1. travel
2. tourist facilities
3. hotel

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planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be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