Development Control (North) Committee€¦ · DC/13/0294 Rowarts Farm North, Five Oaks Road,...

DCN150414

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 14th April 2015

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

Chairman),John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Peter Burgess, John Chidlow, Christine Costin, Helena Croft, Leonard Crosbie, Malcolm Curnock, Duncan England, Frances Haigh, David Holmes, Ian Howard, David Jenkins, Christian Mitchell, Godfrey Newman, David Sheldon, David Skipp, Claire Vickers, Tricia Youtan

Apologies: Councillors: Laurence Deakins, Josh Murphy, Jim Rae, Stuart

Ritchie, Simon Torn

DCN/108 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3rd February were approved as a correct record, subject to an amendment to the minute of DC/14/1917 on page 8, with the addition of the clause ‘but required a new travel plan to be produced relating to the larger congregation’ to the end of the sentence ‘Members were mindful that the Highway Authority had raised no objection’. The minutes, as amended, were signed by the Chairman. The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 17th February were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman; it was agreed that the addendum relating to DC/14/0590 referred to in the resolution of the item be appended to the minutes. The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3rd March were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCN/109 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member

Item Nature of Interest

Councillor David Holmes

DC/15/0154 Personal – his daughter lives in the vicinity and he knows one of the objectors

Councillor David Holmes

DC/14/2430 Personal – he knows one of the objectors who addressed this meeting

Councillor John Bailey

DC/14/2157 Personal and prejudicial – the application site has a common boundary with his land

Councillor Malcolm Curnock

DC/15/0251 Personal and Prejudicial – he is the applicant

DCN/110 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

Development Control (North) Committee 14th April 2015

DCN/111 APPEALS Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No

Site Appeal Committee

Resolution DC/14/1305 Oak Tree Farm, Ifield

Wood, Ifield, Crawley Written representations

N/A

DC/14/1654 Cattery, Beacon Hill Croft, Tower Road, Colgate

Written representations

N/A

Appeal Decisions

Ref No

Site Officer Recommendation

Committee Resolution

Decision

DC/13/0294 Rowarts Farm North, Five Oaks Road, Slinfold

Refuse N/A Dismissed

DCN/112PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/0154 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING

DWELLINGS AND ERECTION OF 69 DWELLINGS (COMPRISING 27 NO 1-BEDROOM FLATS, 38 NO 2-BEDROOM FLATS AND 4 NO 3-BEDROOM HOUSES) WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, BICYCLE STORAGE, LANDSCAPING AND EXTERNAL WORKS, SERVED BY ALTERED ACCESS ONTO STANDINGS COURT

SITE: WINTERTON COURT, HORSHAM APPLICANT: SAXON WEALD HOMES LIMITED

(Councillor David Holmes declared a personal interest in this application as his daughter lived in the vicinity and he knew one of the objectors.)

The Development Manager reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of 69 dwellings within four buildings, of a relatively modern design, arranged around a central public open space, with a main access running around the central square. The flats would have access to private and communal garden areas. Block A would be two storeys with a height of 10.5 metres, comprising four 3-bedroom, two 2-bedroom, and two 1-bedroom flats. It would be adjacent to the public footpath running along the north-eastern side of the site, and there would be a 1.2 metre high boundary railing. There would be a 1.8 metre boundary wall separating the rear gardens from the public areas of the development.

2


DCN/112 Planning Application: DC/15/0154 (Cont.) Block B would be two storeys and three storeys comprising five 2-bedroom, three 1-bedroom flats and two 2-bedroom flats. The two storey section would be 6.8 metres high and the three storey section would be 9.7 metres high. Block C would be four storeys and five storeys comprising eleven 2-bedroom and seven 1-bedroom flats. The four storey section would be 12.7 metres high and the five storey section would be 15.8 metres high. Block D would be three storeys, four storeys and five storeys and would comprise four 2-bedroom, fifteen 1-bedroom and fourteen 2-bedroom flats. The three storey section would be 9.8 metres high, the four storey section 12.3 metres high and the five storey section 15.6 metres high. There would be a parking area for each building; 11 spaces for Block A, 15 spaces for Block B, 14 spaces for Block C and 14 spaces for Block D. There would be a total of 69 parking spaces on the site. The application site was located within the built-up area of Horsham and was currently occupied by sheltered housing accommodation comprising 27 dwellings. The site was bordered to the north east by a public footpath, opposite which was a new development of two-storey dwellings and a three-storey block of flats at Standings Court. The rear gardens of dwellings fronting New Street were to the south east, the railway station car park was to the north west and the Victoria Street car park was to the south west. Details of relevant government and council policies as contained within the report were noted by the Committee. There was no relevant planning history related to the site. The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. Members were advised that Condition 11 had been removed from the proposed conditions because it was no longer applicable due to an update in building regulations. It was noted that paragraph 6.12 of the report should have specified that ‘current policy would only allow a non-resident’s permit to be issued for residents living on a private road’. The Neighbourhood Council had objected to the application. Fifty-nine letters of objection had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent and a representative of the applicant both addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

3


DCN/112 Planning Application: DC/15/0154 (Cont.)

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of the development; layout, scale and appearance; the amenity of neighbouring residents and future occupiers; parking and highways; ecology, biodiversity and trees; and the completion of a legal agreement. Members considered aspects of the scheme, in particular: the height and scale of the buildings; the proposed materials, in particular the extensive use of zinc cladding on vertical surfaces; the proposal’s relationship to Standings Court and the accumulative effect on the density of the area; the design of the proposal in the context of character of the surrounding area; the impact of noise disturbance on those properties closest to the railway line; and traffic and parking. Members received information from the Council’s Housing Officer regarding the latest local lettings plan and discussed the implications of the development in terms of the impact on the area and education provision. Members were informed of the views of the County Education Officer that adequate provision would be available locally without any need for a section 106 contribution towards education to be allocated specifically for expansion of any local school. Members expressed concern that the type of provision could lead to a significant increase in children in the area without adequate amenity areas and play facilities available. Members also discussed the percentage relationship between shared ownership and social and affordable housing. Members were concerned that there would be additional problems on the local highways due to the additional traffic. They were assured that WSCC had assessed the impact of the additional traffic and this could be accommodated on the highway network. More than the required level of parking was proposed to be provided on site. The Members were concerned that the design of the individual units meant that the vertical stacking had noisy rooms such as kitchens above bedrooms. The applicant had stated an increase in noise insulation catered for this problem. After careful consideration of all the material concerns, Members concluded that the scale and height of the proposal would dominate the area and represent overdevelopment of the site leading to a poor level of amenity.

RESOLVED That planning application DC/15/0154 be refused for the following reasons: 01 The proposed development represents the

overdevelopment of a confined site, leading to a

4


DCN/112 Planning Application: DC/15/0154 (Cont.) poor level of amenity for future occupiers of the

development due to a deficiency of private and communal outdoor space for safe outdoor play, for residents to sit out in reasonable privacy, for drying washing out of doors and other ancillary residential purposes. In addition the proposed layout has resulted in internal conflicts between adjacent room types in separate flats and many bedrooms facing the adjacent car park and railway line, leading to potential noise disturbance and the need to provide mechanical ventilation to bedrooms, as opening windows would result in noise disturbance for future residents. This is not a sustainable approach to addressing the relationship of the site with the railway, and would not result in a good quality living environment for future occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CP2 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC9 of the Adopted Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007), as well as to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 17.

02 The proposed development site is located within a

residential area where buildings are generally limited to three storeys in height, and is distinct from the commercial area on the western side of the railway line. The height of proposed buildings of up to five storeys does not respect or reflect the overall scale of the buildings in this residential area and would result in an overly prominent appearance, forming a dominating backdrop to the smaller scale buildings on New Street and Standings Court. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality and is contrary to Policy CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), Policy DC9 of the Adopted General Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007), as well as to the NPPF, in particular section 7.

03 Policy CP12 requires provision of at least 40%

affordable units on developments involving 15 units or more or on sites of 0.5 hectares or more. Policy CP13 requires new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new

5


DCN/112 Planning Application: DC/15/0154 (Cont.) development. Both the provision of affordable

housing and financial contributions towards infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed agreement is in place by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), to the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, and to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50.

DCN/113 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/1971 – REDEVELOPMENT OF LAND

AT RUSPER ROAD, IFIELD (ENCOMPASSING SUMMERWOOD, AVALON, ROSE LAWN, HIGH TREES, BUDLEIGH, WHITE COTTAGE, VENTURA AND AVEBURY) FOR 36 DWELLINGS, TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS ROAD, CAR PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE (APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS FOLLOWING OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION DC/13/0368) SITE: RUSPER ROAD, IFIELD, CRAWLEY APPLICANT: MR JOHN MATUSZEWSKI

The Development Manager reported that this application sought approval of reserved matters connected to outline application DC/13/0368 for 36 dwellings comprising three 5-bedroom, twelve 4-bedroom, twelve 3-bedroom dwellings and nine 2-bedroom flats. (The housing mix had been incorrectly printed in paragraph 1.3 of the report.) Of these, two 3-bedroom dwellings and the nine 2-bedroom flats would be affordable units. Matters for consideration included scale, appearance and landscaping. The application site was located south of Rusper Road and east of Whitehill Drive close to the boundary with Crawley Borough Council. It comprised two storey detached houses in spacious plots, with a landscaped strip between four of the properties and Rusper Road. The site also included part of the rear garden of the property known as Avebury to the west of the site. Housing of relatively low density was to the north and west, with more recent development to the east in Merlin Close of a higher density. Other more recent residential development to the south in Capsey Road and Lancelot Close were of a much higher density. In general terms, the lower density housing was within the Horsham District while the higher density housing to the south was within Crawley. Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

6



The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was noted that the height of the buildings had been reduced in response to concerns. Crawley Parish Council had objected to the application. Thirteen letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and a representative of the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were its impact on the character and appearance of the locality and on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Members discussed issues relevant to the proposal including parking provision, the design of the dwellings and the affordable housing provision that had been agreed with the outline permission. Members concluded that the proposal reflected the terms of the outline permission and that the design and scale would not have a detrimental impact on neighbour amenity or on the landscape character of the area.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/1971 be granted subject to the following conditions: 01 The garages hereby permitted shall be reserved for

the parking of vehicles and shall not be converted to provide additional living accommodation or used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking of vehicles clear of all carriageways.

02 Before the first occupation of the dwellings hereby

permitted the following windows shall be fitted with obscured glazing and any part of such windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be non-opening:

• Rooflight in the southern side elevation of Plot 17

• Windows at first floor and above in the northern side elevations of Plots 15 and 21

• The windows shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7


DCN/113 Planning Application: DC/14/1971 (Cont.) 03 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, or as subsequently agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be inserted or constructed at any time at first floor level or above in the following elevations of the dwellings hereby permitted:

• Southern side elevation of Plots 6, 17 and 18 • Eastern side elevation of Plot 25 • Northern side elevation of Plots 15 and 21

04 Prior to the commencement of the development

hereby permitted, details of roller shutter type doors to the integral garages serving plots 7-15, 20, 21 and 22 hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the aforementioned garages shall thereafter only be secured by way of roller shutter type doors.

05 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1) of the

Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Classes A to E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Order shall be erected, constructed, or placed within the application site unless planning permission is first granted by the Local Planning Authority.

06 The development hereby permitted shall be

constructed in accordance with the details of levels shown on drawing number P204 received by the Local Planning Authority on 12.03.2015 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

07 A condition listing the approved drawings.

8


DCN/114 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/2658 – ERECTION OF 14 DWELLINGS,

SERVED BY NEW ACCESS ONTO BRIGHTON ROAD SITE: LAND TO THE NORTH OF MONKS GATE, BRIGHTON ROAD,

MONKS GATE APPLICANT: CAMEBRIDGE GROVE The Development Manager reported that this application sought outline planning permission for the erection of 14 dwellings, including six social rented units. Matters for consideration under this outline application were the principle of the development, access and layout, with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for later consideration. The layout would comprise a cul-de-sac with two arms extending to the north and south of the access. The agricultural access to fields to the east would be retained. The application site was located adjacent to the A281 immediately to the north of Monks Gate, which was not classified as a settlement. There was a row of dwellings on the opposite side of the road and a number of dwellings to the south. It comprised undeveloped land which included a number of trees, some of which were protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

Details of relevant government and council policies as contained within the report were noted by the Committee. There was no relevant planning history related to the site. The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was noted that the Nuthurst Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan consultation had been completed and it had been submitted for examination.

The Parish Council had objected to the application and the site had not been included in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. One hundred and eighty one letters of objection had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and a representative of the Parish Council also spoke in objection to the application. Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal was the principle of the development, and its impact on the character and ecology of the area. Members noted the recent felling of trees at the site, which had been carried out without first obtaining a felling license from the Forestry Commission, who had since issued a re-stocking notice for 40 trees at the site. Members also noted that the proposal was counter to the proposed Neighbourhood Plan and discussed aspects of the scheme including: the countryside location and its relationship to Monks Gate; the urbanising effect of the

9


DCN/114 Planning Application: DC/14/2658 (Cont.) scheme; trees; drainage; ecology and the lack of site investigations; the potential noise impact of the A281; impact on nearby listed buildings; and the character of the site and its relationship to the surrounding area. Members concluded that the site was in an unsustainable location and would result in significant landscape harm and was unacceptable.

RESOLVED That planning application DC/14/2658 be refused for the following reasons: 01 The proposed development is located in the

countryside, outside of and not contiguous with the defined built-up area boundary. The proposed amount and layout of development would result in harm to the open and rural landscape character of the area, would not respect or reflect the pattern of rural development in the vicinity, integrates poorly with the existing settlement, and would result in the urbanisation of the site, to the detriment of the character of the landscape and visual amenities of the site and wider area, harming the character of the settlement, the setting of adjacent listed buildings, and the setting and amenity value of protected trees. In addition, the proposed layout is not cohesive, with buildings poorly related to each other and to retained features of the site. Furthermore, the site is in an unsustainable location, remote from local services and centres, conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the reliance on the private car. The proposal therefore represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside contrary to Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies and Criteria 1, 3, 6, 11, 14 and 17 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

02 Policy DC5 seeks to ensure that development

includes measures to protect, conserve or enhance the biodiversity of the District. In this case, there are habitat features within the site that have the potential to be of biodiversity value, and there is a lack of

10


DCN/114 Planning Application: DC/14/2658 (Cont.) investigation into the ecological features of the site. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the site is suitable for the amount of development proposed, and what the appropriate level of mitigation and/or compensation for the development may be, as required by Paragraphs 117-119 of the NPPF. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) and to the NPPF.

03 The application site is located adjacent to the A281.

No environmental noise assessment has been provided to demonstrate that the site is suitable for residential use, or whether any mitigation may be required in order to prevent undue noise and disturbance to future residents and how any such mitigation would be integrated into the street scene and landscape. The proposal therefore has not been demonstrated to provide a good level of amenity to future residents, and is contrary to Policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and to paragraphs 17 and 123 of the NPPF.

04 Given the proximity of dwellings to large retained

trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders, the proposed layout would result in pressure for works to, or felling, of protected trees in order to provide a good level of amenity for future occupiers. The proposed layout therefore does respect existing trees and vegetation and is contrary to Policies DC6 and DC9 of the Adopted Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) and paragraph 17 and chapter 11 of the NPPF.

05 Insufficient information has been submitted with the

application to demonstrate that, in principle, an acceptable foul and surface water drainage strategy can be achieved as part of the development, including the accommodation of existing public foul sewers crossing the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), Policy DC7 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development

11



Control Policies (2007) and to the NPPF, in particular paragraphs 100-103.

06 It has not been demonstrated that the proposed

access and layout would prevent harm to the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the development. In particular, the visibility splay to the south of the proposed access does not accord with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Standards, no Stage One Safety Audit and Designers Response have been submitted, and no swept path analysis has been provided to demonstrate that large vehicles can turn within the site without reversing into or out of it. The application is therefore contrary to Policy CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and DC40 of the Adopted Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

07 Policy CP12 requires provision of 40% affordable

units on developments involving 15 units or more or on sites of 0.5 hectares or more. Policy CP13 requires new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), to the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, and to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50.

12


DCN/115 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/0347 – CREATION OF 2 X TWO-BED

FLATS WITHIN THE EXISTING UNDER-CROFT CAR PARK INCLUDING EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND THE INSERTION OF 12 DORMERS WITHIN THE ROOF TO FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRIOR APPROVAL PERMISSION DC/13/2281 FOR 17 FLATS

SITE: NORFOLK HOUSE, 32 - 40 NORTH STREET, HORSHAM APPLICANT: THE OAKLEY AND PAGE PENSION SCHEME

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for two 2-bedroom flats within the under-croft car park of Norfolk House and twelve dormer windows within the roof of the building. The proposal would facilitate the previous application DC/13/2281 for the change of use from offices to 17 residential units. The proposal would involve the infilling of part of the under-croft carpark with two entrance doors, and four windows within the western elevation, and three obscure glazed windows in the northern elevation. Eighteen of the 37 parking spaces would be retained. The proposed dormer windows would project a maximum of 2.9 metres from the existing roof slope. There would be five dormers on the western elevation, six dormers on the eastern elevation and one dormer on the southern elevation. The application site was located within the built-up area of Horsham on a prominent site on North Street, within easy walking distance from the station and town centre. It was at the junction with Norfolk Road which ran to the east of North Street. There was a mix of land use in the surrounding area. Sussex House, a three storey office building was immediately to the north east of the site. Norfolk Road had a distinctive streetscene with Edwardian terraced houses. 3 Norfolk Road was immediately to the southeast and 2 Norfolk Road and 78 Park Street were adjacent to the south. The buildings on the opposite side of North Street included offices and two Grade II listed properties, which operated as a restaurant. The Capitol arts centre was to the west of the site. There was a mature protected Copper Beech tree at the front of the site. Norfolk Road was open to one-way traffic with no access from Park Street. If wishing to access the western part of Norfolk Road from Park Street vehicles had to use Wellington Road and Chichester Terrace before turning left into Norfolk Road. Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. Members were

13


DCN/115 Planning Application: DC/14/0347 (Cont.) advised that a Construction Management condition would be added. The Neighbourhood Council had objected to the proposal. Fifty four letters of objection, with some from duplicate addresses, had been received, and the Horsham Society had also objected to the application. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the proposal and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of the development; residential amenity of occupiers and neighbours; and access and vehicle movements. Members discussed the proposed dormer windows in the context of the existing permission and the potential additional overlooking that would be caused by the proposal. The access to the two new flats was discussed and Members were concerned that the amenity of these flats would be compromised by their location and proximity to the car parking area. Members concluded that the proposal should be deferred to allow for further information on the level of overlooking that the dormer windows would cause, and for more detailed plans of the two under-croft flats to be supplied to Members, prior to the determination of the application.

RESOLVED That planning application DC/14/0347 be deferred to allow for Members to be briefed in more detail on (i) the impact of the dormer windows on the amenity

of neighbouring occupiers, and

(ii) the layout of the entrances to the under-croft flats and their relationship to the parking area.

DCN/116 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/2606 – RESERVED MATTERS

APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 51 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INCLUDING 10 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS (20%), THE CREATION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AMENITY SPACE, INCIDENTAL PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTES, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS SITE: BROADBRIDGE HEATH DEVELOPMENT, PARCEL 5, CHURCHILL WAY, BROADBRIDGE HEATH APPLICANT: MR SIMON COCKS Item deferred until 28th April.

14


DCN/117 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/2430 – DEMOLITION OF THE FOUNTAIN INN AND ERECTION OF 5 DWELLINGS (3X3 BED TERRACED AND 2X4 BED DETACHED) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND CAR PORTS

SITE: THE FOUNTAIN INN, 81 RUSPER ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR MARK PANTRY

(Councillor David Holmes declared a personal interest in this application as he knew one of the objectors who addressed the meeting.) The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of the Public House known as ‘The Fountain Inn’ and erection of three 3-bedroom terraced houses and two 4-bedroom detached houses, with associated parking and car ports. The terraced houses would be on the south side of the access road into the proposed cul-de-sac, with the first unit fronting onto Rusper Road and the other two units fronting the access road. The two detached dwellings would be in the north-west and south-west corners of the site. There would be a total of eight parking spaces provided. The building design would include brick with vertical tile hanging, projecting bay, hipped roof and external chimney stacks.

The application site was located on the west side of Rusper Road, on a brown field site located within the built-up area of Horsham. There were two listed buildings to the north-west. The surrounding area was generally residential and included two-storey brick and tile houses fronting Rusper Road, and more modern residential properties to the west and south. There was a newsagents / convenience store directly opposite the site. Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. Since preparation of the report he applicant’s agent had submitted a letter regarding the decline in profits generated by the business. The Parish Council had not commented on the proposal. Eight letters of objection (two from the same address), one letter of support and one letter of comment had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the proposal, and one supporter and the applicant both addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of the development; its impact on the setting of listed buildings; impact on the character and appearance of the area; private and visual amenities; and traffic and parking.

15



Members discussed the role of the public house within the local community and considered this in the context of the applicant’s figures regarding the decline in business. Members noted that the most recent data regarding the profitability of the business dated from 2013 and were concerned that sufficient effort had not been made to market the premises as a going concern. Members concluded that the proposal should be deferred so that the applicant could provide further information regarding the current business and attempts to market it. It was also noted that by deferring the application the Parish Council would have an opportunity to comment on the proposal prior to its determination.

RESOLVED That planning application DC/14/0347 be deferred to allow for further information to be provided by the applicant prior to the determination of the application.

DCN/118 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/2157 – REPLACEMENT TWO-STOREY

DWELLING SITE: APRIL RISE, COX GREEN, RUDGWICK APPLICANT: MR TERRY WALKER

(Councillor John Bailey declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as the application site had a common boundary with his land. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the determination of the application.)

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for a detached two-storey dwelling to replace the existing bungalow. The proposal had been amended in response to concerns regarding the design and scale of the replacement dwelling. It would be a timber framed prefabricated building measuring up to 15.8 metres by 15.2 metres with a ridge height of 8.4 metres. There would be a cat slide roofed single storey element on the south west elevation. The application site was located in the hamlet of Cox Green, within the built-up area of Rudgwick. There were a number of two-storey detached dwellings on the opposite side of the road, and a two-storey detached dwelling to the east. There was a single-storey dwelling to the west. The existing bungalow was set within domestic curtilage stretching approximately 100 metres to the south, with open countryside beyond. Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

16


DCN/118 Planning Application: DC/14/2157 (Cont.) The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council had objected to both the original and amended proposal. Ten letters of objection, from nine addresses, had been received in response to the original proposal. Two letters of objection, and one letter of support from a previous objector, had been received in response to the amended proposal. The Rudgwick Preservation Society had also objected to both the original and amended proposal. Since preparation of the report a letter had been received pointing out a number of minor errors within the report. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant and the designer of the proposal addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of the development; the design of the replacement dwelling; its impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene; highway safety; and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. Members discussed the scale and design of the proposal and how it related to the surrounding residential development. The amended plans had reduced its size and the design was not considered to cause harm to the visual amenity of the area. Whilst bricks and tiles were the predominant building material in the surrounding area, there were examples of the use of render in the immediate locality.

Members therefore concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED That planning application DC/14/2157 be granted subject to the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun

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

02 No works or development shall take place unless and until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works as may be approved shall then be fully implemented in the first planting season following commencement of the development hereby permitted and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details. Any plants or species which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting

17


DCN/118 Planning Application: DC/14/2157 (Cont.) 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 otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

03 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A, B and C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwelling unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

04 Notwithstanding the details submitted, no development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed dwelling have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.

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

06 No burning of materials in connection with the development shall take place on the site.

07 The first floor windows within the north east elevation of the dwelling hereby approved shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass precise details of which, together with details of any opening, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The approved

18



glass and any agreed opening details shall be maintained at all times.

REASON

01 The principle of a replacement dwelling on this site is considered acceptable.

02 Section 7 of the NPPF advises that the Government

attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. It further advises that planning policies should aim to ensure that developments should ‘respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, whilst not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation’. In this instance there are examples of the use of render in the immediate locality.

03 Whilst the proposed replacement dwelling is larger

than the dwelling currently occupying the site, it is not considered that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area.

DCN/119 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/2620 – CHANGE OF USE FROM PLAY AREA TO RESIDENTIAL GARDEN

SITE: 10 HIGHDOWN WAY, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR ROB FAIRS

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the change of use of a public play area, owned by Horsham District Council, to incorporate it into the wider residential garden of the application property. The applicant had been in discussions to purchase the land, subject to planning consent. The application site was located within the built-up area of Horsham and included a detached house set on a 1990s estate. Its garden abutted the public children's play area to the south of the site. This play area was in poor repair with very limited equipment. There was a newer playground in a more open site with natural surveillance, on the southern side of Tylden Way, close to the application site.

Details of relevant government and council policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. There was no relevant planning history relating to the site.

19



The responses from statutory internal consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council had objected to the proposal. Four letters of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were the principle of the development, in particular the loss of public amenity space, and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Members discussed concerns regarding the sale of the play area in the context of existing and previous policy. It was noted that the Council intended to enhance another play area in the locality. Whilst the area was underused and close to a more popular play area, Members were concerned that selling the area for private use could set a precedent. Members concluded that if enhanced the area could provide a valuable public amenity asset and the proposal was therefore unacceptable.

RESOLVED That planning application DC/14/2620 be refused for the following reason: 01 The proposed change of use of the play area to

residential garden would result in the loss of a community facility and thus would be contrary to Policy CP14 of the Local Development Framework: The Core Strategy (2007).

DCN/120 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1172 – S106/2087 – VARIATION OF

S106 AGREEMENT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT A LEFT-IN LEFT-OUT ACCESS TO THE SITE

SITE: HEATH BARN FARMHOUSE, BILLINGSHURST ROAD, BROADBRIDGE HEATH APPLICANT: A2 DOMINION NEW HOMES Application deferred until 28th April.

20


DCN/121 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/0071 – FELL ONE HORSE CHESTNUT

TREE SITE: 17 CONIFERS CLOSE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR ANDREW ALGAR The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission to fell a horse chestnut tree, which was protected under Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 36. The tree was on a small area to the north of the applicant’s property and was part of a group of three trees, including two Corsican pines. The TPO referred to all three trees and had been in place since 1973. Details of relevant government policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. The Parish Council had not commented on the proposal. Seven letters of objection and one letter of comment had been received. The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issue for consideration in determining the proposal was the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the locality. Members considered the applicant’s concerns regarding the impact of the tree on their dwelling, and the condition of the tree and its varied pruning history were noted. Members concluded that the tree, in its prominent position, was of high amenity value and concluded that the application was unacceptable.

RESOLVED That planning application DC/15/0071 be refused for the following reason: 01 It is considered that the felling of this protected tree,

an action that would result in a distinct loss of amenity to the locality, is not justified in regard to the reasons put forward.

DCN/122 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/0251 – SURGERY TO ONE OAK TREE

SITE: 5 PAGET CLOSE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR MALCOLM CURNOCK (Councillor Malcolm Curnock declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application because he was the applicant. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the determination of the application) The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission to carry out surgery on a protected oak tree. The tree was within the rear garden of the property close to the boundary with a track than ran from Brighton Road to numbers 118 – 122 Brighton Road.

21



Details of relevant government policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. The tree had been protected under TPO No. 70 since 1961. Surgery had been permitted in 1997 and 2003. The Neighbourhood Council had not commented on the proposal. No letters of representation had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment and noted that the tree would grow to a large ultimate size without pruning that would not be appropriate in the garden setting. The proposal would not harm the tree or its amenity value and Members concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED That planning application DC/15/0251be granted, subject to the following conditions: 01 TR2 Time limit 02 TR3 Treeworks limit: Undertake surgery works

exactly as specified within the schedule of works submitted with application.

03 TR4 Surgery standards

REASON The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the tree or the character and amenities of the local area.

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

22

UDEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEEU14UPUthUPU April 2015UAppeals LodgedUWritten Representations/Household Appeals Service

Development Control (North) Committee€¦ · DC/13/0294 Rowarts Farm North, Five Oaks Road,...

Documents

Transcript of Development Control (North) Committee€¦ · DC/13/0294 Rowarts Farm North, Five Oaks Road,...