Development Control (South) Committee...DC/13/2379 Land Adjoining Blackthorne Barn, Marringdean...

Horsham District Council, Park North, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1RL Tel: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded) www.horsham.gov.uk Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 20TH MAY 2014 AT 2.00pm

COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman)

Sheila Matthews Vice-Chairman) Roger Arthur

Adam Breacher Jonathan Chowen Philip Circus Roger Clarke George Cockman David Coldwell Ray Dawe Brian Donnelly Jim Goddard

Liz Kitchen Gordon Lindsay Brian O’Connell Roger Paterson Sue Rogers Kate Rowbottom Jim Sanson Diana van der Klugt Claire Vickers

Tom Crowley

Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15th April 2014 (attached)

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

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

5. To consider the following reports and to take such action thereon as may be necessary Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Applications for determination by Committee - Appendix A

E-mail: [email protected]

Direct line: 01403 215465

Item No.

Ward Reference Number

Site

A1 Billingshurst and Shipley

DC/13/2379 Land Adjoining Blackthorne Barn, Marringdean Road, Billingshurst

A2 Chanctonbury DC/13/1265 Land North of Brook Close and Rother

Close, Storrington A3 Steyning DC/13/1958 Wappingthorn Farm, Horsham Road,

Steyning A4 Pulborough and

Coldwaltham DC/13/0683 Bartram House, Station Road,

Pulborough

6. Items not on the agenda which the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion should be considered as urgent because of the special circumstances

DCS140415

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 15th April 2014

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

Chairman), Roger Arthur, Adam Breacher, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, Roger Clarke, George Cockman, David Coldwell, Ray Dawe, Brian Donnelly, Jim Goddard, Liz Kitchen, Brian O’Connell, Roger Paterson, Sue Rogers, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson, Diana van der Klugt, Claire Vickers

Apologies: Councillor Gordon Lindsay

DCS/114 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18th March 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCS/115 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member

Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Jonathan Chowen

DC/13/2381 Personal – he lives near the site

Councillor David Coldwell

DC/13/2420 Personal – he is acquainted with one of the public speakers

Councillor George Cockman

DC/13/2420 Personal and prejudicial – he knows a supporter of the application

Councillor Jonathan Chowan

DC/13/2310 Personal and prejudicial – the application site is visible from his home

Councillor Adam Breacher

DC/13/2310 Personal – he is acquainted with one of the public speakers

DCS/116 ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. DCS/117 APPEALS Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No

Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/2169 Westlands Nursery, West End Lane, Henfield

Mrs Sally-Jane Reid

Development Control (South) Committee 15th April 2014

2

DCS/117 Appeals (Cont.)

Appeal Decisions

Ref No

Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/13/1929 Gallina, Gay Street Lane, North Heath, Pulborough

Mr Nicholas Overton-Smith

Allowed

DC/13/0147 Land at Daux Wood, Marringdean Rd, Billingshurst

Rydon Homes Ltd

Allowed

DC/13/1972 2 Glenthorne, Henfield Road, Cowfold

Ms Hayley Rich Dismissed

DC/13/1677 2 Lock Farm Cottages, Lock, Partridge Green

Mr & Mrs Nick Murphy

Dismissed

DC/13/0475 Luckista Caravan Site, Billingshurst Rd, Ashington

Frankham Real Estates Ltd

Dismissed

DCS/118 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0940 – INSTALLATION OF

SKATEBOARD FACILITY SITE: MEMORIAL PLAYING FIELDS, CHARLTON STREET, STEYNING

APPLICANT: MRS SUE BOOTH Item withdrawn from the agenda. DCS/119 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1296 – CONSTRUCTION OF A

CONCRETE SKATEPARK IN THE CAR PARK AT THE REAR OF STEYNING LEISURE CENTRE AND INSTALLATION OF 20 REPLACEMENT CAR PARKING SPACES ON SCHOOL PLAYING FIELD LAND SITE: STEYNING LEISURE CENTRE, HORSHAM ROAD, STEYNING

APPLICANT: FRIENDS OF MEMORIAL PLAYING FIELD (MR PETER COMBER)

Item withdrawn from the agenda. DCS/120 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/2381 – TEMPORARY CHANGE OF

USE FROM AGRICULTURE TO A SOLAR FARM WITH CONTINUED AGRICULTURE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

SITE: PRIORS BYNE FARM, BINES ROAD, PARTRIDGE GREEN APPLICANT: MRS EMMA SIDDONS

(Councillor Jonathan Chowen declared a personal interest in this application as he lived near the application site.) The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought permission for the redevelopment of approximately 17.7 hectares of agricultural land for solar energy generation. The solar arrays would be ground mounted on galvanised metal frames and cover approximately half the site. The solar panels would have a maximum height


3

DCS/120 Planning Application: DC/13/2381 (Cont.) of 2.5 metres with three to 5.5 metres between rows. Transformer and inverter kiosks, and a control cabin to transfer the energy to the National Grid would also be installed. A two metre high deer security fence would surround the site. A temporary site compound with new vehicular access onto Honeybridge Lane would be required on the southern boundary during the construction phase. The proposal was for a 25 year operational period, with one year for construction and one year for decommissioning. The application site was located two kilometres southwest of Partridge Green and one kilometre east of the A24 dual carriageway on agricultural land in open countryside, approximately four kilometres to the north of the South Downs National Park. The site comprised four agricultural fields on a southeast facing slope. A public right of way passed from north to south through the site, and also along its north-eastern edge. There was a small area of woodland in the centre of the site and drainage ditches through the site connected to a tributary to the River Adur close to the eastern boundary. The northern boundary was open in places and elsewhere lined with mature trees, woodland and hedgerows. There was dense hedgerow along the eastern boundary. Honeybridge Lane, lined with hedgerows and mature trees, was to the south. The western boundary was a private track leading to Honeybridge Lane. Dalesdown, a conference centre and retreat, adjoined the site to the northwest. The application site for the proposed solar farm at Honeybridge Lane (DC/13/2310) was approximately 130 metres to the south east of the site. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy DCLG’ guidance note; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC13, DC23 and DC40; and Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application. There was no relevant planning history in relation to this site.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was reported at the meeting that the South Downs National Park Authority had raised no objection to the proposal. The Parish Council requested sufficient screening and commented on the proposal. Two letters of comment, two letters of support and eleven letters of objection had been received. Since preparation of the report a letter of support from the National Farmers Union had also been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application, two members of the public and the applicant spoke in support to the application.


4

DCS/120 Planning Application: DC/13/2381 (Cont.)

Members considered the impact of the proposal on the landscape character of the area to be a key consideration in the determination of the application. Members also considered the principle of development, impact on neighbouring amenity, public rights of way and transport, particularly during the construction of the proposal. Members discussed the principle of the proposal in the context of national and local policy which encouraged the use of renewable resources. Whilst the proposal would bring large scale generation of renewable energy, Members noted the location and scale of the site within the wider landscape and discussed the potential impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. Members were concerned that the location of the site within the landscape was such that the proposal would be prominent and have a significant impact on the surrounding landscape which could not be mitigated through additional planting. Members noted concerns regarding the use of Honeybridge Lane during the construction phase of the proposal and considered its narrow nature and the impact its use could have on local residents during construction. Having discussed the principle of renewable energy in the context of this particular site, Members considered that, in this instance, the impact of the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the character and fabric of the landscape and this would outweigh the potential benefits. Members therefore concluded that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED That application DC/13/2381 be refused for the following reason: The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, have an adverse impact on the character and fabric of the landscape by introducing a discordant and intrusive feature which would impact on the visual enjoyment of the countryside and which outweighs the environmental benefits arising from the development. As such the proposal would be contrary to the environmental objectives as set out in Section 11 of the NPPF to conserve and enhance the natural environment, and policies CP1; CP2; CP15 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy and polices DC1; DC2; DC8 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Detailed Development Control Policies.


5

DCS/121 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/2420 – SOLAR FARM COMPRISING

ARRAYS OF PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS AND ANCILLARY PLANT, EQUIPMENT, EQUIPMENT HOUSING AND UNDERGROUND CABLE TO CONNECT PARK TO THE NATIONAL GRID

SITE: HUDDLESTONE FARM HORSHAM ROAD STEYNING APPLICANT: HUDDLESTONE FARM SOLAR PARK LTD

(Councillor David Coldwell declared a personal interest in this application as he was acquainted with one of the public speakers. Councillor George Cockman declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as knew one of the supporters. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of the item.) The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the installation of solar panels on a site of approximately 32 hectares. The development would include arrays of solar panels, ancillary equipment, including inverters, a District Network Operator (DNO) connection point and building and cabling, security fence and proposed landscape and ecological enhancements. The proposal would have an operational life of 30 years after which time it would be decommissioned. The installation would cover significantly less land than the 32 hectare site, which would include field boundaries and aisles of up to seven metres between rows of array panels. The arrays would be 2.3 metres high and would run from west to east. Access would be from Horsham Road to the west of the site. The application site was located just over one mile north of Steyning on land in arable use comprising two fields set some distance from the Horsham Road to the west. There was a block of woodland near the north western corner of the site and the other field boundaries are marked by hedgerows. The surrounding area was rural in character with sporadic residential development. There were clear views of the site from a public right of way which ran along the western boundary of the site and a public right of way to the north of the site.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP15; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC8, DC9 and DC40 and ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ DCLG guidance note were relevant to the determination of this application. There was no relevant planning history in relation to this site.


6

DCS/121 Planning Application: DC/13/2420 (Cont.) The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was reported at the meeting that the South Downs National Park had raised no objection to the proposal. The Steyning 10:10 Climate Action Group had written a letter of comment. The Parish Council commented on the application. Two letters of objection, one of comment and eleven letters of support had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and two members of the public spoke in support. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the proposal.

Members considered the principle of the proposal in the context of national policy which encouraged the use of renewable resources. Whilst the proposal would bring large scale generation of renewable energy, Members were concerned at the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. The Landscape Architect had objected to the proposal and Members discussed the visual impact on nearby residents and those using the public paths in the vicinity. Members considered that the site was dominant within the landscape and due to its scale and location the proposed landscaping enhancements would not overcome the significant adverse impact on the visual amenity and landscape character of the surrounding area as well as on the setting of the South Downs National Park. Members therefore concluded that the significant and demonstrable harm of the proposal outweighed the potential benefits and was therefore unacceptable.

RESOLVED That application DC/13/2420 be refused for the following reason: 01 The proposed development by reason of its siting,

extent and the character of the use would result in significant adverse visual amenity impacts on users of the footpaths on the site and in the surrounding area together with owners of nearby residential properties as well as significant adverse landscape character impacts on the site itself and its immediate surrounds as well as on the setting of the South Downs National Park. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies CP1, CP2 & CP3 of the Core Strategy, Policies DC1, DC2 & DC9 of the General Development Control Policies and Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


7

DCS/122 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/2310 – INSTALLATION OF GROUND

MOUNTED PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR ARRAYS TO PROVIDE CIRCA 10MW GENERATION CAPACITY TOGETHER WITH 5 NO. INVERTER STATIONS, LANDSCAPING, DEER FENCING, ACCESS GATE AND ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE SITE: LAND NORTH OF SOPERS COPSE, HONEYBRIDGE LANE, ASHURST APPLICANT: LUMINICITY (Councillor Jonathan Chowen declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as the application site could be seen from his home. He was granted permission by the Chairman to speak for up to two minutes on the item, as a member of the public. He then withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of the item. Councillor Adam Breacher declared a personal interest in this application as he knew one of the public speakers.) The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the installation of solar panels across a site of 28.28 hectares. During consideration of the proposal, the application had been amended: the extent of the solar arrays had been reduced to cover approximately one third of the site; and access to the site would be from Honeybridge Lane to the west, instead of from Ford Lane as originally proposed. The proposed panels would be 2.2 metres high and be arranged in rows 3.8 metres apart facing south, running east to west across the site. A 12 metre buffer zone was proposed for the north western boundary of the site and to the north east there would be woodland planting measuring 15 metres wide and a six metre buffer zone. To the west there would be a six metre wide planting strip and a six metre buffer zone. Five transformer and inverter kiosks would be installed. A two metres deer proof fence would surround the site. The proposal was for a 25 year operational period, with one year for construction and one year for decommissioning. The application site was located to the east of Honeybridge Lane, and the west of Ford Lane. The boundaries of the site were a mixture of hedgerow and individual trees with differing depths and heights of planting. Brookwood Farm, a Grade II listed building, was located to the south west of the site. A public right of way ran along the western boundary. A tributary of the River Adur was along the northern boundary. The surrounding area was characterised by gently undulating fields, interspersed with hedgerows. The majority of the site was within the Wiston Low Weald. The application site for the proposed solar farm at Priors Byne (DC/13/2381) was approximately 130 metres to the north west of the site.


8

DCS/122 Planning Application: DC/13/2310 (Cont.)

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Planning Practice Guidance 2014; ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ DCLG guidance note; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC13, DC23 and DC40; and Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application. There was no relevant planning history in relation to this site.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was reported at the meeting that Gatwick Airport had raised no objection, South Downs National Park had raised no objection, and the Public Health and Licensing Officer had also raised no objection to the proposal. The Health & Safety Executive had not commented on the proposal. The Parish Council objected to the amended application. Ten letters of objection, including one from CPRE (Horsham District), had been received to the amended proposal, and 12 letters of objection had been received to the original scheme. Four letters of support and one letter of comment had also been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application, and two members of the public and a representative of the applicant spoke in support of the application. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. Members considered the impact of the proposal on the landscape character of the area to be a key consideration in the determination of the application. Members also considered the principle of development, impact on neighbouring amenity, public rights of way and transport, particularly during the construction of the proposal.

Members discussed the principle of the proposal in the context of national and local policy which encouraged the use of renewable resources. Whilst the proposal had been amended following discussions with the Landscape Architect to mitigate the impact of the proposal within the landscape, Members considered that the site and scale of the proposal, within the undulating landscape, could not be sufficiently screened to prevent the proposal having a significant detrimental impact on the rural character of the area.

Members noted concerns regarding the use of Honeybridge Lane during the construction phase of the proposal and considered its narrow nature and the impact its use could have on local residents during construction.


9

DCS/122 Planning Application: DC/13/2310 (Cont.) Having discussed the principle of renewable energy in the context of this particular site, Members considered that, in this instance, the impact of the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the character and fabric of the landscape and this would outweigh the potential benefits. Members therefore concluded that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED That planning application DC/13/2310 be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, have an adverse impact on the character and fabric of the landscape by introducing a discordant and intrusive feature which would impact on the visual enjoyment of the countryside and which outweighs the environmental benefits arising from the development. As such the proposal would be contrary to the environmental objectives as set out in Section 11 of the NPPF to conserve and enhance the natural environment and policies CP1; CP2; CP15 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy and polices DC1; DC2; DC8 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Detailed Development Control Policies.

DCS/123 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/2379 – THE ERECTION 50 DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED HIGHWAY WORKS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE PROVISION

SITE: LAND ADJOINING BLACKTHORNE BARN, MARRINGDEAN ROAD, BILLINGSHURST

APPLICANT: DOMINION DEVELOPMENTS (2005) LTD The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought full planning permission for the erection of 50 dwellings with access road, car parking, landscaping and open space. The dwellings would comprise four 1-bedroom houses, 24 2-bedroom houses, eight 3-bedroom houses; seven 4-bedroom houses and seven 5-bedroom houses. Twenty units (40%) would provide affordable housing. The majority of the units would be two storeys with single storey units in the southern and eastern part of the site. Access would be via the Cereston development to the north, which was accessed via an upgraded new junction with Marringdean Road. Parking would be provided either by way of parking bays or a combination of parking


10

DCS/123 Planning Application: DC/13/2379 (Cont.) bays and garages. There would be 112 car parking spaces, including five visitor spaces. The application site was located 1.2 kilometres south of Billingshurst village centre outside any built-up area, and was adjacent to Blackthorne Barn, on the western side of Marringdean Road. The Cereston development (DC/10/0939) to the north was currently under construction. The railway line to the west was separated from the site by fields. Fields also lay to the south. A private access road to Blackthorne Barn and the neighbouring property, Great Gillmans, ran alongside the eastern boundary of the site. The site was a greenfield site approximately 3.23 hectares that comprised three fields intersected by boundary fences, hedges and trees. There was predominantly residential development of a variety of types and styles to the north. Great Gillmans Farmhouse, a Grade 11 listed building, was 100 metres to the south east. The proposal had been submitted under the terms of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD which sought to deliver small housing sites, on greenfield and brownfield sites adjoining defined settlement boundaries in the District, capable of delivering housing in the short term and to maintain the Council’s rolling five year housing land supply.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40; the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); the Planning Obligations SPD; and the Horsham District Planning Framework preferred strategy were relevant to the determination of this application. The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was reported at the meeting that the Conservation and Design Officer had raised no objection and considered that, with adequate screening, the minor harm caused by the proposal would not outweigh the public benefit brought by the proposal. The Parish Council objected to the application. Fourteen letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and a representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal. During the course of the meeting, some inconsistencies within the report presented to the Committee were identified by officers, and Members agreed that the application should be deferred to allow for further details of layout and design of the proposal to be made available to Members prior to the determination of the application.


11

DCS/123 Planning Application: DC/13/2379 (Cont.) In response to a query from a representative of the applicant, it was confirmed that the application would be determined at the next meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED That application DC/13/2379 be deferred until the next Committee meeting to allow for details of layout and design to be supplied to Members.

DCS/124 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/0089 – ERECTION OF 15 DWELLINGS

COMPRISING 6 X 3 BED, 3 X 2 BED, 5 X 2 BED FLATS (SOCIAL), 1 X 1 BED (SOCIAL), 26 PARKING SPACES AND IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING ACCESS PURSUANT TO OUTLINE APPLICATION DC/12/1975 (APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS)

SITE: PENN RETREAT, RECTORY LANE, ASHINGTON APPLICANT: MILDREN HOMES (MR CHRIS WINGHAM)

The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this reserved matters application sought permission for the erection of 15 dwellings comprising six 3-bedroom houses in three semi-detached blocks, three 2-bedroom houses in one terrace and a block of flats (social housing) comprising five 2-bedroom flats and one 1-bedroom flat. The scale and appearance of the dwellings and landscaping were to be considered under this reserved matters application.

The application included improvements to the existing access off Rectory Lane, following the granting of outline consent under application DC/12/1975. Pedestrian access would be from a footpath onto Rectory Lane and a lych gate onto Penn Gardens. Each house had two car parking spaces and each flat had one car parking space, with two additional disabled bays. There were individual gardens for the houses and an area of communal grounds laid to lawn would be provided for the flats. There was an area for cycles and refuse and recycling bins for the flats. The application site was located approximately 140 metres west of the built up area boundary of Ashington, directly north of Penn Gardens housing development. The site had previously been used as a gypsy site, with the latest temporary consent for three gypsy pitches expiring in 2012. There was hedging along the northern boundary and vegetation to the west. The eastern boundary of hedge bordered the vehicular access to Penn Gardens. The brick wall along the southern boundary defined the rear gardens of Penn Gardens.


12

DCS/124 Planning Application: DC/14/0089 (Cont.) The four terrace houses in Penn Gardens backing onto the site and one to the site of the site were at a higher level due to the slope of the land.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; National Planning Practice Guidance; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC18, DC30, DC32 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant recent planning history included:

AS/27/01 Retention of a mobile home

Granted

DC/04/1989 Siting of mobile home (Renewal of temporary permission AS/27/01)

Granted

DC/05/2640 Erection of 3 dwellings (Outline) Withdrawn DC/06/0295 Replacement mobile home and erection of

2 mobile homes Granted

DC/10/1288 Proposed stationing of 6 traveller/gypsy pitches plus outbuildings and storage area. Formation of new access and hardstanding.

Withdrawn

DC/12/1975 Erection of 15 dwellings comprising 6 x 3-bed, 3 x 2-bed, 5 x 2-bed flats (social), I x 1-bed flat (social) and improvement of existing access (Outline Planning)

Granted

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council supported the application, and their comments were noted. One letter of objection had been received. The principle of residential development had been established with the granting of outline consent under application DC/12/1975. Members noted the design of the buildings and considered that their scale and design would be consistent with the character of the rural location. It was noted that all mature hedgerows and trees would be retained and it was considered that the proposed additional planting would reinforce the rural nature of Rectory Lane. Members noted that the proposal had been developed over a long period and had the support of the Parish Council. The Parish Council’s concerns regarding the proposed lych gate and the design of the bin and bike store were noted, together with their request regarding streetlighting. The Parish Council had also sought clarification regarding the ratio of rented to shared ownership affordable housing.


13

DCS/124 Planning Application: DC/14/0089 (Cont.) Members concluded that the proposal was acceptable in principle and requested that the Parish Council’s considerations be addressed during the determination of the application.

RESOLVED That application DC/14/0089 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services to allow for: reconsideration of the inclusion of the lych gate into Penn Gardens; reconsideration of the wooden bin and bike store with a view to redesigning it as a brick built structure; the approval of an appropriate streetlighting design; and confirmation of the affordable housing split between rented and shared ownership. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/125 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0683 – OUTLINE PERMISSION FOR

THE ERECTION OF 1 NO. 4-BEDROOM DETACHED HOUSE WITH GARAGE, 2 NO. 3-BEDROOM AND 1 NO. 2-BEDROOM TERRACED HOUSES, EACH WITH GARAGE OR PARKING SPACE, PLUS 5 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR RETAINED DWELLING AND OFFICE ON SITE, ALL OFF COMMUNAL DRIVEWAY WITH ACCESS ONTO STATION ROAD

SITE: BARTRAM HOUSE, STATION ROAD, PULBOROUGH APPLICANT: MR DAVID ROBINSON AND OTHER TRUSTEES

The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought outline planning permission for the erection of one 4-bedroom detached house, two 3-bedroom and one 2-bedroom terraced houses, each with a garage and/or parking space, plus five additional parking spaces for retained dwelling and office on the site. Matters for consideration were the principle of the development and access, with all other matters reserved for future determination. The proposed access would use the existing driveway to the west of the site, and bring the entrance further towards the carriageway. The retaining wall and footpath fronting Station Road would be extended with a view to increasing visibility to the east of the access. The application site was located within the built up area of Pulborough, a Category 1 settlement. Bartram House was a two storey bay fronted building at a higher level than the road on the northern side of Station Road. There was a brick retaining wall, with a layby towards its eastern edge. An access drive to the west led to a parking area to the rear of the site and gave access to the residential property known as Lordings. The land sloped steeply up from the road. To the west was a vegetated and wooded bank,


14

DCS/125 Planning Application: DC/13/0683 (Cont.) with properties within the Lyntons abutting the north western boundary and the property Brookview on the south-western part of the boundary. To the east of the site was a Natwest Bank, and to the south a small group of shops. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP12 and CP13; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9, DC18, DC19 and DC40; and Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/13/0764 Outline permission for the erection of 1 No

4-bedroom detached house, 2 No 3-bedroom and 6 No 2-bedroom terraced houses, each with a garage and/or parking space

Pending Consideration

DC/13/0765 Change of use and conversion of Bartram House to provide 4 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 2-bedroom maisonette, each with one parking space plus one additional space for Springfield


It was noted that DC/13/0765 sought permission for nine dwellings and did not include the demolition of Bartram House and Springfield, as stated in the report. The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council objected to the application. Forty-two letters of objection from ten individuals had been received. A further two letters of objection had been received since preparation of the report. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal. It was considered that the principal issues in the determination of the application were the impact of the development on the character of the surrounding area and on the amenities of nearby residents, land stability, and its impact on highway safety with particular regard to the access. Whilst the Highway Authority had raised no objection on highway safety grounds, Members were concerned that the proposed design of the access could cause congestion due to the reduction in the size of the layby.


15

DCS/125 Planning Application: DC/13/0683 (Cont.) Concerns were also raised regarding pedestrian safety, and visibility for vehicles using the access. Members also discussed concerns regarding overdevelopment of the site and the resulting intensified use of the access. Members noted that a new crossing point was to be implemented by the Parish Council in close proximity to the site and Members were concerned that the impact of this had not been taken into account within the Highway Authority’s assessment. Members concluded that the Highway Authority should be asked to clarify their assessment of the access in the light of serious concerns raised by Members, and investigate the potential impact of the proposed new crossing. To enable Members to seek further clarification, it was also requested that a Highways Engineer from West Sussex County Council be invited to attend the meeting when the proposal would be determined.

RESOLVED That application DC/13/0683 be deferred to allow for further assessment of the application by the County Surveyor in the light of the Parish Council’s proposed pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of the application site, and to invite a West Sussex County Council Highways Engineer to attend the Committee meeting when the application will be determined.

The meeting closed at 5.10pm having commenced at 2.00pm. CHAIRMAN


16

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 20TH MAY 2014

REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES APPEALS LODGED I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been lodged:-

1. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

DC/013/2306 Amendment to DC/12/1775 (Minor material amendment to DC/11/1522

(Amendment to previously approved bungalow and garage (SP/3/00) to form a 3-bay garage with home office above) comprising additional windows and alterations to internal layout) to change configuration of windows and doors on north elevation, removal of 2 x windows in south elevation, insertion of 2 x front and 2 x back windows, repositioning of car port wall, repositioning of staircase and insertion of flue for woodburning stove Camomile Barn, Emms Lane, Brooks Green, Horsham, RH13 0TR For: Ms B Paisley

2. Public Inquiry

DC/13/1265 Development of approximately 75 dwellings including the creation of an

access point from Water Lane. Provision of open space including children's play area, linear park, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems on the site (Outline) Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close, Storrington For: Crest Nicholson Eastern Limited

DC/12/1092 Development of crematorium facility within a parkland setting, including a grounds maintenance and secure equipment store and a total of 63 car parking spaces. Proposals include an upgraded access onto A272 to be shared with the existing restaurant which adjoins the site. Land Adjoining The Orchard, Cowfold Road, West Grinstead For: Peacebound Ltd

APPEALS DECIDED I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:- DC/12/2345 Stationing of one residential mobile home for occupation by gypsy family

Land North of Oldfield Cottage, Fryern Road, Storrington For: Mr J Light Appeal: ALLOWED (Committee Overturn)

DC/13/0538 The retention of the existing mobile home for a period of 12 months

Curlytail Bungalow, Adversane Lane, Adversane, Billingshurst, RH14 9EG For: Mr W Forrest Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 20th May 2014

DEVELOPMENT: The erection 50 dwellings together with associated highway works, parking, landscaping and open space provision (Development affects the setting of a Listed Building)

SITE: Land Adjoining Blackthorne Barn Marringdean Road Billingshurst West Sussex

WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley

APPLICATION: DC/13/2379

APPLICANT: Dominion Developments (2005) Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of

a Sec106 Agreement. 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 50 dwellings together with

associated access road, car parking, landscaping and open space. 1.2 The proposed development would provide for a range of house types and would comprise

the following mix of units:- 4 x 1 bed houses; 24 x 2 bed houses; 8 x 3 bed houses; 9 x 4 bed houses and 5 x 5 bed houses. The proposal would provide 40% affordable housing which would equate to 20 units and the remaining 30 units would be for open market housing. The majority of the units would be two storeys in height with single storey units proposed in the southern and eastern part of the site.

1.3 Access to the site would be via the Cereston development to the north, which itself is

accessed via an upgraded new junction with Marringdean Road. 112 car parking spaces would be provided of which 5 would be designated as visitor spaces. Parking would be provided either by way of parking bays or a combination of parking bays and garages which would be 3m x 6m in size.

1.4 It is proposed to provide 1.14ha of amenity space and to retain and enhance the

hedgerows, trees and understory scrub along the site boundaries.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2 1.5 The application has been amended during the course of its consideration in order to

address concerns relating to the impact of the proposal on the surrounding landscape and the setting of the neighbouring listed property, Great Gillmans.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site lies approx.1.2 km to the south of Billingshurst village centre. The site

is situated adjacent to the residential property, Blackthorne Barn, on the western side of Marringdean Road and to the south of the Cereston development which was permitted pursuant to planning permission DC/10/0939 and is currently under construction. The railway line lies to the west of the application site with a field separating the site from the railway line. A private access road to Blackthorne Barn and and the neighbouring property, Great Gillmans, runs alongside the eastern boundary of the site.

1.6 The site has an area of approx. 3.23ha and is a greenfield site that comprises three fields

that are laid to pasture and intersected by boundary fences, hedges and trees and an area of scrub and scattered trees. To the west and south are further fields also laid to pasture. . There is a slope across the site from the southern edge down to the northern boundary. The development to the north is predominantly residential in nature although Gillmans Industrial Estate lies to the north of the Cereston development. The surrounding residential development comprises a variety of house types and styles. The majority of houses are however detached or semi-detached and are 2 storeys in height. The nearest listed building to the site is Great Gillmans Farmhouse, which is Grade 11 listed, and lies 100m to the south east.

1.7 The application site is outside of any defined built up area boundary as currently defined by

the Horsham District Local Development Framework. The applicant states that the proposal has been submitted under the terms of the of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD which seeks to deliver small housing sites capable of delivering housing in the short term and to maintain the Council’s rolling 5 year housing land supply.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) – Delivering Sustainable Development -

Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 12 are relevant to the proposal. 2.3 National Planning Policy Guidance 2014 (NPPG)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.4 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy are

relevant to the determination of the application 2.5 Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC13, DC18 and DC40 of

the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3 2.6 Local Development Framework: Supplementary Planning Documents:

- Facilitating Appropriate Development (2009) (FAD) - Planning Obligations (2007)

2.7 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by

Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. The planning application was considered after the consultation period and the Preferred Strategy is therefore a material consideration in the assessment of this planning application.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS The following section provides a summary of the responses received as a result of internal

and external consultation, however, officers have considered the full comments of each consultee which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Strategic Planning Policy Manager has concluded that in principle there would be no

policy reasons to object to the proposed development given the lack of a 5 year housing supply in the District. In this case the NPPF states that the relevant housing policies of the Horsham District Local Plan should not be considered up-to-date.

However, the FAD SPD has been used as a local approach to address the Council’s shortfall in housing supply. The consistency of the FAD SPD against the objectives and principles of the NPPF has been recently endorsed by the Planning Inspectorate through the appeal decision at the RMC Engineering Works (DC/10/1457). The Inspector stated that rather than regarding the Council’s housing policies as out of date in their entirety it would be more appropriate to identify those elements of the policies to which less weight is to be given. The Inspector suggested that it might be appropriate to apply policies CP5 and DC1 more flexibly in the case of housing proposals on the edge or close to built-up area boundaries, whilst continuing to exercise a general policy of restraint in more remote rural areas.

The 18 criteria in the FAD SPD are recommended to be used as a tool to assess

sustainable development in the local context in Horsham District. In this case the proposal is not adjacent to the built-up area boundary of Billingshurst as defined on the Proposals Map. However, it would be adjacent to a housing site currently under construction that has extended the urban area beyond the built-up area boundary. The NPPF seeks a flexible approach and although it does not address extensions to villages specifically it acknowledges in Para 52 that the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through extensions to existing villages. Policy CP5 and criterion 1 in the FAD SPD should be considered but they need to be applied more flexibly if the location of the development not adjacent to the built-up area boundary is acceptable for all other reasons given the District does not have a 5 year housing supply.

3.2 Landscape Architect: has no objection to the application. It is considered as a result of

both pre-application discussions and subsequent planning application negotiations that any potential adverse impacts on the wider visual amenity of the area as perceived from public footpaths or on the attractive landscape character of the wider countryside in the vicinity of the site have been adequately mitigated for, so that at worst any such impacts would be no more than slight adverse. It is not considered that the proposed development would lead to

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4

any unacceptable landscape harm which might otherwise be relevant in terms of Para 14 of the NPPF.

3.3 Housing Services Manager: welcomes the applicant’s intention to provide 40% affordable

homes. The proposed mix and tenure split of 75% being for affordable rent and 25% for shared ownership is supported. The proposal to include bungalows for rent is also to be commended as the units would meet the need of elderly and disabled persons.

3.4 Design & Conservation Officer: advises that the impact of the development on Great Gillmans would be ‘less than substantial harm’ as per para.134 of the NPPF. It is advised that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal and should the benefits outweigh the identified harm, the proposal could be considered to meet the requirements of the policy.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 West Sussex County Council as Highways Authority raises no objection to the

application subject to conditions and the payment of an appropriate TAD contribution to be secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement. Pre-application advice was sought from the highway authority prior to the submission of the application and a Transport Assessment has been submitted in support of the application following the discussions. The Highway Authority has also confirmed that the level of parking being proposed is considered adequate to serve the development.

3.6 County Ecologist: advises there is no ecological objection to the proposed development

subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions. 3.7 County Archaeologist: has no objection to the application subject to an archaeological

condition. 3.8 Environment Agency: has no objection to the proposal and advises that the site is located

in Flood Zone 1 which is defined by the NPPF as having a low probability of flooding. 3.9 Southern Water: no objection is raised to the proposal subject to the imposition of

conditions. It is advised that there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers would be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.10 Billingshurst Parish Council strongly objects to the application on the following grounds:

· Lack of pavement in Marringdean Road for children walking to school · The development is becoming increasingly outside the village envelope · The current pattern of development in Marringdean Road raises the concern that

the factory units could be under threat in the future · The Tree Survey has been accepted yet it is 5 years old · There is no mention throughout the application of the bridge on Natts Lane – an

area which was also flooded in the recent bad weather · It is recorded that there have been no accidents at the location whereas local

knowledge is the opposite and there have been several accidents in recent times

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5

· The area is prone to flooding and there are very real concerns about surface water

drainage. SUDS are not adoptable by Southern Water and when the permeable surface is sodden, the water just runs off

· Field number 6 has been left vacant but it could be developed at a later date to bring the total number of dwellings on the site back up to 82 which was what the developers had originally wanted

· The foul sewer plant cannot take any more and attenuation tanks do not provide a reliable solution

· The plans include smaller dwellings and bungalows which are undoubtedly needed, however, the future residents of these dwellings will be as far as is possible from the Medical Centre whilst still being in Billingshurst

· It appears that access to the site is going to be through the current development site of the 150 houses

· Contractors at the current site are parking their own vehicles on verges all day – parking provision must be a major consideration (see conditions below)

· If permission is granted, serious consideration must be given to the route that HGVs are to take to the site. Marringdean Road is not open to HGVs and is weight restricted. Daux Lane also has a weight restriction. Alternative routing will channel deliveries onto Station Road and Natts Lane thereby posing a risk to pupils arriving and leaving local schools.

3.11 11 letters of objection have been received from neighbouring residents on the following

grounds:

· Flooding · Noise and disturbance · Infrastructure is at breaking point · Traffic flows and road safety · Cumulative impacts of developments · Overdevelopment of the village · Traffic congestion and sustainability · Little local employment

3.12 CPRE Sussex objects to the proposal on the grounds that it would be an urban intrusion

into the countryside and would therefore harm the rural and historic landscape character of the area; it represents piecemeal development in an unsustainable location and is not the product of collective enterprise.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS 4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol

(Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER 5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on

crime and disorder.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is considered that the principal issues in the determination of the application are

(i) Whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to central government and development plan policy

(ii) Density of the development (iii) External appearance, scale & layout of the proposal (iv) Landscape Impact (v) Affordable housing provision (vi) Highway safety (vii) The effect of the development on the setting of Great Gillmans (viii) Drainage, ecology and archaeology (ix) Sec106 obligations

Policy Context

6.1 Before proceeding to consider the policy context set by the NPPF and more latterly the new guidance in the NPPG in respect of the impacts associated with this development, it is of primary importance that the correct weight should be attributed to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building from the outset, in accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990:

“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.”

6.2 The need for the decision taker to attach considerable or special weight to the desirability

of preserving the setting of listed buildings has been reinforced through the two recent high court decisions of: Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited vs. East Northamptonshire District Council et al (2014); and North Norfolk District Council vs. DCLG and Mack (2014). The statute and its subsequent and consistent interpretation in recent high court decisions emphasises the need for the policies of the NPPF and NPPG to be implemented whilst always having regard to the need to give special or greater weight to the preservation of the setting of a listed building.

6.3 Where the impact on the setting of a listed building has been assessed in accordance with

paragraphs 128 to 132 of the Framework, and has been found to fall within the category of ‘less than substantial harm’ (i.e. paragraph 134), then it is still important that when considering the balancing exercise and therefore the public benefits of any such proposal, that this is weighted deliberately in favour of the need to preserve the setting of the listed building.

6.4 The government’s planning policy contained in the NPPF has the presumption in favour of

sustainable development running through it as a golden thread. Para.7 of the NPPF explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development:- an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. Para.8 advises that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. Therefore whereas previously the concept of sustainability in relation to development in rural areas has been widely interpreted to relate purely to transport sustainability, in fact, the concept should be applied on a much wider basis to encompass all aspects of sustainability. This broader view, now encompassed in

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7

the NPPF, requires an assessment at the overall impact of a development on the community.

6.5 Specific advice for decision taking is set out in Para.14 which requires that development

which accords with the development plan should be approved without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, to grant permission unless any adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

6.6 The starting point for the determination of this application is the fact that Authority does not

have a 5 year housing land supply, and the proposed development would contribute towards meeting the housing needs of present and future generations. An assessment must therefore be made as to whether the proposal can be considered to be sustainable development in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF.

Principle of development 6.7 The site is located outside of the built-up area boundary of Billingshurst but the village is

defined as a Category 1 settlement which is a village with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport. The application site is within a short walk or cycle distance of Billingshurst railway station, employment opportunities at Daux Road and Natts Lane, the infant and secondary schools in Station Road and a Tesco express store in Lower Station Road. There are also regular bus services to Horsham that run along Natts Lane (Services 75 and 100). The main village centre, however, is further away to the north and whilst it is considered walkable and cyclable for most people, it is not quite as accessible for people with mobility problems. Nevertheless, when the Cereston development was allowed on appeal the Planning Inspector clearly considered the site to be in a sustainable location so an objection on these grounds would be very difficult to justify.

Economic 6.8 In terms of economic issues, the construction activities associated with the development

could potentially generate employment opportunities for the local community, and have associated benefits for local services and suppliers. In the longer term the development could also support the local economy in terms of the use of local shops, services and facilities, and potentially result in a significant level of new investment in the village.

Social 6.9 In terms of social issues, the development could provide additional market and affordable

dwellings to meet a recognised District wide need, built to the prevailing Code for Sustainable Homes at the time of implementation.

6.10 The application proposes a total of 50 No. dwellings of which 40% (20 No.) would be

provided as affordable and the remainder (30 No.) would be provided on the open market. It is considered that the 20 No. affordable dwellings would assist in meeting an identified local need, as the affordable housing mix does now reflect the profile of need as advised by the Housing Services Manager.

6.11 In terms of housing mix, the NPPF requires, at paragraph 50, that Local Authorities plan for

a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends and the needs of different groups within communities. Policy DC18 requires that on developments of more than 5 No. units the size and type of those units should meet the identified need for smaller

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8

homes. This policy goes on to specify that generally at least 64% of the homes should be provided as 1 and 2 bed dwellings.

6.12 The application proposes 28 No. dwellings falling within this smaller home size and would

equate to 56% of the total of 50 No. dwellings. Whilst 32 No. units would be expected to be provided as 1 or 2 bed dwellings, Policy DC18 goes on to state that there is also a need to consider the character of the area and the existing mix of housing in the locality. In this respect, and having regard to the Housing Services Manager’s support for the proposal, the application is considered to comply with the requirements of policy DC18, and the social element of development as required in the NPPF.

Environmental 6.13 Finally, with respect to environmental issues, the site is a greenfield area of land, not

subject to any specific designations or protection. The applicant has submitted information detailing that the proposed development would not cause harm to the existing biodiversity value of the site and would not adversely impact upon protected species. Furthermore, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment states that the site lies within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding) and could be provided with an attenuation basin to limit surface water run-off rates to those of the existing greenfield site. It is also accepted that the proposed development would not lead to any unacceptable landscape harm.

6.14 Overall, having weighed these matters, it is considered that the development would meet

the definition of sustainable development and therefore would comply with the provisions of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The reasons for this conclusion are set out in more detail in the remainder of the key issues in this Committee report

6.15 As detailed above, the site lies outside the built-up area of Billingshurst but it does abut and

has been designed to form part of an adjacent development of 150 dwellings (Cereston development) granted on appeal and which does abut the built-up area boundary. Having regard to the comments of the Strategic Planning Policy Manager, this location means that the proposed development should also be considered with regard to the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD (FAD). The FAD SPD provides the flexibility to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy, and sets out the requirements against which planning applications for development on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries will be considered. The FAD SPD sets out three initial requirements for the consideration of development proposals.

6.16 The three requirements set out in the FAD SPD are: deliverable; sustainable; and scale. In

relation to these requirements, the applicant has stated that there are no impediments to development of this site. Furthermore, the scale of development proposed on the site is such that there are no significant advanced infrastructure requirements. On this basis it is anticipated that should planning permission be granted first occupations could occur in 2015 and that the development could be completed by the end of 2016. A letter from the applicant has also been submitted which sets out the company’s commitment to the delivery of this site by the end of 2016.

6.17 The second requirement of the FAD SPD relates to the sustainability of the site. As

previously advised at Para.6.5 Billingshurst is defined as a Category 1 settlement and is considered to represent one of the most sustainable locations in the District. The site is located within 1.2 km of the village centre with all its associated facilities. In addition, the railway station is located within 600m of the site which provides regular services to Bognor Regis and London and adjacent to the railway station is a small parade of shops. The application site is within 400m of a bus stop which provides regular services to Ashington, Burgess Hill, Horsham, Petworth, Pulborough, Slinfold and West Chiltington. Other

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9

facilities such as education, leisure and employment facilities are located within close proximity of the site.

6.18 In terms of scale, the FAD SPD requires that sites should propose residential development

not exceeding 150 dwellings, and on greenfield sites, this should be less. It is, however, acknowledged that the proposal would not accord with this requirement when read in conjunction with the neighbouring development, since the Council does not have a 5 year housing supply and given the comments of the Inspector on the Washington appeal, the relevant criteria should be applied flexibly i.e. an assessment as to whether there are one or more compelling planning issues that on balance would outweigh the need for the housing proposed to contribute to the housing deficit. In this case and as discussed later in the report there are no identified issues that would outweigh the need for housing in the District. Therefore, there is no justification for a refusal of the proposal on this basis.

6.19 In terms of the general principle of development, it is considered that an objection could not

be sustained as the proposal meets the requirements of the NPPF. Density 6.20 Whilst there is no objection in principle to residential development of the site, normal

development control criteria must also be fulfilled to ensure that the development complies with the requirements set out in the FAD. Criterion 7 states that development should complement the character of the settlement as defined in the relevant Town or Parish Design Statement, in accordance with policies CP3 and DC9.

6.21 Policy CP3 requires high quality and inclusive design for all development in the District in

order to raise standards and gain community support as a beneficial addition to the local environment. Policy DC9 states amongst other things:

Planning permission will be granted for development which:

· Ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of a high standard of design and layout and where relevant relates sympathetically with the built surroundings, open spaces and routes within and adjoining the site, including any impact on the skyline and important views;

· Use high standards of building materials, finishes and landscaping; and includes the provision of street furniture and public art where appropriate.

6.22 The application site has an area of 3.26 hectares and the proposed development of 50

dwellings would thus provide a density of 15.47 dwellings per hectare. Not all of the land would be developed for housing as just over 1 hectare would be set aside for public open space. The higher density of development would be located to the north of the site, adjacent to the built-up edge, with the lower density development towards the southern and western boundaries having regard to the countryside beyond.

6.23 The proposed density of 15.47 dwellings per hectare is considered appropriate for the site

given the character of the surrounding area and its location on the periphery of the built-up area of the village. Given the location of the higher and lower densities of development within the site, it is considered that the buffer zones would allow for a softer transition and better screening between the development and the surrounding countryside.

6.24 It should be noted that the NPPF does not promote minimum density rates and as the scale

of development reflects the characteristics of the area within which the site is located, it is considered that the overall scale of development reflects the advice within the NPPF to

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10

make the best use of land whilst preserving the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

External appearance, scale & layout 6.25 The application proposes the following mix of units:- 4 x 1 bed houses; 24 x 2 bed houses;

8 x 3 bed houses; 9 x 4 bed houses and 5 x 5 bed houses. The proposed dwellings would be predominantly 2 storeys in height with the remainder being either 1.5 storeys or single storey buildings with the lower height buildings being located towards the southern boundary of the site. The types of buildings would include detached, semi-detached and terraced properties.

6.26 Architecturally, the proposed dwellings are considered to reflect the local vernacular in

terms of style, design and materials. It is proposed that the development would use a unifying palette of materials continuing from the Cereston development immediately to the north. The predominant material would be plain clay tiles used either as a roof material or for tile hanging to the walls, with small areas of club tiles and the use to a lesser extent of slate tiles. A variety of at least 3 different bricks would be used across the development site. Contrasting bricks would be used for details such as window headers or cills. Boarding, painted brickwork and render to some walls would also be features of the development. The scheme would incorporate such details as narrow gable widths, steep roof pitches of 40 degrees or more and traditional gable verges or barge boards. The roofs would be either hipped or have gable ends.

6.27 With regard to the layout, the proposed development would be accessed by an extension

from the adopted road network of Cereston, the development currently under construction immediately to the north of the application site. The layout proposes two distinct areas of development arranged around a loop road system, with a large area of open space provided centrally along the northern boundary of the site which would link into the existing open space along the southern boundary of the Cereston development. The separation distances between the proposed dwellings accords with the Council’s adopted privacy standards and the use of varying rooflines, heights and materials assist in breaking up the scale and massing of the built form.

6.28 The southern edge of the development would be approximately in line with the existing

buildings to the south of Blackthorne Barn at a separation distance of some 125 metres and a large area of woodland would be planted to the south of the development. The woodland area would provide a buffer between the public footpath and countryside to the south and the single storey dwellings which would form the southern edge of the development.

6.29 It is considered that the development of the site as proposed would respect the existing

field pattern which would enable the existing trees and hedgerows to be retained as much as possible. The proposed location of the single storey dwellings along the southern boundaries of the site would also respect the topography of the land which slopes down to the northern boundary and the planting of a large area of woodland into the southern part of the development would create a new landscape feature in the area. The provision of 1.14ha of public amenity space is also considered sufficient to serve the proposed development. Therefore, in terms of layout it is considered that the character of the surrounding area would be protected, however, this addressed in more detail by the Landscape Architect in Paras.33 to 36.

Landscape Impact 6.30 In this regard, government planning policy requires that the landscape and townscape

character be protected, and conserved and/or enhanced, guidance which is reflected in

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11

policies CP1, DC2, DC4, DC9, DC11 and DC12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

6.31 More specifically, policy DC2 states:

Development will be permitted where it protects and/or conserves and/or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located, including:

a. the development pattern of the area, its historical and ecological qualities, tranquillity and sensitivity to change; b. the pattern of woodlands, fields, hedgerows, trees, waterbodies and other features; and c. the topography of the area.

6.32 The Landscape Architect advises that the trees and hedgerows around the western field,

combined with the rising topography make the western field attractive. However, it is not considered that the site overall is particularly distinctive or possessing any unique qualities that would give it greater landscape value.

6.33 Nevertheless, concern was expressed that the proposed development would further extend

the settlement edge beyond what was considered previously to be a strong well defined boundary of an existing shaw that runs along the southern boundary of the western field of the proposed development. However the southern boundary of the eastern field is an existing hedgerow as opposed to a shaw and it is this field that it needs to be recognised that there is already an urban influence from the new development (Cereston) currently under construction due to its height (visually overtopping the hedgerow), its density and the starkness of solar panels on red tile roofs. This development is already to some extent visible in wider views

6.34 Following discussions with the applicant, key landscape mitigation measures have been

secured which ensure a more appropriate transition/tapering down of development towards the open countryside to the south and provides a more sensitive edge to the proposed development. The mitigation measures are listed below;

· Protection of the existing ridgeline on the southern boundary of the western field by

setting development well back down the slope and restricting the type of development to bungalows together with the planting of new woodland.

· Reductions in the scale and mass of the roofs of the 2 storey development on the western boundary of the southern part of the western field, such that any visual overtopping of existing hedgerows would be minimised, together with the use of slate roofs rather than red tile roofs as they would allow a more sensitive matching of the solar panels

· Provision of a more modest cottage style development on the eastern boundary of the western field to respond to the rural character of the existing Blackthorn Barn and the historic farmstead of Great Gillmans Farm

6.35 Given these amendments to the scheme, there is no objection to the application as it is not

considered that the development would lead to any unacceptable landscape harm as the layout is considered to be generally sensitive and responsive to the local landscape character. Furthermore, the submitted landscape strategy is considered appropriate as it would allow for the reinforcement of the existing hedgerows which would help to further screen the development in the wider landscape.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12 Affordable Housing Provision 6.36 The application proposes a total of 50 No. dwellings of which 40% (20 No.) would be

provided as affordable and the remainder (30 No.) would be provided on the open market. It is considered that the 20 No. affordable dwellings would assist in meeting an identified local need, as the affordable housing mix does now reflect the profile of need advised by the Housing Services Manager. The applicant is proposing 4 x 1 bed houses, 10 x 2 bed houses, 4 x 2 bed bungalows and 2 x 3 bed houses as affordable units of accommodation and is considered to comply with the requirements of Policies CP12 and DC18.

Highway Safety 6.37 Policy DC40 states amongst other things that development will be permitted if :

· It provides a safe and adequate means of access · It is appropriate in scale to the transport infrastructure and · It is integrated with the wider network of routes including public rights of way and

cycle paths where appropriate Access to the development would be from Marringean Road via the new estate roads serving the adjacent development which is currently under construction. The new junction and access roads are considered to have adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic from a further 50 dwellings. Based upon residential trip rate data, the proposed development would generate in the region of 28 additional traffic movements in the 08:00-09:00 AM peak and 26 movements in the 17:00-18:00 PM peak. These movements would be distributed onto the surrounding highway network in accordance with the distribution assumptions agreed for the larger adjacent development. The additional traffic impact on nearby junctions on the highway network is likely to be relatively small and would not create a severe impact under the guidelines set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). No objections are therefore raised to the proposed means of access or the additional impact on the highway network

6.38 In terms of internal access and servicing arrangements, the proposed internal access

layout was discussed at the pre-application stage and the logical extension to the existing consented access road was agreed. However, there was a requirement for the access road leading to the development from the north to be of minimum 4.8m width and for this width of road to be extended into the application site (reducing to 4.1m on lightly trafficked sections). A change of junction priority was also required where the main access enters the development. The internal access roads are to be subject to a Section 38 road adoption agreement with WSCC and will therefore eventually become public highways. An emergency link was also required at the eastern end of the site and informal footpath links provided across the open space to the existing public footpath that runs along the southern boundary of the site. All these requirements have been included on the planning layout and swept path tracking of refuse vehilces carried out, also as requested. No objections are therefore raised to the application as submitted.

6.39 With regard to the parking provision of 112 spaces, the Highway Authority considers that

this is adequate to serve the development. The proposal therefore complies with Policy DC40.

Impact on the setting of the listed building 6.40 Planning policy establishes the importance of the decision taker giving a special desirability

to the protection of the setting of the listed building, in accordance with s.66(1) of the

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990. The impact of the

development would be to remove and urbanise some of the rural northern and western aspect of the setting of the listed building. However, the extent of the actual harm that the development would cause to the listed building would be tempered by the fact that the development would be screened by existing and additional landscaping. Furthermore, the houses are to be set back with southern and eastern elements of the development having lower ridge lines and pitches. Whilst the impact of the development would erode some of the rural setting of the asset, this is considered to be only to a minor degree, taking into account the existing development and the set back and design of the scheme.

6.41 It is clear that there would be some harm derived from the proposed development on the

heritage asset, and this is therefore given considerable importance and weight when assessing the acceptability of the overall scheme in this regard. However, the harm has been identified as ‘less than substantial’ and is considered in this case to be outweighed by the public benefits to be derived from the scheme. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with Para.134 of the NPPF and that permission should not be withheld on this basis.

Drainage 6.42 The application has been supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and advises that

the site lies within Flood Zone 1, as identified by the Environment Agency, and therefore has a low probability of flooding (less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding in any year). Within Flood Zone 1 all forms of development and land use can be considered appropriate and as such the proposal can be considered acceptable in this regard, as it would not be at a significant risk of flooding. Both the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and the County Council Flood Risk Assessment indicate that no sources of flooding have been identified at or within the vicinity of the site including that from groundwater, rivers, overland runoff, artificial sources or flooding from overloaded existing sewer networks.

6.43 The FRA also advises that following a review of the geological conditions on site the use of

infiltration as a method of surface water disposal will not be feasible. Surface water runoff from the development would therefore be controlled via a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) comprising an attenuation basin, permeable paving with sub base storage in parking areas and rainwater harvesting. The attenuation basin has been designed to manage the 1 in 100 year return storm event plus an extra allowance of 30% for the predicted increase in peak rainfall up to 2115 and would discharge into the nearest available watercourse at an undeveloped greenfield runoff rate. It is maintained that the surface water drainage strategy would ensure that the peak rate of surface water runoff from the site post development would be no greater than the pre-development rate of runoff for the same event.

6.44 The management company would be given ownership of the complete surface water

network and would be entrusted with a robust inspection and maintenance programme to ensure the optimum operation of the surface water drainage network is continually maintained. Given no adverse comments have been received from the Environment Agency it is therefore considered that a reason for refusal on this basis could not be maintained. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of Policy DC7.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14 Ecology 6.45 In accordance with the requirements of Policy DC5 a Phase1 Habitat Survey was

submitted as part of the application. The report indicated that the site consisted of heavily grazed improved grassland with boundaries of outgrown hedges and trees which could provide habitat for reptiles, mammals, bats and birds. The report recommended that additional survey work be carried out in respect of determining the presence of reptiles, bats and badgers. Further survey work was undertaken and it established that a low population of slow worms were using the site and it was therefore recommended that they be re-located prior to any ground works taking place on the site. Whilst no bat roosts were found, bats do forage throughout the site and it was therefore suggested that the lighting minimisation measures proposed should be implemented to minimize any disturbance to commuting and foraging bats. No evidence of badger activity was found.

6.46 The County Ecologist has not raised any objections to the proposed development or

contested the findings of the submitted reports. It is therefore not considered that the proposed development would lead to any potential impacts that could not be satisfactorily mitigated against, should development proceed. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of Policy DC5.

Archaeology 6.47 The applicants have commissioned an archaeological Desk based assessment (DBA) from

CgMs consultants which concluded that the application site has not been subject to any previous ground disturbance and therefore does have the potential to impact previously unknown archaeological remains. However, the County Archaeologist recommends an archaeological investigation, post-determination, to identify and record any historic environmental assets that may be damaged or destroyed by the development. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy DC10.

SEC106 obligations 6.48 In order to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity to serve the proposed development, the

applicant has been advised that there would be a requirement to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. This requirement is set out in policy CP13 of the Core Strategy and within the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations.

6.49 Based on the information submitted, the current proposal would require contributions to

Horsham District Council of £113,543 to cover open space, sport and recreation; community centres and halls and local recycling. An additional contribution would also be required to West Sussex County Council to cover education; libraries; transport; and fire and rescue services of £398,899. The applicant has been advised of the requirement and has submitted a draft Heads of Terms for the Sec106 Agreement on the proviso that they are justifiable in planning policy terms.

Conclusion 6.50 Having regard to the assessment above the key factors to be taken into account in

reaching a decision in respect of this application are:-

· The principle of development is considered acceptable in the context of the current shortfall in the 5 year housing supply and is a sustainable development in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15

· The proposed density of development is considered appropriate for the site given the

character of the surrounding area.

· The external appearance, scale and layout of the development is considered sympathetic to the character and appearance of the surrounding area in terms of the existing residential development and the countryside beyond.

· It is not considered that the development would lead to any unacceptable landscape harm as the layout is considered to be generally sensitive and responsive to the landscape character.

· The provision of 20 affordable units would assist in meeting an identified local need.

· No objection is raised on highway grounds subject to conditions.

· Whilst the development would give rise to some harm to the setting of Great Gillmans, this has been identified as ‘less than substantial’ and is considered in this case to be outweighed by the public benefits to be derived from the scheme.

· No objection has been raised on either flooding or drainage grounds.

· No objection is raised on ecological grounds subject to condition.

· No objection is raised on archaeological grounds subject to condition.

· In terms of infrastructure capacity, the applicant is prepared to enter into a Sec106 Agreement on the proviso that the contributions are justifiable in planning policy terms.

· The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of the NPPF and the following policies:

Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC13, DC18 & DC40 of the General Development Control Policies.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a legal

agreement to secure the relevant contributions and the following conditions:-

1. A2 – Full Permission 2. M1 – Approval of Materials 3. E3 – Fencing 4. M8 – Sustainable Construction 5. D6 – Finished Floor Levels 6. D10 – Floodlighting 7. G6 – Recycling 8. L6 – Burning of Materials – in connection with the development

9. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until the access

roads and parking areas serving the development and the access route and footway links to the site from the Marringdean Road have been designed, laid out and constructed in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the LPA.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 16

Reason: To ensure that adequate means of access and parking is provided to the new dwellings site in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies.

10. The development shall not be occupied unless and until a footpath link has been provided

to Public Footpath 1321 in accordance with a specification to be agreed by the LPA

Reason : To improve recreational links to the site in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies.

11. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced unless and until a

Construction Management Plan has been submitted to the LPA for approval to include the following :

· Proposed construction access route · Location of site offices · Location of plant and material storage areas · Location of loading/unloading areas for plant and materials · Location of temporary car parking for site staff and operatives · Location and type of wheel washing equipment · Hours of working and deliveries · Measures to control the emission of vibration, dust and dirt during construction

The measures shall be adhered to for the duration of the construction works . Reason : In the interests of the residential amenities of neighbouring residents in accordance with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Polciies.

12. Prior to the commencement of development or any preparatory works an ecological

enhancement scheme shall be first submitted to the LPA for approval to include all the recommendations from the supporting ecological statement. All the approved details shall be implemented in full and in accordance with the agreed timings and details.

Reason: In accordance with the NPPF 118 and Policy CP1 of the Horsham District

Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies.

13. .An archaeological recording exercise shall be carried out at the expense of the

developer in accordance with a specification (WSI - written scheme of investigation) to be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the commencement of construction works.

Reason: To ensure appropriate investigation and recording of archaeological heritage assets on the site prior to commencement of new building works in accordance with Policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies and Para 169 of the NPPF.

14. Prior to the commencement of development full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 17

· A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice

· Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers

· Tree pit and staking/underground guying details · A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of

planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment)

· Existing and proposed levels, contours and cross / long sections for all earthworks, including the attenuation basin

· Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels · Walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials · Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture,

play equipment, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns

The approved scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with these details. Planting shall be carried out according to a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development.

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

15. No development, including works of any description, including demolition pursuant to the

permission granted, ground clearance, or bringing equipment, machinery or materials onto the site, shall take place until the following preliminaries have been completed in the sequence set out below: All trees on the site targeted for retention, as well as those off-site whose root protection areas ingress into the site, shall be fully protected by tree protective fencing affixed to the ground in full accordance with section 6.2 of BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations' (2012). Once installed, the fencing shall be maintained during the course of the development works and until all machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Areas so fenced off shall be treated as zones of prohibited access, and shall not be used for the storage of materials, equipment or machinery in any circumstances. No mixing of cement, concrete, or use of other materials or substances shall take place within any tree protective zone, or close enough to such a zone that seepage or displacement of those materials and substances could cause them to enter a zone. No alterations or variations to the approved tree works or tree protection schemes shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

16. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed long term 25 year Landscape

Management and Maintenance Plan for all landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

The plan shall include: · Aims and Objectives · A description of Landscape Components · Management Prescriptions

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 18

· Details of maintenance operations and their timing · Details of the parties/orgainisations who will be maintain and manage the site, to

include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for The plan shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations. The areas of planting shall thereafter be retained and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan

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

17. No existing or proposed trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, other than those the Local

Planning Authority has agreed to be removed as part of this permission, shall be wilfully damaged or uprooted, felled/removed, topped or lopped until 5 years after completion of the development hereby permitted. Any trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, whether within the tree protective areas or not, which die or become damaged during the construction process shall be replaced with trees, hedging plants or shrubs of a type, size and in positions agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the retention and maintenance of trees and vegetation on the site unsuitable for permanent protection by Tree Preservation Order for a limited period, in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

18. S4 – Surface Water Details…..Option A 19. J10 – Removal of permitted development – dwellings 20. Approved plans condition

Note to Applicant The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development. Please contact Southern Water, Southern House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (TEL. 03303030119) or www.southernwater.co.uk

Background Papers: DC/13/2379

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission

of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown

Copyright 2000.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may

lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

SLA Number

Organisation

Department

Comments

Date

Scale :

100023865

DC/13/2379

Land Adjoining Blackthorne Barn

Horsham District Council

12 May 2014

1:5000

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177




DATE: 20th May 2014

DEVELOPMENT: Development of up to 75 dwellings including the creation of an access point from Water Lane. Provision of open space including the children’s play area, linear park, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems on the site (outline)

SITE: Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close, Storrington, West Sussex

WARD: Chanctonbury


APPLICANT: Mr Neil Kelly

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer Referral RECOMMENDATION: To resolve not to attach an objection to the Local Planning Authority’s

case at appeal on the grounds of the harm caused to a designated heritage asset (Snapes Cottage).

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the heritage aspects of the above planning application DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This is an outline planning application for the erection of up to 75 dwellings on land to the

north of Brook Close and Rother Close, which is a site positioned on the northern side but outside of the built up area boundary of Storrington.

1.2 The application was originally received on 5 July 2013 and was presented to subsequent Planning Committee meetings until it was ultimately refused planning permission on 10 February 2014. The reason for the application being refused permission was as follows:

1. The proposed development would be a departure from the existing settlement pattern being outside the built up area boundary of Storrington within a rural location where the benefits of the delivery of housing would be outweighed by the adverse impact on the

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2

established landscape character of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007).

1.3 A planning appeal has now been lodged with the Secretary of State against the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission, and the start date of this appeal has now been confirmed as 17 April 2014. The Secretary of State has confirmed that the appeal will be dealt with by the procedural means of a Public Inquiry.

1.4 On review of the Local Planning Authority’s case at appeal, it has transpired that whilst reference was made to a Grade II listed building (Snapes Cottage) to the north and adjacent to the appeal site, this was not dealt with by means of a material consideration in the application, and neither was the development advertised as one which would affect the setting of a listed building.

1.5 This report considers the scheme subject to application DC/13/1265 in terms of the extent to which the development would affect the setting of the listed building of Snapes Cottage, whether this affect would be harmful to the heritage asset, and if so, whether the extent and acceptability of such harm, bearing in mind the essential need to have regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings, maybe outweighed by the public benefits accrued from the scheme.

1.6 Members are advised to consider the issues set-out in this report and Officer’s recommendation as if the matter were being considered as part of the overall determination of the original planning application, and not to be influenced by the fact that the application has already been refused on other grounds, and that an appeal has now been lodged with the Secretary of State.


1.7 The application site lies to the north-east of Storrington, on the northern side of Water

Lane, but falls within the parish of Thakeham. The site is irregular in shape and comprises rough grassland bounded by field hedging and trees. A stream flows within the site along the southern boundary.

1.8 Water Lane and the Water Lane Industrial Estate abut the south-western boundary of the site. To the south and east, the site is bounded by residential properties in Brook Close, Rother Close, Concorde Close, Jubilee Way, Rainbow Way and Snapes Road.

1.9 Snapes Cottage, a Grade II listed building, lies to the north of the site. The original part of the cottage dates back to the 15th century, and a previous 20th century extension has been added to the south. A single storey stable block lies to the west of the main dwelling house. The listed building is presently situated within a domestic residential curtilage with boundaries comprising of timber post and rail fencing. The site is accessed from a private driveway leading west off Storrington Road.

1.10 Snapes Cottage has been described by the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer as having a rural experience to the north, and is also considered to be isolated from the urban edge of Storrington.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3

1.11 There has been recent residential development within the setting of the listed building, and this includes the construction of a scheme for 8 dwellings to the south-east of the site (DC/11/0111), and the conversion and extension of a detached garage to the neighbouring property of Venters.

1.12 The site slopes from north to south, and the southern boundary along Water Lane in particular, is predominantly screened by a hedgerow and mature trees, some of which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders.

2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 STATUTORY BACKGROUND

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990

2.2 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) National Planning Policy Guidance (2014)

2.3 HORSHAM DISTRICT: CORE STRATEGY (2007) CP1, Landscape and Townscape Character CP3, Improving the Quality of New Development

2.4 HORSHAM DISTRICT: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES (2007):

DC2, Landscape Character DC9, Development Principles DC10, Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments DC13, Listed Buildings

2.5 HORSHAM DISTRICT PLANNING FRAMEWORK (HDPF) PREFERRED STRATEGY:

The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. This planning application will be considered following this consultation period and therefore the emerging Preferred Strategy is a material consideration with limited weight in the assessment of this planning application. The Proposed Submission document was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 for a 6 week consultation period.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4

PLANNING HISTORY 2.6 Of relevance to this appeal is the following planning history of the site:

Reference: Description: Decision and Date:

DC/13/1265 Development of up to 75 dwellings including the creation of an access point from Water Lane. Provision of open space including the children’s play area, linear park, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems on the site (outline planning)

Refused permission on 10/02/2014

APP/Z3825/A/14/2215437 Appeal against the refusal of application: 13/1265

Pending

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS Where consultation responses have been summarised, it should be noted that Officers

have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at: www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 HDC Design and Conservation Officer:

“The level of harm is considered to be less than substantial, within the realms of para 134 of the NPPF. Although compliance with this policy could be met if public benefits outweighed the harm, there is still a level of harm caused by the development”.




crime and disorder. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

Policy Context 6.1 Before proceeding to consider the policy context of the NPPF, and more latterly the new

guidance in the NPPG in respect of the impacts associated with this development, it is of primary importance that the correct weight should be attributed to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building from the outset, in accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990:

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5 6.2 “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.”

6.3 The need for the decision taker to attach considerable or special weight to the desirability

of preserving the setting of listed buildings has been reinforced through the two recent high court decisions of: Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited vs. East Northamptonshire District Council et al (2014); and North Norfolk District Council vs. DCLG and Mack (2014).

6.4 The above statute and its subsequent and consistent interpretation in recent high court

decisions emphasises the need for the policies of the NPPF and NPPG to be implemented whilst always having regard to the need to give special or greater weight to the preservation of the setting of a listed building.

6.5 Where the impact on the setting of a listed building has been assessed in accordance with

paragraphs 128 to 132 of the Framework, and has been found to fall within the category of ‘less than substantial harm’ (i.e. paragraph 134), then it is still important that when considering the balancing exercise and therefore the public benefits of any such proposal, that this is weighted deliberately in favour of the need to preserve the setting of the listed building.

Assessment of the Heritage Asset (Snapes Cottage) 6.6 The application failed to meet the requirements of paragraph 128 of the Framework insofar

as the applicant did not undertake the necessary assessment to consider the significance of the heritage asset, its setting, and therefore how the development would relate to the listed building.

6.7 In the absence of a heritage assessment within the application documents, it has been

necessary to base this report on the assessment contained within the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer’s consultation response of 10 April 2014. This consultation response has been based on English Heritage’s 5-step guide for assessing “The Setting of Heritage Assets”.

6.8 The consultation response identifies the heritage asset as being a 15th century cottage

located amongst the remains of previous farm outbuildings (as indicated on the 1875 OS maps). The listed building is therefore described as being a historic farmstead, its main attributes therefore being its rural and isolated character. The latter of which is considered to remain despite recent developments that have perhaps closed the separation gap, moreover it is of importance that the listed building has remained separated from the urban fringe of Storrington for over 500 years.

Impact on the Heritage Asset (Snape’s Cottage) 6.9 The proposed development would have an urbanising effect on the area to the south of the

listed building, and the placement of houses in this location (specifically plots 1-3, 7-9, and 4-17) is considered to block southerly views of the listed building. The effect of this is to encroach on the rural and isolated setting of the historic farmstead.

6.10 The Design and Conservation Officer also raises concerns with the impact of the driveway

serving the eastern side of the development, and the urbanising effect that this would have on Snape Cottage. This is both in terms of the greater amount of traffic being routed

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6

around this part of the setting of the listed building, as well as the urbanising effect of works to the driveway itself.

6.11 In assessing the impact of the development on the listed building, it is important to note

that the paddocks to the north of Snapes Cottage will remain unchanged, and that the development of the western side of the application site would not, in the mind of the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, have a harmful impact on the setting of the heritage asset.

6.12 The description of the heritage asset as a historic farmstead clearly indicates that the

setting of the building would incorporate a wide extent of the paddocks and open land around the development. It is clear that there has been an element of residential development allowed already within the setting of Snapes Cottage, however this is not so significant as to substantially detract from its rural and isolated qualities. The development of the eastern part of the application site will bring residential development closer to and within the setting to the south of Snapes Cottage. There will therefore be harm caused to this heritage asset.

6.13 The extent of this harmful impact on the heritage asset has been considered carefully by

the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, who has concluded that there would be ‘less than substantial harm’ caused to Snapes Cottage. The application therefore falls within paragraph 134 of the Framework, thereby necessitating a weighted assessment to be made between the special desirability of protecting the setting of the listed building, and whether there are any public benefits that may otherwise outweigh the identified harmful impacts.

Planning Balance 6.14 The above section on planning policy establishes the importance of the decision taker

giving a special desirability to the protection of the setting of the listed building, in accordance with s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990. It is clear that there is harm derived from the proposed development on the heritage asset, and this is therefore given considerable importance and weight when assessing the acceptability of the overall scheme in this regard.

6.15 The extent of the actual harm that this development would cause to the listed building is,

however, tempered by the fact that there has already been encroachment of the urban area within the setting of Snapes Cottage through the residential development of 8 dwellings to the south-east, and the works to the domestic garage in close proximity to the driveway serving the listed building. It is also important to stress that the harmful impacts would only relate to the eastern section of the proposed development, and that it has been accepted that the western part, and therefore the greater bulk of the development, would not have any harmful effect on the setting of Snapes Cottage.

6.16 The latter point in respect of the apportionment of harm across the site is an important

factor to the consideration of this issue owing to the application being in outline form, whereby matters including layout and scale are all reserved. It is considered a fair assessment to state that those indicative units that have the most significant impact on the heritage asset are plots 1 to 3. It is considered that these units can readily be altered in position, scale and layout, through an amended site layout plan to be submitted under the reserved matters application, were outline permission to be granted.

6.17 The application undoubtedly comprises of public benefits, which, in accordance with the

guidance in paragraph 134 of the Framework, need to be considered against the harmful effects that have been identified above. The application proposes 75 residential dwellings

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7

of both market and affordable tenure, and this in itself is a significant benefit in consideration of the Council’s present position in terms of not being able to provide a 5 year housing land supply, and also having a particular shortage of affordable housing delivery. There are, in addition and commensurate with this size of residential development, various economic benefits that would be derived from granting permission, such as increased construction jobs, investment, the New Homes Bonus, and local expenditure in Storrington both during and post-implementation.

6.18 Taking all of these factors into account and apportioning the disparate weight to the need

to preserve the setting of the listed building, it is considered that there are sufficient public benefits to outweigh the identified harm to Snapes Cottage, and that permission should not therefore be withheld on this basis. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with paragraph 134 of the Framework.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 The proposed development would have a harmful impact on the setting of Snapes Cottage,

which is a Grade II listed building positioned to the north of the application site. The harmful impact has been assessed by the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer as being “less than substantial”, and the decision taker is therefore required to assess whether there are public benefits that would outweigh the identified harm, whilst giving considerable importance and weight to the protection of the setting of listed buildings.

7.2 It is considered that in this case, the social and economic public benefits commensurate

with bringing forward a residential development of this scale, are such that the harm to the heritage asset is outweighed by the public benefits in this instance. The application is therefore in accordance with paragraph 134 of the Framework, and it is considered that an objection to the aforementioned appeal could not be sustained on this ground.

Background Papers: DC/13/1265; &

APP/Z3825/A/14/2215437



Copyright 2000.



SLA Number

Organisation

Department

Comments

Date

Scale :

100023865

DC/13/1265

Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close


12 May 2014

1:5000

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1

Contact Officer: James Hutchison Tel: 01403 215162




DATE: 20th May 2014

DEVELOPMENT: Development of a 500kWp anaerobic digestion plant with related landscape bund, and ancillary development to process maize silage

SITE: Wappingthorn Farm, Horsham Road, Steyning, West Sussex

WARD: Steyning (Ashurst & Steyning)


APPLICANT: Mr Frans De Boer

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: RECOMMENDATION: To delegate authority to the Head of Planning to grant planning

permission subject to conditions, following the expiry of the re-consultation


DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 1.1 This is a full planning application that seeks permission for the construction of an anaerobic

digestion (AD) plant on land at Wappingthorn Farm. The main section of the anaerobic digestion plant will be located on the north-western corner of the main farm complex and to the immediate north of a large storage barn. A Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generator is to be positioned to the south of the large storage barn, adjacent to the existing tall silo.

1.2 An anaerobic digestion plant is designed to utilise natural bacteria in degrading

biodegradable crops such as maize and agricultural bi-products, in the absence of oxygen, to produce a methane rich bio-gas which can be captured to generate electricity and heat. In order to achieve this, the main section of the anaerobic digestion plant comprises of two digesters, a residue storage tank, a pre-tank, and a CHP generator unit enclosed within a purposefully built and acoustically attenuated container.

1.3 The liquid reception tank that already exists on the eastern side of the AD plant site will be

modernised into an enclosed container in which potentially incoming slurry can be directly poured and then stored for additional use in the digesters. The detail of which will be secured by condition in the event that slurry is to be used.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2 1.4 The solid feedstock (e.g. maize silage) will be stored in silage clamps within the large barn

building that already presently exists. This feedstock will be fed into the digesters through the feed hopper positioned on the western side of the AD plant site. The mix of up to 25% slurry and the remaining feedstock will then degrade within the two new cylindrical tanks that have a diameter of 18m and a total height of 10m when the gas containers (a flexible membrane dome inside the new tanks) are fully inflated.

1.5 The resultant digestate will be separated into solid and liquid forms, with the solid form

being off-loaded into trailers for spreading on the farm, and the liquid digestate being pumped within a sealed process into the digestate storage tank. This cylindrical tank has a substantial capacity of 6 months collection owing to its diameter of 28m and depth of 6m. As this tank also provides a gas container, its total height will be 11m.

1.6 The biogas will be pumped from the digester units into the CHP generator unit. This is

essentially a 500kWp engine positioned within a securely sealed container. The generator will utilise this biogas and produce both electricity and heat. The container in which the CHP generator will sit, is 6.5m in height (including air outlets), and will have a total length of 12m. A small electricity transformer will also be positioned to the west of the container.

1.7 The whole AD plant will be positioned on a new concrete base, which will include

circulation areas for agricultural vehicles, and ancillary plant such as a flare stack, separator and the hopper/mix-box.

1.8 The AD plant will be bordered by landscaping works to the north and western sides that will

include a new earth bund to be planted up with native trees and vegetation.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.9 The application site comprises of the area of land to the north of the existing storage barn

(including the area to comprise of the new landscaped bunds), a rectangular piece of land on which the CHP generator container will be positioned, and the access track connecting the AD plant, CHP unit and ancillary areas with the junction onto Horsham Road.

1.10 The area around the application site is dominated by the large storage barn, a 18.5m high

cylindrical silo, and the listed model dairy farm buildings. To the east of the area scheduled for the siting of the AD plant are agricultural worker’s cottages within the demise of Wappingthorn Farm.

1.11 The application site sits within the immediate setting of various grade II listed buildings

including: the interwar concrete dairy farm building; the associated barn to the north; and the stable bungalow on the eastern side of the main complex. To the west of the application site, and in the wider setting, is a grade II listed water tower.

1.12 The application site is located outside of any built-up area boundary and is within a rural

countryside location.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3 2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) – (“The Framework”):-

Section 3 (Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy) Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) Section 10 (Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change) Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment)

2.3 Planning Policy Guidance (2014) (“PPG”) 2.4 DCLG – Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (July 2013)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.5 Core Strategy (2007):-

CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character CP2 – Environmental Quality CP3 – Improving the Quality of Development CP15 – Rural Strategy – “contribute to diverse and sustainable farming enterprises”

2.6 General Development Control Policies (2007):- DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement DC2 – Landscape Character DC5 – Biodiversity and Geology DC8 – Renewable Energy and Climate Change DC9 – Development Principles DC13 – Listed Buildings DC23 – Sustainable Farm Diversification DC40 – Transport & Access 2.7 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by

Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. This planning application will be considered following this consultation period and therefore the emerging Preferred Strategy is a material consideration with limited weight in the assessment of this planning application. The Proposed Submission document was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 for a 6 week consultation period.

PLANNING HISTORY 2.8 There is no planning history on the application site relevant to this proposal.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS Where consultation responses have ben summarised, it should be noted that Officers have

had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Design and Conservation Officer – The relevant section is included below: “The application is likely to preserve the setting of the Wappingthorn Manor, dairy, barn

and bungalow in terms of location, scale and design. There is considered to be a slight negative impact on the setting of the Water Tower. In terms of this latter impact, it is considered to be less than substantial. If this slight harm is outweighed by the benefits of the application, the proposals are considered to sustain the significance of these heritage assets as required by the NPPF chapter 12. No objection is raised to the application.”

3.2 Environmental Health - No objection subject to the following comments as summarised:

“It is my understanding that the permit (EA Standard Rules Permit for AD Plant) would allow the utilisation of any or all of the wastes included in the permit (i.e. plant tissue waste and the waste from dairy products industry) unless another means of control were implemented…Additionally, having reviewed the noise report, I am satisfied that the amelioration proposed is appropriate and that the impact upon residents is not likely to be significant (subject to a condition limiting noise levels for the plant).”

3.3 Landscape Officer – “I am generally happy now with the proposals, including the

extent/areas of planting which should be satisfactory to integrate the development into the wider landscape”.

Soft landscape details and a management plan are required to be submitted and agreed by condition.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3.4 Environment Agency – The original consultation response dated 4 November 2013 stated

that the proposal would only be acceptable if a condition requiring the submission of a surface water drainage scheme was attached. These details were subsequently submitted by the applicant and on 18 March 2014, the Environment Agency has since submitted the following comments:

“We are satisfied that there will not be a significant risk to controlled waters from the new digestate plant… Therefore we can recommend that the drainage planning condition is discharged”.

3.5 WSCC Highways – The relevant section is included below:

“The highway authority has no objection to the application.

The highway authority understands from the applicant that the project is intended to consume crop product only from within the current curtilage of the farm. The authority has re-examined the traffic figures contained in the planning, design & access statement and accepts that the overall traffic resulting from the proposal is likely to be lower than that from current farm activities.”

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5

3.6 WSCC Archaeology – “No objection to the proposals, subject to suitable archaeological

safeguards, to be provided for through the use of an appropriate condition.” 3.7 Natural England – “Having reviewed the application Natural England does not wish to

comment on this development proposal”. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.8 14 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:

· Lack of notification on the planning application; · Concerns in respect of the dangerous access onto Horsham Road; · Impact on the water table through leaks; · Impacts on neighbouring properties arising from noise, smells, traffic movements

and spillages; · Industrialisation plant being proposed within a residential area; · Inappropriate change of use of a working farm to an electricity generating station; · Industrial impact in a rural area on the edge of the South Downs National Park; · There is little screening/planting and the development will be apparent for 6 months

where deciduous trees are used; · Concerns in respect of the connection with the existing drainage network; · Better alternative locations for this plant away from residential properties; · Concerns over the use of the flarestack, explosions and poor maintenance; · Inappropriate use of agricultural land; · Contrary to The Anaerobic Digestion Strategy and Action Plan 2011 in respect of

the change in production of crops from food to non-food purposes; · An assessment of the exhaust gases from the CHP unit should be requested and

considered accordingly; · Crop failure should be included within the traffic date scenarios; · The capacity of the plant maybe exceeded; · Concerns in respect of flood lighting at night-time.

3.9 2 letters of support has been received on the following grounds (including one from the

Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association): · Anaerobic digestion is a small but very important part of the government’s green

energy strategy; · The plant will run all year around regardless of weather; · The plant is extremely low impact and operate with less traffic than livestock would

produce; · The use of slurry in the process enhances digestate, is odourless and makes

excellent fertiliser; · The applicant already grows a substantial maize crop that will fuel the plant; · This should be a good news story for Steyning – a local farmer producing green

energy for the town; · The technology is very well proven, especially in Germany, and has very low

environmental impact; · It is important that farmers in the UK are encouraged to adopt systems that support

government policy and benefit the environment; · There are already 53 AD plants in operation in the UK; · The development boosts the sustainability and profitability of farming; · Benefits to the land arising from increased soil organic matter, soil structure, and

therefore higher yields;

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6

· The (DEFRA-sponsored) Ecosystem Markets Task Force report in March 2013

reiterated the benefits of AD technology. 3.10 Steyning Parish Council raises an objection on the following grounds:

· Lack of available time for comments to be made on the application; · Disappointed that no invitation to the public event was received; · The supporting information on the application is incomplete, including a noise report

and a report from the Conservation Officer on the impact on the listed buildings; · Increased noise, smell and traffic adversely affecting neighbouring residents; · Concerns with regards to the conflict of the use of the access road and junction

onto Horsham Road; · The Committee would like traffic data to extend beyond a one year period.




crime and disorder. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

Principle of Development 6.1 “The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a

responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities” (DCLG guidance, 2013)

6.2 The above statement explains in broad terms the requirement for local planning authorities

to positively consider applications for renewable/low carbon energy, and to only override the need to grant such applications where it can be demonstrated that there will be a harmful impact on environment protections and the planning concerns of local communities.

6.3 Paragraph 98 of the Framework establishes that a requirement should not be placed on

applicants for energy development to demonstrate a need for their proposals. The second bullet point of this paragraph also states that the local planning authority should approve an application for energy development if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

6.4 The main thrust of national planning policy is therefore supportive of applications for

renewable or low carbon energy development, subject to there not being any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated or avoided, and which would override the need and presumption of in favour of granting permission.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7 6.5 In terms of the countryside location of the application site, it is clear that the proposed

development will sit outside of the built-up area boundary, and will therefore fall to be considered under policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies (2007). This policy accepts the principle of development where it is essential to the countryside location and supports the needs of agriculture.

6.6 It is clear that there is an intrinsic link between the agricultural use of the land at

Wappingthorn Farm and the function of the AD plant, which essentially operates on the digestion of feedstock from the surrounding farmland. The quantum of development in terms of the size and scale of the digester units, the storage and pre-tank, the CHP unit, and the remainder of the ancillary development is all considered to be necessary and essential for the plant to adequately function.

6.7 The proposed development does not result in any substantive loss of land that is presently

within an agricultural use. The crops already grown by Wappingthorn Farm are presently sold and exported from the site to dairy farms as a feedstock. The Local Planning Authority cannot reasonably control how the crop grown by Wappingthorn Farm is sold and ultimately used, nor is it considered that this proposal is unacceptable as a result of the crop in the future being used for the purposes of fuelling the AD plant, which is after all a renewable/ low carbon energy technology that is supported in principle under government policy.

6.8 Consequently, there is no objection to the principle of the development, and its location

within the countryside.

Effect on Landscape Character 6.9 Policy DC2 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) states that development

will be permitted where it protects and/or conserves and/or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located. This requirement is replicated within paragraph 001 of the Natural Environment section of the Planning Policy Guidance (2014) whereby it states that: “planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the need to conserve and enhance the natural environment, including the landscape”.

6.10 The need for development to be designed in such a manner as to seek an enhancement to

the landscape character of the site and surroundings is contained within paragraph 64 of the Framework, whereby it guides the decision taker to “take the opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area”.

6.11 Whilst there are no specific landscape designations that cover the area in which the

application site is located, it is positioned within what is considered to be an attractive rural countryside environment typified by farmsteads and the occasional residential dwelling or cluster of dwellings. The existing historic buildings adjacent to the application site contribute to this rural setting, however there are elements of the site’s surroundings that whilst being agricultural in terms of the functionality, do not make a positive contribution. Such buildings and structures include the large storage barn to the immediate south of the proposed AD plant, and the 18.5m high grain silo.

6.12 It is undisputed that the proposed AD plant would comprise of large and bulky structures, of

which the largest would be the residue storage tank, which is 28m in diameter and up to 10m in height (when the gas cylinder is fully inflated). The height, bulk and scale of the proposed plant as originally submitted, whilst being of a size that is accepted as being necessary in order to perform its intended function, would cause some visual harm to the

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8

landscape character of the area. This harm would be marginally off-set however, by the manner in which the ground level of the site would be levelled through the creation of a ‘cut-in’ to the natural and existing slope of the site up towards the north.

6.13 Throughout the course of the application, the applicant has been in discussion with the

Council’s Landscape Officer, with the resultant effect that a solution to prevent the harmful impact of the development on the landscape character has been devised. This solution comprises of the carrying out of earthworks to the north and western sides of the proposed AD plant to form landscaped bunds, which will be planted with a mix of native plants and trees.

6.14 The effect of this landscaping would be to soften, and to a large extent, completely screen

the size, height and bulk of the proposed plant. Where any elements of the proposed AD plant will remain visible, the harm to the wider landscape would be considerably lessened, thereby effectively mitigating the impact of the proposal. An additional benefit would arise from the landscaping in terms of biodiversity improvements brought about by the increased planting and removal of this part of the land from arable use, as well as in terms of providing additional screening of the existing large storage barn and silo, when viewed from the north and west.

6.15 The application is therefore in compliance with policies DC2 and DC9 of the General

Development Control Policies (2007), and the requirements of the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance, specifically paragraphs 17 and 001 of Natural Environment, respectively.

Impact on Heritage Assets 6.16 “Protecting and enhancing the historic environment is an important component of the

National Planning Policy Framework’s drive to achieve sustainable development (as defined in paragraphs 6 – 10). The appropriate conservation of heritage assets forms one of the ‘Core Planning Principles’ (paragraph 17 bullet 10) that underpin the planning system” (Paragraph 001 of the historic environment section of the PPG [2014]).

6.17 Wappingthorn Farm and its immediate surroundings comprise of various grade II listed

buildings including: the model dairy farm buildings; the barn to the north of the main dairy; a former farm building now labelled as the ‘stable bungalow’ to the south-east of the main dairy; Wappingthorn Manor itself; and the water tower and sunroom to the west. Collectively therefore, the application site is sensitive in respect of its close heritage ties with the original farmstead and ancillary development.

6.18 The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has considered the impact of the

development on the setting of the model dairy farm, the principle view of which is from the driveway looking north, and from the west of the site looking across to the conical roof of the main building. Importantly, the existing arrangement whereby there is a large contemporary, functional agricultural unit in-front of the heritage asset when viewed form the west, means that this view is already heavily compromised.

6.19 The predominant and most important view of the model dairy farm is from the south of the

site (i.e. the driveway looking north). It is from this viewpoint that the impact of the development on the setting of the model dairy farm building would be minimal, although it is appreciated that it will be partially visible within the same context, and that there would therefore be some harm resulting out of the implementation of the proposed scheme. The impact on the setting of Wappingthorn Manor and the “bungalow” has been considered as part of the assessment of this application, and the impact in terms of harm caused is deemed to be ‘not appreciable’.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9 6.20 The effect of the setting of the Water Tower is more significant owing to the more obvious

views from and towards the structure. By reason of the viewpoint from the Water Tower incorporating views of both the existing farm buildings and the new development, there would be some negative harm caused to the setting of this heritage asset, however the proposed development is not considered to be ‘out of place in its context’, and so therefore any harm would be considered to be “less than substantial”.

6.21 Paragraph 134 of the Framework states that where there is less than substantial harm

caused to a designated heritage asset, consideration must be given to any public benefits that would result out of the proposed development. It is clear under s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, that considerable importance and weight must be given to the desirability to preserve the listed building, and the consideration of the harm against public benefits needs to be weighted accordingly.

6.22 The predominant public benefit resulting from the proposed development is the production

of renewable electricity and heat through the combustion of biogas at a rate of 500kWp per hour. Additional benefits that will be accrued from the development include the reduction in traffic movements onto Horsham Road by virtue of less agricultural vehicle journeys to/from Wappingthorn Farm, and environmental benefits arising out of the newly formed landscaped buffer areas.

6.23 The proposed development, whilst causing harm to the setting of designated heritage

assets, is considered to provide sufficient public benefits that such harm would be outweighed, even when taking into account the considerable importance and weight that is attached to the desirability to preserve the setting of designated heritage assets. The application therefore accords with paragraph 134 of the Framework, and paragraph 001 of the historic environment section of the associated PPG.

Impact on Highway Safety 6.24 Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) states that development

will be permitted if it provides a safe and adequate means of access. West Sussex County Council highway guidance furthermore states that: “proposed developments will not be expected to resolve road safety problems on local roads where there is no net increase in traffic flow”.

6.25 The application site includes the area demarcated for the AD plant and the ancillary

equipment, as well as the access road that meets the public highway. In this case, the access road adjoins the B2135 (Horsham Road) on a relatively tight S-bend. The junction has been assessed by the applicant’s transport consultant as being sub-standard in terms of its geometry, and this is mainly due to inadequate visibility splays. There have been 3 accidents involving personal injury within the past 5 year period.

6.26 The application therefore falls to be considered in respect of whether firstly, the proposed

development increases traffic movements on this junction or worsens the existing highway situation in anyway, and secondly, if it does, then whether this impact could be mitigated. The applicant cannot be expected to provide mitigation as a result of this development, when there is no evidence that the operation of the proposal would lead to any affects that would worsen the existing situation, such as an increase in vehicles using the junction.

6.27 The applicant has carried out a Road Safety Review and Audit in January 2014, and this

includes data from the original planning application, which shows a decrease in overall traffic movements on the junction from 942 to 641 (per annum). This is a reduction of 301

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10

vehicle movements per year from the existing situation, a decrease that has mainly arisen from the removal of any need to export feedstock from Wappingthorn Farm, and a reduction in the need to rely on the importation of fertilisers for the growing of crops owing to the utilisation of resulting digestate from the AD plant itself.

6.28 The table that has been relied on for the above data is based on the assumption that half of

the total quantum of feedstock necessary to operate the AD plant throughout the year (4,500 tonnes), comes from agricultural land owned by Wappingthorn Farm, and internally accessible without the necessity for external vehicle movements onto the public highway. This data, and its use within the Road Safety Audit, has been endorsed as being acceptable by the County Highway Engineers, and there is no other substantive evidence to conflict with these figures.

6.29 On the basis therefore, that the proposed development would result in a net reduction of

vehicle movements on the Horsham Road junction, there is no necessity for the applicant to provide mitigation, other than the agricultural vehicle warning sign that has already been agreed. The application is considered to be in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Environmental Considerations (Noise and Odours) 6.30 Paragraph 123 of the Framework states that planning decisions should aim to: “avoid noise

from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; and, mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions..”

6.31 Insofar as noise and other impacts on health and quality of life are concerned, it is

necessary to consider what the nearest sensitive receptors are to the proposed development, and to what degree they can be affected. If there is evidence of adverse impacts, then it is necessary before considering a refusal of planning permission, to consider whether there are any conditions that would mitigate or reduce to a minimum such impacts.

6.32 The nearest sensitive receptors are the two residential cottages to the east of the proposed

AD plant, and approximately 270m to 300m further distant to the west the residential properties of Downs View and Garden Cottage. These are residential properties that potentially could be affected by any noise or odours that may result from the proposed development, either directly through its operation, or indirectly through the management and/or storage processes.

6.33 With regards to the impact of noise, it is important to stress that the internal processes that

produce the biogas are both silent, and entirely contained within a sealed system. The only potential noise impact could potentially arise from the operation of the flare stack, and the loading/unloading processes. The former would only be operated in an emergency or when the CHP unit is being serviced, in either case its operation will be very limited in terms of duration owing to the fact that whilst the flare is operating, the biogas is burnt off and is therefore a wasted output. The latter processes can be conditioned within a Site Operating Schedule, the framework of which is contained within the applicant’s planning statement, and which can be secured by condition.

6.34 The only consistent noise source would be the CHP generator that is positioned to the

south of the main barn. This generator is proposed to be installed within a sealed container unit, with flue extracts in the roof. The biogas will be drawn into the generator through an underground pipe, and an electricity transformer will be positioned to the west of the unit.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 11

An acoustic report has been compiled by the applicant, and this considers the amount of noise emanating from the generator after acoustic attenuation, and against existing background noise levels.

6.35 This report has been assessed in detail by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, and

is considered to be robust. A condition has been proposed that will prevent the noise from the generator rising above a specified level beyond which an adverse impact would be experienced by nearby sensitive receptors. The operation of the plant in general will be carried out in accordance with a management plan.

6.36 In respect of the odour that maybe generated from the proposed plant, this would be very

limited by reason of the sealed nature of the digestion units, which for obvious reasons are purposefully designed to withhold all gas within the system. The digestate resulting from this anaerobic process is not, by its nature, particularly odorous (being 12 times less odorous than manure). The digestate will be taken out of the sealed residue storage tank and spread back onto the land, in a similar but less odorous manner, to the way in which mushroom compost and other fertilisers are already spread.

6.37 Whilst third party concerns have been raised in respect of the impact of the CHP generator

on the air quality of surrounding residential properties, it should be noted that the application site is within a rural area where there is no pre-existing air quality problems, and that furthermore, the CHP generator will be positioned a substantial distance from the closest sensitive receptors. Consequently, any emissions that will in any case be limited by the size of the CHP unit, are not considered to have a harmful impact on the amenity or health of the nearest residential properties.

6.38 The impact on neighbouring properties in respect of noise and odours has been assessed

within the planning and noise reports that have been prepared by the applicant. These have subsequently been found to be robust and acceptable, subject to conditions, by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. The application is therefore considered to be in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) and paragraph 123 of the Framework.

Drainage and Surface Water Runoff 6.39 Policy CP2 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC7 of the General Development

Control Policies (2007) requires that development should not have an adverse effect on water quality and does not increase the risk of flooding. The application site is within Flood Zone 1 and is not within a Groundwater Nitrate Vulnerable Zone.

6.40 The existing farm development is already serviced by a dirty and clean water drainage

system, and this will be extended to include dirty water drainage of the silage clamps. The remainder of the surface water runoff will be dealt with in the same manner as the existing clean water drainage on the farm.

6.41 The applicant has identified sufficient capacity within two existing disused slurry tanks that

are capable of containing the residue digestate in the event of a catastrophic storage tank failure. The combined capacity of the disused tanks is in excess of 3,300 cubic metres, compared to the combined capacity of the digestion tanks being 1,527 cubic metres.

6.42 The Environment Agency (EA) has been consulted on the application and has raised no

objection subject to a condition requiring drainage details. This has subsequently been provided by the applicant and agreed with the EA. The application is considered to be in accordance with policy CP2 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC7 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 12 Conclusion 6.43 The Framework is very clear in respect of the need for Local Planning Authorities to help

increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy (paragraph 97), and should allow such applications if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

6.44 The applicant is considered to have sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed

development would have significant benefits in terms of the production of electricity and heat from a renewable energy source, and that where there are adverse impacts, the effect of these can be mitigated through various measures, which can be secured by condition.

6.45 The application is appropriate to its location and the existing agricultural use of the land, its

impact on the landscape character of the area can be satisfactorily reduced, and whilst there is harm caused to designated heritage assets there are public benefits that outweigh such harm. The concerns in respect of highway safety are satisfactorily met through a reduction in the intensity of the use of the junction onto Horsham Road. Acoustic attenuation and enforceable operating and management conditions can address any adverse impacts related to noise and odorous materials.

6.46 The application is therefore in accordance with policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP15 of the

Core Strategy (2007), policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC8, DC9, DC13, DC23 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007), DCLG guidance on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy, and the Framework (2012) and Planning Practice Guidance (2014) as a whole.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that the decision be delegated to await the expiry of the consultation

period and that thereafter planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from

the date of this permission Reason: In order to ensure that the development is carried out in a timely manner

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans

Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in full with the agreed plans

3. Turning and unloading space is to be laid out prior to the development being operated in accordance with the approved plans Reason: To facilitate appropriate space for construction vehicles and future operational vehicles

4. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the Construction Management Plan Reason: To prevent disturbance to highway users and surrounding residents

5. The development shall be operated in strict accordance with the Site Operation Schedule Reason: To protect the peaceful enjoyment of nearby residential properties and to ensure that the development is operated and maintained in a manner that safeguards the environment.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 13

6. Prior to the development being commenced, facilities for the protection of the highway from

mud off construction vehicles shall be implemented Reason: In the interests of highway safety

7. No development shall take place until an agricultural vehicle warning sign is erected in the specified location, as agreed by the highway authority Reason: In the interests of highway safety

8. No development shall take place until an archaeological scheme has been agreed. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed strategy Reason: To safeguard the protection of artefacts of archaeological importance

9. The noise generating plant shall not exceed the specified and agreed rated noise levels during the hours of 23:00 – 07:00 (35dB LAeq, 5 mins) Reason: To protect the night-time amenity of nearby residential properties

10. Details of the soft landscaping and the landscaping management plan shall be submitted within 3 months of the date of commencement of the development Reason: In the interests of ensuring that the landscape scheme is implemented in accordance with the agreed details, and maintained thereafter

11. The development shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved surface water and dirty water drainage strategy Reason: In order to protect the quality of water within the watercourse and not to increase the risk of surface water flooding

12. No external lighting shall be installed on the application site until such time as details have

been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority Reason: In the interests of controlling the effect of lighting on the rural character of the area

13. Prior to the importation or connection of any slurry pipes to the application site, full details of the method of transfer and storage shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority Reason: In the interests of safeguarding highway safety and the amenity of residents from noise and odours

14. Prior to the operation of any part of the development hereby approved the ecology details

contained within the amended ecology report received by the Local Planning Authority on 7 February 2014 shall be fully implemented. Reason: In the interests of enhancing the biodiversity of the site and surrounding area in accordance with the agreed details

Background Papers: DC/13/1958



Copyright 2000.



SLA Number

Organisation

Department

Comments

Date

Scale :

100023865

DC/13/1958

Wappingthorn Farm


12 May 2014

1:5000

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289




DATE: 20th May 2014

DEVELOPMENT:

Outline permission for the erection of 1 No. 4-bedroom detached house with garage, 2 No. 3-bedroom and 1 No. 2-bedroom terraced houses, each with garage or parking space, plus 5 additional parking spaces for retained dwelling and office on site, all off communal driveway with access onto Station Road

SITE: Bartram House Station Road Pulborough West Sussex

WARD: Pulborough and Coldwaltham


APPLICANT: Mr David Robinson and Other Trustees

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of letters received contrary to

recommendation RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory

legal agreement securing contributions towards community and transport infrastructure.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This application was first considered by the Area South Development Management

Committee on the 15th April 2014, and was deferred so further information regarding the access could be sought from the County Surveyor. The previous committee report is appended for Member’s information.

1.2 Since the previous committee meeting one further letter of objection has been received to the application relating to concerns regarding subsidence. As noted in the previous committee report the applicant has submitted a Preliminary Slope Assessment relating to the land stability of the site due to the sloping nature of the ground. The assessment has been considered by the Council’s Building Control Officer and it has not identified any likelihood of springs in the area of the proposed development. However, prior to submitting a Building Regulations Application a full, intrusive site investigation would be required to allow Engineers to design the most suitable foundations for the situation. Therefore any issues with the slope of the ground (including potential springs) would be identified and would be covered under the Building Regulations legislation. It was also noted by the Councils Building Control Officers that they could see no reason why this site could not have a viable foundation design proposed. It is therefore considered that a refusal of the application on land stability grounds could not be maintained in this instance.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

ASSESSMENT

1.3 The development proposals are located within the Built Up Area Boundary of Pulborough as defined in the Horsham District Local Development Framework Proposals Map (2007), which is classified as a Category 1 settlement within policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy. Category 1 settlements are considered to be towns and villages with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport, which are capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment.

1.4 In respect of strategic housing land supply within the Authority Paragraph 49 of the NPPF

states that:

‘Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’ In this regard, it has been accepted by the Council that it is unable to meet this requirement and for this reason the Council must rely upon the provisions of Paragraph 14 of the Framework to consider the submitted application. This states that:

“… at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date the Council must consider favourably applications for housing development and should grant permission unless:

· any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or · specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

1.5 The starting point for the determination of this application is the fact that the Authority does

not have a 5 year housing land supply, and the proposed development would contribute towards meeting the housing needs of present and future generations. An assessment must therefore be made as to whether the proposal can be considered to be sustainable development in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF. As detailed in the previous committee report it is considered that the proposed development can be considered to represent sustainable development in terms of the social, economic and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF.

1.6 With regards to the concerns raised by members relating to highways matters Policy DC40

of the General Development Control Policies states that; “Development will be permitted if: a. it provides a safe and adequate means of access”

The County Surveyor was reconsulted regarding the application, and the proposed improvements to Station Road. The County Surveyor in his response commented that the proposed pedestrian crossing at the entrance to Pulborough Station would not have any impact on the application site, other than potentially continuing the narrowing of the carriageway further west and past the railway bridge itself. It is therefore considered that the proposal would have an adequate means of access and would meet the requirements set out in policy DC40a above.

1.7 The Highways Authority has indicated that it would be difficult to resist the current proposal,

and Paragraph 32 of the NPPF does state that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’ In this respect, the County Surveyor is of the opinion that the proposed

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

development would not lead to impacts upon the highway that could be considered severe. It is therefore considered taking into consideration the view of the County Surveyor that an objection on highway grounds could not be sustained at appeal and consequently the recommendation for approval should remain.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the

conditions and reasons set out in the previous committee report. Background Papers: DC/13/0683, DC/13/0764 and DC/13/0765

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4

Appendix to A4 – 20th May 2014 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289




DATE: 15th April 2014

DEVELOPMENT:

Outline permission for the erection of 1 No. 4-bedroom detached house with garage, 2 No. 3-bedroom and 1 No. 2-bedroom terraced houses, each with garage or parking space, plus 5 additional parking spaces for retained dwelling and office on site, all off communal driveway with access onto Station Road

SITE: Bartram House Station Road Pulborough West Sussex

WARD: Pulborough and Coldwaltham


APPLICANT: Mr David Robinson and Other Trustees

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of letters received contrary to

recommendation RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory



To consider the planning application. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.2 This application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of 1 x 4-bedroom

detached house, 2 x 3-bedroom and 1 x 2-bedroom terraced houses, each with a garage and/or parking space plus 5 additional parking spaces for retained dwelling and office on the site. The application has been submitted in outline form with the principle of development and access only to be considered at this time.

1.3 The proposed access to the development would utilise the existing driveway which is to the

west of the site. The proposed access would bring the entrance further towards the carriageway and the retaining wall and footpath fronting Station Road would be extended to increase visibility to the east of the access.



1.4 The application site is located within the built up area boundary of Pulborough which is

classified as a Category 1 settlement within the Horsham District Local Development Framework Proposals Map. Bartram House is located on the northern side of Station Road. It is a distinctive two storey bay fronted building located at a higher level than the road. To the front of the site is a brick retaining wall, with a layby towards its eastern edge. To the west of the site is an access drive to a parking area to the rear and to allow access to the residential property known as Lordings to the rear of the site. The land slopes steeply up from the road with the parking area to the rear of Bartram House at a higher level than Bartram House. On the western boundary of the site is a vegetated and wooded bank with properties within the Lyntons abutting the north western boundary and the property Brookview on the south-western part of the boundary. To the east of the site is Natwest Bank. To the south of the site is a small group of shops, including an electrical, shop, hairdressers, takeaway and betting shop.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National planning policies are embodied in the National Planning Policy Framework which

came into effect in March 2012. This replaces Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Planning Policy Statements.

2.3 Paragraph 9 states “Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive

improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):

· Making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages; · Moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature; · Replacing poor design with better design; · Improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and · Widening the choice of high quality homes.”

2.4 Paragraph 56 states “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built

environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people.”

2.5 Paragraph 57 states “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality

and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.”

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.6 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted

February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP3 – Improving the quality of new development, CP4 (Housing Provision) CP5 – Built up areas and previously developed land, CP12 – Meeting Housing Needs & CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements.


2.7 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control

Policies Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC9 – Development principles, DC18 Smaller Homes\ Housing Mix, DC19 – Employment Site/Land Protection, and DC40 – Transport & Access.

2.8 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by

Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. The planning application was considered after the consultation period and the Preferred Strategy is therefore a material consideration in the assessment of this planning application.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/13/0764 Outline permission for the erection of 1 No. 4-bedroom detached house with garage, 2 No. 3-bedroom and 1 No. 2-bedroom terraced houses, each with garage or parking space, plus 5 additional parking spaces for retained dwelling and office on site, all off communal driveway with access onto Station Road (Outline Permission with some Matters Reserved)


DC/13/0765 Change of use and conversion of Bartram House to provide 4 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 2-bedroom maisonette, each with one parking space plus one additional space for Springfield


3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

Where consultation responses have been summarised, it should be noted that Officers have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Building Control (summarised) - Based on the site investigation there is no reason why

this site could not have a viable foundation design proposed.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3.2 WSCC Highways (summarised) – no objection subject to conditions as the proposed use

would generate fewer movements than could be generated through the existing use of the site and the proposed improvements to be made to the access as part of the application would make the application difficult to resist.

3.3 WSCC Archaeology (summarised) – No objection on archaeological grounds. No

archaeological assessment or mitigation measures required.

3.4 Southern Water (summarised) – The applicant would need to make a formal application for connection to the public foul sewer to Southern Water. If the application were to be approved an informative relating to the public foul sewer should be attached to the consent.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS


3.5 Pulborough Parish Council (summarised) has objected to the application on the following

grounds; · Over intensification of the site · Loss of amenity to neighbours to the site · Insufficient parking for the proposed number of houses, flats and offices · The applications provide insufficient parking to comply with current planning regulations

and insufficient space is provided over the whole area for vehicles to turn safely. · Impact on the A283 · There is an ongoing consultation between WSCC and Pulborough residents and HDC

concerning traffic along, and going on to the A283. We are awaiting the results of this consultation and in our view it would be most unwise to permit any additional access to the A283 until the outcome of this consultation is known.

· Reports of a history of both groundwater springs and ground movement/subsidence · The land slopes steeply to the West towards Lyntons and the bank going down in this

direction is fragile and is most probably only held together by the trees and bushes at the top of the bank. The Parish therefore objects to any proposal to remove this vegetation.

· The applicants have failed in any of their plans to show that the land does slope steeply both from North to South and also to the West.

3.6 Forty Two letters has been received objecting to the application from 10 individuals on the

following grounds; · further narrowing of the road would be dangerous for road users and pedestrians · highway access not safe · visibility splays fail to meet standards of Manual for Streets · Plans incorrect · Pedestrian access to site insufficient · No improvement to highways access · The access and exit is dangerous · site is on a steep incline · there is a history of subsidence on the site and any further development would risk further

subsidence · impact on neighbours privacy.




crime and disorder. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS 6.1 The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

· The principle of the development · Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area · Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents


· Highway impacts · Land Stability · S106 obligations

Background 6.2 This application is one of three separate applications which have been submitted relating to

the application site and its surrounds. Application DC/13/0764 is also currently under consideration and seeks permission to demolish Bartram House and Springfield and construct 1 No. 4-bedroom detached house with garage, 2 No. 3-bedroom and 1 No. 2-bedroom terraced houses, each with garage or parking space, plus 5 additional parking spaces for retained dwelling and office on site, all off communal driveway with access onto Station Road. The application has been submitted in outline form with all matters reserved apart from consideration of the principle of development and the access. The third application currently under consideration on the site DC/13/0765 seeks permission for the change of use and conversion of Bartram House to provide 4 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 2-bedroom maisonette, each with one parking space plus one additional space for Springfield.

Principle of Development 6.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that there is a presumption in

favour of sustainable development and that this should run through both plan-making and decision-taking. In terms of the determination of planning applications this should mean the approval of developments that accord with the development plan without delay, and that where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out of date, that permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or policies of the NPPF indicate otherwise.

6.4 Sustainable development is seen within the NPPF as having three roles, namely an

economic, social and environmental role which should be a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. Paragraph 9 notes that sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):

· Making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages; · Moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature; · Replacing poor design with better design; · Improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and · Widening the choice of high quality homes.

6.5 In respect of strategic housing land supply within the Authority Paragraph 49 of the NPPF

states that:

‘Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’ In this regard, it has been accepted by the Council that it is unable to meet this requirement and for this reason the Council must rely upon the provisions of Paragraph 14 of the Framework to consider the submitted application. This states that:

“… at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies


are out-of-date the Council must consider favourably applications for housing development and should grant permission unless:

· any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or · specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”



6.7 The site is located within the built up area boundary of Pulborough which is classified as a

Category 1 settlement within policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy. Category 1 settlements are considered to be towns and villages with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport, which are capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. Therefore due to the sites location and the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development it is considered that the principle of development on this site is acceptable subject to normal development control criteria.

Economic 6.8 In terms of economic issues, the construction activities associated with the development

could potentially generate employment opportunities for the local community, and have associated benefits for local services and suppliers. In the longer term the development could also support the local economy in terms of the use of local shops, services and facilities, and potentially result in a significant level of new investment in the village.

Social 6.9 In terms of social issues, the development could provide additional market dwellings to

meet a recognised District wide need, built to the prevailing Code for Sustainable Homes at the time of implementation.

Environmental 6.10 With respect to environmental issues, the site is currently used as a car park for the

occupiers of Bartram House, and is not subject to any specific designations or protection. As this application is only outline in form, no details of the design and construction of the proposed dwellings have been provided, however, these could be controlled through any reserved matters submissions and by conditions, to ensure that they are appropriate and that sustainable construction methods are employed. It is also accepted due to the sites location that the proposed development would not cause harm to heritage assets. Consideration of the impact of the proposal on the character of the area, amenities of neighbouring properties, highways and land stability are considered in full in the report below. If it is considered that the proposal meets the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF, the proposal could represent sustainable development and therefore would be acceptable in principle.

Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area


6.11 Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies relates to Development Principles and states planning permission will be granted for development which:

a) make efficient use of land whilst respecting any constraints that exist; b) do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of

nearby property and land, for example through overlooking or noise, whilst having regard to the sensitivities of surrounding development;

c) ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of high standard of design and layout and where relevant relates sympathetically with the built surroundings, open spaces and routes within and adjoining the site, including any impact on the skyline and important views;

d) are locally distinctive in character, respect the character of the surrounding area (including its overall setting, townscape features, views and green corridors) and, where available and applicable, take account of the recommendations/policies of the relevant Design Statements and Character Assessments;

e) use high standards of building materials, finishes and landscaping; f) presume in favour of the retention of existing important landscaping and natural features, for example trees, hedges, banks and watercourses. Development must relate sympathetically to the local landscape and justify and mitigate against any losses that may occur through the development; and, g) ensure buildings and spaces are orientated to gain maximum benefit from sunlight and passive solar energy, unless this conflicts with the character of the surrounding townscape, landscape or

topography where it is of good quality. 6.12 As the proposal is only submitted in outline form with an indicative layout, it is not possible

to accurately consider fully these details at this stage. Nevertheless, the indicative layout provided does show that the number of dwellings proposed, could, with careful consideration of siting, landscaping and screening, be provided within the site without a likelihood of giving rise to an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

6.13 The site is located to the south of the existing residential property of Lordings which is at a

higher level than the application site. The site is also located to the east of the two storey properties within the Lyntons, with the commercial property of Bartram House at a lower level to the front of the site. The site is within an area of mixed commercial and residential properties of differing styles and ages characteristic of a village centre location. Due to the slope of the site and the vegetation along the western boundary the properties to the west of the site are afforded some limited views into the site, however this would be mitigated by the existing vegetation along this boundary. Lordings as it is sited at a higher level would have views across the site. Due to the position of the site to the rear of Bartram House, and the change in land levels any views from the public realm along Station Road would be glimpsed through the existing buildings. It is therefore considered that the application could comply with the design principles set down in section 7 of the NPPF and policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies.

Impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties and future residents

6.14 In terms of the acceptability of the proposed scheme in relation to the amenity levels of

nearby properties and future occupiers of any new dwellings, as the proposal is only


submitted in outline form with an indicative layout, it is not possible to fully consider this issue at this stage. However, the indicative layout provided does show that the number of dwellings proposed, could, with careful consideration of siting, landscaping and screening, be provided within the site without a likelihood of giving rise to significant amenity issues for nearby and future residents.

6.15 The properties to the west at Lyntons have rear gardens of approximately 8m in length, the

frontage of the proposed development (as shown on the indicative layout) would then be situated a further 10m from this shared boundary. Between the boundary of the properties at Lyntons (which are at a higher level than the application site) and the proposed dwellings would be the existing bank and access drive. The indicative layout plan shows a garage on the northern end of the proposed development which would be some 4.5 metres from the corner of Lordings. However, due to the slope of the site the garage would be at a lower level than Lordings. It is considered that the separation distance that could be retained between the proposed dwellings and those at Lordings, and Lyntons would ensure that the amenities of these residents would not be significantly adversely impacted upon. The relationship between the proposed new dwellings and those existing to the western side would not be dissimilar to existing relationships between dwellings within Cobbetts Mews, and Lyntons, just to the west of the site. This level of separation, together with the retained boundary screening, could be considered to constitute an acceptable relationship in terms of the amenities of both existing and any future residents. It is therefore considered that the application could comply with the design principles set down in section 7 of the NPPF and policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies.

Highway impacts

6.16 The application seeks to utilise the existing vehicular access onto Station Road, positioned

towards the western boundary. The access has been amended during the application process to include the widening of the existing vehicular access and the creation of a footway across the frontage of “Bartram House” onto Station Road. The widening of the access is intended to pull the give way lines forward at the point of access and therefore provide improved visibility for exiting vehicles. The footway will also function as a crossing point for pedestrians as the present footway on the northern side of Station Road is discontinuous and terminates to the east of the site.

6.17 The Highways Authority at WSCC has visited the application site and reviewed the

proposed access and have not raised any objections to the proposed development. The access proposals have been reviewed by way of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. This raised a single problem regarding the continuity of the arrangements for pedestrians. This issue has been addressed through the provision of a kerbed footway on the northern side allowing crossing to the southern side of the carriageway.

6.18 Similarly, no objection is raised by the Highway Authority in relation to the potential level of

activity on the site. The Highway Authority has noted the existing uses undertaken on the site and the potential traffic generation from these uses which has been a material consideration in the consultation response received. The potential traffic generation for these existing uses has been derived from TRICS, which is a database used to forecast trip generation. Based on the potential number of movements arising from the existing and proposed uses, the Highways Authority has indicated that the current application is not anticipated to give rise to a significant intensification of use. Therefore whilst the existing and improved access arrangement are acknowledged by the Highways Authority as not complying with the sightline requirements set out within Manual for Streets for a 30mph speed limit, it is not considered that there is sufficient reason to substantiate a reason for refusal. In addition the proposed improvements to the access including the ability for


vehicles to pass each other at the point of access should not raise a detriment to highway safety.

6.19 The application would result in a widened access which the Highways Authority has

recognised would result in a small narrowing of Station Road. It is acknowledged that Station Road is of varying width and that pinch points do exist to the west of the site, both in terms of carriageway width and pedestrian access facilities. The Safety Audit undertaken did not raise any adverse comments regarding the narrowing of the carriageway, and attempts have been made to keep the carriageway as wide as is feasible. Consequently as a result of the existing constraints in the vicinity of the access, and due to the proposed improvements which would be made should the application be granted permission the Highways Authority has indicated that it would be difficult to resist the proposal.

6.20 Whilst the layout submitted is indicative only, the car parking shown would provide 1 No. spaces per dwelling, in either driveway parking, garages or a small parking court to the east of the site, and retain 5 spaces for the users of Bartram House. 6.21 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused

on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’ It is not considered that the proposed development would lead to impacts upon the highway that could be considered severe. The proposal would create an improved vehicular access that could accommodate development at the scale proposed, would not cause any significant impact in terms of an increase in traffic movements within the vicinity of the site and could provide car parking to a level that would accord with the sites position within the built up area boundary close to Pulborough Railway Station. The proposal therefore is considered to comply with policy DC40 and the provisions of the NPPF.

Land Stability

6.22 The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Slope Assessment relating to the land stability of the site due to the sloping nature of the ground. The assessment has been considered by the Council’s Building Control Officer and it has not identified any likelihood of springs in the area of the proposed development. However, prior to submitting a Building Regulations Application a full, intrusive site investigation would be required to allow Engineers to design the most suitable foundations for the situation. Therefore any issues with the slope of the ground (including potential springs) would be identified and would be covered under the Building Regulations legislation. It was also noted that Officers could see no reason why this site could not have a viable foundation design proposed. It is therefore considered that a refusal of the application on land stability grounds could not be maintained in this instance.

S106 obligations

6.23 In order to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity to serve the proposed development, the applicant has been advised that there would be a requirement to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. This requirement is set out in policy CP13 of the Core Strategy and within the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations.

6.24 Although the application has been submitted in outline form only and the exact scale of the

proposed dwellings would be considered at a future date, the proposal does provide an indicative layout with dwelling sizes shown. This information has been used to calculate the relevant infrastructure requirements for the development, however, should the scale and


form of development subsequently alter, then the calculations may need to be revised at that time.

6.25 Based on the information submitted, the current proposal would require contributions to

Horsham District Council of £9,657 to cover open space, sport and recreation; community centres and halls; local recycling; and public art. An additional contribution would also be required of £8,504 to West Sussex County Council to cover education; libraries; transport; and fire and rescue services. The applicant has been advised of the requirement to provide a S106 agreement to cover these aspects, but at the time of writing this has not been received and as such this is reflected within the recommendation.

Conclusion 6.26 The development proposals are located within the Built Up Area Boundary of Pulborough

as defined in the Horsham District Local Development Framework Proposals Map (2007), which is classified as a Category 1 settlement within policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy. Category 1 settlements are considered to be towns and villages with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport, which are capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment.



6.28 It is considered that the proposed development can be considered to represent sustainable

development in terms of the social, economic and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF. It is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact in terms of the townscape character of the area, and the amenities of neighbouring properties. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles and can therefore be considered to represent sustainable development as set out in the NPPF.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 To grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory


1. A1 – Outline Permission 2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters submitted pursuant to Conditions 1 above

shall conform to the indicative layout plan BH/DR/1/Rev2 submitted as part of the application and shall be for no more than four dwellings. Reason as per A1

3. D6 – Finished Floor Levels 4. E3 – Fencing 5. G3 – Parking, Turning and Access 6. G6 – Recycling 7. No development shall commence until the vehicular access improvement serving the

proposed dwellings has been constructed in accordance with the details shown on drawing number 2013/1788/001 Rev F. Reason as per H1

8. H10 – Cycling Provision


9. L1 – Hard and Soft Landscaping 10. M8 – Sustainable Construction 11. O1 – Hours of Working 12. O2 – Burning of material. 13. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction

Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters, · the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, · the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, · the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, · the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, · the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, · the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, · the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact

of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders),

· measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction, lighting for construction and security,

· details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area.

14.No part of the development shall be first occupied until provision has been made within the site in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to prevent surface water draining onto the public highway. Reason: As per H1

INFORMATIVES

The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority, to cover the off-site highway works. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader (01243 642105) to commence this process. The applicant is advised that it is an offence to undertake any works within the highway prior to the agreement being in place.

The applicant is advised that as the estate roads are to remain private/unadopted, the Highway Authority would require provisions in any s106 agreement to confirm that the estate roads would not be offered for adoption at a later date and wording included to ensure that the carriageways, footways and casual parking are properly constructed, surfaced and drained, and that the works are appropriately certified from a suitably qualified professional confirming the construction standard.

A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to

service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester SO23 9EH or southernwater.co.uk

Background Papers: DC/13/0683, DC/13/0764 and DC/13/0765



Copyright 2000.



SLA Number

Organisation

Department

Comments

Date

Scale :

100023865

DC/13/0683

Bartram House


12 May 2014

1:1250

Development Control (South) Committee...DC/13/2379 Land Adjoining Blackthorne Barn, Marringdean...

Documents

Transcript of Development Control (South) Committee...DC/13/2379 Land Adjoining Blackthorne Barn, Marringdean...