sought by this Council in relation to such development, and why only 7 units of affordable housing are proposed in a scheme of 43 dwellings.

6.9 In this regard it is considered appropriate to turn to the requirement of Policy AL9 in the first instance. Policy AL9 b states development will be subject to the provision of sheltered accommodation for the elderly. In the explanatory text for the policy, it is stated “In terms of residential development this should be for a scheme for private sheltered housing to meet identified local need”. Other allocation policies in the plan specify the level of affordable housing needed to meet identified local needs. In this case the policy, based on evidence put forward to the Inspector, identifies the need for ‘private sheltered housing’ which this aspect of the current proposal seeks to meet. In these circumstances and in light of the specific wording of the policy applicable to this site and its explanatory text it, is considered that the private sheltered housing proposed meets the specific policy requirements of Policy AL9 as set out, and that in these circumstances the policy does not require affordable housing to be provided, requiring instead “private sheltered Housing” as proposed.

6.10 The scheme as currently put forward also proposes 8 three bed open market dwellings and 7 two bed affordable dwellings. This represents 46% of the non sheltered units constituting affordable housing (excluding the 2 dwellings proposed to replace 2 units demolished to construct the access).

6.11 In these circumstances the principal of the overall level of provision of affordable housing associated with the scheme is considered appropriate. It would however be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that the method of securing affordable housing on the site, through a Community Interest Company, provided a satisfactory mechanism to achieve the delivery and retention of affordable housing, meeting the relevant definitions, and that this could be satisfactorily achieved through a S106 legal agreement. The form of affordable housing proposed is shared ownership, and the parish Council in its comments requests further consideration is also given to providing an element of rented affordable housing.

APPENDIX A.

15

6.12 The comments of the Councils strategic and community planning Team in section 3 above set out detailed consideration with regard to the proposals compliance with the individual policy aspects of AL9. Consideration of development management criteria with regard to the proposal are set out below.

6.13 It is necessary to consider the impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of surrounding occupiers. It is noted that the B1 commercial units adjacent to the western boundary share the common boundary with adjacent residential development. However along parts of this boundary are agricultural barns, and with boundary vegetation, together with the design of the B1 units and associated windows it is considered the development could be accommodated in an acceptable manner in this regard.

6.14 The existing dwelling Windacres is in relatively close proximity to the south western corner of the residential part of the site. This property currently retains a relatively rural position and outlook, the proposal would result in residential development adjacent to its common boundary with the site. The common boundary contains a number of deciduous trees in this location. It is considered that the relative orientations of the relevant properties together with positioning of windows etc would protect the residential amenities of the occupiers, whilst it is acknowledged changing the context within which the dwelling is currently sited.

6.15 In the context of the development as a whole the nature of the 2 proposed replacement dwellings is considered appropriate.

6.16 The amenities of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings must also be considered. In this regard it is considered the relationship of the proposed dwellings with the commercial units and community facilities is acceptable. It is also considered the relationship of the proposed dwellings within the site is appropriate.

6.17 It is noted that the proposed affordable units to the front of the site, and in particular those facing onto the proposed access drive, are located between the proposed access and the existing access to Windacres. There is relatively little separation between the front of these dwellings and the proposed access, and the rear of the units and the existing access. This offers relatively little usable amenity space for 2 of the units and the potential for disturbance due to the proximity of vehicle movements to the front and rear of these 3 units. However, having regard to the levels of traffic likely to be using the accesses, particularly the one to the rear of the dwellings, this relationship is, on balance considered acceptable.

6.18 Having regard to the design of the various elements of the proposal, it is considered that it is generally appropriate. A number of alternative designs for the 4 units fronting onto Church Street have been suggested and it will be necessary to give careful consideration to this aspect of the proposal in particular having regard to its relationship with the boundary of the Rudgwick Conservation Area.

6.19 It will be important to ensure that the development, including the formation of the access, preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area.

APPENDIX A.

16

6.20 One particular aspect of the design of the scheme that has aroused comment is that of the 3 storey sheltered housing flat element. In particular comment has been made that a 3 storey building is contrary to the Rudgwick Parish Design Statement. This document is one of a number of material considerations, it is noted the three storey building is towards the centre of the site and would be viewed in the context of the larger existing commercial buildings and the proposed commercial and community buildings, and as such seeks to provide a transition between these buildings and the more domestic scale of the remaining dwellings proposed on the site. In these circumstances a 3 storey building in this location is not considered to be unacceptable in principle by your officers. In this regard the design of this building has been amended to change from a full 3 storey structure with parapet walls, to a mansard style roof incorporating dormer windows, in order to reduce the eaves height and apparent impact of the building within the development.

6.21 The Council’s Tree Officer has confirmed that he has no objection to the scheme, having regard to its impact on the trees on and adjacent to the site.

6.22 The County Surveyor raises no objection to the access proposals from a highway safety point of view, subject to a mechanism to secure waiting restrictions on Church Street if required and further consideration of footway improvements from the site into Rudgwick.

6.23 In addition to the County Infrastructure requirements amounting to £196398,

District Infrastructure requirements amounting to £63732 would normally be required in respect of the development.

6.24 Issues relating to water supply, surface and foul water drainage can be discussed further with the infrastructure providers.

6.25 Mitigation etc measures relating to ecology can be assessed during a period of delegation.

6.26 The applicant can discuss crime prevention measures directly with Sussex Police. 7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that the application be delegated with a view to approval to the

Head of Planning and Environmental Services in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee and the Parish Council, subject to further negotiation and satisfactory clarification on the issues identified within the report, the completion of a S106 legal agreement relating to amongst other matters the provision of County and District Council infrastructure contributions generated by the development, the provision of sheltered and affordable housing, the mechanism for the management and delivery of the proposal through the proposed Community Interest Company, ability to impose waiting restrictions on Church Street if required together with formulation of appropriate conditions and reasons for approval.

Background Papers: DC/09/1623 Contact Officer: Steve Booth Slb1pink/wk4/jlt

APPENDIX B.


abcd



DATE: 4th October 2011

DEVELOPMENT: Redevelopment of site with mixed use scheme including demolition of existing 2 dwellings, derelict farm buildings and workshops and erection of 43 dwellings (comprising 33 x 2-bed; 8 x 3-bed and 2 x 4-bed residential units), parking barns, 3 x B1 office units and 3 x B1 shed units, a community facility (Parish Council office, small museum/ library, coffee shop) and extension to existing industrial unit.


WARD: Rudgwick


APPLICANT: Cllr John Bailey REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development/Applicant is a Council Member. Committee requirement from its meeting on the 2nd November 2010 that the application be reported back to Committee following consideration of the matters arising from the committee’s previous consideration of the application. RECOMMENDATION: That the application be delegated with a view to approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the submission of satisfactory details regarding an engineering solution to control use of the existing access from the proposed access road, and the completion of a S106 legal agreement securing amongst other matters necessary infrastructure contributions, an appropriate mechanism for provision and retention of 7 affordable housing units of appropriate tenure and mix, appropriate control and management of the sheltered housing units, appropriate footpath link(s) adjacent to Church Street from the site and matters relating to the appropriate development of the site. 1. CURRENT POSITION One further letter of support has been received following the Committees previous

consideration of the application, together with various items of correspondence seeking clarification on various issues from interested parties.


APPENDIX B.

2

1.1 The application was previously considered by the committee at its meeting on the

2nd November 2010 and the relevant report is attached. The meeting resolved that:

"That application DC/09/1623 be determined by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Councillor Jenkins, to enable negotiations regarding a suitable legal agreement; further clarification on issues identified in the report, particularly with regard to advising the Rudgwick Preservation Society of progress during the delegation period; the submission of a business plan indicating that the community interest company is viable in the long term; further consideration of phasing and the length of time it will take to complete the development; the provision of three rented affordable units; clarification on the pedestrian route to Highcroft Drive and to Rudgwick village centre; issues to be addressed regarding the feeling that there had been a lack of local involvement, particularly by involving the Parish Council in delegation; and to ensure that the community interest company is set up before the development commences and is fully funded prior to the start of development. The application would be reported back to the Committee once the delegation period had ended, to enable the Committee to endorse decisions made during the delegation period. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted."

1.2 The "further clarification on issues identified in the report" referred to in the above

minute, related in particular to the following matters: 1.3 The Council's Tree Officer requested information to be provided on tree protective

fencing; information to be provided on the use of special surfaces where required within the root protection areas of trees; and the rerouting of a foul drain along the access roadway to the south, to avoid the roots of adjacent trees.

1.4 The Parish Council requested clarification and further investigation to ensure

satisfactory foul and surface water drainage, the adequacy of the water supply and also required further information with regard to the community interest company to ensure greater transparency, the maintenance of green space along the access road, further information on the viability and sustainability of the "community" facilities, consideration of the three storey building and noting that the Rudgwick Biodiversity Project Team wishes to be involved in the biodiversity of the site.

1.5 Sussex Police noted with disappointment that the Design and Access Statement

did not make specific reference to crime prevention measures and would be pleased to offer advice to the applicant/agent on addressing this omission.

1.6 Southern Water require the applicant/developer to enter into a formal agreement

to provide necessary sewerage infrastructure and that if a sustainable urban drainage system is used, arrangements provided for the long term maintenance of the system.

1.7 West Sussex County Council required further information on ecological mitigation measures, in particular with regard to Great Crested Newts recorded in ponds adjacent to the site. It also noted contributions of £190,398 would be required for education, fire and transport infrastructure generated by the development.

APPENDIX B.

3

1.8 Furthermore, following receipt of the safety audit with regard to the access, the County Council noted most issues can be addressed at the detailed design stage but two problems would benefit from further discussion, firstly the possibility of parking along Church Street resulting in conflict between parked vehicles attempting to enter the site and therefore the possible requirement for waiting restrictions if a problem arises via an obligation in the legal agreement, and secondly the issue of improvements to the pedestrian footway in Church Street.

1.9 Further consideration also needed to be given to the planning merits of the

proposed seven affordable housing units proposed to be located at the front of the site in terms of their precise location and detailed design considerations in light of the various options provided.

1.10 Detailed consideration of the relationship between the proposed development and

the adjacent dwelling Windacres, in terms of ensuring acceptable relationship is obtained with regard to issues such as overlooking etc.

1.11 It was also noted that it was important to ensure that the development, including the

formation of the access, preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area.

1.12 Further detailed consideration of the three storey sheltered housing flat element in

light of the revised plans submitted prior to the Committee's original consideration of the application was also requested.

1.13 District infrastructure requirements amounting to £63,732 would normally be

required in respect of the development.

1.14 Consideration to be given as to how the existing right of way from the site to the existing access can be maintained for those that have a right to use it, whilst appropriately discouraging/precluding use of the original access by occupiers and visitors to the proposed development.

1.15 Your officers wrote to the applicant’s agent following the Committee meeting setting

out the matters required to be addressed. A meeting with the applicant and his agent/advisor was held in January 2011. Subsequent to this meeting further information and consideration has been given to various matters referred to above as and when the required details have been received.

1.16 Further clarification has also been obtained on how the applicant intends to develop

the site should planning permission be granted, and the role of the Community Interest Company referred to by the applicant.

1.17 Discussions with the applicant have indicated that the Community interest

Company (CIC) is unlikely to be set up before development commences on the site and as such it is not possible for officers to obtain information for members on the funding arrangements or any future viability of such accompany since it is not yet in existence.

APPENDIX B.

4

2 Affordable Housing and Community Interest Company

2.1 The applicant advises that it is not intended for a Community Interest Company to develop the site. It is the applicants intention that a CIC would be given and own the freehold of the 7 affordable housing units and the ‘community facilities’ building. The applicant intends that a CIC would then manage and maintain the development, charging a ‘management charge’ from the occupiers of the development as a whole. Your officers note however that the precise way in which this will work is however dependant on decisions to be taken by an as yet non existent company.

2.2 As a CIC for the site has not been set up it is not possible to incorporate the CIC

into the requirements of the Section 106 Legal Agreement, or provide reliable information on the sustainability of such a future body. However it should be noted that there is no planning policy requirement for a CIC to be involved in the development at all and that the future existence of a CIC is dependant on the applicants wishes for the future development of the site. In these circumstances, at this stage, your officers consider that the Section 106 legal agreement associated with the development needs to be entered into and the obligations and covenants given by, the persons who currently have a legal interest in the land. The obligations contained within the agreement will then pass to future owners of the land. It is considered that the agreement should be drafted on the basis of the Councils usual requirements in terms of provision and retention of the 7 affordable housing units in that they are transferred to an Affordable Housing Provider registered with the Homes And Communities Agency (together with clauses and provisions for nomination etc by the Council) and the sheltered housing element is managed by the owner etc. In the event that a CIC is subsequently set up, the applicant could at that time ask the Council to vary the legal agreement to enable the CIC to undertake such a role, subject to the Council being satisfied with the information provided by the CIC at that time, on the appropriateness and sustainability of the variation of the agreement being requested. Your officers consider this approach to represent an appropriate solution in principle to the current position where a CIC has not been set up.

2.3 The Council’s Housing and Development officer comments that he is satisfied in

principle with this approach with regard to the provision of the 7 affordable housing units commenting in detail as follows:

2.4 The report presented at the Committee Meeting on 2 November 2010 stated that

the development would be managed and run by a Community Interest Company (CIC). This would extend to the new commercial units, sheltered accommodation, affordable homes, community facilities as well as communal areas and unadopted access within the development.

2.5 The applicant now confirms that a CIC will own the freehold of the affordable

housing and community facilities, and manage the remainder of the development.

APPENDIX B.

5

2.6 The November report also pointed out that managing affordable housing through a CIC rather than a social landlord (Registered Provider/Housing Association) would be a departure from normal practice, and although CICs have been set up to manage various community activities and businesses, the use of a CIC to manage affordable housing is less common.

2.7 The case officer wrote to the applicant’s agent on 15 December 2010 setting out

further work that needed to be done on the application before it could be brought back to Committee.

2.8 The applicant was advised of the committee’s previous comments that a

Community Interest Company should be set up and fully funded prior to commencement of development, and to provide a business plan indicating that the Community Interest Company was viable in the long term.

2.9 It is the stated intention of the applicant to set up a CIC to provide and manage the

affordable homes. and to provide 7 affordable housing units for local people, for rent and equity sales to those that it considers to be in housing need. (together with managing the remainder of the development.

2.10 However, as the Community Interest Company has not yet been formed, the

applicant has been unable to provide the information required by the committee.

2.11 As the CIC does not yet exist it cannot be a party to the proposed agreement pursuant to Section 106 which members considered would be necessary to address matters arising from the development, (including Affordable Housing but also a number of other matters) when the Committee previously considered the matter in November 2010.

2.12 It is the view of your officers that the obligations on the Owners (and any future

owners to provide allocate and manage affordable housing should reflect the definitions and clauses that the Council usually expects when affordable homes are delivered by a Registered Provider – that is, a housing association registered with the Homes and Communities Agency. These clauses set out how and when the homes will be delivered, the type, mix and tenure of the homes, and safeguards should the provider fail If ownership of the application site is transferred to a Community Interest Company then any obligations under a Section 106 Agreement on the current owner of the application site will pass to that company.

2.13 The Community Interest Company may indeed conclude at some point in the future

that its aims in providing the seven homes for local need is best served by transferring those homes to a specialist rural Registered Provider.

2.14 However, should the CIC wish to assume responsibility itself for provision

management and letting /sale etc then, it will be necessary for it to apply to the Council for a Deed of Variation to the Legal Agreement. To facilitate that at that stage your officers will be able to assess whether the CICs proposals are satisfactory with regard to the obligations under the agreement to secure the availability of the Affordable Housing Units for persons in housing need in

APPENDIX B.

6

perpetuity, and make an appropriate recommendation to Committee under any request to vary the legal agreement.

3 Other Issues

3.1 Following the meeting in January between officers the applicant/agent and the Member Panel, an action list was drawn up by your officers seeking to further clarify the matters required to be considered following the Committees previous consideration of the application as follows:

3.2 Action points for the Local Planning Authority 3.3 Further detailed consideration of the relationship between the proposed

development and the adjacent dwelling Windacres, in terms of ensuring an acceptable relationship is obtained with regard to issues such as overlooking etc; Members also noted that it was important to ensure that the development, including the formation of the access, preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area.

3.4 Further detailed consideration to be given to the three storey sheltered housing flatted element in light of the revised plans submitted prior to the Committee's original consideration of the application.

3.5 Action points for applicant/agent:

3.6 Further information (business plan) to be submitted indicating that the

community interest company is viable in the longer term; 3.7 To ensure the community interest company is set up before the development

commences and is fully funded prior to the start of the development; 3.8 Further information on Community Interest Company to ensure greater

transparency; 3.9 Viability and sustainability of community facilities; 3.10 Further consideration of the phasing and length of time it will take to

complete the development; 3.11 Provision of 3 rented affordable units; 3.12 Clarification on a pedestrian route to Highcroft Drive and to Rudgwick village

centre; 3.13 Issues to be addressed regarding the feeling that there had been a lack of

local involvement; 3.14 The Council’s Tree Officer requests information to be provided on tree

protective fencing;

APPENDIX B.

7

3.15 Information to be provided on the use of special surfaces where required within the root protection areas of trees;

3.16 The routing of a foul drain along the access roadway to avoid roots of adjacent trees;

3.17 Further investigation to ensure satisfactory foul and surface water drainage; 3.18 Adequacy of water supply; 3.19 Maintenance of green space along the road; 3.20 Involvement of Rudgwick Biodiversity project Team. 3.21 Sussex Police noted with disappointment that the Design and Access

Statement did not make specific reference to crime prevention measures and would be pleased to offer advice to the applicant/agent on addressing this omission.

3.22 Southern Water require the applicant/developer to enter into a formal

agreement to provide necessary sewerage infrastructure and that if a sustainable urban drainage system is used, arrangements provided for the long term maintenance of the system.

3.23 West Sussex County Council required further information on ecological

mitigation measures, in particular with regard to Great Crested Newts recorded in ponds adjacent to the site.

3.24 Contributions of £190,398 would be required for education, fire and transport

infrastructure generated by the development. 3.25 Following receipt of the safety audit with regard to the access, the County

Council noted most issues can be addressed at the detailed design stage but two problems would benefit from further discussion, firstly the possibility of parking along Church Street resulting in conflict between parked vehicles attempting to enter the site and therefore the possible requirement for waiting restrictions if a problem arises via an obligation in the legal agreement; and secondly the issue of improvements to the pedestrian footway in Church Street.

3.26 District infrastructure requirements amounting to £63,732 would normally be

required in respect of the development. Consider how the existing right of way from the site to the existing access

can be maintained for those that have a right to use it, whilst appropriately discouraging/precluding use of the original access by occupiers and visitors to the proposed development.

4 Taking each of the above issues in turn, the current position is as follows:

APPENDIX B.

8

Further detailed consideration of the relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent dwelling Windacres, in terms of ensuring an acceptable relationship is obtained with regard to issues such as overlooking etc.

4.1 The original report with regard to this issue stated:

The existing dwelling Windacres is in relatively close proximity to the south western corner of the residential part of the site. This property currently retains a relatively rural position and outlook, the proposal would result in residential development adjacent to its common boundary with the site. The common boundary contains a number of deciduous trees in this location. It is considered that the relative orientations of the relevant properties together with positioning of windows etc would protect the residential amenities of the occupiers, whilst it is acknowledged changing the context within which the dwelling is currently sited.

4.2 Further consideration has been given to this issue and it is considered that the

relationship of the proposed development in relation to the existing dwelling Windacres is appropriate.

Members also noted that it was important to ensure that the development,

including the formation of the access, preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area.

4.3 It is noted that the principle of a new access is referred to in Policy AL9 and that

the proposed access at 7m wide meets standards set out for an access serving a development of the type proposed, including the ability for two articulated lorries to pass, in light of the commercial element of the scheme and that the access could also serve agricultural purposes. A 7m wide access road at this point would be a prominent feature in the street scene, wider than Church Street itself at this location. However in light of the potential type of vehicular traffic that could use the access it is considered that a 7m access width at its junction with Church Street is appropriate in terms of highway engineering terms. The access junction has been the subject of a safety audit and is in principle considered appropriate. There is however the potential to reduce the width of the access road after its junction with Church Street.

4.4 The impact of the access on the Conservation Area can be reduced by detailed consideration of such issues as surface treatment, kerbing and road markings.

4.5 The other main impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area are the 7 proposed units of affordable housing at the front of the site adjacent to the access. The applicant has provided four alternative elevational treatments for the four units fronting onto Church Street. On balance your officers consider the frontage elevational treatment shown on the drawing submitted on the 03/09/2010 to be the most appropriate, although as stated above other elevational treatments suggested could also be considered appropriate.

APPENDIX B.

9

4.6 In the above circumstances it is considered the development and the access in particular would have an acceptable impact on the Conservation Area.

Further detailed consideration to be given to the three storey sheltered housing flatted element in light of the revised plans submitted prior to the Committee's original consideration of the application.

4.7 The original report with regard to this issue stated:

One particular aspect of the design of the scheme that has aroused comment is that of the 3 storey sheltered housing flat element. In particular comment has been made that a 3 storey building is contrary to the Rudgwick Parish Design Statement. This document is one of a number of material considerations, it is noted the three storey building is towards the centre of the site and would be viewed in the context of the larger existing commercial buildings and the proposed commercial and community buildings, and as such seeks to provide a transition between these buildings and the more domestic scale of the remaining dwellings proposed on the site. In these circumstances a 3 storey building in this location is not considered to be unacceptable in principle by your officers. In this regard the design of this building has been amended to change from a full 3 storey structure with parapet walls, to a mansard style roof incorporating dormer windows, in order to reduce the eaves height and apparent impact of the building within the development.

4.8 Further consideration has been given to the amended plans received prior to the

committees previous consideration of the application, your officers remain of the view that the revised plans have reduced the potential impact of this 3 storey flatted element of the scheme in the centre of the development. Having regard to its relationship with the larger scale commercial and community buildings your officers remain satisfied that this aspect of the proposal is acceptable in its proposed context.

4.9 Action points for applicant/agent

Further information (business plan) to be submitted indicating that the community

interest company is viable in the longer term; To ensure the community interest company is set up before the development

commences and is fully funded prior to the start of the development; Further information on Community Interest Company to ensure greater

transparency.

4.10 As stated above the proposed Community Interest Company has not yet been set up although the applicant has submitted information with regard to the principals of the proposed Community Interest Company.

APPENDIX B.

10

4.11 As the CIC has not been set up the applicant is unable to provide any further reliable information regarding the viability of the future CIC at this time, or a detailed business plan etc. The manner in which it is proposed to deal with this situation is referred to above in more detail. Namely that the application and associated legal agreement are dealt with at the present time on the basis of a standard application, with a legal agreement containing standard requirements for such a development. In the future, should planning permission for the development be granted and a CIC set up, the applicant could if necessary apply to the Council to vary the legal agreement with regard to a CIC, and at that time would be in a position to provide further information on the viability of any CIC in the longer term and its transparency etc.

4.12 As it is not the intention for the CIC to develop the site and in the above circumstances, it is not considered necessary by your officers for the CIC to be set up or to be fully funded prior to the start of the development.

Further consideration of the phasing and length of time it will take to complete the development

4.13 The applicant has advised that it would be the intention that the development would take between three and four years to build out from implementation of development, and that phasing would be in accordance with the phasing plan originally submitted with the application.

Provision of 3 rented affordable units

4.14 The applicant has confirmed that of the 7 affordable housing units proposed 3

rented affordable units would be provided, to be secured through the legal agreement.

Clarification on a pedestrian route to Highcroft Drive and to Rudgwick village

centre: 4.15 The applicant has advised that he is unable to provide a pedestrian route to/from

Highcroft Drive. Preliminary plans for pedestrian links alongside Church Street have been prepared by the applicant, which have been discussed with the Parish Council and West Sussex County Council as the Highway Authority. Subject to the formal comments of the Highway Authority and further consultation with relevant parties, formal costed proposals can be drawn up, the provision of this aspect of the proposal is a matter that can be controlled and secured through the legal agreement.

Issues to be addressed regarding the feeling that there had been a lack of local involvement:

4.16 The applicant is of the view that there has been appropriate local involvement having undertaken exhibitions in the village etc.

The Council’s Tree Officer requests information to be provided on tree protective

fencing; Information to be provided on the use of special surfaces where required

APPENDIX B.

11

within the root protection areas of trees; The routing of a foul drain along the access roadway to avoid roots of adjacent trees:

4.17 These details have recently been submitted and the submitted information is

considered to be acceptable.

Further investigation to ensure satisfactory foul and surface water drainage: 4.18 Your officers are satisfied this is a matter that can be satisfactorily controlled

through conditions and that a satisfactory technical solution can be provided by the applicant should the development reach the detailed construction design stage.

Adequacy of water supply: 4.19 Southern Water have informally advised that in its view an appropriate water

supply can be provided without undue impact on other users in the locality and your officers are seeking its formal response in this regard.

Maintenance of green space along the road: 4.20 Maintenance of open spaces within the development can be secured through the

legal agreement.

Involvement of Rudgwick Biodiversity project Team.

Sussex Police noted with disappointment that the Design and Access Statement did not make specific reference to crime prevention measures and would be pleased to offer advice to the applicant/agent on addressing this omission:

4.21 The applicants agent has been in contact with Sussex Police and whilst an

amendment to the Design and Access Statement has not been provided Sussex Police make a number of detailed comments, draw the attention of the applicant to Secured by Design accreditation and look forward to continued contact with the applicant as the project develops.

Southern Water require the applicant/developer to enter into a formal agreement to provide necessary sewerage infrastructure and that if a sustainable urban drainage system is used, arrangements provided for the long term maintenance of the system:

4.22 It is appropriate for the developer to enter into a formal agreement with Southern

Water to provide necessary sewerage infrastructure following any grant of planning permission. Arrangements to provide for the long term maintenance of any sustainable urban drainage system, or other means of surface water drainage can be achieved through the legal agreement.

APPENDIX B.

12

West Sussex County Council required further information on ecological mitigation measures, in particular with regard to Great Crested Newts recorded in ponds adjacent to the site:

4.23 Whilst a corrected application form has not been received with regard to the

issue of the presence of protected species in the vicinity of the site as originally requested by the County Ecologist, further ecological reports have been received with regard to bat and newt mitigation measures. The County Ecologist has confirmed the submitted information is acceptable and has withdrawn the County Councils Strategic previous ecological objection to the proposal.

County contributions of £190,398 would be required for education, fire and transport infrastructure generated by the development:

4.24 Appropriate County infrastructure contributions will be negotiated through the legal agreement.

4.25 Following receipt of the safety audit with regard to the access, the County Council noted most issues can be addressed at the detailed design stage but two problems would benefit from further discussion, firstly the possibility of parking along Church Street resulting in conflict between parked vehicles attempting to enter the site and therefore the possible requirement for waiting restrictions if a problem arises via an obligation in the legal agreement; and secondly the issue of improvements to the pedestrian footway in Church Street.

4.26 It is understood that the County Council safety audit team remain of the view that possible requirement for waiting restrictions along Church Street should be addressed by an obligation in the legal agreement. The applicant wished to resolve the matter as to whether such waiting restrictions were required or not at this stage but has been unable to achieve this. It is therefore considered this matter is best dealt with as suggested by the Highway Authority, through the legal agreement; as stated above the issue of improvements to the pedestrian footway along Church Street is the subject of ongoing work by the applicant.

District infrastructure requirements amounting to £63,732 would normally be required in respect of the development for off site recreational facilities, off site community facilities and refuse and recycling. :

4.27 Appropriate District infrastructure contributions will be negotiated through the

legal agreement process

Consider how the existing right of way from the site to the existing access can be maintained for those that have a right to use it, whilst appropriately discouraging/precluding use of the original access by occupiers and visitors to the proposed development:

4.28 The applicant has recently submitted a plan illustrating four removable bollards

seeking to address this issue. Your officers have been advised that the current proposal is unlikely to provide a robust solution to this issue and the applicant has been requested to reconsider the matter and provide alternative

APPENDIX B.

13

suggestions, potentially including removable bollards and over- runable build outs within the carriageway to an appropriate design

5. RECOMMENDATION 5.1 It is recommended that the application be delegated with a view to approval to the

Head of Planning and Environmental Services subject to: the submission of further details seeking to control the use of the existing access

from the proposed access, the completion of a S106 legal agreement relating to amongst other matters the provision of appropriate County and District Council infrastructure contributions generated by the development, the provision of sheltered and affordable housing, the mechanism for the management and delivery of the sheltered and affordable housing, landscaped areas, on site community facilities, surface water drainage, ecology, necessary access bollards etc, the ability to impose waiting restrictions on Church Street if required, improved footpath links adjacent to Church Street, together with he following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

five years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 (As Amended). 02 Before development commences accurate details of the finished floor levels

of the buildings in relation to nearby datum points shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

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

03 No development shall take place until details of screen walls and/or fences

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screen walls and/or fences associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

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

04 Each building hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking

turning and access facilities associated with that building together with access to the highway within the site have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved (or in accordance with plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the parking turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with policy DC40 of the

APPENDIX B.

14


05 No individual building, hereby approved, shall be occupied until details of

the car parking for that building has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The car parking shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for its designated use.

Reason: To provide car-parking space for the dwelling and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

06 H1 Access Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40

of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

07 No individual dwelling or building hereby permitted shall be occupied

unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins for that dwelling has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

08 No work shall be carried out on site unless there is available within the site

provision for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles and the storage of materials and equipment associated with the building works; all in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commences. The approved facilities shall be retained and available for use throughout the period of work required to implement the development hereby permitted unless alternative details are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

09 No work shall be carried out on the site unless and until an effective vehicle

wheel-cleaning facility has been installed in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such facility shall be retained in working order and operated throughout the period of work on the site to ensure that vehicles do not leave the site carrying earth, mud or other materials on their wheels in a quantity which causes a nuisance, hazard or visual intrusion from material deposited on the road system in the locality.


APPENDIX B.

15

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

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

11 No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and

soft landscaping works, including the surface treatment of the access, parking and turning areas, have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

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

12 No development, including works of any description, including demolition

pursuant to the permission granted, ground clearance, or bringing equipment, machinery or materials onto the site, shall take place until the following preliminaries have been completed in the sequence set out below:

All required arboricultural works, including permitted tree felling and surgery

operations and above ground vegetative clearance within such areas set out for development as indicated on the approved site layout drawing to be completed and cleared away.

As appropriate according to the phasing of the development and in

accordance with details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval all trees on the site targeted for retention, as well as those off-site whose root protection areas ingress into the site, shall be fully protected by tree protective fencing affixed to the ground in full accordance with section 9 of BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (2005). Once installed, the fencing shall be maintained during the course of the development works and until all machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Areas so fenced off shall be treated as zones of prohibited access, and shall not be used for the storage of materials, equipment or machinery in any circumstances. No mixing of cement, concrete, or use of other materials or substances shall take place within any tree protective zone, or close enough to such a zone that seepage or displacement of those materials and substances could cause them to enter a zone. No alterations or variations to the approved tree works or tree protection schemes shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the

APPENDIX B.

16


13 Before development commences an ecological and landscape

management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibility and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small privately owned domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

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




15 The dwellings shall achieve a Code Level 3 in accordance with the

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

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


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

17 Prior to commencement of any works which may affect reptiles or bats, a

detailed reptile/bat mitigation strategy shall be undertaken. All works shall proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development

APPENDIX B.

17

Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.

18 Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the

site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.

Reason: In accordance with the principles of Planning Policy Statement 25 - "Development and Flood Risk" (PPS25), PPS23 - "Planning and Pollution Control", PPS1 - "Delivering Sustainable Development" and PPS9 - "Biodiversity and Geological Conservation". To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of these and to accord with policies DC7 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

19 No dwelling shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage for the

dwelling has been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained and to comply with DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

20 Prior to the commencement of development, the approved site access

junction onto Church Street shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawings plan unless any variation to the approved details is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


21 No street lighting shall be installed on the site without the prior written

approval of the Local Planning Authority by way of an application on that behalf.

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


Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, no gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected or constructed in front of the forwardmost part of any proposed building which front or face onto a highway or vehicular access

APPENDIX B.

18

serving the site unless planning permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application in that respect.

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


Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, the building(s) shall not be extended on any elevation which front or face onto a highway or vehicular access serving the site, unless planning permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on application in that respect.

Reason: To maintain control over the development in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

24 No development or preparatory works shall begin until a suitably licensed

ecological clerk of works has been engaged to oversee the great crested newt mitigation, supervising the erection of a great crested newt exclusion fence, creation of a receptor site, translocation of newts and the destructive search. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the great crested newt mitigation statement (S5 & 6) submitted to support the application and a method statement to be agreed by Natural England. Reason: To maintain the conservation status of European protected species in accordance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (1994/2010); Gov’t Circ. 06/2005, PPS9 and HDC policy DC5.

25 No development or preparatory works shall begin until a suitably licensed ecological clerk of works has been engaged to oversee the bat mitigation plan, provision of temporary roosts, and undertake a final check for bats. Demolition will not occur between November start and February end in any year and will be undertaken by hand as appropriate and under the direction of a suitably licensed bat worker. No development or preparatory works shall begin until a plan showing new permanent roosting areas detailing roost types, numbers and locations and the locations of any external lighting provision is provided. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the outline bat mitigation statement (S3) submitted to support the application and a method statement to be agreed by Natural England. Reason: To maintain the conservation status of European protected species in accordance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (1994/2010); Gov’t Circ. 06/2005, PPS9 and HDC policy DC5.

26 No ground excavations landscaping works or infrastructure works pursuant to the planning permission will commence on the site until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with

APPENDIX B.

19

a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation which has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and agreed in writing. Reason : To ensure appropriate investigation and recording of archaeological Heritage Assets on the site prior to commencement of new building works.

27 A proposed pond shall be constructed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and retained thereafter. Reasons: There is scope within this development to incorporate habitat creation in order to enhance and increase the biodiversity of this site. Given the results from the Great Crested Newt survey an opportunity to improve the network of ponds is presented and allowing the extension of available habitat for this species.

28 L3 Trenches

29 L8 Foundation details - Special construction method for access road within root protection areas of trees

Together with additional conditions relating to the commercial units and any other appropriate conditions recommended by consultees.

Informative: The applicant is advised that in respect of both great crested newts and bats a European Protected Species licence will be required before works can commence.

Background Papers: DC/09/1623 Contact Officer: Steve Booth Slb1pink/wk4/jlt

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1




DATE: 1st May 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing house and garage and erection of 5 No. (4 x

3 bed and 1 x 4 bed) detached houses

SITE: Farnbrakes, Church Street, Rudgwick

WARD: Rudgwick


APPLICANT: Mr Hugh Baddeley REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Agent request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The application seeks permission for the demolition of existing house and garage

and the erection of 5 No. (4 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed) detached houses. A new access drive is proposed that would run centrally through the plot leading to a turning head and 6 parking spaces at the eastern end of the site. The scheme also provides 2 No. detached double garages to the west of the plot that would serve units 1 and 2 in the scheme. Each of the five dwellings incorporate similar materials with brickwork at ground floor level and a mix of tile hanging and timber boarding at first floor level under a tiled roof.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.2 The application site is situated on the east side of Church Street, Rudgwick. The

site is rectangular with a frontage measuring approximately 31m and an overall depth of 92m. The existing property, a bungalow, is sited on the northern side of the plot and is set back approximately 25m from the site entrance. A single timber


APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2

clad pitched roof garage is sited to the north of the property, in front of the building line of the property. The dwelling benefits from a large rear garden which contains a number of landscaped beds, a pond and a greenhouse along the northern boundary.

1.3 A development of four detached properties ‘Freshwoods’ is sited immediately to the

north and the site backs onto number 19 Pondfield Road, a detached property to the east of the site. Another single detached property ‘Gimbals’ lies to the south.

1.4 Rudgwick is classified as a Category 2 settlement in policy terms within the

Horsham District Local Development Framework. PLANNING HISTORY 1.5 The most relevant planning history relating to the site is as follows:

RW/49/63 One dwelling with garage and access – Permitted RW/46/72 One dwelling with vehicular and pedestrian access – Permitted RW/82/00 Proposed garage - Permitted


RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1,

CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP15 and CP19. 2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document are DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40. 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4. 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Strategic Planning – “This application needs to be considered against the

Horsham District Local Development Framework, in particular the adopted Core Strategy (2007) , the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD and the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD. National policies are also relevant to

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3

the consideration of the applications, in particular PPS3, Housing, PPS1, Delivering Sustainable Development, and PPG13, Transport.

The application site lies within the Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB) of Rudgwick, a Category 2 settlement as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy. Category 2 settlements are considered capable of sustaining small scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs. Local needs are assessed on the basis of the development meeting identified requirements for housing, including affordable housing, in the local area and the extent to which the addition of new development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

Although the Design and Access statement notes the support of Rudgwick Parish Council and Rudgwick Preservation Society for the application, the extent of this support is not clear. Moreover, there is also no evidence submitted to demonstrate how the units would fulfil a need for market housing in the village. Without such evidence, the development is considered to be contrary to the requirements of policy CP5.

The Rudgwick Parish Plan 2006 does make reference to ‘Local Housing’ and what the community envisages but it is noted that this document was published in 2006 prior to the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD. The SSAL (2007) DPD took the Parish Plan into account and land is allocated for residential accommodation in Rudgwick. Policy AL9 allocates ‘Land at Windacres Farm’ site, as a ‘small scale extension’, to address the need for local housing in the Rudgwick area. This proposal includes the erection of 43 dwellings. The application was submitted in 2009 and it was agreed that the application be delegated for approval in November 2010. Work is continuing to ensure delivery of this development. In my opinion therefore there is an issue as to whether other alternative sites within the village for residential development should be supported at this time.

In addition, policy CP12 states that in settlements with a population of less than 3,000, permission will only be granted for schemes providing 100% affordable housing, unless it is demonstrated that market housing is required. As previously noted, the need for market housing has not been established and the proposal does not make provision for any affordable or smaller units. It is also my opinion therefore, that the proposals are not in conformity with Policy CP12. It may be useful to recommend a discussion with the Housing Development and Strategy Manager, who may be able to provide more information on the identified need for affordable units in the Rudgwick area.

In terms of the general five year housing supply shortfall, the Council is actively working towards a planned approach through the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF). This will address the Council’s long term housing requirements to 2031. The classification of Category 1 and 2 settlements will also be reviewed as part of this work, however, until such a time that an approach has been agreed the existing policy approach still stands. Stage one of the HDPF is to be published on the 10th February for 8 weeks of consultation.

In addition to ensuring developments address local need, policy CP5 states that the emphasis for housing development within Category 2 settlements will be on the re-

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4

use of suitable previously developed land. The recently revised Annex B of Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) classifies ‘land in built up areas such as private residential gardens, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed’ as Greenfield land and not Previously Developed Land (PDL). The reason for the changes was set out in the letter from the Chief Planner, DCLG (15 June 2010): Together these changes emphasise that it is for local authorities and communities to take the decisions that are best for them, and decide for themselves the best locations and types of development in their areas. In making a decision on this proposal, the case officer should be mindful of this approach and the suitability of this location for development.

It is acknowledged that the proposals incorporate a number of sustainability measures designed to reduce CO2 emissions and the impact of climate change. I will leave it to the judgement of the Case Officer to assess whether these measures are sufficient to meet the aims of policy DC8,

Further policies which should be considered when addressing this proposal include policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document which sets out various principles for development and policy DC3 of the same document which considers the developments impact on the character of the landscape of the area. It may also be useful to obtain the views of the Design & Conservation Officer and Landscape Officer, to assess whether the scheme is in accordance with these policies.

In conclusion then, it is my opinion that the proposals are contrary to policies CP5 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (2007) as there is no evidence to support the contention that they will meet a specific local need nor is there evidence that the proposals have the support of the local community (through the Parish Council). I am therefore unable to support the proposal in principle at this time. Should further evidence become available prior to consideration of the application I would be happy to comment further.”

3.2 Housing Strategy and Development Manager – “Action in Rural Sussex carried

out a housing needs survey in 2008 - around 60 households in need. There is an acute lack of affordable housing in the village, and with the Windacres scheme now not likely to provide any, I know both Parish Council and Rudgwick Preservation Society are keen to see affordable homes come forward.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 Rudgwick Parish Council – “The Parish Council objects to the above application.

The application to build 5 detached houses of the size and scale proposed would be an overdevelopment of the site and, with insufficient off road parking, lead to a cramped form of development. The proximity of the proposed dwellings to the neighbouring properties would be detrimental to their amenities in terms of overlooking and noise and the removal of the leylandii hedge on the western boundary would further exacerbate this. The Parish Council has no objection to the principle of development on the site but would like to see more modest dwellings

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5

with thought given to garages and off road parking to give a less cramped development and protect the amenities of the neighbouring properties.”

3.4 Rudgwick Preservation Society – Object to the planning application on the

grounds of: Highway Access and Parking Overdevelopment Privacy Light and Noise Trees and Landscaping

3.5 Southern Water – Should this application receive planning approval, Southern

Water requires a formal application for any new connection to the public foul sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.

3.6 West Sussex County Council Highways – 1st comments received 30th January

2012 – Recommend refusal on the grounds of inadequate visibility for the following reason: “The proposal does not make provision for adequate visibility at the junction of the new access road with the public highway (B2128 Church Street). The proposal would therefore generate an unacceptable increase in vehicular traffic entering and leaving the public highway at this point to the detriment of highway safety. Reason : In the interests of highway safety” 2nd comments received 20th February 2012 following submission of amended plans – “As it stands, I have not seen sufficient evidence to indicate that satisfactory visibility can be achieved within the red line of the application or the public highway and must therefore maintain my previous recommendation for refusal.” 3rd comments received 19th March 2012 – “I have reviewed drawing no. 518/26 and also the M.J.Zara Associates survey drawing which shows the road line and existing features. WSCC’s public highway records have also been checked and the grass verges across the frontage of Gimbals to the south are shown as being public highway. To the north in front of 4 Freshwoods, it is less definitive in terms of the exact boundary, but over the years it would appear that the hedge has overgrown the public highway.”

On the basis of the submitted drawings and public highway plan, a visibility splay of 2.4m x 43m is available to south at the junction of the new access. To the north of the new access, most of the hedge is clear of the 2.4m x 43m visibility splay, but there is a slight pinchpoint at the boundary of Farnbrakes and 4 Freshfields. There is also a large tree which interferes with visibility and which I understand is to be removed. Although it would be possible to cut back a small chunk of the existing hedge at the boundary, I feel this would be unsightly and may in fact kill it. In order to retain the integrity of the hedge, which may have some merit in planning terms, it would be possible to relax the northern visibility splay to 2m x 43m which is the minimum recommended in Manual for Streets.

In terms of the internal access, parking and servicing arrangements shown on drawing TA518/11D, a footway will be required around the southern radius of the access and across the Church Street frontage to connect to those existing. It is not

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6

necessary to provide a footway beyond the access bellmouth as the access road can be shared surface and the footway shown removed. The access road width itself is adequate as are the parking arrangements for Plots 1 and 2. There would also appear adequate parking for Plots 3, 4 and 5 (2 spaces each). No visitor parking is provided, although there is space to park on the access drive if required. The only concern I do have is with the size of the service vehicle turning head which looks tight. Have waste collection been consulted? I feel that service vehicle turning swept paths need to be submitted to demonstrate the adequacy of the arrangement. However, in my view, the site has adequate width for servicing vehicle turning to be achieved, although this may require the reconfiguration of the parking at the end of the access road. It is assumed that the road will remain private.

Subject to amended plans taking into account the above points, I would have no highway objections subject to the following conditions:

- Access The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless and until the access to the site from Church Street has been designed, laid out and constructed with kerb radii, visibility splays and footway provision in all respects in accordance with plans and details to be submitted and approved by the LPA. Reason: In the interest of highway safety - Parking and servicing The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until the internal access road, parking areas and service vehicle turning head have been designed, laid out and constructed in accordance with plans and details to be submitted and approved by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the development has adequate access, parking and servicing provision.

- Surface water drainage The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless and until provision has been made within the site to the satisfaction of the LPA to prevent surface water discharging onto the public highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety

- Construction Environment Management Plan The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless and until a Construction Management Environment Plan has been submitted and approved by the LPA. Such plan shall include details of the following: Site office location Materials and Plant compounds Loading/unloading areas Construction staff parking Wheel washing facilities Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to minimise the impact on the surrounding area.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.7 6 letters of objection have been received from adjoining properties on the following

grounds:

Highway safety Overdevelopment of the site Loss of privacy, in particular overlooking into the rear garden of 19 Pondfield

Road, the garden of ‘Gimbals’ (by Unit 5) and the garden area of No 3 Freshwoods and No 17 Pondfield Road

Loss of light to adjoining properties Noise – the development will replace a current tranquil garden space with

three family houses Loss of trees ‘Garden grabbing’ would erode the green space within the development Drainage issues Proposed roof heights incongruous Design and Access Statement is misleading as it claimed “all abutting

residents are on the whole supportive of the application.” The development doesn’t provide any social housing Would set an unwanted precedent Out of keeping with the area – not in keeping with historic settlement pattern The development would have an urbanising effect on the area There is a questionable need for development of houses of this type –

additional housing has already been allocated for the area at Windacres Farm and Rudgwick School is at full capacity. The proposal is therefore not in line with Rudgwicks development needs.

3.8 1 letter of support has been received from the occupier of ‘Wyndhams’ on the

following grounds: The development is in keeping and sympathetic to houses in the immediate

area Concerns over increased traffic from ‘Freshfields’ and ‘The Ridge’ have

never materialised 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS




APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8

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

principle of the residential development in this location, whether the proposal is in character with the pattern of residential development in the locality, the affect upon neighbouring residential amenity and highway/traffic issues.

Principle of Development:

6.2 The application site is situated in the village of Rudgwick, which is a Category 2

Settlement as defined by policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007). Policy CP5 states that these are settlements with a more limited level of services and which should accommodate only small scale development or minor extensions to meet identified local need. Thus, within Category 2 Settlements the development should address a specific ‘local need’.

6.3 The policy states that ‘local need’ will be assessed on the basis of the contribution

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

6.4 The settlement hierarchy of category 1 and 2 settlements set out in policy CP5 is in

place in order to restrict development in these Category 2 settlements (which are less sustainable than Category 1 settlements) to proposals that would meet identified local requirements for housing, which would include affordable housing; or would assist in the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services. Thus, development in Category 2 settlements needs to be very strongly justified by both local need and sustainability criteria.

6.5 The proposal is for 5 unrestricted private dwellings with no affordable housing

provision or other “local needs” dwellings. This would therefore not address any specific ‘local need’ that has been identified in Rudgwick. Also, no specific justification within the application documents has been made for the need for these additional market dwellings, of this type or size. Therefore there has been no robust or comprehensive evidence submitted to demonstrate that this proposal for 5 market units would meet local needs. Neither does the application demonstrate that these 5 dwellings would make a material contribution to enhancing or retaining local schools, shops or other services that would outweigh the objection to the principle to such development in this unsustainable location. Further, it has not been demonstrated how the proposal will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

6.6 It is accepted that the site is within relatively easy walking and cycling distance from

the local shops and services within Rudgwick village, however there are limited bus services in the area and access to facilities such as secondary schools, major convenience stores, sports facilities and hospitals is poor. Trips to access these services, would almost certainly have to be undertaken by the use of a private car. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal fails to accord with the policies of the Councils Local Development Framework. The site is therefore in an unsustainable location under the terms of policy CP5 with the occupiers being mainly reliant on the private car to access services etc.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9

6.7 The Rudgwick Parish Plan 2006 does outline some support for further development

in the parish so long as it is restricted to small scale development “with small properties with a significant element of affordable and sheltered housing to meet locally defined need.”

6.8 Policy AL9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Site Specific Allocations of Land Document 2007 identifies land at Windacres Farm, Rudgwick. The policy allows for the allocation of around 30 dwellings including the provision of sheltered accommodation for the elderly, which has been identified as a ‘local need’ in Rudgwick. This policy is part of the suite of documents that comprise the LDF and has been subject to public consultation and was considered by the Inspectors at the LDF examination in public. An application for development at Windacres pursuant to this policy is considered elsewhere on this committee agenda.

6.9 It is your officers view that the provision of 4 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed detached houses for the open market would not deliver the type of development referred to in the Parish Plan or as set out in the LDF (Policy AL9). The Councils Strategic Planning Department have stated that no evidence has been submitted to support the contention that the units would fulfil an identified need for market housing in the village and without such evidence, the development is considered to be contrary to the requirements of policy CP5.

6.10 Policy CP12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy

(2007) states that, “In settlements with a population of less than 3,000, permission will only be granted for schemes providing 100% affordable housing unless it is demonstrated that market housing is required under policies CP5 or CP8.” As noted above, the need for market housing has not been established and the proposal does not make provision for any affordable or smaller units. It is therefore your officers view that the proposal also fails to accord with the requirements of policy CP12. The applicant has stated within the Design and Access Statement that the Parish Design Statement has recorded a population of 3090 and therefore the provisions of policy CP12 are not applicable in this instance. However, this is a figure given for the population of the Parish rather than for the settlement of the village of Rudgwick. As the settlement has a population well below the 3,000 threshold, the provisions of the policy are therefore considered to be applicable.

Character and Appearance

6.11 The existing dwelling on the site is a detached single storey bungalow which is

sited on the northern side of the plot, adjoining No 4 Freshwoods to the north. The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling and the detached garage and the provision of 5 detached two storey dwellings with 2 detached double garages, a new access and associated parking areas on the site.

6.12 Plot 1 would be sited approximately on the footprint of the existing dwelling with plot

2 sited immediately to the south, on the opposite side of the central access. The access drive is proposed to run between plots 1 and 2 to provide a turning area and 6 parking spaces to serve the units (No’s 3, 4 and 5) at the rear of the site. Plots 1 and 2 would have a detached double garage sited to the front of the dwellings,

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10

parallel to Church Street. Plots 3, 4 and 5 are sited to the rear of the site, in a linear fashion expanding across the width of the site.

6.13 The proposed units at the rear of the site (Units 3, 4 and 5) are positioned in a

linear fashion spanning the width of the site. A distance of 3.5m would be retained between the side elevation of No 3 and the northern boundary of the site and a distance of 2.5m would be retained between the side elevation of unit 5 and the southern boundary. The properties themselves would have a separation distance of 2m. Whilst it is noted that the appearance of the individual dwellings are not untypical of the type of properties in the village, it is considered the siting of the units, particularly units 3, 4 and 5 result in an unsympathetic and overly cramped form of development. The proposed layout would result in a development that appears as a regimented and urban form of development. These 3 units are all of a similar design, height and material and are positioned in a regular straight line when compared to the more nucleated and organic layout of surrounding residential developments of ‘Freshwoods’ to the north and ‘The Ridge.’ Each of these developments provide 4 detached houses on sites and plots that are considerably larger than this application site, allowing these dwellings to be assimilated into their surroundings.

6.14 Policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework seeks to

maintain and enhance the landscape character of the District. Policy CP3 aims to deliver high quality design for all development in the district and policy DC9 of the requires development to be of a high standard of design and layout. It is your officers view that due to the number of units to be provided, the proposed layout and distance retained to site boundaries and between properties when compared to the character and pattern of development in the locality, that the proposal fails to accord with the requirements of this policy.

Amenity

6.15 Objections have been received from the occupiers of properties that abut the site

with a number of objections being received on the grounds of loss of privacy and the unacceptable relationship the proposal would have with existing properties. It is noted that upstairs windows of units 1, 2, 3 and 5 would offer oblique views into the private amenity areas of ‘Gimbals’ to the South and No’s 3 and 4 Freshwoods to the north. However, given the acute angles at which these views would be afforded, it is not considered to be of such a detrimental impact to justify a refusal of planning permission on these grounds.

6.16 Concern is raised however in relation to the impact of Units 3, 4 and 5 on the

occupiers of No 19 Pondfield Road, sited to the east of the site. The occupiers of this property currently enjoy a view of open skyline over their rear boundary from the private amenity area to the south and west of the property. This view would be altered to that of 3 substantial detached properties. Each of these properties have 2 bedroom windows that face No 19 Pondfield Road giving a total of 6 first floor windows that would be clearly visible from the private amenity area of No 19 Pondfield Road. Although a distance of approximately 25m would be retained between the properties, the siting of the 3 dwellings in the arrangement shown

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 11

would have an overbearing and un-neighbourly relationship on the occupiers of No 19 Pondfield Road, in the view of your officers.

Landscaping:

6.17 The application details outline hard and soft landscaping details to be implemented

in association with the development. The proposal seeks to retain the existing established boundary planting. Additional boundary planting would be provided between plot 3 and the adjoining property, No 3 Freshwoods and between plot 2 and ‘Gimbals’ to the south. The access drive is proposed to be finished with permeable hard surfacing throughout. Each property would be provided with a patio area to the rear of the dwelling and private amenity space to the rear of the properties. It is normal policy to deal with precise landscaping details by way of a planning condition.

Highway safety and parking

6.18 The applicant has been in discussions with West Sussex County Council Highways

Department in order to demonstrate that appropriate levels of visibility can be achieved at the new site access. The Highways Department have subsequently advised that adequate levels of visibility can be achieved from the proposed new access to serve the development and that adequate levels of parking to serve the properties have been provided. There is therefore no objection raised to the proposal on these grounds. Concern was raised regarding the adequacy of the turning head for refuse vehicles. Clarification is awaited from the Operational Services (Waste Collection) Department regarding the adequacy of the details provided. It is anticipated that these details will be reported verbally to members at the Committee meeting.

Sustainable Construction

6.19 Any new dwelling should also have regard to its impact on the environment. Policy

DC8 of the Development Plan expects dwellings be designed to take account of their impact on the environment, by way of reducing unnecessary draw on water and energy resources and reduce the amount of waste created from the development during its lifetime. The Council would expect any new dwelling to meet a minimum standard of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The applicant has not confirmed the proposed dwelling would meet this expectation. In the event that planning permission were recommended, the requirement to meet Code Level 3 could be secured by condition.

6.20 It should be noted however that the site is in a Category 2 settlement as defined in

the LDF and as such is considered to be in an unsustainable location. The sustainable construction details do not overcome the objection in principle to development in this location, which concern wider issues of sustainable development.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 12

Infrastructure Contributions 6.21 The application would trigger the requirement to provide infrastructure

contributions. The level of County contributions required are £9,093 comprising £1,093 towards Libraries, £440 towards Fire & Rescue and a TAD contribution of £7,560. District Council infrastructure contributions generated by the proposal total £12,248 and comprise open space and recreation (£9,143), community centres and halls (£2,070) and local recycling (£1,035). The applicant has confirmed that they are willing to enter into an agreement if planning permission is granted, however there has been no submission of an appropriately signed and dated legal agreement at the time of writing this report.

Conclusions:

6.22 In conclusion, it is your officers view that the proposal is contrary to the established

planning policies for the locality. The proposed 5 detached dwellings would not meet any identified ‘local’ need for housing in Rudgwick which is a Category 2 settlement and would not provide affordable housing. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate how the units would fulfil an identified need for market housing in the village and without such evidence, the development is considered to be contrary to the requirements of policy CP5. As it has not been demonstrated that market housing is required in this area and the village has a population of less than 3,000 people, it is also considered that the proposal fails to accord with the requirements of policy CP12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007).

6.23 Furthermore, the proposal, by reason of the number of properties proposed, their

positioning and layout and the separation distances between properties would represent overdevelopment of the site out of keeping with the area and would result in an undesirable form of development, to the detriment of the character of the area and the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers.

6.24 The applicant has not provided any mechanism in order to secure infrastructure

contributions which would be required as a result of the development. The scheme therefore fails to take account of the requirements of policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007).

7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:

01 Having regard to the location of the application site within a Category 2 settlement it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed 5 detached market dwellings would meet any identified local need for housing in Rudgwick or result in the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services such to justify the proposal. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not reinforce existing unsustainable patterns of travel. As such the proposal is contrary to policy CP3 and CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 13

02 Having regard to the population of the settlement being less than 3,000 people and that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that market housing is required under policy CP5, as the scheme does not provide 100% affordable housing, the proposal is considered contrary to policy CP12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

03 Having regard to the layout of the proposal, the form, size and footprint of

the new dwellings and the relationship with site boundaries and the pattern and character of surrounding development, it is considered that the proposal represents an unsympathetic cramped form of development which would be detrimental to the visual amenities and character of the area. The proposal is thereby contrary, in particular to policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document (2007).

04 The proposed development, by reason of position in relation to the site

boundaries and proximity to adjacent residential properties, in particular the relationship between units 3, 4 and 5 with No 19 Pondfield Road would result in an unneighbourly form of development and loss of outlook to adjacent properties, in particular No 19 Pondfield Road. As such the development is contrary to policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

05 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards

improvements to transport, library, fire and rescue and community facilities infrastructure and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how the infrastructure needs for the development would be met.


APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1




DATE: 1st May 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing single storey building and erection of a three

bedroom house with basement storage together with a detached two bay car port and garage store/bike shed

SITE: Garwyns Farm, Church Lane, Plummers Plain, Horsham

WARD: Nuthurst


APPLICANT: Mr Peter David REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Agent request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing single storey

dwelling and the erection of a two storey, three bedroom house with basement storage together with a detached two bay car port and garage store/bike shed.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.2 The application site is situated on the east side of Church Lane, on the edge of St

Leonards Forest. The site is situated outside any defined built up area boundary and is therefore within the countryside for planning purposes. The existing property is sited approximately 100m from Church Lane and is accessed via a tree lined driveway. The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty sits to the north and west of Church Lane. The surroundings of the site are therefore rural in nature.


APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

PLANNING HISTORY 1.3 The most relevant planning history relating to the site is as follows:

LB/41/59 Proposed single storey dwelling in connection with smallholding (west of the farm) – Permitted

LB/74/64 Proposed bedroom/bathroom addition – Permitted

LB/55/66 Extension to existing dwelling to form double garage & library – Permitted

DC/11/2651 Demolition of existing single storey dwelling and the erection of a 3

bedroom house with basement storage and detached two bay carport and garden store/bike shed - Withdrawn


RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1,

CP2, CP3 and CP19. 2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document are DC1, DC2, DC4, DC8, DC9, DC28 and DC40. 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4. 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Public Health and Licensing – “No adverse comments to make on this application.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3.2 Lower Beeding Parish Council – “No objection to the revised plans and supports

the application.”

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 None received 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS




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

principle of the residential development in this location, the effect on the rural character of the area and visual amenities of the locality and the affect upon neighbouring residential properties and highway/traffic issues.

Background:

6.2 The planning application has been submitted following the withdrawal of a previous

similar application submitted under reference DC/11/2651 for the “Demolition of existing single storey dwelling and the erection of a 3 bedroom house with basement storage and detached two bay carport and garden store/bike shed.” Your officers were concerned in this instance in relation to the design, scale and bulk of the proposed property. Whilst the design has remained principally the same as the withdrawn proposal, the bulk of the development has been reduced slightly. Principle of Development:

6.3 The application site is situated outside of any built-up area boundary and as such is

within the countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies concerns countryside protection and enhancement, the main thrust of which is to protect and enhance the natural beauty and amenity of the District’s countryside for its own sake and resisting development unless it is essential to the rural location. Any development permitted should be of a scale appropriate to its location.

6.4 Policy DC28 of the General Development Control Policies allows for replacement

dwellings in the countryside, subject to a number of criteria. Replacement dwellings are not considered appropriate when the existing dwelling is abandoned or derelict. In this case it was evident during the site visit that the existing bungalow would not constitute a derelict building.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4

6.5 The policy also states that replacement dwellings will be permitted if the dwelling

can be accommodated within the curtilage of the existing dwelling. The proposal is set within the existing curtilage.

6.6 Furthermore, the policy states that a replacement dwelling must not be

disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling. This is the key issue in respect of this application. Furthermore, any such proposal should not detract from the wider landscape setting and character of the area. These issues are examined in more depth below.

Character and Appearance

6.7 The existing building is a single storey timber clad structure under a clay tile roof

which sits in the north east corner of the plot. The existing property is a relatively low profile dwelling of narrow linear form with the proposed replacement property being a rendered two storey dwelling with a central pitched roof running from front to rear and mono pitched roofs on the eastern and western elevation of man made slate. A strip of 7 solar panels are proposed to be sited on the south facing roofslope.

6.8 The proposed dwelling would be sited in a similar position to the existing dwelling.

Whilst it is noted that the dwelling would be set well back from the site entrance and road, it was evident from a site visit that the frontage is relatively open and the existing dwelling can clearly be seen from the road, particularly with the screening at the entrance of the property consisting of deciduous trees.

6.9 Whilst the replacement of the existing dwelling is considered acceptable in

principle, the proposed design is considered to represent an inappropriate replacement given the increased scale, size and bulk compared to the existing property which is an elongated single storey property of simple, low-key design and would be replaced by a substantial two storey property.

6.10 The proposed replacement dwelling would result in a property that would have a

maximum height 7.3m when scaled off the submitted plans, although the Design and Access Statement states a ridge height of 6.8m. The discrepancy arises as the proposal has been ‘dug in’ to the ground by 0.5m. Notwithstanding the fact that the building would be sunk into the ground by 0.5m, this would still be considerably higher than the existing single storey bungalow which is stated to be 5m within the Design and Access Statement. The floorspace of the proposed property would be provided over ground floor and first floor as well as basement storage in contrast to the existing single storey property. The scheme is greater in floorspace and height than the existing dwelling and is considered to be disproportionate to the size and scale of the existing property.

6.11 The comparison plans which overlay the proposed development and the existing

building illustrate this disproportionate replacement. Of primary concern to your officers is the overall three dimensional size and scale of the proposed dwelling which is considered to be disproportionate to the size and scale of the existing dwelling particularly in respect of the proposed height and the mass and bulk of the

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5

proposed property. Moreover, in respect of the design, the large level of glazing incorporated in the scheme is considered to appear as a more prominent feature in the landscape than the more simple design of the existing property. It is also considered the two large mono-pitch roof elements fail to reflect traditional rural Sussex vernacular design features.

6.12 The intention of adopted policy is to prevent any significant encroachment and

intensification of residential development within the countryside having a greater impact on the wider landscape and rural amenities of the countryside. The increased size and bulk is considered visually intrusive and contributes to a significant increase in ‘urbanisation’ which is considered harmful to the visual amenity and character of the countryside environment. The proposal is considered to represent a disproportionate replacement and is not considered appropriate to this countryside location. The proposed scheme is considered contrary in particular to policies DC1, DC9 and DC28 of the Horsham Local Development Framework due to the increase in the level of and nature of the built form in the countryside.

Residential Amenity

6.13 The nearest residential property ‘Woodbank’ is located approximately 50m to the

north. It is considered the erection of a two storey dwelling, on a siting similar to the existing dwelling would have no material adverse impact on the amenities of any adjoining residential occupiers given this relationship.

Landscaping

6.14 The application details indicate that there are no proposals to substantially re-

landscape the existing curtilage of the property. The proposal seeks to retain the existing established boundary fences and hedges. The driveway is proposed to be finished with loose chippings and brick edging. There is no objection to these particular details. It is normal policy to deal with the precise landscaping details by way of a planning condition.

Highway safety and parking

6.15 There are no changes proposed to the access arrangements for the property. A

parking area is provided to the front of the property and this would remain to serve the replacement dwelling. There would be no significant increase in the intensity of the parking area due to the fact there is an existing unit on the site.

Sustainable Construction

6.16 Any new dwelling should also have regard to its impact on the environment. Policy

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

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6

event that planning permission were recommended, the requirement to meet Code Level 3 could be secured by condition.

Conclusions

6.17 In conclusion, it is your officers view that whilst the replacement of the existing

dwelling is considered acceptable in principle, the proposed design is considered to represent an inappropriate replacement given the increased scale and mass compared to the existing property and therefore fails to accord with the aims of policy DC28. Furthermore, it is considered that the development as a whole would result in a detrimental visual impact on the wider landscape setting as it would be more visible in the landscape by virtue of its overall size and massing together and as such is also considered to be contrary to policy DC9.

7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that Planning Permission be refused for the following reason:

01 The proposed replacement dwelling by reason of its size, mass and design would represent a dwelling disproportionate in size compared to the existing dwelling and would visually intrude upon the rural landscape resulting in an inappropriate increase in built form which is considered detrimental to the visual amenity and character of this countryside location. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the Core Strategy and policies DC1, DC9 and DC28 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 and policies CC1 and CC4 of the South East Plan 2009.


APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1

Contact Officer: Pauline Ollive Tel: 01403 215424




DATE: 1st May 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Removal of condition No. 7 (noise assessment) of DC/11/2477 (Single storey extension to existing vehicle workshop to allow installation of MOT test equipment)

SITE: 3 Victory Road Horsham West Sussex RH12 2JF

WARD: Trafalgar


APPLICANT: Mr Tony Kneale

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Agent request RECOMMENDATION: To Refuse Planning Permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for the removal of condition No. 7 (noise

assessment) of DC/11/2477 (Single storey extension to existing vehicle workshop to allow installation of MOT test equipment)

1.2 Condition 7 states “No development shall take place until an assessment on the

potential for noise from the development affecting residential properties in the area has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall include noise from: plant and equipment in association with the use of the premises. If the assessment indicates that noise from the development is likely to affect neighbouring residential properties then a detailed scheme of noise mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.

The noise mitigation measures shall be designed so that nuisance will not be caused to the occupiers of neighbouring noise sensitive premises by noise from the development.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2

The noise assessment shall be carried out by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant/engineer and shall take into account the provisions of PPG 24 Planning Policy Guidance: Planning and Noise,

The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the use and be permanently maintained thereafter”.

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

1.3 The application was considered at the Development Management Committee North

on the 10th January 2012 where it was resolved to grant permission subject to the conditions set out in the recommendation. The planning permission was subsequently issued on the 16th January 2012

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site is located on the western side of Victory Road close to the

junction with Rushams Road within the built up area of Horsham. A car servicing/repair business currently operates from the site. MOT testing is currently not undertaken at the premises, but vehicles are taken off site for this purpose. Workshops and storage associated with the business are situated at the rear of the property.

1.5 Entrance to the workshops is gained to the south of a two-story semi-detached

building on the site, which is part of the business and which has retail/office at ground floor level and a residential unit at first floor level, which has its kitchen located on the ground floor.

1.6 The application site has limited off road parking and the road itself has on-street

parking which is not controlled. The area is predominantly characterised by older style residential properties with front gardens bounded by brick walls up to 1metre in height. No3 (the application site) has a hard-surfaced area between the front of the property and the pavement

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (Core Planning Principles) – (2) Ensuring

the vitality of Town Centres – (8) Promoting Healthy Communities

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.2 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1, CP3, CP10 and CP11

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3

2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies are DC9 , DC19 and DC40

2.4 South East Plan 2009 CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment

PLANNING HISTORY HU/363/63 - Erection of building for tool making and precision engineering -

Refused HU/244/80 – Greenhouse – Permitted HU/211/84 - C/u to light industrial, ancillary to existing shop – Refused – Appeal

allowed 06/03/85 HU/61/86 - Garage and workshop - Permitted HU/234/89 - Pitched roof with dormer over existing workshop – Refused HU/373/89 - Pitched roof with dormer over existing workshop – Permitted HU/91/90 – External staircase – Permitted HU/210/90 - Change of use of ground floor room from domestic to shop – Refused HU/259/02 - Conversion of ground floor to 1 self contained flat - Refused DC/11/0670 - Single storey extension to and an increase in the height of the roof of

the existing vehicle workshop and use as MOT testing station – Withdrawn DC/11/1757 - Single storey extension to and an increase in the height of the roof of

the existing vehicle workshop and use as MOT testing equipment – Refused DC/11/2477 - Single storey extension to existing vehicle workshop to allow

installation of MOT test equipment - Permitted 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS Public Health and Licensing

Initial Comments 3.1 “The applicant has not provided any additional information to alter my opinion with

regards to the potential for noise from the proposed activities, neither can the condition be discharged as the applicant has failed to meet the requirements contained in the condition”.

Further Comments

3.2 “Condition 7 required that the noise impact from the proposed development be assessed and that if the assessment indicated noise from the development was likely to affect neighbouring residential properties then a detailed scheme of mitigation be submitted to the Local Authority.

The applicant has submitted by way of a Design Access Statement the assertion that Condition 7 of the Decision Notice is "entirely inappropriate, unnecessary, irrelevant, and unreasonable".

The applicant further asserts in the DAS that "The proposed extension will provide noise mitigation between the site and the neighbouring 'noise sensitive' residential

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4

properties. The existing open yard will be covered by a substantial insulated building with up & over doors" and that "The new doors will be almost silent in operation compared to the existing old roller doors".

The applicant states in the DAS that there will be noise from the development that will be mitigated for by the structure of the building whilst failing to provide any substantive evidence to support his assertions or to quantify the level of the noise or the degree of attenuation provided by the proposed development.

I have had and continue to have concerns relating to the potential for noise and disturbance arising from the activities associated with the proposed use which have not been addressed. Whilst the proposed structure will offer some sound attenuation, there is the potential for noise generated by the activities and equipment associated with proposed change of use to cause significant disturbance to neighbouring residents.

The condition requires that this noise is assessed for its likely impact and if necessary mitigated for which is in my opinion an entirely appropriate, reasonable, practical and necessary requirement to protect the neighbouring properties. The approach is also in the best interests of the applicant as it clearly enables him to design the structure of the building in the most cost effective way possible thus potentially avoiding expensive remedial works should the un assessed noise be considered a nuisance post construction”.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3.2 Trafalgar Neighbourhood Council – No comments received

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.3 Letters of support have been received from the occupiers of No9 Blunts Way and

23 Rushams Road 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS 4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First

Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 5.1 It is not considered that the proposal gives rise to any crime and disorder

implications. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 Planning conditions are often applied to the grant of planning permissions to limit or

control the way in which the planning permission is implemented and should be reasonable, relevant, consistent and enforceable as set out in Circular 11/95.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5

Conditions are often imposed to regulate certain aspects of an approved scheme and are an essential element in the process.

6.2 Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows applications to be

made for permission to develop without complying with a condition previously imposed on a planning permission. The Local Planning Authority can grant such permission unconditionally (i.e. remove the condition) or vary the condition or they can refuse the application if they decide that the original condition should continue.

6.3 In respect of this site, one of the main concerns with regard to the proposed MOT

use at this vehicular repair business, has been the impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties and in particular noise emanating from the site.

6.4 The approved application DC/11/2477 incorporated a number of revised features

from the two previous applications to address the effect on residential amenities, as well as parking arrangements and the visual impact of the proposals.

6.5 These revisions to the proposals were considered as a whole to overcome the

original objections. It is accepted that the physical design of the proposals would assist in this respect, with the proposed inspection pit minimising the need for a raised roof height on the new extension. A brick and block-work cavity wall building was proposed and the up-and-over doors were proposed to have nylon rollers and rubber seals. It was also proposed that an appointment system for MOT would be introduced, and no vehicle refinishing (bodywork/painting) would be undertaken on the premises. Conditions were therefore imposed to ensure that the development was implemented and operated in a satisfactory manner as set out in the application.

6.7 Condition 5 limits the use of machinery, power or hand tools so that they shall only

be used within the building and during such use the doors of the building shall remain closed.

6.8 Condition 6 requires details of the type of plant or equipment to be used including

manufacturers noise ratings to be submitted before development commences and thereafter this plant/equipment is to be operated in accordance with the approved details.

6.9 Condition 7 relates to a noise assessment and mitigation measures. Such a

condition was considered necessary given the limited information supplied with the application to ensure that the activities undertaken in the extension would not cause noise or disturbance to adjacent occupiers. In particular it would need to be demonstrated that the insulation of the building was to the appropriate standard and the roller shutter doors would operate without causing undue harm.

6.10 The current application proposes that Condition 7 is removed. The applicant

maintains “ This condition is entirely inappropriate, unnecessary, irrelevant to the development,

and unreasonable.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6

The proposed extension will provide noise mitigation between the site and the neighbouring ‘noise sensitive’ residential properties. The existing open yard will be covered by a substantial insulated building with up-and-over doors.

The new doors will be almost silent in operation compared to the existing old roller

doors. The new equipment to be installed will be a roller brake tester which is powered by

a similar electric motor to the hydraulic vehicle lift that will be replaced by an inspection pit (no power required)

All the tests and operations that will be carried out after the development, are

already being carried out at present with the exception of the roller brake tester (as described above)

All this information has been submitted previously as part of the planning

application and clearly shows that a sound assessment is not relevant or necessary in this case”

6.11 Whilst these comments are noted, it is not accepted that the removal of the

condition is appropriate. If the development were to be implemented without the noise assessment and mitigation measures required under Condition 7, then the there would be no way of guaranteeing that the physical structure alone would protect local residents amenities. Such a condition was regarded as necessary particularly in light of the close proximity of these commercial premises to residential development.

6.12 Public Health and Licensing advises there are continuing concerns relating to the

potential for noise and disturbance issuing from activities undertaken in the proposed extension. Whilst the structure would offer some sound attenuation, neither the approved application (DC/11/2477) or this application have provided any substantive evidence to support these assertions or to quantify noise levels or the degree of mitigation to be provided.

6.13 The condition would ensure that this issue is properly quantified and assessed and

if necessary appropriate measures installed to render the operations acceptable. 6.14 Such an approach is regularly used where noise generating uses are in close

proximity to noise sensitive residential properties, with noise assessments either accompanying applications, so that the assessment can be made as part of the overall planning assessment or applied as a condition (as in this case). It is therefore considered, that this approach and the condition is necessary, relevant to planning and the development and reasonable as required by Circular 11/95. Also as Public Health and Licensing, points out this approach is in the best interests of the applicant as it clearly enables him to design the structure of the building in the most cost effective way possible thus potentially avoiding expensive remedial works should the un-assessed noise be considered a nuisance post construction.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7

1. Refuse - The proposal is unacceptable, as it has not been adequately demonstrated that an unacceptable level of nuisance and general disturbance would not occur to the occupiers of neighbouring noise sensitive premises from the use within the permitted extension. The proposal to remove condition 7 from DC/11/2477 is therefore contrary to the aims of policies within the Development Plan, in particular policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

Background Papers: DC/12/0427 Contact Officer: Pauline Ollive

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1.

Contact: Barry O’Donnell Extension: 5174

abcd DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT



DATE: 1st May 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing dwelling and replacement with single storey dwelling

SITE: Kirbys, Two Mile Ash, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 7LA

WARD: Southwater


APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs J Knightley REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Applicant request to speak. RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission. 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The current application proposes replacement of the existing bungalow with a

single storey, timber clad dwelling. The replacement dwelling would provide the applicant with a four bedroom property, with a number of additional internal and external reception areas.

1.2 The proposal would involve significant resiting, with the dwelling some 14.7m closer

to the public road, also providing a large turning area within the front garden.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.3 The subject site, which lies outside any defined built-up area in a location where

countryside policies apply, comprises a traditional single storey, brick-built

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2

bungalow with a pitched roof. The site measures .12ha, rising gently from east to west. The existing dwelling sits slightly above the public road

1.4 Significant works have been undertaken in order to remove a large number of trees

and shrubs from the front of the site, leaving the site exposed within the street scene view. Currently, the boundaries comprise a mixture of hedging and a timber panels (approximately 1.4m in height) along the southern boundary, a 1m wall along the western boundary and a mixture of timber panels, low level walling and the end gable walls of adjoining agricultural buildings along the northern boundary. There is a recessed entrance to the east, together with low level screening.

1.5 The surroundings comprise, in the main, residential properties, typically

characterised by two-storey traditional designs within different sized plots. Agricultural land adjoins to the north and west, most noticeably an agricultural yard to the north, which comprises two existing agricultural buildings. At the time of inspection it was apparent this agricultural yard had been physically separated from the application site by means of a timber panel fence at the common boundary.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy (2007) are: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP19. 2.4 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) are: DC1,

DC2, DC8, DC9, DC28, DC40. 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are: CC1, CC4, CC6, C4. PLANNING HISTORY 2.6 HR/86/63 Bungalow and garage Permitted

HR/188/63 Bungalow and garage Permitted

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 West Sussex Highways Department:

This application is for a replacement dwelling that is located along on Two Mile Ash, Southwater. There will be no changes to the existing access arrangements and it would not be considered that this development would attract an increase in the number of vehicular movements over what currently exists.

I can confirm that the level of parking provision is considered to be appropriate with regard to WSCC appropriate level of parking policy. The garage is also an appropriate size to store cycles. From inspection of the plans it would appear that a turn on site is possible, which is essential to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in the forward gear.

From the information supplied there will be no highway safety concerns raised to this proposal.

If the LPA are minded to approve this application conditions securing parking and turning, and cycle parking should be included.

3.2 Southwater Parish Council:

No objection

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.3 4 letters of support have been received. 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

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

Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out in Section 6 below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact

on safety and security issues.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues for consideration are the principle of the proposed development in

this location, its effect on the character of the rural area and the visual amenities of the locality, the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties, traffic conditions in the area and wider sustainability considerations.

6.2 The site lies outside any defined built-up area, in an area where countryside

policies apply. Principle 6.3 The site lies in Two Mile Ash, in a rural location. The proposal thus comprises

development in the countryside. Policy DC1 states “development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location”. It continues “any development permitted must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and must not lead, either individually or cumulatively, to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside”.

6.4 In addition, as the proposal is for a replacement dwelling, it is also subject to

compliance with policy DC28, which states “outside of the defined built-up areas…replacement dwellings will be permitted if the development can be accommodated appropriately within the curtilage of the existing dwelling. In addition: (a) applications for replacement dwellings will only be permitted on a one for one basis if it can be demonstrated that the property is not derelict, and, (b) applications for replacement dwellings should not be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling…and in addition be in sympathy with and subservient to the scale and character of the existing dwelling”.

6.5 In terms of compliance with the above stated policies, whilst the development

would not lead to a material increase in the level of activity in the countryside, it is considered the appearance of the proposed dwelling would be at odds with the character of the existing dwelling, providing a contemporary flat roofed, timber clad dwelling. In this regard, the applicant would not retain any of the characteristics of the existing dwelling, as required under policy DC28. Furthermore, it is considered the above stated contemporary design would fail to reflect and respect the vernacular within this rural area, providing a contrasting, prominent feature in an exposed location. As such, it is considered the replacement dwelling would fail to accord with the aims of policies DC9 and DC28. These elements are discussed in more detail below.

Character & Appearance 6.6 Currently occupying a footprint of approximately 161sq.m, the existing bungalow

would be replaced by a single storey dwelling measuring approximately 320sq.m. In terms of compliance with the above stated policy, it is considered an increase of 100% in the footprint of the dwelling would be a disproportionate increase from the size of the existing dwelling. The effect of this significant addition would see the house extended approximately 15m towards the east (front). Taken in conjunction

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5

with the removal of the majority of screening cover from the front of the site, it is considered the replacement dwelling would provide an incongruous and injurious feature, in an exposed location, which would fail to relate sympathetically with the either the built surroundings or the current bungalow on site, also failing to relate sympathetically to the scale and character of the existing dwelling.

6.7 The submitted Design and Access Statement outlines how the proposed dwelling is

of bespoke design, taking account of the applicants’ specific needs and requirements. Utilising a central spine, the dwelling provides four quarter points, within which the dwelling’s primary functions are carried out. In addition, the external ‘hidden’ areas between these quarter points would also provide ancillary space. The applicants state the roof would comprise planted Sedum, specific details of the type to be used have not been provided. Concern has already been expressed at the scale of the replacement dwelling; however it is considered there are also issues relating to the impact of this bespoke and contemporary design on the character on this rural area.

6.8 Whilst the proposal would have a marginally lower ridge height (.8m along a small

section), its scale and appearance would add significant bulk to the dwelling on its principal elevation, effectively raising the eaves height of the dwelling by 1.5m to 3.8m. In the context of the pattern of development in the area, where the existing dwelling occupies an inconspicuous position within the streetscene, this additional bulk, which would be manifest on the entirety of the building, would have the effect of creating a significantly larger / bulkier dwelling, fundamentally at odds with the character of both the existing dwelling and dwellings elsewhere within the area

6.9 Furthermore, it is considered the principle elevation, which would be characterised

by a largely blank, timber clad façade and in particular a 2.4m high gabion wall, would have an appearance more closely associated with an industrial unit, and would be out of character with the simple, traditional design and materials in evidence in the surrounding countryside area.

6.10 More generally, it is considered the replacement dwelling’s prominent position

within the streetscene setting will impact on the visual amenities and the rural character of the area. Sited less than 15m from the public road, and given the applicants will be unable to provide any form of significant screening to reduce its prominence, as the front garden would be used as a turning area, it is considered the proposal would dominate the resultant streetscene view, to the detriment of the established character of the area.

6.11 The proposal would thus fail to accord with the overarching aims of policies DC1,

DC9 and DC28 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework. Amenities 6.12 The current property layout comprises low level screening along property and

common boundaries. As such, there is a degree of mutual overlooking between the application site and the south adjoining property. The applicant has designed the replacement dwelling in such a way as to concentrate the bulk of the glazing on the

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 6

‘hidden’ areas of the dwelling, thus ensuring there is no increase in the level of overlooking from within the dwelling.

6.13 However, notwithstanding this, there are concerns relating to the uncovered

courtyard between quarter points on the south elevation. This area, which currently comprises front garden space, sits 6.1m from the common boundary with the south adjoining property and will become private open space. Given the boundary wall between properties would be 1.1m, with a single tree for additional screening, it is considered the provision of this uncovered area would present both noise and privacy issues for the neighbouring property. It is noted the applicant has specified there would be ‘bamboo screening’ in this area, however, in the event that permission is granted for the proposal, this issue will need to be addressed through condition.

Sustainability 6.14 It can be seen from the application documents there has been extensive discussion

with the applicant relating to sustainability / green energy measures to be utilised in the construction, which have influenced the design of the replacement dwelling and would preclude revisions to its design and layout. In addition to the proposed planted Sedum green roof, the applicant has submitted documentation indicating the proposed dwelling would secure a Code for Sustainable Homes code level 4 rating, if permitted. Whilst the applicants’ submission is noted, it is considered the assertion that the replacement dwelling would achieve a code level 4 rating is not sufficient to overcome or outweigh the concerns expressed previously relating to the character and scale of the proposal and its impact on the rural character of the area.

6.15 In providing preliminary details relating to thermal insulation, energy performance,

etc that make up a code for sustainable homes rating, it is considered the applicant has in no way demonstrated that the current design is required in order to provide the energy efficiencies outlined, and, equally importantly, does not demonstrate that a code level 4 rating could not be achieved utilising a design and materials more reflective of the character of the existing area.

Conclusion 6.14 Notwithstanding the applicants’ assertion the proposed replacement dwelling would

be constructed to a high standard, obtaining a Code for Sustainable Homes code level 4 rating, it is considered the character and scale of the proposed replacement dwelling, together with the proposed design and layout, would fail to relate sympathetically with both the existing dwelling on the site and the character of the built and natural surroundings and would present an incongruous feature in a prominent rural location and is thus contrary to Local Development Policies relating to replacement dwellings.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 7

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that permission be refused for the following reason

1. The proposed replacement dwelling by reason of its size, mass, siting and design would represent a dwelling disproportionate in size compared to the existing dwelling and would visually intrude upon the rural landscape resulting in an inappropriate increase in built form which is considered detrimental to the visual amenity and character of this countryside location. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the Core Strategy and policies DC1, DC9 and DC28 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 and policies CC1 and CC4 of the South East Plan 2009.

Background Papers: DC/12/0186 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1.

Contact: Peter Harwood Extension: 5167



DATE: 1st May 2012

DEVELOPMENT: To demolish existing garage and replace with a single storey and two storey side extension

SITE: 52 Warren Drive, Southwater

WARD: Southwater


APPLICANT: Mr M Graham REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Member referral - Cllr John Chidlow RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The application seeks permission to replace the pitched roof attached garage with

a two storey side extension with a mono-pitched single storey addition which in total provides a bedroom and en-suite at first floor with a single garage, utility room and family room at ground floor level.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.2 No.52 Warren Drive is a two storey detached dwelling with an attached double

garage. This detached dwelling is sited on a corner position with its principal elevation fronting onto the main Warren Drive. The side (south) elevation which contains an existing attached garage and the vehicular access to the property faces onto a small cul-de-sac off the main road. Nos. 53 to 62 are located around this small cul-de-sac off Warren Drive and are of similar two storey design


APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2.

consisting of semi-detached and link detached dwellings constructed in the mid-1990s.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework - March 2012. RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 South East Plan- Policies CC1 and CC4 are of particular relevance. 2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following

policies are of particular relevance: CP1 and CP3. 2.5 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control

Policies Document 2007 - the following policy is of particular relevance: DC9. PLANNING HISTORY 2.6 No relevant planning history. 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 None.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Southwater Parish Council object to the proposal "on the grounds of over-

intensification of the site leading to a terracing effect". PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.3 A letter from the occupiers of no. 53 Warren Drive has been received in opposition

to this application on the grounds of design in that the siting of the extension would cause a terracing effect, overshadowing whereby there would be a loss of sunlight to their rear garden and concerns raised at the gap between the proposed extension and the boundary fence which would lead to maintenance issues and accumulation of rubbish within the 200mm gap.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3.

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

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



implications. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application include the impact of the

proposal on the visual amenities and character of the area and also the impact on the residential amenities of nearby occupants.

6.2 The proposal is to replace the pitched roof attached garage with a 2 storey

extension with a mono-pitch single storey element to the rear which in total provides a bedroom and en-suite at first floor with a single garage, utility room and family room at ground floor level. Although only set back slightly, the extension is set down 1.1m from the main existing ridge height and incorporates a half hip on the north elevation. The extension has been designed with a lower eaves height than the main house and includes a dormer window within both front and rear elevations. The proposed extension by reason of its design and form, particularly when viewed from the side (south), would represent a subservient addition to this detached dwelling.

6.3 The existing garage is constructed on the common boundary with no. 53 and the

proposal is to set the extension in 200mm from this line to enable the foundations, fascia and rainwater goods to be entirely over the land within the applicant's ownership.

6.4 Extensions sited within gaps between dwellings, particularly on main estate roads,

need careful consideration and there may be concerns that such extensions could lead to terracing. However in this particular case there are three dwellings situated in a row on the north side of the spur off the main Warren Drive (Nos.52, 53 and 54) whereby No.52 fronts onto Warren Drive and the other properties front onto the cul-de-sac. There is also a side passage at No. 53 and together with the juxtaposition and different gable roof designs of the adjacent two detached dwellings situated at this part of the cul-de-sac; it is considered that in this particular circumstance there would not be a terracing effect caused by the extension as proposed.

6.5 Thus the proposed extension is considered to be in scale and character with the

existing dwelling and by reason of its size; siting and design would not detract from the visual amenities and character of the area to a significant degree.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4.

6.6 With regard to the impact of the proposal on nearby residents, the two storey element is adjacent to the side wall of no. 53 which contains a first floor non-habitable landing window. The two storey element is sited principally over the existing garage, has been designed with a lower ridge and eaves to those of the existing main dwelling and has a half hipped gable which reduces the mass of the structure when viewed from the east. The extension is set further back than the front elevation of No.53 with the rear single storey element incorporating a mono pitched tile roof and provides a family room and is located some 0.95m away from the 1.8m high close boarded boundary fence. It is considered that the proposed extension(s) by reason of their form, position and window placement will not cause material harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers by reason of overlooking/loss of privacy.

6.7 Concern has also been expressed by the adjacent neighbour regarding

maintenance and issues relating to the gap which will be created between the end wall of the extension and any fence erected along the common boundary. Whilst these matters are noted it is not significant in the determination of the application and would be a private matter between adjacent occupiers to remedy this situation.

6.8 The existing dwelling is located on the south side of no. 53 and although a limited

amount of direct sunlight will pass through the gap above the existing pitched roof garage, it is not considered sufficient detriment to refuse the current proposal on the grounds that it would result in loss of direct sunlight to the rear garden of no. 53 in this case.

6.9 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed extension would not result in a

harmful impact being caused upon the character and visual amenities of the street scene or adversely affect the neighbours amenity significantly and would therefore be in compliance with the aims of Development Plan policies, in particular Policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document 2007.

7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted. 01 A2 Full Permission 02 M4 Matching Materials 03 D4 Obscured Glass - the bathroom window in the north west elevation of

the extension shall at all times be glazed with obscure glass, precise details of which, together with details of any opening, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The approved glass and any agreed opening details shall be maintained at all times.

Note to Applicant: You are advised to ensure that the requirements of the Party Wall Act 1996 are

complied with during the implementation of these works.

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5.

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

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

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

Background Papers: DC/12/0216 Contact Officer: Peter Harwood WK2/DC120216/46

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1.

Contact: Peter Harwood Extension: 5167



DATE: 1st May 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Retrospective application for surrounding playground walls, front entrance walls, railings and piers Proposed new shed, new wall and railings and new car parking area

SITE: Greenway School, Greenway, Horsham

WARD: Trafalgar


APPLICANT: Mr K Todd REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 The applicant seeks planning permission for various works and structures. Some

elements are retrospective such as a wall, including a sports wall, surrounding the existing playground, together with front entrance walls and piers. The application also proposes a new storage shed, a new car parking area and new boundary treatment along the south of the school adjacent to Greenway.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.2 The application site is a foundation co-educational junior school constructed in the

late 1950s and set on a square plot on the north side of Greenway in a predominantly residential area on the west side of Horsham town.


APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework. RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following

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

Policies Document 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC9 and DC21.

2.5 South East Plan – Policies CC1 and CC4 are of particular relevance.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 2.6 The following recent planning history should be noted. HU/51/96 Erection of new nursery building permitted

HU/201/98 Double classroom unit permitted

DC/08/2548 Installation of twin lane non-turf cricket practice area with security cage and nets

permitted

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 None.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 West Sussex County Council Highways: From the information supplied there is no suggestion that these works will provide

an increased capacity or increase the number of vehicular movements visiting the school to a level that would be considered of detriment to highway safety. There does not appear to be any physical alteration to the existing point of access from Greenway. From the block plan provided it would appear that all works are to be constructed on land under the control of the applicant.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3.

The wall fronting Greenway, according to inset 2 on the block plan, measures 0.7m in height with brick piers and additional 0.53m. There is a grass verge and footway between the carriageway and the site; it does not appear that the walling falls within a 2.4 x 43m visibility splay. I have also checked the most recently available verified accident records, which reveals there have been no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the existing point of access. Pedestrian visibility splays of 2 x 2m would be required at the vehicular access point. It is unclear from the photographs provided whether or not this is the case at present with the building works that have been carried out. I would ask that these splays are secured by a condition should the Local Planning Authority be minded to grant planning consent.

For the proposed parking area, I would advise that each space measures 2.4 x

4.8m, any disabled spaces should measure 3.3 x 4.8m. From the information supplied, providing that pedestrian visibility splays and

parking are secured by a condition, no highway concerns would be raised to this proposal.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.3 Neighbour Notifications - Four letters of objection have been received from the

occupiers at Nos.28, 30, 34, and 40 Churchill Avenue on the following grounds:

sports wall unsightly and visually intrusive due to its height, design and materials

concern at possible new pathway to east side of new wall (not part of current application)

concerns at children's security, in particular on the wrong side of the sports wall breach of planning control as the sports wall exceeds 2m in height result in increased noise and disturbance due to ball games played against the

sports wall 3.4 One letter of comment received from an adjacent occupier at No.28 Churchill

Avenue who stated that providing the proposed shed was the same height and material of the existing shed, then they would raise no objection.

3.5 One letter of support for the works at this school has been received from a nearby

resident at No.67 Greenway. 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

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


APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 5.1 It is not considered that there are any significant implications for crime and disorder

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

principle of the proposed works, the effect on the character and visual amenities of the street scene and locality, impact on residential amenities, highway safety, access and parking.

6.2 The site lies within the defined built-up area of Horsham Town. There is no

objection in principle to development within the school grounds providing it relates to the enhancement and function of the site for educational purposes and complies with LDF policies.

6.3 In the main, the works most visible from a public vantage point relate to the

proposed front boundary wall along Greenway and the retention of the walls/piers either side of the existing vehicular access to the site. The existing post and mesh fence adjacent to Greenway is to be replaced with a 700mm high wall (piers 1.23m high) with railing inserts and together with the proposed retention of walls/piers on either side of the vehicular access to the school are considered to be more safe and visually pleasing in this location.

6.4 The proposal also includes the provision of a 16 space car parking area situated on

the west side of the main driveway into the school. This facility will enable vehicles which are currently parked on the existing driveway to be relocated to the new parking area to improve safety on the site. The proposed new parking area is laid out in two rows and is partially screened from Greenway by a curved feature high wall and by two Silver Birch trees. The West Sussex County Highways are satisfied with the layout provided each space is no smaller than 4.8m x 2.4m.This can be covered by a condition requiring the submission of a detailed layout plan. It is considered that the siting and layout of this 16 space car park to be acceptable in this location and by reason of its size and siting should not cause material harm to the visual amenities or character of the area.

6.5 The walls constructed on either side of the existing vehicular access have been

located to form a degree of pedestrian visibility across the corner with Greenway. The applicant is to submit a plan with a view to demonstrating that the requirements of the West Sussex County Highways to provide a 2m x 2m pedestrian visibility splay has been achieved. Subject to this there are no highway safety implications relating to the provision of a 16 space car park in this location.

6.6 This application also includes retrospective permission for the erection of a wall

around the existing concrete playground situated towards the rear east side of the school site. The wall along the north and south edges of the playground is some 1.2m in height and is constructed in brick. The sports wall situated along the eastern boundary varies from some 2.3m to 2.8m in height and is constructed in

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 5.

brick (facing playground) and blockwork (facing rear gardens of properties in Churchill Avenue). The applicant has stated that the walls were erected following advice after an OFSTED visit to the school relating to concerns at the uneven ground conditions adjacent to the flat playground area. Therefore the walls were erected to enclose the playground for health and safety reasons. This also entailed the provision of a sports wall to be used for a variety of uses including ball games to encourage children’s sporting activities and thereby help their health and wellbeing.

6.7 The sports wall can be observed from the rear gardens of some properties in

Churchill Avenue, (The closest point being some 5.00mts away from the rear garden boundary of No.30 Churchill Avenue). It is considered that by reason of its height, design and distance from the common boundary, it would be difficult to justify a refusal based on its detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residents. The land is part of the existing school grounds and the walls surround an existing playground. It should be noted that the rear east facing elevation of the wall has recently been painted green and does soften its impact to a degree when observed from the gardens within Churchill Avenue, the boundaries of which are formed of hedging.

6.8 Other works relate to a proposed new shed which is to be attached to the existing

storage shed (to be refurbished) which is located to the south of the playground and within 5m of the common boundary of properties within Churchill Avenue. The existing and proposed shed are to be a maximum of 2m in height and used for maintenance and grounds equipment. The existing shed has a ground floor area of 17.5 sqm and the proposed shed is 24 sqm. The two sheds, with their relatively low profile roof height, are considered acceptable in this location and should not detract from the character of the area or cause material harm to nearby residential amenities.

6.9 In conclusion, it is considered that the works forming the subject of this application,

are acceptable and should not cause material harm to the visual amenities and character of the area; or detract significantly from the residential amenities of nearby occupiers; or cause any highway safety issues in this case. The works are considered to be in accordance with the aims of policies contained within the Development Plan.

7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following

conditions: 01 A2 Full Permission 02 The implementation of the shed and front boundary wall shall not commence

unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed sheds and also materials for the front boundary wall have been submitted to

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 6.

and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.

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

03 Notwithstanding the submitted details, the implementation of the car park

shall not commence unless and until precise details of the car park construction (including a permeable surface) and the layout of car parking spaces, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and thereafter the car park shall be constructed and retained in accordance with the approved details.

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

04 Within 3 months from the date of this decision notice precise details

indicating pedestrian visibility splays of 2m x 2m at the point of access onto Greenway shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and thereafter the splays shall be provided and retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies Document 2007.

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

occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.


Background Papers: DC/11/2356 Contact Officer: Peter Harwood WK2/DC112356/46

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1




DATE: 1st May 2012

DEVELOPMENT: DC/10/1784 - Retention of track and gate for land and estate

management purposes and to serve as an emergency access and associated gate at access. Single storey glazed extension to accommodate a boiler. DC/10/2126 - Retention of timber building to replace existing pole barn for the Warren.

SITE: Flat 1, The Warren, Horsham Road, Handcross, Haywards Heath

WARD: Nuthurst

APPLICATION: DC/10/1784 & DC/10/2126

APPLICANT: Mr Simon Ranger REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer Referral RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permissions 1. Background: 1.1 These planning applications were previously considered by Development

Management Committee North on the 11th January 2011. Application DC/10/1784 consists of three separate but related elements; a single storey glazed extension to the dwelling to accommodate a boiler; retention of trackways for land management purposes in accordance with a Woodland Management Plan and to serve as an emergency access; and thirdly, a proposed gate and gate posts at the Handsford Way end of the proposed track works. The resolution of the Committee was for the application to be delegated for approval to remove ‘and to serve as the rear access to the property’ from the description in agreement with the applicant, a note to applicant to be added regarding that the permission does not relate to a residential use of the access, negotiations seeking to remove permanently the post box, in addition to receipt of cross sections relating to the width of the access and surface materials etc.


APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2

1.2 Application DC/10/2126 sought permission for the retention of a timber building to replace a previous existing pole barn. The resolution of the Committee was to delegate the application for approval to consider appropriate conditions.

1.3 Negotiations to fulfil the requirements of the resolutions have been ongoing

between officers and the applicant and a number of matters have arisen in this time which are outlined in the assessment below. Following consideration, it was concluded that it was appropriate that the application be re-considered at Committee. A copy of the original Committee Report is appended.

1.4 Since consideration of the application at Committee, further neighbour letters of

objection from local residents have been received reiterating previous objections outlined in the previous committee report.

2. Assessment: DC/10/1784 – The Trackway 2.1 The main planning considerations for the development are set out in the previous

committee report. As part of the delegation process, the wording ‘and to serve as the rear access to the property’ was to be removed from the description of the application. This has now been confirmed by the applicant.

2.2 Negotiations were also to be carried out seeking the removal of the post box that

was erected at the western end of the track, beside the gate. The applicant states that the provision of the post box is de ‘minimis.’ It appears that the post box lies outside of the red line of the application site. It is therefore considered that this element of the scheme does not form part of this particular planning application and as such would be outside the remit of matters to be considered as part of the application.

2.3 Cross sections of the track were to be requested in order to obtain precise details

of the width of the access and surface materials. This was requested in order to obtain a record of the scale of the track to enable future control of the size and width of the track. The cross sections have been provided. The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application stated that the width of the track was 2.75m. However, on receipt of the cross sections which were produced following a survey of the track, it has been confirmed that the actual width of the track for the most part is 3m with parts of it at the western end being up to 4m wide. It is noted that the track width has remained unchanged from when the planning application was previously considered by the Committee. The appearance of the track has also become less stark in appearance over time and it is your officers view that the track continues to assimilate into the site without causing undue harm to the rural character of the area or the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A condition is recommended to restrict the track from being increased in width.

2.4 In relation to application DC/10/1784, it is considered appropriate to approve the application, subject to the conditions etc set out in the previous report (appended).

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3

DC/10/2126 – The Storage Building 2.5 Application DC/10/2126 was delegated for approval to consider appropriate

conditions. 2.6 During the delegation process, further site visits have been carried out which have

shown that two areas of hardstanding have been constructed to the front and rear of the building. These areas have now been shown on a plan that has been provided by the applicant. It is considered these areas of hardstanding are relatively minor in nature and are reasonable in terms of the storage of machinery in association with woodland management.

2.7 Two bulkhead lights are proposed to be fitted to the north west elevation of the

building with 100 watt equivalent low energy fittings. Given the size and power of the proposed lights and the location of the building, it is considered this relatively low level of lighting would have a limited impact on the rural character of the area. It is considered necessary to restrict the level of lighting to that indicated in the submitted details. It is therefore necessary to amend the recommended condition 02 of DC/10/2126 in the previous committee report accordingly.

2.8 In relation to application DC/10/2126, it is considered appropriate to approve the

application, subject to the conditions etc set out in the previous report (appended) with an amendment to condition 02 to allow for the installation of the low level lighting proposed.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 DC/10/1784 - Retention of track and gate for land management purposes and

to serve as an emergency access and associated gate at access. Single storey glazed extension to accommodate a boiler.

It is recommended that planning permission be granted and to include the following conditions:

01 The trackways hereby approved shall be retained to the current width and

surfacing and shall not be kerbed. Any alteration to the application details shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter any works undertaken shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities and rural character of the area in accordance with Policies DC1 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

02 No lighting or other works shall be installed in connection with the trackways

or gate hereby permitted without approval from the Local Planning Authority by way of an application on that behalf. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and rural character of the area in accordance with Policy DC1 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4

03 The garden wall element shall not be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for the rebuilt garden wall of the proposed extension have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of appropriate visual quality in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

3.2 DC/10/2126 - Retention of timber building to replace existing pole barn for

The Warren.

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions and reasons for approval as set out in the previous report (appended), with an amendment to condition 02 to read as follows:

Revised Condition 02: No lighting, other than that shown on the approved plans, shall be installed in

connection with the storage building hereby permitted without approval from the Local Planning Authority by way of an application on that behalf. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and rural character of the area in accordance with Policy DC1 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

Background Papers: DC/10/1784 & DC/10/2126 Contact Officer: David Taylor

APPENDIX.


abcd



DATE: 11th January 2011

DEVELOPMENT: DC/10/1784 - Retention of track and gate for land management purposes and to serve as the rear access to the property and as an emergency access and associated gate at access. Single storey glazed extension to accommodate a boiler. DC/10/2126 - Retention of timber building to replace existing pole barn for the Warren.

SITE: Flat 1, The Warren, Horsham Road, Handcross, Haywards Heath

WARD: Nuthurst

APPLICATION: DC/10/1784 & DC/10/2126

APPLICANT: Mr Simon Ranger REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer Referral RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT To consider the planning applications

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATIONS 1.1 Application DC/10/1784 consists of three separate but related elements; a single

storey glazed extension to the dwelling to accommodate a boiler; retention of trackways for land management purposes in accordance with a Woodland Management Plan and to serve as the rear access to the property and as an emergency access; and thirdly, a proposed gate and gate posts at the Handsford Way end of the proposed track works.

1.2 Application DC/10/2126 seeks permission for the retention of a timber building to replace a previous existing pole barn.

1.3 A previous application (DC/10/1088) for the track, timber building and extension

was considered at Development Management North Committee in August 2010


APPENDIX.

when planning permission for the scheme was refused for the following reason; “It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that there is sufficient justification for the retention of the trackway or a storage building of the size, massing and appearance in this position and it is considered that its retention has an urbanising effect upon the natural setting of the site detracting from the appearance, character and visual amenities of the countryside location and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal fails to comply with policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC28 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and policies CP3 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007).”

1.4 The applicant felt that the Woodland Management Plan submitted with the

application was not afforded appropriate weight and has thus resubmitted the proposal for re-consideration. He has also provided more precise details regarding the timber storage building.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.5 The site of ‘The Warren’ lies within the countryside in policy terms and is also

located within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application site as outlined in red, comprises the site of a timber building which the application seeks permission for retention, an access route comprising Handford Way and continuing through land in the applicant's ownership to a point terminating to the south of 'The Warren', an access spur from this trackway to the timber building referred to above and the construction of a principally glazed extension (to accommodate a wood burning boiler), forming an extension to the properties formerly known as Flats 1 and 2, The Warren.

1.6 The application site also includes a proposed gate feature close to the end of

Handford Way. Surrounding the application site edged red is further land in the applicant's ownership comprising approximately 9.6 hectares together with the properties formerly known as Flats 1 and 2, The Warren.

1.7 By way of historical background, it is understood the land in the applicant's

ownership was formerly in the same ownership as 'The Warren', prior to 'The Warren' being sub-divided into flats following the grant of planning permission in 1954. Notwithstanding any relationship that this relatively extensive area of land had with The Warren, when in use as a single dwelling, it would appear that much of the land, with the exception of areas in relative close proximity to the flats themselves, has received little maintenance resulting in natural vegetative regeneration on much of the remaining land.


APPENDIX.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 PPS1, PPS7 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1,

CP3 and CP15. 2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document 2007 are DC1, DC2, DC4, DC8 and DC9. 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4 and NRM7. PLANNING HISTORY 2.6 LB/27/54 Permission granted for the conversion of The Warren from a single

residential dwelling into flats DC/08/1736 Planning permission refused for retention of storage building DC/08/1737 Planning permission granted for retention of deer fencing

DC/09/1597 Invalid application withdrawn for an application for a track for land management purposes and to serve as the rear access to the property and as an emergency access. Retention of timber building to replace existing pole barn to provide heat source for the Warren. Single storey glazed extension to accommodate a boiler.

DC/10/1088 Planning permission refused for a track for land management

purposes and to serve as the rear access to the property and as an emergency access, retention of timber building to replace existing pole barn to provide heat source for the Warren and single storey glazed extension to accommodate a boiler.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 No internal consultations have been received on either planning application.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Lower Beeding Parish Council

DC/10/1784 – Objects, “It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient justification for the retention of the trackway and its retention has an urbanising effect on the natural setting of the site detracting from the appearance, character and visual amenities of the countryside location and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Parish Council also requests that Horsham District Council take

APPENDIX.

enforcement action for the removal of the timber building, which has been refused retrospective planning permission.” DC/10/2126 – Objects, “The Parish Council considers that a) hard roads through woodland are not a requirement for woodland management; b) an open shed would be more appropriate for the drying of firewood; c) the large building offends the AONB and d) an underground water storage facility is not necessary.”

3.3 West Sussex County Council Highways

DC/10/1784 – No Objection DC/10/2126 – No Objection 3.4 Environment Agency

DC/10/1784 – No Comments Received

DC/10/2126 – No objection to the proposal as submitted PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 DC/10/1784: Four neighbour letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:

No right to create an unauthorised track through to the Warren The Warren has adequate access to Handcross Road Positioning of the gate interferes with the right of way Anomaly between plan showing trackway and comments contained with

Design and Access Statement There is no official requirement for an emergency access A quad bike does not require a track of this width The roadway constitutes substantial urbanisation of the AONB without

serving any necessary purpose

DC/10/2124: Five neighbour letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:

Vehicle movements and wood sawing would create noise and disturbance in a tranquil woodland situated in an AONB

Building size incompatible with an AONB Level of machinery seems to represent a much larger operation than can be

described as minor in scale The pole barn which has been replaced by the hut was never granted

planning permission A condition should be imposed preventing anyone from taking up residence

in the hut, if it is permitted The building is too big compared to what is needed to manage the woodland Except for internal layout, the application is identical to the previously

refused application The applicant states the Woodland Management Plan wasn’t fully

considered in the previous application yet it was mentioned in the planning report and discussed at the Committee Meeting

APPENDIX.

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




6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues in the determination of these applications are the principle of

development and:

a) the impact on the rural character of the area and its landscape setting; b) the impact on visual amenity; c) the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; 6.2 DC/10/1784

This application broadly consists of three separate but related elements; a single storey glazed extension to accommodate a boiler; retention of trackways for land management purposes in accordance with a Woodland Management Plan and to serve as the rear access to the property and as an emergency access; proposed gate and gate posts at the Handsford Way end of the proposed track works. DC/10/2124 This application involves the retention of a storage building to house equipment in accordance with a Woodland Management Plan. Further details in the form of the internal layout of the storage building have been provided to demonstrate the need for the structure.

6.3 The application site is situated outside of any built-up area boundary and as such is

within the countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies Document concerns countryside protection and enhancement, the main thrust of which is to protect and enhance the natural beauty and amenity of the District’s countryside for its own sake. Development should be of a scale appropriate to its location. Policy DC4 of the General Development Control Policies Document concerns Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and states that planning permission will not be granted for proposals in or near to the Sussex Downs or High Weald AONBs that would adversely affect the character, quality, views, distinctiveness or threaten public enjoyment of these landscapes.

APPENDIX.

DC/10/1784 Single Storey Glazed Extension to accommodate a boiler

6.4 The proposed extension to the property (formerly known as Flat 1 and Flat 2 The

Warren), is shown comprising a mainly glazed (on the internal face and roof), lightweight linear extension, to provide accommodation for a modest boiler and linking an existing summerhouse to the main residential accommodation. The scale, form and design of the proposed addition is considered compatible with Policy DC28 (House Extensions) as it is considered it is accommodated appropriately within the curtilage of the dwelling and having regard to the size of "The Warren" as a whole. Also it is considered that the proposal has been designed in sympathy with and subservient to the scale and character of the existing dwelling to which it is proposed to be attached. The proposed extension would be shielded from view from the central courtyard of The Warren by the partially collapsed garden wall (to be partially rebuilt) that runs along the front boundary of the property. It is also considered that this element of the proposal is compliant with policies that seek to protect the countryside and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty from inappropriate and discordant development. Likewise, it is not considered the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of adjoining occupiers. This aspect of the proposal is considered compliant with Development Plan Policies.

The Trackways

6.5 Turning to the issue of the trackway works proposed in the application, concern had

previously been expressed at the pre-application stage by your officers regarding the uncertain use to which the proposed accesses would be put. Queries were raised that the nature of the access works undertaken, comprising 2.75/3m wide roadways with stone "kerbing" were uncharacteristic of woodland maintenance trackways. It would normally be expected that these would be less formal and more utilitarian in appearance. It was suggested in light of this that the proposed use of the tracks should be clarified, i.e. if the trackways were purely for woodland maintenance purposes, or also to serve as some form of access to the residential dwelling.

6.6 This matter has been clarified in the current application by the confirmation that the

track, in particular running from Handford Way to the rear of The Warren would be used not only for woodland maintenance purposes (which is some 9.6 ha in area) but also as a rear access to the property and for emergency access purposes. Also, from a site visit, the kerbing has been removed.

6.7 Details of the minimum width of a track required to protect the woodland and to

stop fire spread have been provided by the Fire & Rescue Department of West Sussex County Council. The track has shown to accord with the recommendations given and includes a turning head for a small fire appliance. In principle, it is considered that a suitably constructed informal track could serve the proposed uses in a manner that could assimilate into the site without causing undue harm to the rural character of the area or the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

APPENDIX.

6.8 Details of the construction of the trackway have been submitted and involve a type I sandstone sub-base and terram membrane with rolled local sandstone chippings, which is stated to be the same stone as the substrata of the Estate and previously in evidence in tracks and paths. However, a cross sectional drawing to illustrate these details is required, including the width of the tracks and no kerbs. From a site visit, the current trackway has an informal appearance and no kerbing has been installed on the edges. It would not be considered acceptable in terms of visual amenity to install any formal kerbing to the trackway and this issue would be controlled by means of condition. Clarification has been received in relation to where the northern end of the track ceases and confirming that it does not connect to the drive of The Warren.

The Gate

6.9 With regard to the proposed wooden gate and gate posts at the Handford Way end

of the proposed track works, it is considered that in light of the existing residential development in Handford Way, the design characteristics of the gate reflect the former parkland setting that it is understood the owner is trying to recreate on land surrounding The Warren. It is concluded that the proposed gate would comply with relevant Development Plan policies seeking to protect the character of the countryside and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and as such would represent an acceptable form of development in this location, notwithstanding the gate is more formal in nature than normally associated with purely 'forestry' workings.

6.10 In conclusion, it is considered the proposed works, extension and trackway by

reason of their size, scale and position and rural justification would not cause material harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers, adversely affect the visual amenities/character of the area or AONB such to justify a refusal of planning permission or conflict with adopted policies.

DC/10/2126

The Storage Building 6.11 The storage building measures 18.2m in length, 6.3m in width and has a maximum

height of 3m and is located to the north of the trackway that runs from west to east through the woodland. Two applications for the retention of this building have previously been refused (DC/08/1736 & DC/10/1088) as at that time it had not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that there was sufficient justification for the retention of a storage building of the size constructed, and as such its retention had an unjustified urbanising effect upon the natural setting of this site, thereby detracting from the appearance, character and visual amenities of this countryside location within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

6.12 Further information has been submitted regarding the scheme of woodland

management proposed which is now indicated to be ongoing. Further details of the proposed use of the building for the storage and drying of timber have also been supplied and it is acknowledged that if the management of the woodland is to be undertaken in accordance with the Woodland Management Plan, an argument can

APPENDIX.

be made for the justification of a building to house equipment and machinery required in connection with the upkeep of the 9.6 ha area of land shown to be within the applicants’ ownership.

6.13 Since the refusal of the previous application (DC/10/1088), precise details of the

internal layout of the structure have also been provided. These show the storage locations for the quad bike and trailer, mini digger, log splitter, storage areas for equipment and log storage bays. It is considered that these details further reinforce the justification for the retention of the building. While the building itself is considered to be relatively large for such a rural area, it is accepted that limited views of the structure are afforded from public vantage points due to screening from extensive woodland vegetation. It is considered, on balance, the visual impact of the structure is acceptable and provides a vital part of the overall woodland management plan and supports a scheme for renewable energy in accordance with policy DC8 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007. This policy encourages the use of renewable sources of energy as a method of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases by providing wood for the boiler to heat the flats.

6.14 It is considered necessary to control by means of condition, further extensions to the building in order to control the development in the interests of the amenities of this sensitive countryside location. Concerns were raised previously over the potential to use the building for another use should its use as a Woodland Management building no longer be required. The applicant has stated that a condition requiring the building to be removed should it no longer be required for woodland management would be acceptable.

6.15 In conclusion, it is considered the retention of the storage building in association

with its use for Woodland Management by reason of its size, scale and position would on balance, not cause material harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers or adversely affect the visual amenities/character of the area or AONB such to justify a refusal of planning permission or conflict with adopted policies.

7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 DC/10/1784 - Retention of track and gate for land management purposes and

to serve as the rear access to the property and as an emergency access and associated gate at access. Single storey glazed extension to accommodate a boiler. Subject to the receipt of cross section plans showing the construction of the tracks, it is recommended that planning permission be granted and to include the following conditions:

01 The trackways hereby approved shall be retained to the current width and

surfacing and shall not be kerbed. Any alteration to the application details shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter any works undertaken shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

APPENDIX.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities and rural character of the area in accordance with Policies DC1 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

02 No lighting or other works shall be installed in connection with the trackways

or gate hereby permitted without approval from the Local Planning Authority by way of an application on that behalf. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and rural character of the area in accordance with Policy DC1 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

03 The garden wall element shall not be commenced unless and until a

schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for the rebuilt garden wall of the proposed extension have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of appropriate visual quality in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

7.2 DC/10/2126 - Retention of timber building to replace existing pole barn

for The Warren. That planning permission be granted and to include the following conditions:

01 The storage building hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes in

connection with the management and maintenance of the adjoining woodland at the Warren shown to be in the ownership of the applicant and as set out in the application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The site lies in an area where, in accordance with Policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework 2007, development which cannot be justified as requiring a countryside location would not normally be permitted.

02 No lighting or other works shall be installed in connection with the storage

building hereby permitted without approval from the Local Planning Authority by way of an application on that behalf. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and rural character of the area in accordance with Policy DC1 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

03 In the event of the building hereby permitted ceasing to be used in association with the management of the woodland, it shall be demolished and all resultant materials removed from the site within three months of the cessation of such use or within such extended time as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The site lies in an area where, under policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control

APPENDIX.

Policies (2007), permission for new development would not normally be granted.

04 No gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected or

constructed in connection with the storage building, the subject of the current application, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the rural character of the area and in accordance with Policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

8. REASONS DC/10/1784:


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

DC/10/2126:


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

Background Papers: DC/10/1784 & DC/10/2126 Contact Officer: David Taylor

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1

Contact Officer: Lorraine Rogers Tel: 01403 215435




DATE: 1st May 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Removal of existing garage and replacement with open sided car port and replacement boundary fence comprising 1.2 m and 1.8m fence with 0.2m trellis

SITE: 1 Andrews Road, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex

WARD: Southwater


APPLICANT: Mr J Raynard

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member referral – Cllr Chidlow and Cllr Vickers RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks retrospective permission for the erection of the open sided

car port following the demolition of the garage and permission for the proposed replacement fencing and trellis.

1.2 The open sided car port measures 6m in length, 2.9m in width and 2.95m in height

and consists of timber post and supports, with a timber roof which is to be completed with asphalt. The garage which was of a similar size has been demolished and consisted of asbestos panelled walls and corrugated asbestos sheet roofing.

1.3 The existing fencing is to be replaced with fencing of the same height (1.8m and

1.2) with trellis added to the 1.8m high fencing.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2

2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.4 1 Andrews Road is a two storey semi detached property located on a corner plot on

the junction of Andrews Road and Mill Straight which is within the Built Up Area of Southwater. The vehicular access to the carport is to the front of numbers 1 and 3 Andrews Road. The front and rear boundaries currently comprise of close boarded fencing which is 1.2 and 1.8m in height.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1

and CP3. 2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document are DC3 and DC9 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan 2009 are CC1 and CC4

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY SQ/51/01 – 2-storey side extension – Permitted on 29th May 2001.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3.1 Southwater Parish Council - Objection on the grounds that the application would be

out of keeping with the area and the Village Design Statement.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.2 No representations received. 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS 4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First

Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3

3


implications. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application include the impact of the

proposal on the character of the area and on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers.

6.2 Previously a garage was located at the front of the property in the north western

corner of the site and has been removed prior to the submission of this application. The open sided carport has been erected in the same location as the removed garage and due to its location planning permission was required. The existing vehicular access to the car port is to the front of numbers 1 and 3 Andrews Road and is to be retained.

6.3 Applications for structures in front gardens need careful consideration. In this

instance the car port replaces a garage in the same location and the car port is of a comparable height and size to the demolished garage. In addition there are two properties one immediately to the south east and the other to the north east of the application site which each have a garage forward of the front building line. Karinda is located on the Worthing Road which has a joint boundary with 1 Andrews Road and Southwater Lodge is located on the opposite corner of Andrews Road and Worthing Road. It is considered that the garages for Southwater Lodge and Karinda are in a more prominent position, are more substantial structures and are closer to the highway in Worthing Road than the carport at the application site. Therefore it is considered that a precedent has already been set with regard to this type of development in this locality.

6.4 At the present time the car port has been constructed but not completed. The

timber roof needs a final covering of asphalt and it is considered that the asphalt roof would tone down the visual impact of the carport when viewed from Andrews Road and Mill Straight/Worthing Road.

6.5 There are trees located in the north western corner of the site which when in leaf

will provide further screening as would the additional height of the boundary treatment.

6.6 The existing treated softwood fencing which is need of repair/replacement runs

down the length of the rear/side garden along Mill Straight/Worthing Road and across the front of the property in Andrews Road. The existing fencing in Mill Straight and to the front of the car port in Andrews Road is 1.8m in height and reduces to 1.2m in height for the remainder of the front boundary along Andrews Road.

6.7 The proposal was originally to replace the fencing with 2m fencing, however

following officer discussions the replacement fencing will now be of the same height as the existing, with a 0.20m trellis to be added to the 1.8m fencing sections. There

APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4

4

will be no change to the height of the 1.2m fencing at the front of the property in Andrews Road.

6.8 There is a pavement along the site boundary in Andrews Road and Mill Straight

which currently provides views into the garden and the dwellinghouse. The proposed increase in height of the boundary treatment will provide additional privacy to the occupiers both in the garden and within the dwellinghouse, with the trellis being less dominant than the previously proposed 2m fencing.

6.9 The colour of the proposed fencing and trellis would be controlled by condition. 6.10 The Southwater Parish Design Statement 2011 (SPDS) states that “high hedges

and fences detract from the residential street scene and should not be encouraged” and “panels or close boards, although acceptable for boundaries with neighbours are not suited to rural frontages”. In this case the property is within the defined built up area and already has close boarded fencing. The proposal is to replace this with new fencing plus trellis on top. It is considered that this approach would be acceptable in this location and would be softened with the retained vegetation. The SPDS does not give specific guidance on garages or carports but in respect of design/architecture pitched roofs to buildings are preferred and timber boarding is a characteristic feature and there is concern at buildings being close to the edge of a pavement. The carport has been erected close to the boundary of the site but this is in the same location as the previously demolished garage and is separated from the pavement by vegetation and the fencing.

6.11 In conclusion it is considered that the proposal would not materially affect the

character of the existing house, adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers or the visual amenities of the street scene and is considered acceptable.

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

conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission 02 M6 Prescribed Materials – Roof 03 M7 Materials (Painting) – Fencing and Trellis 8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers

or the character and visual amenities of the locality. Background Papers: DC/12/0210

Documents

Development Control (North) Committee€¦ · Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 1ST MAY 2012 AT 5.30p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, ... site would connect the development with the