Agenda.pdf - Meetings, agendas, and minutes - Arun District ...

Arun District Council Civic Centre Maltravers Road Littlehampton West Sussex BN17 5LF

Tel: (01903) 737500 Fax: (01903) 730442 DX: 57406 Littlehampton

Minicom: 01903 732765 e-mail: [email protected] Committee Manager : Carrie O’Connor (Ext 37614)

17 March 2016 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE A meeting of this Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Arun Civic Centre, Maltravers Road, Littlehampton, on Wednesday 30 March 2016 at 2.30 p.m. and you are requested to attend. Members : Councillors Haymes (Chairman), Mrs Hall (Vice-Chairman), Mrs Bower,

Bower, Brooks, Charles, Dillon, Gammon, Mrs Maconachie, Maconachie, Mrs Oakley, Mrs Pendleton, Miss Rhodes, Mrs Stainton and Wells

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE ALTERED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT PLANS OF THE APPLICATIONS DETAILED IN THE AGENDA ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE COUNCIL’S PLANNING RECEPTION AT THE CIVIC CENTRE AND/OR ON LINE AT www.arun.gov.uk/planning

A G E N D A 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members and Officers are reminded to make any declarations of personal and/or

prejudicial/pecuniary interests that they may have in relation to items on this agenda.

You should declare your interest by stating : a) the application you have the interest in b) whether it is a personal interest and the nature of the interest c) whether it is also a prejudicial/pecuniary interest d) if it is a prejudicial/pecuniary interest, whether you will be exercising your right to speak at the application

1Arun District Council DEVELOPMENT CONTROL-30/03/2016

You then need to re-declare your prejudicial/pecuniary interest and the nature of the interest at the commencement of the application or when the interest becomes apparent.

3. VOTING PROCEDURES Members and Officers are reminded that voting at this Committee will operate in

accordance with the Committee Process Procedure as laid down in the Council’s adopted Local Code of Conduct for Members/Officers dealing with planning matters. A copy of the Local Code of Conduct can be obtained from Planning Services’ Reception and is available for inspection in the Members’ Room.

4. MINUTES To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 February

2016 (attached). 5. ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA WHICH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING IS OF

THE OPINION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A MATTER OF URGENCY BY REASON OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

6. P/58/15/OUT – OUTLINE APPLICATION WITH SOME MATTERS RESERVED

FOR THE ERECTION OF 90 NO. DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS & OPEN SPACE. THIS IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LAND AT SUMMER LANE, PAGHAM

To consider the attached report. 7. P/125/14/PL – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING & ANCILLARY

BUILDINGS & ERECTION OF 40 NO. DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS & OPEN SPACE. THIS IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 251 PAGHAM ROAD AND LAND REAR OF, PAGHAM

This application had been considered at the meeting on 21 October 2015 but had

been deferred to enable officers to have further discussion with the applicant. It is now re-presented for Members’ consideration.

8. TREE APPLICATIONS

There are no applications to consider. 9. *PLANNING APPLICATIONS To consider the attached reports. NB : The applications will be heard in REVERSE ALPHABETICAL order. 10. *PLANNING APPEALS To consider the attached report.


11. *DEVELOPER VIABILITY APPRAISALS The Council receives viability appraisals from applicants and developers in support

of their planning applications. The appraisals generally set out the financial rationale for why an application is unable to meet the Council’s planning obligations for affordable housing, but they are often presented as confidential items and not be disclosed. In future, to provide greater transparency to the public, the Council will publish developer viability appraisals, either in full or part, if they fail to meet the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy requirements.

12. ARUN HORTICULTURE SECTOR: LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER –

STATUTORY CONSULTATION The Council agreed to the preparation of a Local Development Order for the

Horticulture Sector in 2015, with funding for this project being secured with support from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Council’s consultants have now prepared a Horticulture - Draft Local Development Order 2016 for the District Council (Appendix 1) and agreement is sought from the Committee and Full Council to publish the draft LDO for statutory consultation with the aim of it being “made” in 2016.

Background Papers In the case of each report relating to a planning application, or related matter, the background papers are contained in the planning application file. Such files are available for inspection/discussion with officers by arrangement prior to the meeting. Members and the public are reminded that the plans printed in the Agenda are purely for the purpose of locating the site and do not form part of the application submitted. Contact Officers : Nikolas Antoniou (Ext 37799) Neil Crowther (Ext 37839) Daniel Vick (Ext 37771) Juan Baeza (Ext 37765) Simon Davis (Ext 37874) Note: *Indicates report is attached for Members of the Development Control Committee

only and the press (excluding exempt items). Copies of reports can be obtained on request from the Committee Manager or accessed via the website at www.arun.gov.uk.

Note: Members are reminded that if they have any detailed questions would they please

inform the Chairman and/or the Head of Development Control, in advance of the meeting. This is to ensure that officers can provide the best possible advice to Members during the meeting.



Subject to approval at the next Committee meeting

469

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

24 February 2016 at 2.30 p.m.

Present: Councillors Haymes (Chairman), Mrs Hall (Vice-Chairman), Ballard

(substituting for Councillor Charles), Mrs Bower, Bower, Brooks, Charles, Dillon, Mrs Maconachie, Maconachie, Mrs Oakley, Mrs Pendleton, Miss Rhodes, Mrs Stainton and Wells. [Councillor Mrs Pendleton was absent from the meeting during consideration of the matters referred to in Minutes 504 to 505.]

504. APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE An apology for absence had been received from Councillors Charles. 505. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Monitoring Officer has advised Members of interim arrangements to follow when making declarations of interest. They have been advised that for the reasons explained below, they should make their declarations on the same basis as the former Code of Conduct using the descriptions of Personal and Prejudicial Interests. Reasons

• The Council has adopted the government’s example for a new local code of conduct, but new policies and procedures relating to the new local code are yet to be considered and adopted.

• Members have not yet been trained on the provisions of the new local code of conduct.

• The definition of Pecuniary Interests is narrower than the definition of Prejudicial Interests, so by declaring a matter as a Prejudicial Interest, that will cover the requirement to declare a Pecuniary Interest in the same matter.

Where a Member declares a “Prejudicial Interest” this will, in the interests of

clarity for the public, be recorded in the Minutes as a Prejudicial and Pecuniary Interest. Councillor Ballard declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 7, Planning Application BN/29/15/PL as a member of Barnham Parish Council – he stated that he had taken no part in any decision making regarding the matter. He also declared a personal interest in Planning Application EG/58/15/PL as the Ward Member.



470 Development Control Committee – 24.02.16. 506. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 January 2016 were agreed by the Committee as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 507. PLANNING APPLICATIONS AL/99/15/PL – Demolition of existing dwelling & outbuildings & erection of 4 No. 2 bed dwellings with attic level study room & on-site parking, The Gatehouse, Lidsey Road, Aldingbourne Having received a report on the matter, Members were advised that the Section 106 agreement relating to affordable housing had now been signed. The Committee

RESOLVED That the application be approved as detailed in the report.

(Prior to consideration of the following application, Councillor Ballard re-declared his personal interest and remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote.) BN/29/15/PL – Solar park including the erection of solar arrays, inverters, transformers, equipment housing, security fencing, internal tracks, ancillary equipment & ecological mitigation. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan, Land at Barnham Court, Barnham Having received a report on the matter, the Committee was advised by the Chairman of the Site Inspection Panel that she did not feel the proposal would have an adverse impact on Barnham Court or St Marys Church due to the distance from the site; in addition the site was lower and not readily visible. Following consideration, the Committee


EP/157/15/HH – Loft conversions including hip to gable extension, rear dormer & alterations to existing rear extension, 7 Warren Crescent, East Preston Having received a report on the matter, the Committee




471 Development Control

Committee – 24.02.16. EP/159/15/PL – 1 No. two storey detached cottage, 38 Sea Road, East Preston Having received a report on the matter, together with the officer’s written report update detailing additional conditions relating to Permitted Development restriction and obscure glazing, the Committee


(Prior to consideration of the following application, Councillor Ballard re-declared his personal interest and remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote.) EG/58/15/PL – Change of use from public house (A4 Drinking Establishments) to Retail (A1 Shops), The Barnham Hotel, 28 Barnham Road, Eastergate Having received a report on the matter, the Committee


FG/206/15/PL – Demolition of 52-56 Ferring Street & construction of a two & a half storey building with accommodation in the roof, to provide 4 No. 2 bedroom flats at ground, first & second floor & 3 no retail units at ground floor (Use Class A), 52-56 Ferring Street, Ferring Having received a report on the matter, together with the officer’s written report update relating to additional condition in respect of opening hours and delivery times and advice that the legal agreement had now been provided, the Committee


LU/291/15/PL – 2 No semi-detached houses (resubmission following LU/380/14/PL), Land adjacent to 1 Northway Road and rear of 22-30 Lyminster Road, Littlehampton Having received a report on the matter, together with the officer’s verbal advice that the officer recommendation to approve was subject to a S106 Agreement, concern was expressed regarding the access to the proposal. The Principal Planner advised that Members were being requested to agree to the use of the land and that the matter of access was outside of the planning process and was for the residents and the applicant to agree. The Committee then




472 Development Control Committee – 24.02.16. M/123/15/PL – First floor & single storey extensions to South elevation, Byway House, 1 The Byway, Middleton on Sea Having received a report on the matter, together with the officer’s written report update detailing 2 additional representations received, the Committee participated in a detailed debate on the matter. Whilst acknowledging that the home provided a valuable service in the community, views were expressed that this proposal was an overdevelopment. From being an attractive house, the building had now more than doubled in size and the proposed extension would make it more bulky. Concerns were also raised relating to parking and road safety issues and the inconvenience that was being caused to neighbouring properties. Contrary opinions were voiced that no valid planning reasons had been put forward to refuse the application and that it could not be considered to be an overdevelopment. Parking concerns were also not sufficient to refuse; it was felt that adding an additional bedroom would not significantly add to the parking. The Planning Team Leader confirmed that the proposal complied with the relevant policies. He advised that, should the Committee wish to refuse the application, parking would not provide sufficient grounds and he confirmed with Members that the first floor element was acceptable but that the ground floor extension would cause harm. Following consideration, the Committee did not accept the officer recommendation to approve and

RESOLVED That the application be refused for the following reason:- Given the forward position of the extensions, the proposal would give rise to an overdevelopment of the site which would be out of keeping in the street scene and adversely affect the character of development in the locality, which is identified as an Area of Special Character. It is therefore contrary to policies GEN7 and AREA1 of the Arun District Local Plan and policies HERDM4, HERSP1, DDM1 and DDM4 of the Emerging Local Plan.

508. PLANNING APPEALS The Committee received and noted the planning appeals that had been received and 2 appeals that had been heard.

(The meeting concluded at 4.20 p.m.)



30 March 2016

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

AGENDA ITEM 6


Land at Summer Lane

Pagham

Outline application with some matters reserved for the erection of 90 No.

dwellings with associated access & open space. This is a Departure from

the Development Plan.

P/58/15/OUT

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

PO21 4NG

Outline application including access details. Appearance,landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for laterconsideration.

The application concerns the erection of up to 90 dwellingscomprising a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units at amaximum height of two storeys. The site is split into twoseparate areas which cover three parcels of land. Land tothe north of Summer Lane comprises an area of housingincluding internal roads and landscaping. This is split intotwo parcels which lie adjacent to each other, but therewould be no access between them. To the south there isa roughly rectangular strip of land proposed as public openspace (POS) which the applicant states will be transferredto the Parish Council.

The proposal includes on-site provision of 27 affordableunits split between 19 social rented and 8 intermediate.

In terms of access details the proposals involve theretention of Summer Lane and some improvements alongit in order to control speeds whilst providing an improvedfootway connecting with Pagham Road. The proposalincludes two access points into the proposed housingestate off Summer Lane, one is proposed 80m from thejunction with Pagham Road, with the second access pointbeing 260m to the west of Pagham Road. Each accesspoint would include two way vehicular access.

AMENDMENTS

The scheme has been amended whilst being processed.It was proposed to provide a road to the north of the site tolink this proposal with the Orchard Homes development(P/125/14/PL) which is a scheme for 40 dwellings. Due toland ownership issues (details of which are elaboratedupon in this report) the application now includes the

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT

P/58/15/OUT


following provisions: (a) grant a pedestrian right of way via a footpath to theapplication boundary, subject to the Council procuring aCompulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for crossing the ditch;(b) provide a footpath between the end of the proposedroad layout and the ditch, subject to the Council procuringa CPO for crossing the ditch; and(c) grant construction access rights for the Council to usethe site access road for construction access, subject tothe Council procuring a CPO for crossing the ditch.

5.6 hectares including access.

16.1 dwellings per hectare total / 28 dwellings per hectareon the two parcels of land to the north of Summer Lane.

Appears flat but has a slightly declining gradient from eastto west.

There are 4x trees within close proximity of the site - 2poplar trees, 1 ash and 1 oak.

Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) have been served onthree of the trees. TPO/P/1/15 refers to an Ash tree,TPO/P/2/15 refers to two poplar trees. The applicantproposes that all these trees would be retained and wouldbe unaffected by the proposed development.

The northern boundary is defined by scrub and a ditch andthere is a hedgerow and a tree bordering a small paddockto the north west. To the east the site is bordered bybroken hedgerow which adjoins the rear gardens of BrooksEnd/Sylvia Close. The southern boundary partially adjoinsa dwelling off Summer Lane and is divided hedgerows andpost and rail fencing. The remainder of this boundaryabuts Summer Lane.

The parcel of land to the south is open on its north, westand southern boundaries. The east is bounded by a villagehall, open space and garden boundary fences associatedwith existing properties.

The site covers two separate parcels of land both to thenorth of Summer Lane, with a separate parcel of land tothe south. The area of land to the south is proposed asPOS comprising approximately 1.6ha with the remainingland to the north of Summer Lane proposed for housingand associated POS. The total POS area comprises2.57ha.

The site comprises mainly agricultural land to the west andinformal grazing land/scrub on the parcel of land to the

SITE AREA

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTDENSITY

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

P/58/15/OUT


east. To the west of the site the land is bordered by arableland which continues in a westerly direction. To the east ofthe housing site are the rear of dwellings associated withBrooks End and Sylvia Close, and there are a number ofresidential properties and Pagham United ReformedChurch which face the proposed POS area. Land to thenorth is dominated by the Mill Farm Park Homes estate.

Summer Lane comprises a road and a public footpath(FP100) providing access to a small number of large,detached properties arranged in a linear formation on thenorth side. Summer Lane continues in a westerly directionwhere it provides access to a small number of isolatedproperties, but it is more regularly used as a footpath.

Despite its relatively close proximity to Pagham the sitehas a rural feel owing to the nature of the site and the largeexpanse of open countryside to the west. It sits on thevery western edge of the settlement, the extent of whichgenerally follows the line of Pagham Road. The onlyexception to this is the Mill Farm Estate which lies to thenorth of the site which comprises a large residential parkhomes estate; this encroaches into an area of formercountryside.

Dwellings to the south along Summer Lane are detachedproperties of individual appearance. Properties to the eastwithin Brooks End and Sylvia Close comprise a mix ofdetached and semi-detached dwellings.

There is no relevant planning history relating to this site.

On land to the north east there is a concurrent, detailed planning application for 40no dwellings(P/125/14/PL). The application is under consideration.

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

REPRESENTATIONS

CHARACTER OF LOCALITY

REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED:

Pagham Parish Council

No objection/support the application.

"The submission by the applicant relates to a major part of the site selection endorsed byPagham Neighbourhood Plan. This has been the result of a 3 year process involvingvolunteer focus groups and a steering group charged with the responsibility of securing thebest expedient for development within the Parish having regard to the severe infrastructureconstraints and results of the community consultation process.

In respect of the latter there was overwhelming objection against any possible consent forlarge developments on Greenfield sites which would be bound to compound existingproblems. These are:

P/58/15/OUT


- Access to the strategic road network;- Severe congestion at peak times; and- Surface water flooding and imposition upon local sewage system which, at times of heavyrainfall, suffers surcharge, and thus release of partially treated effluent via the Rife to thenature reserve.

Maintaining housing development to a figure close to the ADC strategic allocation has beenthe guiding principle of Neighbourhood Master Planning. The conjoining of both the Hanburyand adjacent Orchard development sites became the preferred option to best serve thePagham Community. We are pleased to note that this application is almost identicalreplication of the plans previously approved by the Neighbourhood Plan team. The spatialcontext, peripheral low-rise properties, screening and landscape buffering are all essentialelements of our master-planning agreement. We note the provision of large on-site openspace and the locally well received significant allocation of Accessible Natural Open GreenSpace (ANOGS) immediately adjoining the village hall complex. This would provide the villagegreen, identified in the 2004 Parish Plan as the outstanding recreational deficiency suffered byPagham community.

Members note compliance with VDS and master-planning in respect of Sustainable UrbanDrainage Systems (SUDS) and sewage, both using natural topography to existing drainageditches and the sewage works respectively. SUDS will incorporate swales and attenuationponds as biodiversity contribution, and the further commitment to landscape security andsafeguarding of the very large arable land area between the biodiversity area and Mill FarmEstate. The latter is secured by a formal covenant with Pagham Parish Council. The roadlinkage with the Orchard site and the widening and sight-line improvements to the SummerLane junction with Pagham Road are all essential features".

Following issues regarding the delivery of the link road to the north east in order to link thisdevelopment with P/125/14/PL the Parish have made the following additional comments:

"Representatives of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee and Parish Council wereinvited to meet with ADC Planning Officers and Natural England representatives on 21stJanuary 2016. This meeting resulted in a commitment on the part of Natural England toendorse the conjoined development Hanbury/Orchard at 251 Pagham Road/Summer Lane,and to write a supporting letter having regard to the agreed mitigation requirements. TheNeighbourhood Plan is therefore proceeding through Regulation 16 towards referendum andfull adoption in accord with the revised ADC timetable (Final cost £56k).

At the Parish Council meeting of 2nd February 2016, members resolved to press fordetermination of both applications at the earliest convenience. The Neighbourhood Plan team(after 4 ½ years of volunteer input) had always promoted the delivery of this developmentpackage in accord with the parish consultation process. We believe that the shared roadaccess central to the site should be a feature stipulated by condition and that it should beunfettered and adoptable, but, in accord with WSCC Highways acceptance that a single,Summer Lane, access to the Hanbury site did not provide any reason for their objection, theParish Council recognizes that it should not insist upon the former if in any way that woulddelay or inhibit ADC approval.

We acknowledge that site drainage (SUDS) is a straightforward matter for Hanbury, but haverecommended specific supervision of the Orchard system by ADC engineers.

For the avoidance of doubt, we would confirm that the Parish Council is fully supportive ofthese two developments and, irrespective of the content of this letter, would wish to see noencumbrance to an early determination by the Planning Authority."

P/58/15/OUT


41 objections and 8 letters in support:

Objections:

- Alternative access needs to be considered;- Building on farmland;- There are 2 natural springs in the area;- There is insufficient infrastructure in Pagham to support any further housing;- Flooding problems;- Issues with the junction of Summer Lane and Pagham Road and visibility around the bendon Pagham Road. This application results in over 100 additional cars using the junction;- Summer Lane a place for walkers. Development will totally ruin this;- Street lighting will shine into property;- The plan provides for relocation of the footpath to the north side of Summer lane Thischange does not then provide suitable safe width for the properties at the entrance to SummerLane on the south side of the redesigned road;- Cars are currently parked in existing bays nearly always. This constantly reduces theaccess/exit to Summer Lane to effectively single lane access;- Large refuse collection lorries go right to the end of the existing housing, parking all the waydown, and on the single-track un-adopted part of Summer Lane; - Additionally, extra-large sewage tankers service the sewage treatment works at the very endof Summer Lane. These are a similar width to above example, and also block the road asabove;- The yellow 'no parking' lines indicated around the east access point will not prevent parkingby cars displaying blue badges. Cars so parked in these narrow sections of Summer Lane willsimply add to the burden and consequential chaos caused by additional significant trafficvolumes. The same applies to cars illegally parked on yellow lines. With additional cars andlimited parking in the immediate area serving the local shops, it will only exacerbate illegalparking;- The owners of properties on the north side of the un-adopted part of Summer Lane would beresponsible for maintenance outside their property which would not be acceptable;- If the footpath is relocated from the south side to the north side and is a consistent 1.8m inwidth this would leave a road width of between 4.4m and 5.0m without any stand-off on thesouth side. At no point could the road width be 5.2m as suggested in the proposed plan;- At present, the south side footpath incorporates lamp posts and a telegraph post. With nostand-off these would also need to be relocated to the north side and, amongst otherconcerns, this would bring the street lamps much closer to bedroom windows. Within theroad there are various run-off drains and man holes, all of which would need moving if thefootpath is relocated from the south to the north;- Heavy rain makes the site flood easily as it is on a flood plain;- Pagham Neighbourhood Plan Area 31 would be much more suitable;- We should be protecting areas of Green Space;- The development backs onto Conifer Way and affects views and impact on the amenity ofproperties;- Double yellow lines do not stop blue badge holders stopping there;- The fields in front and behind Summer Lane are inhabited by bats;- The noise of the traffic is bad enough already;- Pagham Road is already too busy; and- An objection has been submitted with photographs appearing to show the site being flooded.The objector is concerned that the site is susceptible to flooding.

Supporters:

- Majority of land has been unused for decades. Major housing problem in area for young

P/58/15/OUT


CONSULTATIONS

These representations are dealt with in the main body of this report.

NATURAL ENGLAND - No objection. Comments summarised as follows:

The application includes a Habitat Regulations Assessment which recognises the potential forlikely significant environmental effects on Pagham Harbour SPA and Ramsar Site through thepathway of recreational pressure. Natural England welcomes the commitment by the applicantto make a financial contribution towards the agreed strategy in order to deliver the followingmitigation measures:

- Provision of a year round warden (part-time);- Signage/interpretation, access management & education; and- Monitoring.

Support the inclusion of recreational greenspace integral to the development which can be usedby dog walkers as detailed in the HRA document including:

- An off-lead dog exercise area/informal and core open space;- Dog walking route/circular walks; and- Information pack for new residents/local signage and interpretation.

Brent geese use arable land to the north west of the site. Most of the eastern boundary of thisfield is adjacent to already developed land with open landscape the north, west and south.Natural England is pleased to note there is a buffer of land between the development site and thearable land which should be retained to maintain the existing boundary. Unlikely to be significantimpact on the dark-bellied Brent geese.

COMMENTS ON REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED:

couples;- Pagham needs affordable housing;- Development would provide parking within the development site;- Tastefully designed and sympathetic expansion and green areas; and- Includes a new local park.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES RECEIVED:

P/58/15/OUT

Highways England

WSCC Strategic Planning

Environment Agency

Environmental Health

Surface Water Drainage Team

Southern Water Planning

Engineering Services Manager

Engineers (Fluvial Flooding)

Parks and Landscapes

Arboriculturist

Planning and Housing Strategy

Sussex Police-Community Safety

Natural England

Ecology Advisor

Archaeology Advisor


No objection provided that the development falls within the strategic approach and adequatecontributions towards the strategy.

RSPB - Comments summarised as follows:

The application could lead to increased recreational pressure on the SPA, which could have asignificant impact in combination with other housing developments planned in the area.

The RSPB has been working jointly on a strategic approach to mitigating recreationaldisturbance. The applicant also describes greenspace included as part of the development,which the applicant states will reduce recreational pressure on the SPA. The RSPB's view isthat greenspace may be used by some residents for short daily dog walks, and as such iswelcomed. It will not replace resident's desire for longer walks or to visit the coast. It is onlyacceptable in association with the additional mitigation measure on the SPA.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY - No objection to the proposal as submitted.

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND - No objection.

SOUTHERN WATER - No objection subject to imposition of a condition securing details of fouland surface water sewerage disposal.

SUSSEX POLICE - Provide detailed comments but no objections. The comments providedcould be addressed through the submission of reserved matters.

WSCC HIGHWAYS - Initially raised concerns with the level of information submitted but furtherinformation was submitted by the applicant.

The NPPF states development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds wherethe residual cumulative impacts are severe. Taking account of the mitigation proposed as part ofthe development, the LHA are satisfied that no severe impact would result from this proposal. Nohighway objection would be raised.

Full comments as follows:

"The applicant has confirmed that the eastern development access from Summer Lane will bewidened to 4.8 metres. Visibility splays of 2.4 by 25 metres are shown at both junctions. The 25metre element of the splays is based upon a design speed of 20mph. Given the constrainednature of the local highway network, this design speed and consequently the splays areconsidered appropriate.

A number of points were raised relating to Summer Lane. The proposed works have beenrevised. The revised scheme slightly widens the carriageway width (to 4.5 metres from the 4.1metres previously shown) in the vicinity of the eastern access. This widening is at the expenseof the proposed footway width, although this still retains a width of 1.5 metres. Even with theadditional development, Summer Lane will be lightly trafficked and low speed. The proposedcarriageway and footway widths at this location reflect only a pinch point where a consistent 4.8metre carriageway and 1.8 metre footway are provided. In light of the constraints in this location,the widths are considered appropriate. Again at the eastern development access, swept pathshave been provided for a refuse vehicle entering and exiting. These show that a refuse vehiclewould occupy Summer Lane when turning in or out. This situation is not uncommon at manyexisting junctions due to the onerous swept path of a refuse vehicle. However the swept paths

P/58/15/OUT


clearly show that no waiting at any-time restrictions will need to be installed to prevent obstructiveparking from taking place. To ensure the restrictions are enforceable these will require a TrafficRegulation Order. The LHA within their initial comments highlighted that due to the requirementfor public consultation no guarantee can be offered that the TRO will be made. There isconsequently an element of risk.

Given that the eastern access is dependent upon the TRO, this process would need to becompleted prior to development commencing. In the event that the TRO failed, alternatemeasures may then need to be considered.

The implications on visibility from existing driveways on the south side of Summer Lane as aresult of relocating and widening of the footway to the northern side has been considered ingreater detail. The results of this indicate that visibility will be worsened although at most of theaccesses visibility is already substandard. The visibility splays for each of the properties has alsobeen drawn within the extent of the public highway and the curtilage of the respective dwelling. Allof the dwellings in question presently have open frontages, permitting visibility over the adjoiningland. Whilst occupiers of these dwellings may erect fencing or seek to enclose their frontgardens, in practice this is perhaps unlikely given that it would then severely constrain visibilityfrom their own respective access.

The views of an independent road safety auditor have been sought in respects of the matter ofreduced visibility. They have confirmed that on balance they consider the overall road safetyimpact to be neutral given the benefits of other works proposed.

It is also noteworthy that the Stage One Road Safety Audit provided with the application raised noproblems or concerns regarding reduced visibility at the existing southern accesses caused bythe proposed highway works. The potential reduced visibility from the existing southern accesspoints is acknowledged. Conversely though, visibility at the accesses on the northern side ofSummer Lane will be improved. Taking the evidence available and the overall benefit from thehighway improvements, on balance these are considered to be acceptable. With regards to theproposed northern footway, the potential ability to tie in with existing driveway and carriagewaylevels has been checked. Whilst such matters will be considered in greater detail as part of anys278 agreement, in principle there appear to be no fundamental matters with the ability toconstruct the footway.

An additional response was sought from the applicant towards two problems raised within theStage One Road Safety Audit (RSA). These problems related to the lack of a margin between thesouthern carriageway edge and third party boundary treatments. The scheme has been revisedso as to include a minimum 300mm margin along the southern carriageway edge following therelocation of the footway.

The other problem was in respects of pedestrian visibility at the realigned Summer Lane/PaghamRoad junction. A 2 by 2 metre pedestrian visibility splay has been demonstrated on the submitteddrawings, although visibility for crossing pedestrians will in practice be greater and notsignificantly different to that which is available at present. This matter is considered to beaddressed.

Conclusion

The NPPF states development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds wherethe residual cumulative impacts are severe. Taking account of the mitigation proposed as part ofthe development, the LHA are satisfied that no severe impact would result from this proposal. No

P/58/15/OUT


highway objection would be raised. If minded to permit this application, the following conditionsand informatives are recommended."

Conditions as recommended are included at the end of the report.

WSCC INFRASTRUCTURE - Require contributions in respect of (1) Primary Education£215,644 (2) Secondary Education £232,083 (3) 6th Form £54,369 (4) Libraries £23,634 (5) Fireand Rescue £2,144 (6) On-site provision of 3 hydrants.

WSCC FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT TEAM - No objection subject to a condition securingdetailed Surface Water Drainage designs. The surface water drainage approach (attenuationand discharge to watercourses) generally appears to meet the requirements of the NPPF, PPGand associated guidance documents. Final detailed designs of the surface water systems havenot yet been submitted.

CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL ECOLOGY - Comments summarised as:

Bats - Hedgerows on site are to be used by bats and they need to be retained and enhanced.Any removed hedgerows, as identified in the survey, will need replacing. Conditionsrecommended.

Lighting scheme will need to consider bats populations.

Water Voles - Moderate population of water voles within ditch 7 and 8. Mitigation measuresproposed acceptable and could be conditioned.

Reptiles - Mitigation method statement required due to reptile populations.

Badgers - Further badger survey required. This can be conditioned.

Nesting Birds - Trees or vegetation clearance can only take place outside bird breeding season,otherwise further survey required.

Enhancements - The following enhancements required:

- Bat and Bird boxes; Use of bat bricks and tiles; Wildflower seed mix used;Native species used within landscape design; Wildlife pond; and Installation of log pile.

Recreational Disturbance

CDC and ADC have been working on a strategic scheme of avoidance for new developmentswithin 5km zone of influence around Pagham Harbour SPA. The proposed development requiresa financial contribution to mitigate harm.

CDC ARCHAEOLOGIST - No objection. "I agree with the Desk Based-Assessment suppliedwith the application that the potential for this site to contain deposits of archaeological interest issuch that it should be evaluated prior to development, the aim being to identify significantarchaeological deposits that might be present and to implement appropriate measures for theirpreservation."

ADC GREENSPACE - "The Council's SPG guidelines require that 2.4 hectares of open spaceare provided for every 1000 people. With the number of houses on this proposal indicating 90no

P/58/15/OUT


this would require as a minimum 5184m² which the proposals show in excess. The areasindicated for the majority of POS are somewhat disjointed with a large area indicated for an areaacross the road from the development and not in proximity to the dwellings, however, this doestie in with the community building and associated greenspace here. The proposals would alsotrigger the need for onsite local equipped area for play (LEAP) and local area for play (LAPs) tobe included in within the site...A management plan would be sought for the forward maintenanceof public open space, detailed regime and responsibility".

Other comments from the Green Space officer confirm that full landscaping details are requiredincluding buffer zone and hedge enhancements, along with full tree protection measures.

ADC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - No objection subject to the imposition of condition requiringan Environmental Construction Management Plan.

ADC HOUSING STRATEGY AND ENABLING MANAGER - Initially objected to the proposedaffordable housing mix. Application subsequently amended to provide a mix which wasconsidered acceptable. No objection to the revised affordable mix which is compliant with policyrequirements.

ADC DRAINAGE ENGINEERS - No objection.

Full comments as follows: "Attenuation and restricted discharge to ditches is proposed forsurface water drainage. It is stated that ground conditions make soakage impracticable. Pleaseprovide evidence of percolation rates and groundwater levels from the winter period. Pleaseapply standard conditions ENGD2A, ENGD4A, ENGD5A, ENGD6A.

Infiltration rates for soakage structures are to be based on percolation tests undertaken in thewinter period and at the location and depth of the proposed structures. The percolation testsmust be carried out in accordance with BRE 365, CIRIA R156 or a similar approved method andcater for the 1 in 10 year storm between the invert and entry pipe to the soakaway, and the baseof the structure. It must have the provision to ensure that there is capacity in the system tocontain below ground level 1 in 100 year event plus 30% on stored volumes, as an allowance forclimate change. Adequate freeboard must be provided between the base of the soakawaystructure and the highest recorded annual groundwater level identified in that location.

Any SuDs of soakaway design must include adequate groundwater monitoring data to determinethe highest winder groundwater table in support of the design. The applicant is advised todiscuss the extent of groundwater monitoring with the Council's engineers. If the groundconditions do not allow for infiltration, restricted discharge to the watercourses at Qbar isacceptable. The 1 in 100 year storm event plus 30% should be stored without causing flooding.Ditches in the area are likely to require maintenance prior to setting levels, silt should be removeduntil hard bed is reached. A positive outfall should be identified. However, rates restricted toQbar should cause no greater flooding risk than the present risk".

The drainage office has also commented that a drainage scheme designed in co-operation withHanbury would be beneficial.

ADC TREE OFFICER - No objection. "I would agree with the applicants observation that T1 - T3location (on the opposite side of a deep drainage ditches) would directly affect the rootmorphology, and is likely to have caused the root protection area to span offsite (due to the voidpreventing spanning towards the site). I would also agree with the outlined protective measuresfor T4, which would include full implementation of static fencing for the RPA area that spans into

P/58/15/OUT


Designations applicable to site:

- Outside of the Built Up Area Boundary;- Flood Zone 1;- Strategic/Local Gap (proposed POS to the south of Summer Lane only); and- No Public Sewer.

POLICY CONTEXT

the development area. I would have no objection to the proposed protective measures outlined inthe application submitted, as they meet the BS 5837:20102".

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

AREA10

DEV17

GEN2

GEN3

GEN5

GEN7

GEN9

GEN11

GEN12

GEN15

GEN18

GEN20

GEN29

GEN32

GEN34

Strategic GapsAffordable HousingBuilt-up Area BoundaryProtection of the CountrysideProvision of New Residential DevelopmentThe Form of New DevelopmentFoul and Surface Water DrainageInland FloodingParking in New DevelopmentCycling and WalkingCrime PreventionProvision of Public Open Space within NewDevelopmentNature and Conservation Across theDistrictNoise PollutionAir Pollution

Arun District Local Plan:

COMMENTS ON CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Comments from consultees are dealt with in the main body of this report.

A landscaping condition is recommended by a consultee but it is considered that landscapingdetails are a reserved matters requirement.

P/58/15/OUT

C SP1 CountrysideD DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityD DM3 External Space StandardsD SP1 DesignECC SP2 Energy and climate change mitigationENV DM1 Designated sites of biodiversity or geologicalimportanceENV DM2 Pagham HarbourENV DM4 Protection of TreesENV DM5 Development and BiodiversityENV SP1 Natural EnvironmentGI SP1 Green Infrastructure and DevelopmentH DM1 Housing MixHER DM1 Listed Buildings

Publication Version of theLocal Plan (October 2014):


NPPFNPPG

National Planning Policy FrameworkNational Planning Practice Guidance

PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE

The Development Plan consists of the Arun District Local Plan 2003, West Sussex CountyCouncil's Waste and Minerals Plans and Made Neighbourhood Development Plans.

Arun District Council's Development Plans:

Paragraph 215 of the NPPF ensures that specific policies in Arun District Local Plan 2003 cancarry weight. The weight afforded to the policies with Local Plan policies can be assessedaccording to their level of consistency of the various policies with the National Planning PolicyFramework.

Paragraph 216 of the NPPF confirms that weight can be given to policies in emerging plans fromthe day of publication. The Council resolved that the policies and maps in the Publication Version ofthe Local Plan be used in the determination of this planning application. Following 'publication' ofthe Local Plan a formal public consultation, examination and adoption process takes place.

The policies are published under Regulations 19 and 35 of the Town and Country Planning (LocalPlanning) (England) Regulations 2012. The statement of representations procedure and statementof fact produced by the Council under regulation 19 explains that the consultation will take place on30th October 2014 for six weeks.

The Neighbourhood Development Plan

Where applicable, Neighbourhood Development Plan's (more commonly known as aneighbourhood plan or NDP), once made by Arun District Council, will form part of the statutorylocal development plan for the relevant designated neighbourhood area and policies within them willbe considered in determining planning applications. Made NDP policies will be consideredalongside other development plan documents including Arun District Council's Local Plan. Whilstan NDP is under preparation it will afford little weight in the determination of planning applications.

POLICY COMMENTARY

P/58/15/OUT

PDS Pagham Parish Council's Village DesignStatement by PaghamPC

Supplementary Guidance:

HER SP1 The Historic EnvironmentH SP2 Affordable HousingINF SP1 Infrastructure provision and implementationLAN DM1 Protection of Landscape CharacterOSR DM1 Open Space, Sport and RecreationQE DM1 Noise PollutionQE DM2 Light PollutionSD SP2 Built-Up Area BoundarySD SP3 Gaps Between SettlementsT DM2 Public car parksTEL SP1 Strategic delivery of telecommunicationsinfrastructureT SP1 Transport and DevelopmentW DM2 Flood RiskW DM3 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems


Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:-

"If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be madeunder the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unlessmaterial considerations indicate otherwise."

The proposal is considered to comply with relevant Development Plan policies in that it would haveno materially adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality or the residential amenities of theadjoining properties, nor would it have an adverse impact upon the established character of thesurrounding area.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND/OR LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

PROPOSAL:

The site is split into three areas. The two parcels of land to the north of Summer Lane involve theerection of up to 90 dwellings comprising a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings which would be amaximum of two storeys in height. The indicative layout shows a split - 40 dwellings on thewestern parcel and 50 dwellings on the eastern parcel with lower density on the western peripheryof the site, and the higher density being positioned further east. The proposal includes on-siteprovision of 27 affordable units split between 19 social rented and 8 intermediate.

The single parcel of land to the south of Summer Lane comprises an area of POS which theapplicant intends to hand to the Parish Council. 2.5ha of open space would be provided by theproposed development across the three parcels of land, most of it being within the land to thesouth of Summer Lane, although there is a relatively large amount of open space proposed on thehousing sites. The scheme includes provision for 3 children's play areas (LAP, LLAP and LEAP).

Access to the two housing sites to the north would be taken at separate points off Summer Lane.The proposal includes alterations to Summer Lane including widening of the lane, footpathprovision and junction improvements.

PRINCIPLE:

The site lies outside the built-up boundary and in an area of open countryside where the principle ofresidential development is considered unacceptable. Local Plan policies are in place to curtailinappropriate development in the countryside. Policy C SP1 of the Local Plan Publication Version(2014) seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. The NPPF seeks to avoid isolated homesin rural areas and seeks to ensure that the character of the countryside is protected and enhancedwhere possible. The site is not identified in the most up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability

CONCLUSIONS

Its status will however gain more weight as a material consideration the closer it is towards it beingmade. Arun District Council will make reference to an NDP when it has, by the close of planningapplication consultation, been publicised for pre-submission consultation(Reg.14).

Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; Bognor Regis; Clymping; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring;Kingston; Littlehampton; Rustington; Yapton.

Pagham Parish Council has publicised its Neighbourhood Plan for Pre-Submission purposes.This process is on hold whilst more work is carried out.

P/58/15/OUT


Assessment (SHLAA). Affordable housing provision complies with the 30% required by the InterimAffordable Housing policy and policy H SP2 of the emerging Local Plan.

Some of the site is located on agricultural land (Grades 3a and 3b) thus some of the site appearsto be located on the best and most versatile agricultural land as defined by the NPPF.

Local Plan (2003) policies seek to focus development within built up areas and this is reflected insaved policies GEN2 and GEN3. Development outside settlement boundaries is not supported bythese policies. Whilst the application falls adjacent to the defined settlement boundary, it is in anarea of countryside and falls outside the settlement boundary.

In terms of weight afforded to 2003 Local Plan policies (in particular GEN2, GEN3 and GEN5), thisis largely dependent on the conformity of these policies with the NPPF. The NPPF advises thathousing applications should be considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment (see below), and relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be consideredup-to-date if the Local Authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing sites. Whilst policyGEN3 states that 'The Countryside will be protected for its own sake", this is not fully reflected inthe NPPF, which requires the intrinsic character and beauty of countryside be recognised and is,thus, less restrictive. Draft Core Strategy policy C SP1 is more specific and reflective of the NPPF. Housing as proposed is clearly not advocated by this policy.

Of crucial importance in this case is the consideration that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5year housing land supply in compliance with the NPPF. The Council's most recent evidencereports a supply of 3.26 years. There has been consistent under-delivery against the most recentobjectively assessed need of 845 new dwellings per annum and the Council cannot meet itsobjectively assessed housing need.

Para 14 of the NPPF states a presumption in favour of Sustainable Development. For decision-taking this means:

- approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and- where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, grantingpermission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweighthe benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The Local Plan Publication Version (2014) is an emerging document which has been suspendedpending an update to increase proposed housing numbers. Whilst a number of policies areapplicable to the proposed development, the emerging Local Plan can only be afforded very limitedweight in the decision making process. Policy HSP1 of the emerging Local Plan states:

"Strategic Housing shall be accommodated as follows:

1. Sustainable urban extensions adjoining Littlehampton from existing planning consents2. Site specific allocation at Barnham / Eastergate / Westergate3. Site specific allocation at Angmering4. Area Action Plan Development Plan Document for the Littlehampton Economic Growth Areaincluding West Bank5. Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document for Ford and Fontwell and6. Parish and Town allocations"

The development does not fall under any of the sites within 1-5. It potentially falls within '6' (above)where Pagham is allocated a minimum of 100 dwellings to be potentially identified in

P/58/15/OUT


Neighbourhood Development Plans. PAGHAM NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN:

In December 2014 the Pagham Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was withdrawn from consideration sothat further studies could be produced in respect of the potential impact on Pagham HarbourSPA/Ramsar Site. This additional work has been completed and the Pagham Neighbourhood Planhas undergone a 6 week consultation period under Regulation 14 (Neighbourhood PlanRegulations 2012). Given the early stages of preparation, and considering the Plan has not gonethrough a formal examination process, limited weight can be attributed to the Neighbourhood Planas a material consideration.

The limited weight that can be afforded to the Pagham Neighbourhood Plan requires anydevelopment proposal to be assessed against Draft Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2:

"The Neighbourhood Plan allocates the following sites for low density housing development, asshown on the Proposals Map, subject to the development principles outlined:

i. up to 90 dwellings on Land off Summer Lane, comprising a mix of 2,3 and 4 bed bungalows andhouses, to be delivered in the period 2014 - 2019, provided the scheme:

a. makes provision for contributions towards the agreed Strategic Approach to AccessManagement at Pagham Harbour to mitigate recreational disturbance to the features of thePagham Harbour SPA.

b. makes an appropriate financial contribution to Pagham's Accessible Natural Open Green Space(ANOGS) shown on Inset Map 2 as the hashed area south of Summer Lane and provides openspace or green infrastructure with recognised qualities within the development area that links to theANOGS.

c. demonstrates that locally valued and important habitats, including wildlife corridors and steppingstones will be retained and sympathetically incorporated into that part of the ANOGS or other publicopen space scheme that lies within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area (as defined on the Arun LocalPlan Proposals Map) and that any disturbance to habitats of the adjoining development scheme willbe minimised;

d. layout allows for road, footpath and cycle connectivity to the adjoining Land south of InglenookHotel site to the satisfaction of the local highway authority;

e. implements improvements to Summer Lane and to its junction with Pagham Road to thesatisfaction of the local highway authority"

Based on the summary above, the Council's specific housing policies set out in the Local Plan(2003)and emerging Local Plan are not considered to be up-to-date and therefore, the presumptionin favour of sustainable development applies.

CONCLUSIONS ON PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT:

In light of presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is necessary to consider whetherthe scheme would constitute sustainable development.

Whilst the contents of the pre-submission Pagham Neighbourhood Plan do not hold a significant

P/58/15/OUT


amount of weight in the determination of this application, it is considered that the details set out inNeighbourhood Plan Policy 2 are, at the very least, a useful yardstick by which to measure anumber of environmental benefits associated with the proposal. The application proposes afinancial contribution to the Agreed Strategic Approach to Access Management at Pagham Harbourto mitigate recreational disturbance to the features of the Pagham Harbour SPA. The applicationincludes a large area of on-site POS immediately adjacent to the village hall complex to the south.The total area of POS associated with the proposal is 2.57ha which is well above adopted policyrequirements. The indicative layout shows extensive paths and landscaping and potentialecological improvements - all the above align with the provisions of the pre-submission PaghamNP and Pagham Parish Council raise no objections and comment that the proposal adheres to thecriteria set out in Pagham NP policy 2.

On the other hand, the application is proposed on greenfield land (partially best and most versatileagricultural land) and would involve the extension of the western edge of Pagham into an area ofopen countryside. These are considered to constitute significant negative environmental elementsassociated with the scheme which, as it stands, are contrary to existing local policies and theNPPF which seeks to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.

Taken in the wider context, officers are of the view that the site represents an accessible locationbeing close to services and amenities, close to a bus route and lying adjacent to the settlementboundary. The potential recreational benefits brought about by the areas of POS, which would alsoimprove the function of the village hall, convey social benefits. Similarly, the proposed affordablehousing elements would bring about social and economic benefits to the local area and theprovision of 90 units would also bring about local economic benefits and temporary constructionjobs. A number of monetary contributions are proposed to support local services, in line with policyrequirements. Whilst it is acknowledged there are a number of significant environmental dis-benefits associated with the provision of new housing outside the existing settlement boundary, inthe round, the proposal is considered to constitute a sustainable development form. Therequirement, under paragraph 14 of the NPPF, is to identify whether or not there are any significantand demonstrable harmful considerations which outweigh the presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment.

It is noted there is a current application on land to the north east for 40no dwellings by OrchardHomes, on the opposite side of the ditch which borders the application site. The PublicationVersion of the Local Plan (2014) makes provision for 100 dwellings in the Pagham area to beexclusively identified in Neighbourhood Plans. These are minimum figures. Within this context theapplication (for 90no dwellings) taken cumulatively with the Orchard Homes proposal would notundermine the housing numbers put forward in the emerging Local Plan. It is noted that theapplication reflects most of the criteria set out in Policy 2 of the emerging Pagham NP. The scaleof development proposed reflects the Pagham NP (despite its relatively early stage of preparation)and overall, the development taken both in isolation and in combination with other housing locally isnot considered to undermine the plan making process.

There is a specific requirement in Policy 2 of the emerging Pagham NP to provide road, footpathand cycle connectivity to the adjoining land to the north. The applicant, in conjunction with theapplicant P/125/14/PL, has encountered an issue concerning the ownership of the ditch whichdivides the sites. The ditch is unregistered land and the applicants are unable to connect the sitesby way of a road link.

Following further consultation by the applicant with the Parish Council, the Parish Council haveprovided a further response to the application and confirmed that they are satisfied with theproposal without a road link between the sites, subject to the satisfaction of WSCC highways. In

P/58/15/OUT


order to provide a potential pedestrian link between sites, the applicant proposes the followingprovisions by way of a S106 Agreement:

(a) grant a pedestrian right of way via a footpath to the application boundary, subject to the Councilprocuring a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for crossing the ditch(b) provide a footpath between the end of the proposed road layout and the ditch, subject to theCouncil procuring a CPO for crossing the ditch(c) grant construction access rights for the Council to use the site access road for constructionaccess, subject to the Council procuring a CPO for crossing the ditch

Given the identified constraints, the proposed resolution above would ensure an acceptable linkbetween the sites in accordance with policy 2 of the NP.

Whilst the area of land to the south of Summer Lane comprises agricultural land, the use of thisland as public open space would contribute an area of recreational land without significantlyimpacting on the character and appearance of the area or the openness of the countryside. Thisarea of land is identified as strategic gap in the Local Plan and (Area 10) and policy SD SP3 of theemerging Local Plan. Improving access and providing habitat enhancement is in compliance withthe thrust of both these policies.

DESIGN, CHARACTER & LANDSCAPE:

The proposal, being sited on an open greenfield site, would alter the character and appearance ofthe area to an extent by extending the existing settlement boundary in a westerly direction. Somelandscape 'harm' is unavoidable. The openness of the western parcel of land would be affected,with the eastern parcel remaining more hidden from wider views. The applicant has submitted aLandscape and Visual Impact Assessment which more or less corresponds with theseobservations.

There are no national landscape designations associated with the site and the indicative layout isdesigned so as to provide a softer edge on the western boundary - closest to open fields - with thescale, form and density of development being complementary to existing developments on BrookEnd and Sylvia Close. Views from footpath 108 to the west would reveal a housing developmentset against the backdrop of existing residential development on the edge of Pagham. In that sensethere is a natural affinity between residential development to the north and east and the proposeddevelopment, albeit having regard to the fact that the land itself would be substantially altered interms of appearance. From Summer Lane and from some other obtainable views from propertiesto east, the impact of the development would be felt with more force as current views represent alarge area of open countryside.

The application is in outline form and details concerning appearance, layout, scale and landscapingare reserved for future consideration. The application includes measures designed to mitigatevisual impact - including large areas of open space within the housing development areas,appropriate landscaping, use of materials to reflect the surrounding village character, and a heightlimit of two-storeys for the housing. The two parcels of land to the north of Summer Lane dedicatedto housing comprise low density development (28 dwellings/hectare). Whilst it is acknowledgedthat this density is slightly below the density requirement set out under policy GEN7 of the LocalPlan, the emerging Local Plan places more emphasis on density being considered in context. Thepre-submission Pagham NP is more specific, identifying this site as suitable for low densityhousing. Low density housing would assist in reducing the overall visual impact on the surroundingopen countryside whilst ensuring the site benefits from public open space provision. The proposeddensity would not be out of character with the surrounding grain of development considering its

P/58/15/OUT


edge of settlement location.

The indicative layout shows housing split between parcels of land on the east and west, eachparcel including a separate vehicular access. Pedestrian links would be provided between the twosites. Initially a vehicular link was proposed between the eastern parcel of land and the land to thenorth east which is proposed for development by Orchard Homes. The layout includes extensiveareas of open space and wildlife corridors and, subject to final detailed design; the proposalsappear to represent a pleasant residential environment.

The applicant has committed to providing a scheme which complements the established characterof the existing village. This would be detailed at reserved matters stage. It is considered that thedesign, layout and visual impact of the proposed development taken in combination with theproposesd Orchard Homes development to the north east would not significantly affect thecharacter of the landscape, or unacceptably affect the character and appearance of the area.

When considered in the round the development is considered acceptable when measured againstpolicy GEN7 of the Local Plan and LAN DM1 of the emerging Local Plan. It is not considered thatthe development would result in significant and demonstrable harm to the character andappearance of the area, landscape or affect the significantly affect the character of the widercountryside.

HIGHWAYS:

A large majority of the objections raise concerns regarding proposed access and potential impactsof the development on the wider highway network.

Following concerns initially raised by WSCC highways, and in light of the objections received, theproposed works to Summer Lane have been revised. The revised scheme shows a widenedcarriageway (now 4.5m) in the vicinity of the eastern access and a partial narrowing of theproposed footway. Highways have considered this element of the proposal and note that SummerLane is (and would be) relatively lightly trafficked and low speed.

A number of objections relate to potential impacts of highways alterations on the properties on thenorth side of Summer Lane. It is acknowledged that visibility from driveways would be worsened atmost points, but visibility has been independently assessed by the road safety auditor and noobjections are raised given that there are benefits associated with other works. WSCC highwayshave confirmed that the concerns raised regarding the levels of the proposed footway, and howthis would tie in with the existing driveways on Summer Lane, could be addressed as part of aS278, and there is no reason in principle why this could not be achieved. It is acknowledged thatthere would be reduced visibility on the southern access point (Pagham Road/Summer Lanejunction) but there would be improved visibility on the northern side.

The applicant has provided a swept path for refuse vehicles entering and exiting the housingestate. This shows that refuse vehicles would occupy Summer Lane when entering and leaving.Highways consider that this situation is not uncommon, but 'no waiting' restrictions would need tobe installed to prevent obstructive parking from taking place. It is acknowledged that this is relianton a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), and there is no guarantee that this would succeed. It is notedthat parking in the proposed TRO area is unlikely to occur as the junction of the proposed accessis in close proximity of residential properties of the proposed housing estate. In the event that theTRO did fail, the width of the carriageway in the vicinity of the eastern access off Summer Lane isconsidered to be insufficient to accommodate on-street parking without this resulting in anobstruction to the free flow of traffic. Irrespective of whether the TRO goes ahead, any obstruction

P/58/15/OUT


could be dealt with under the Road Traffic Act. With regards the concerns relating to the abuse of yellow double 'no parking lines' by blue badgeholders and other drivers; a TRO is proposed to control this but this is subject to a separateprocedure. In the event that the TRO was successful and the waiting restrictions implemented, itwould be an offence for any driver to park on double yellow lines, and blue badge holders would berestricted to a maximum of three hours. This is subject to controls outside the remit of planning.

As a general point in respect of parking, in this particular location there does not appear to be asignificant level of off-street parking taking place. Existing properties tend to have off-streetparking. The development proposes a new lay-by off Summer Lane (near the proposed POS) toprovide a more formalised parking arrangement for users of the POS to the south. This wouldassist in alleviating potential issues with inconsiderate parking along Summer Lane.

Concerns have been raised regarding additional vehicles using the Summer Lane/Pagham Roadjunction. This is an inevitable consequence of the development. Highways have assessed theproposal in terms of trips generated and highway safety and do not consider the residualcumulative impacts to be severe, and areas of concern identified can be appropriately mitigatedthrough the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The applicant has considered the scheme in context of the Orchards housing development to thenorth east and a road 'link' between the two sites was initially proposed. This does now not appearto be deliverable. The application has been re-assessed on the basis of no link being providedbetween the sites. Highways raise no objections. The Parish Council have been consultedacknowledging the constraint and raising no objections.

The applicant has submitted a Travel Plan which includes a number of mitigation measuresdesigned to reduce reliance on the private car and promote sustainable modes of transport and/orworking. Highways have assessed this and raise no objections.

The impact on highway safety is considered acceptable, subject to a number of mitigationmeasures which can be secured by planning condition. The impact on highway safety is notconsidered to represent significant demonstrable harm in this case.

Highways recommend a number of planning conditions, including a requirement to secure a TrafficRegulation Order (TRO). A TRO is reliant on legislation outside the remit of planning and it is notconsidered that a condition to this effect could be imposed. Highways considerations on the TROimplications are set out in this report. It is recommended that the recommended planning conditionbe amended to require the applicant to submit a scheme of potential mitigation. In the event thatthe TRO fails, the scheme could consider alternative mitigation measures.

BIODIVERSITY:

The application includes an assessment identifying species and habitats of potential conservationconcern. The scheme would involve the removal of some hedgerows, particularly those adjoiningSummer Lane. The ecologist has assessed the proposal and raises no objection.

The proposal includes the provision of a large area of POS to the south of Summer Lane and alongthe north/northwest boundaries would provide opportunities for new habitats and wildlife. Habitatprovision also includes:

- New ditch/watercourse incorporating water vole mitigation measures;

P/58/15/OUT


- A series of attenuation ponds in association with a SuDs strategy. These ponds to be utilised toprovide habitats for water vole by ensuring water is retained throughout the year.- Along field boundaries to the south of the scheme retention of rough grassland in open spacesarea.- Native wildflower mix in open spaces.- Long-term management plan for biodiversity

In terms of potential impact on existing species, the submitted ecological assessment confirmsthat no bat roosts are present on site and that any subsequent landscaping details should includeappropriate features to encourage bats. There are no immediate concerns with regards nestingbirds, but nest features should be incorporated as enhancement. There are no immediateconcerns with regards impacts on foxes and badgers and the site has been surveyed for thosespecies. The survey did note that the site was suitable for badgers, but none were reported duringthe survey. It is considered that removal of dense scrub should be sensitively undertaken, andfurther survey badger survey work carried out. This could be conditioned.

With regards Water Vole, detailed mitigation measures are proposed, some of which are identifiedabove, but other measures are recommendation for incorporation in a mitigation strategy, whichcould be conditioned.

Reptiles have been recorded within the area, including Slow Worm, Common Lizard and GrassSnake. The development would have a direct impact on these populations without mitigation. Theproposed mitigation includes translocation and the provision of appropriate habitat within the site.This would be subject to a detailed mitigation strategy which could be conditioned.

PAGHAM HARBOUR SPA/RAMSAR SITE:

The development lies approximately 1km to the north east of the Pagham Harbour SPA/RamsarSite. It is noted for its population of Little Tern, Common Tern, Dark-bellied Brent Goose.

Given the distance between the development and the SPA, the potential impacts are considered tobe indirect. These impacts revolve around a potential increase in visitor numbers and potential forresidents of the housing associated with the development to walk/walk dogs in the area which, inturn, could disturb the bird population of the SPA. Policy ENV DM2 of the emerging Local Planrequires developments within 5km of Pagham Harbour make a contribution towards a jointstrategic scheme of avoidance and mitigation which is intended to provide mitigation such as apart-time warden, signage and interpretation, a dog project and mitigation. A contribution of £1,275per dwelling would be required as agreed by the Council's Cabinet in July 2015.

The current application involves an area of POS with dog walking routes which may reduce theeffects on the SPA. It is likely that the walking route would provide an immediate exercise area fordogs, but there is still likely to be a tendency for residents to walk greater distances and, inparticular, towards the harbour and SPA area. Considering the mitigation measures proposed, theproposal is considered to comply with emerging policy ENV DM2 and the NPPF in terms ofproviding biodiversity mitigation and overall enhancement. The Council's ecologist, the RSPB andNatural England all raise no objections subject to planning conditions and a legal agreement.

Paragraph 119 of the NPPF identifies that the presumption in favour of sustainable developmentdoes not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or HabitatsDirective is being considered, planned and determined. In this case, the proposed development isnot considered to result in a significant adverse effect on the nearby SPA/Ramsar site either aloneor in combination with other plans or projects and, as such, the tests contained within Regulation

P/58/15/OUT


61(1) of the Habitats Regulations would not be failed. In this case there is considered to be no needto undertake an Appropriate Assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directive.

IMPACT ON HERITAGE ASSETS:

The nearest registered heritage assets lie to the north east and east of the site within proximity ofPagham Road. These assets include Martins Cottage, Greensleeves, and Nyetimber House - allof which are Grade II listed buildings. It is not considered that the proposal would affect the settingof these assets given the distance involved and the intervening land uses.

DRAINAGE:

The site lies in Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding from the sea or rivers). The application isaccompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. The whole premise of the submitted drainage schemeis to provide a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDs) designed to incorporate the 1 in 100year return storm plus an extra allowance of 30% for the potential predicted increase in rainfall upto 2115. It is intended that this strategy would be implemented by:

- Permeable paving/permeable sub-base;- Roadside swales;- Attenuation/bio-retention basin

The indicative layout shows that final surface water runoff from the site would be strictly controlledin the form of a series of attenuation basins. In part, these would also double up as potentialhabitat features and therefore, be incorporated into the wider landscaping and habitat creation thuscreating additional areas of beneficial green infrastructure.

It is clear from the objections that there are concerns regarding flooding and WSCC drainageconsider that the site is at high risk from ground water flooding. This is confirmed by the Council'sStrategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and the applicant's assessment. The NPPF states thatdevelopment should be directed towards area of lower flood risk, but that all sources of floodingshould be considered. The applicant has not carried out a sequential test, but it is acknowledgedthat the site lies in Flood Zone 1, the lowest risk from potential flooding from rivers and the sea. It isnoted that this site is unallocated and, as revealed by the SFRA, a large proportion of developableland in Arun suffers from potential ground water flooding.

The risks from groundwater flooding are acknowledged and WSCC consider the site is potentiallysuitable for an appropriate SuDs and, subsequently, raise no objections subject to full details ofdrainage being provided and secured through a planning condition. The Council's drainage officerrecommends the imposition of conditions relating to detailed drainage design and has commentedthat any soakaway or SuDs design should include adequate groundwater monitoring in order todetermine the highest groundwater level during winter. If ground conditions do not allow forinfiltration then restricted discharge to watercourses may be acceptable. Drainage and potentialflood risk is considered acceptable in principle, subject to appropriately worded planning conditionsrequiring full details to be submitted. The applicant's FRA indicates that the development wouldreduce overall flood risk and provides appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures incompliance with policies W DM2 and W DM3 of the emerging Local Plan. The application isconsidered to comply with policy GEN9 of the Local Plan. The risk from flooding in this case is notconsidered to represent significant demonstrable harm.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY:

P/58/15/OUT


Whilst concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact on residential amenity, thesematters could be addressed in full at reserved matters stage as layout, scale and appearance arereserved for future consideration. The indicative layout shows that dwellings would be positionedbroadly in line with spacing requirements. Notwithstanding future reserved matters, it is consideredthat the quantum of development, being low density, can be accommodated on site withoutsignificantly affecting the amenity of nearby residents.

Summer Lane would inevitably become more heavily trafficked and the proposal would increasethe movement of vehicles on this road. This does not necessarily equate to unacceptable impactson the amenity of properties along Summer Lane. The development is for residential purposes andapart from during the construction phase, the development would not lead to a significant increasein more noisy vehicles such as HGV's. It is recommended a condition be imposed in the event thatpermission is granted requiring a Construction Management Plan.

One of the new access points from Summer Lane, proposed adjacent to 'The Elms', would resultin the additional movement of vehicles along the boundary of this property and garden. Theprovision of an access along this boundary is not considered to result in unacceptable amenityimpacts. The application is considered to comply with policy GEN7 of the Local Plan in thisrespect.

OTHER ISSUES:

Summer Lane is also a Public Right Of Way (PROW). Whilst the footpath would not be affected bythe proposal in the long term, it would be affected during the construction period. It is likely that theapplicant will need to facilitate a short-term diversion which would be the subject of a separateprocess. Indicative plans show the footpath may need diverting to the south (on the land proposedfor POS) along with suitable mitigation measures as part of a construction management plan.

There is no 'right to a view'. Any development which dominates the outlook from a property is amaterial consideration. These issues are partly dealt with in this report, whilst the impact ofhouses/buildings on the outlook of properties would be dealt with at reserved matters stage.

There are 4 trees within proximity of the site (2no Poplars, 1no Ash, 1no Oak). It is considered thatthe proposal is unlikely to impact on the trees and that the development can co-exist withoutdetriment to the trees in the long term. Root protection measures are recommended and the treeofficer raises no objections subject to appropriate conditions.

SUMMARY:

The application is considered to constitute a sustainable form of development and, due to theCouncil's outdated policies in relation to housing land supply; the presumption in favour ofsustainable development applies. A range of matters have been identified as part of thedetermination of this application, some of which require mitigation measures which are eitherproposed as planning conditions, could be dealt with at reserved matters stage, or requiremitigation secured by way of a legal agreement. Whilst the development lies on greenfield landand outside the settlement boundary, it is considered to comprise a relatively low-densitydevelopment with significant POS provision, landscaping, green infrastructure and a consideratelayout which respects the sensitive countryside location and respects the provisions set out in theConsultation Pagham NP.

In terms of identified 'harmful' elements, it is considered that there are no individual or collectiveissues which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits associated with the

P/58/15/OUT


scheme which have been identified in this report, and the presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment as identified by paragraph 14 of the NPPF. It is considered that the application shouldbe approved subject to the conditions below and a S.106 legal agreement covering matters set outin the box below.

If the S.106 legal agreement has not been signed within 3 months of the date of the resolution toapprove then the application should be refused for the following reasons:

(1) The development makes no contribution towards affordable housing provision and is therebycontrary to the aims and objectives of Policy H SP2 of the Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 (PublicationVersion) and the Council's Interim Affordable Housing Policy adopted on the 18th August 2010;

(2) The application fails to make a financial contribution towards the cost of providing accessiblenatural open green spaces to serve the Pagham area and the proposal is therefore not inaccordance with Policy ENV DM2 of the Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 (Publication Version);

(3) The development makes no contribution towards public open space or children's playequipment and is thereby contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy GEN20 and theSupplementary Planning Guidance of the Arun District Local Plan; and

(4) The development makes no contribution towards local infrastructure and is thereby contrary tothe Policy GEN8 of the Arun District Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

P/58/15/OUT

The Council in making a decision should be aware of and take into account any implications thatmay arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority suchas Arun District Council to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention onHuman Rights.

Consideration has been specifically given to Article 8 (right to respect private and family life) andArticle 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendationfor approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes unreasonably with any local residents'right to respect for their private and family life and home, except insofar as it is necessary toprotect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council isalso permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and therecommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submittedapplication based on the considerations set out in this report.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

Duty under the Equalities Act 2010

In assessing this proposal the following impacts have been identified upon those people with thefollowing protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civilpartnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation).

The proposal would have a neutral impact on the protected characteristics.

DUTY UNDER THE EQUALITIES ACT 2010

SECTION 106 DETAILS


APPROVE CONDITIONALLY SUBJECT TO A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT

The permission hereby granted is an outline permission under s92 of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and an application for the approval of the Local

1

RECOMMENDATION

P/58/15/OUT

A Section 106 Agreement is being prepared and draft Heads of Terms have been agreed inprinciple. The S106 Agreement will be required to include the following provisions:

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

27 units comprising 19 social rented (70%) and 8 intermediate (30%) split between:

- 7no 1 bed (social rented);- 12no 2bed (social rented); and- 8no 2 bed (intermediate).

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT/MITIGATION

An area of Public Open Space (POS) comprising a total area of 2.57ha including on-site playarea provision. This will be subject to a management regime and a mechanism to potentiallyhand over the land to the south of Summer Lane to the Parish Council.

Pagham Area of Natural Open Green Space (ANOGS) - A contribution of £114,750, equating to£1,275 per dwelling, is to be provided in order to mitigate the potential impacts on PaghamHarbour SPA. The site lies within 'Zone B' (between 400m and 5km) of the SPA. Mitigation shallinclude contribution to the employment of a full time warden, dog project, additional signage andinterpretation material and future monitoring.

WSCC INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS

Primary Education - £215,644Secondary Education - £232,0836th Form Education - £54,369Libraries - £23,634Fire and Rescue - £2,144Fire Hydrants - on-site requirement for 3.

OTHER

Works to facilitate a link between the application site and the Orchard Homes development siteon the proviso that planning permission is granted for planning application P/125/14/PL:

(a) grant a pedestrian right of way via a footpath to the application boundary, subject to theCouncil procuring a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for crossing the ditch;(b) provide a footpath between the end of the proposed road layout and the ditch, subject to theCouncil procuring a CPO for crossing the ditch; and(c) grant construction access rights for the Council to use the site access road for constructionaccess, subject to the Council procuring a CPO for crossing the ditch.

The applicant will be required to enter into a Section 278 Agreement in respect of the identifiedhighway improvement works. This would be under the provisions of the Highways Act (1980).


Planning Authority to the following matters must be made not later than the expiration of 3years beginning with the date of this permission:-

(a) Layout;(b) Scale;(c) Appearance; and(d) Landscaping.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and tocomply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 yearsfrom the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date ofapproval of the last reserved matters to be approved, whichever is later.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and tocomply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) as amended.

The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the following approved plans:

DLA.1552.L003.01 Rev D;120843/A/11 Rev C;120843/A/05 Rev B;120843/SK/13 Rev A;120843/SK/14 Rev A;120843/AT/A01 Rev A;120843/AT/A02 Rev A;120843/SK/15 Rev A; andthe Ecological Assessment (April 2015).

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The development hereby permitted shall be limited to no more than 90 dwellings and thereserved matters submitted pursuant to condition no1 shall generally accord with theprinciples shown on the drawing entitled 'Block Plan'.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development does not exceed the parameters set outin the application.

The buildings hereby approved shall not exceed two-storeys in height.

Reason: In order to ensure the development is consistent with the details applied for, andin order to ensure there is no significant impact on the character and appearance of thearea, in compliance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

Detailed plans and particulars of the Reserved Matters submitted to the Local PlanningAuthority pursuant to Condition no1 shall include a phasing plan and schedule to showhow the development of the site is to be carried out in numbered phases. Thedevelopment shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule and phasing.

Reason: In order to ensure where development is to be carried out in phases, that theimpacts can be properly controlled and monitored so as to ensure there is no significantimpact on residential amenity or highway safety, in compliance with policy GEN7 of the

2

3

4

5

6

P/58/15/OUT


Arun District Local Plan.

Prior to the commencement of development, details of a foul water drainage system(including details of its siting, design and subsequent management/maintenance, ifappropriate) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. Nodwelling shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been fullyimplemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the proposed development is satisfactorily drained in accordance withpolicies GEN7 and GEN9 of the Arun District Local Plan.

Prior to the commencement of any site clearance or preparation works, a detailedecological mitigation and enhancement scheme, including timing for implementation, shallbe submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The scheme shall be based onthe mitigation and enhancement details set out in section 9 of the submitted EcologicalAssessment dated April 2015. The scheme shall include provision for further badgersurvey work and sensitive hedgerow and vegetation removal. The development shall becarried out in accordance with the approved scheme and timetable.

Reason: To ensure adequate protection and enhancement of biodiversity interests inaccordance with the provisions of the NPPF and policies GEN23 and GEN29 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan (2003).

Detailed plans and particulars of the Reserved Matters submitted to the Local PlanningAuthority for approval pursuant to Condition no1 shall include full details of a proposedsurface water drainage scheme. The design should follow the hierarchy of preference fordifferent types of surface water drainage disposal systems as set out in ApprovedDocument H of the Building Regulations, the recommendations of the SUDS Manualproduced by CIRIA.

Winter groundwater monitoring to establish highest annual ground water levels andPercolation testing to BRE 365, or similar approved, will be required to support the designof any Infiltration drainage.

No building shall be occupied, in each respective phase, until the complete surface waterdrainage system serving the dwellings in each respective phase has been implemented inaccordance with the agreed details and the details so agreed shall be maintained in goodworking order in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily drained in accordancewith policies GEN7 and GEN9 of the Arun District Council Local Plan.

The development shall not proceed until written consent has been approved in writingfrom the Lead Local Flood Authority (WSCC) or its agent (ADC) for the discharge of anyflows to watercourses, or the culverting, diversion, infilling or obstruction of anywatercourse on the site. Any discharge to a watercourse must be at a rate no greaterthan the pre-development run off values.


Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, full details of the maintenanceand management of the SuDs system set out in a site-specific maintenance manual, shallbe submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The manual shall

7

8

9

10

11

P/58/15/OUT


include details of financial management and arrangements for the replacement of majorcomponents at the end of the manufacturers recommended design life. Upon completedconstruction of the SuDs System, the owner or management company shall strictlyadhere to and implement the recommendations contained within the manual.

Reason: To ensure the efficient maintenance and on-going operation of the SuDs systemand to ensure the best practice in line with guidance set out in 'The SuDs Manual' CIRIApublication ref: C697 Chapter 22.

Detailed plans and particulars of the Reserved Matters submitted to the Local PlanningAuthority for approval pursuant to Condition no1 shall include full details of vehicularaccess onto Summer Lane. The development shall be carried out in accordance with theapproved details and shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling in eachrespective phase.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy GEN7 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan.

Visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 25 metres shall be provided at the proposed sitevehicular accesses onto Summer Lane in accordance with the approved planningdrawings. Once provided the splays shall thereafter be maintained and kept free of allobstructions over a height of 0.6 metre above adjoining carriageway level or as otherwiseagreed. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwellingin each respective phase.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy GEN7 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan.

No part of the development in any phase shall be first occupied until a footway has beenconstructed along the north side of Summer Lane, the Summer Lane/Pagham Roadjunction has been realigned, and the other works as indicatively shown on drawingnumber 120843/A11 Revision C have been provided in accordance with plans and detailssubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation withthe Local Highway Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with policy GEN7 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan.

Detailed plans and particulars of the Reserved Matters submitted to the Local PlanningAuthority for approval pursuant to Condition no1 shall include full details of the proposedparking bay and crossing point on Summer Lane, as detailed on the submitted planentitled 'Block Plan. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordancewith the approved details and implemented in full before the first dwelling is occupied. Reason: To ensure that parking provision is provided along Summer Lane and that thearea of public open space is accessible to residents and the wider community inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No development shall take place until a Construction Management Plan has beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter theapproved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire constructionperiod. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted tothe following matters:

12

13

14

15

16

P/58/15/OUT


- 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 impactof construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary TrafficRegulation Orders);- measures to control noise and vibration during construction;- measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and- details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area.

No development shall take place within each respective phase of development until theapplicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work inaccordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by theapplicant and approved by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out inaccordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to ensure any archaeological interests are properly protected ordocumented in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

Detailed plans and particulars of the Reserved Matters submitted to the Local PlanningAuthority for approval pursuant to Condition no1 shall include the full details, measures,monitoring and subsequent reporting, as set out in the approved Travel Plan which isincluded in the submitted Transport Statement. The approved measures shall beimplemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved. Reason: To minimise the traffic generated by the proposal in accordance with policyGEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

Development shall not commence in each respective phase of development (includingsite clearance), until the mitigation measures detailed in the submitted Tree Survey andArboricultural Impact Assessment have been implemented in full. The mitigationmeasures shall be retained in full during the construction phase of each respective phaseof development.

Reason: In order to protect existing trees within close proximity of the site during theconstruction phase and in accordance with GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

Detailed plans and particulars of the Reserved Matters submitted to the Local PlanningAuthority for approval pursuant to Condition no1 shall include a landscape managementplan, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities andmaintenance schedules for all landscape areas other than privately owned domesticgardens. The landscape management plan shall be implemented in accordance with theapproved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the local area and in accordance with policyGEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No development shall take place until details of laying out, timetable for provision andmaintenance of the area shown on the approved plans for Public Open Space have been

17

18

19

20

21

P/58/15/OUT


submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The layout detailssubmitted under planning condition 1 (layout) shall define the boundaries of the PublicOpen Space areas, their intended use, any items of equipment, means of enclosure andall other structures to be installed. The scheme shall also include details of dedicated dogwalking routes and 'off lead' dog walking areas. The development shall be carried out inaccordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed Public Open Space is provided to an acceptablestandard within an agreed timescale in accordance with policies GEN7 and GEN8 of theArun District Local Plan and in order to mitigate against potential impacts on PaghamHarbour SPA in accordance with the NPPF.

Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, a strategy for theprovision of the highest available headline speed of broadband provision for futureoccupants of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority. The strategy shall take into account the timetable for delivery of 'superfastbroadband' (defined as having a headline access speed in excess of 24Mb or more). Thestrategy shall seek to ensure that upon occupation of a dwelling, the provision of thehighest available headline speed of broadband service to that dwelling from a site-widenetwork is in place and provided as part of the initial highway works and in theconstruction of frontage thresholds to dwellings that abut the highway. Unless evidence isput forward and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority that technologicaladvances for the provision of a new broadband service for the majority of potentialcustomers will no longer necessitate below ground infrastructure, the development of thesite shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy.

Reason: In order to comply with the requirement of TEL SP1 of the draft PublicationVersion of the Arun Local Plan and paragraph 42 of the NPPF.

Prior to the commencement of any phase of the approved development, a schemedetailing the physical works and a timetable to provide a minimum of at least 10% of thetotal energy demand from the development comprising renewable or low carbon energygeneration on site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in complete accordance withthe approved scheme prior to first occupation of each respective phase, and retained soin perpetuity.

Reason: In order to achieve high levels of energy efficiency in accordance with therequirement of the NPPF and emerging policy ECC SP2 of the Publication Version of theCore Strategy.

Detailed plans and particulars of the Reserved Matters submitted to the Local PlanningAuthority for approval pursuant to Condition no1 shall include a scheme of mitigation inorder to restrict the potential for vehicle parking in the vicinity of the proposed easternaccess onto Summer Lane. Such approved measures shall be implemented inaccordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic.

Detailed plans and particulars of the Reserved Matters submitted to the Local PlanningAuthority for approval pursuant to Condition no1 shall include full details of the proposedcar parking spaces associated with each dwelling. Such approved spaces shall thereafterbe retained at all times for their designated use.

22

23

24

25

P/58/15/OUT


Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic.

Detailed plans and particulars of the Reserved Matters submitted to the Local PlanningAuthority for approval pursuant to Condition no1 shall include a schedule of materials andfinishes to be used in the external walls and roofs of the buildings. A 'statement of detail'shall be submitted setting out details of the proposed windows and doors, details ofdepths of recess/reveal from the brickwork, sills and lintels, brick bonding, brick detailing,eaves detailing and rainwater goods. The materials and 'statement of detail' as approvedshall be used in the construction of the buildings.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control development in detail in theinterests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve buildings of visual quality in accordancewith policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

INFORMATIVE: Condition 24 - The requirement under condition 24 is for the developer tosubmit mitigation details to be considered in the event that a Traffic Regulation Order isnot successfully implemented.

INFORMATIVE: Section 59 of the 1980 Highways Act - Extra-ordinary Traffic. Theapplicant is advised to enter into a Section 59 Agreement under the 1980 Highways Act, tocover the increase in extraordinary traffic that would result from construction vehicles andto enable the recovery of costs of any potential damage that may result to the publichighway as a direct consequence of the construction traffic. The Applicant is advised tocontact the Highway Officer (01243 642105) in order to commence this process.

INFORMATIVE: Section 278 Agreement of the 1980 Highways Act - Works within theHighwayThe applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex CountyCouncil, as Highway Authority, to cover the off-site highway works. The applicant isrequested to contact The Implementation Team Leader (01243 642105) to commencethis process. The applicant is advised that it is an offence to undertake any works withinthe highway prior to the agreement being in place.

INFORMATIVE: The implication of effective ground protection must be achieved beforeany construction works commences to protect the given RPA. Again the local planningauthority arboricultural officer must check this protection before the construction workscommences.

Infiltration rates for soakage structures are to be based on percolation tests undertaken inthe winter period and at the location and depth of the proposed structures. Thepercolation tests must be carried out in accordance with BRE365, CIRIA R156 or a similarapproved method and cater for the 1 in 10 year storm between the invert of the entry pipeto the soakaway, and the base of the structure. It must also have provision to ensure thatthere is capacity in the system to contain below ground level the 1 in 100 year event plus30% on stored volumes, as an allowance for climate change. Adequate freeboard mustbe provided between the base of the soakaway structure and the highest recorded annualgroundwater level identified in that location.

Any SuDs or soakaway design must include adequate groundwater monitoring data todetermine the highest groundwater table in support of the design. The applicant isadvised to discuss the extent of groundwater monitoring with the Council's engineers.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement withSouthern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service thisdevelopment. Please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove,

26

27

28

29

30

31

P/58/15/OUT


Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk

INFORMATIVE: The development layout should not be agreed until such time thatarrangements for the future access and maintenance of any watercourse or culvertcrossing or abutting the site has been submitted to the Council. No construction ispermitted, which will restrict current and future land owners from undertaking their riparianmaintenance responsibilities of any watercourse on or adjacent the site in order to ensurethe responsibilities as required under the Land Drainage Act 1991, and amended by theFlood Water Management Act 2010, can be fulfilled.

INFORMATIVE: This decision has been granted in conjunction with a Section 106 legalagreement which includes the following provisions:

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

27 units comprising 19 social rented (70%) and 8 intermediate (30%) split between:

- 7no 1 bed (social rented);- 12no 2bed (social rented); and- 8no 2 bed (intermediate).

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT/MITIGATION

An area of Public Open Space (POS) comprising a total area of 2.57ha including on-siteplay area provision. This will be subject to a management regime and a mechanism topotentially hand over the land to the south of Summer Lane to the Parish Council.

Pagham Area of Natural Open Green Space (ANOGS) - A contribution of £114,750,equating to £1,275 per dwelling, is to be provided in order to mitigate the potential impactson Pagham Harbour SPA. The site lies within 'Zone B' (between 400m and 5km) of theSPA. Mitigation shall include contribution to the employment of a full time warden, dogproject, additional signage and interpretation material and future monitoring.

WSCC INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS

Primary Education - £215,644;Secondary Education - £232,083;6th Form Education - £54,369;Libraries - £23,634;Fire and Rescue - £2,144; andFire Hydrants - on-site requirement for 3.

OTHER

Works to facilitate a link between the application site and the Orchard Homesdevelopment site on the proviso that planning permission is granted for planningapplication P/125/14/PL:

(a) grant a pedestrian right of way via a footpath to the application boundary, subject to theCouncil procuring a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for crossing the ditch;(b) provide a footpath between the end of the proposed road layout and the ditch, subjectto the Council procuring a CPO for crossing the ditch; and(c) grant construction access rights for the Council to use the site access road forconstruction access, subject to the Council procuring a CPO for crossing the ditch.

32

33

P/58/15/OUT


INFORMATIVE: Statement pursuant to Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning(Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015. The Local PlanningAuthority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifyingmatters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with theApplicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As aresult, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for anacceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

34

P/58/15/OUT


P/58/15/OUT

P/58/15/OUT Indicative Location Plan

(Do not Scale or Copy)

(All plans face north unless otherwise indicated with a north point)

Based on the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's

Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright

and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Arun District Council 100018487.2015



30TH MARCH 2016

REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM

PREVIOUS MEETING

AGENDA ITEM 7


P/125/14/PL Demolition of existing dwelling &ancillary buildings & erection of 40no. dwellings with associatedaccess, car parking, cycle & refusestorage, hard & soft landscaping &amenity space. This application is aDeparture from the developmentplan

251 Pagham Road & Land R/O

Pagham

REPORTS ON APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

(Deferred For Further Information)


251 Pagham Road & Land R/OPagham

Demolition of existing dwelling & ancillary buildings & erection of 40 no. dwellingswith associated access, car parking, cycle & refuse storage, hard & softlandscaping & amenity space. This application is a Departure from thedevelopment plan

P/125/14/PL

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

This report was deferred from the meeting on the 21st October 2015 to address the followingissues:

* plots 32 and 40 and the separation distance between them and the existing properties inPagham Road, together with the lack of boundary treatment;* the loss of on-street car parking;* the need for further consultation with County Highways with regard to the problems associatedwith vehicular traffic through the village;*the effect of the proposal on the listed building at the Inglenook Hotel; and*clarification of the views of the Historic Buildings Officer.

The following report has been amended in many respects since the previous agenda andincludes two additional conditions (nos. 14 & 22).

Report following a request for further information, negotiations or

consultation


P/125/14/PL

Application No: P/125/14/PL

Reason for the Update / Changes

REPORT UPDATE

This report was deferred from the meeting on the 21st October 2015 to address the followingissues:

* plots 32 and 40 and the separation distance between them and the existing properties inPagham Road, together with the lack of boundary treatment;* the loss of on-street car parking;* the need for further consultation with County Highways with regard to the problems associatedwith vehicular traffic through the village;*the effect of the proposal on the listed building at the Inglenook Hotel; and*clarification of the views of the Historic Buildings Officer.

In response to Members comments and the comments of Parish Council representativespresent at the Committee meeting, the proposals have been amended to incorporate thefollowing changes:

* In consultation with the Local Highway Authority, 4 additional visitor parking spaces have beenprovided close to the site access in order that they are available for wider public use. A conditionis proposed to agree the details of these spaces to ensure that they are promoted to the widerpublic; * Increased the separation distance between the dwellings on plots 33 and 40 and the easternboundary, together with the intervening area of car parking;* Enhanced the boundary treatment and landscaping along the eastern edge of the site; and* Amended the design of the Plot 1 dwelling in consultation with the Council's Historic BuildingsAdvisor.

It should also be noted that there is now no longer a proposed link between this site and the siteto the south (Ref P/58/15/OUT). This is due to the fact that the drainage ditch located betweenthese two sites is outside the ownership of either party and that despite a thorough search, the3rd party owner cannot be established. Both the Parish Council and WSCC Highways havestated that there is no objection to the lack of a vehicular link between the two sites.

However, both applicants have agreed, subject to Arun District Council procuring a CompulsoryPurchase Order (CPO) for the crossing of the ditch, to provide footpath links between theirrespective road layouts and the ditch. Assuming that the Council is able to purchase therelevant section of the ditch, this will then enable a pedestrian link to be provided between thetwo sites.

The following report has been amended in several places and includes two additional conditions. No. 14 requires approval of the details of the additional 4 visitor spaces in order to ensure thatthey are promoted for use by the general public. Condition 22 requires approval of boundarytreatments.

Notes: Changes to recommendations, conditions and / or reasons for refusal will

always be reflected in the recommendation section of the attached Officer's Report.


251 Pagham Road & Land R/O

Pagham

Demolition of existing dwelling & ancillary buildings & erection of 40 no. dwellingswith associated access, car parking, cycle & refuse storage, hard & softlandscaping & amenity space. This application is a Departure from thedevelopment plan

P/125/14/PL

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

40 dwellings:- 2 x 1 bed houses; 4 x 1 bed bungalows; 13 x2 bed houses; 6 x 2 bed apartments (within a two storeybuilding); 11 x 3 bed houses; 2 x 4 bed 2.5 storeytownhouses; 1 x 3 bed 2.5 storey townhouse; and 1 x 4 bedhouse.

12 of the 40 dwellings will be affordable and these are the 6apartments, the 4 x 1 bedroom bungalows and 2 of the 2bed houses. These are located in the south part of the siteclose to the public open space (POS).

POS is provided in two areas comprising of 0.225haadjacent to the west boundary and a smaller 0.0184ha areaopposite & adjacent to the north boundary. The larger areaincludes several retained trees and a new 100m2 playarea. A number of trees are retained including all threeprotected trees. The scheme includes an area of landtotalling 0.1750ha as a reptile translocation area whichsituated alongside the ditch and the boundaries with BrooksEnd/239-249 Pagham Road.

The application utilises the existing access and provides atactile paving pedestrian drop crossing across the access.The existing 3 space layby parking to the south of theaccess will need to be removed to make way for apedestrian footway. This will be achieved by way of aWSCC Traffic Regulation Order for which a £6,000contribution is required.

92 parking spaces are proposed. All the dwellings have 2allocated spaces each except for the 1 bed housesnumbered 38 & 39 which have 1 each. 14 visitor spacesare included.




P/125/14/PL


The plans also detail traffic calming measures, bincollection points, bin stores/cycle stores for the apartmentbuilding, garages and new tree/hedge planting.

Since the application was last considered by theCommittee, in response to Members comments and thecomments of Parish Council representatives present at theCommittee meeting, the proposals have been amended toincorporate the following changes:

* In consultation with the Local Highway Authority, 4additional visitor parking spaces have been provided closeto the site access in order that they are available for widerpublic use. A condition is proposed to agree the details ofthese spaces to ensure that they are promoted to the widerpublic; * Increased the separation distance between the dwellingson plots 33 and 40 and the eastern boundary, together withthe intervening area of car parking;* Enhanced the boundary treatment and landscaping alongthe eastern edge of the site; and* Amended the design of the Plot 1 dwelling in consultationwith the Council's Historic Buildings Advisor.

Members should note that that there is no longer aproposed link between this site and the site to the south(Ref P/58/15/OUT). This is due to the fact that thedrainage ditch located between these two sites is outsidethe ownership of either party and that despite a thoroughsearch, the 3rd party owner cannot be established. Theseissues are elaborated upon elsewhere in this report but theproposed Section 106 legal agreement will now include thefollowing additional provisions:

(a) The developer will grant a pedestrian right of way via afootpath on the site to the application site boundary, subjectto Arun District Council (ADC) procuring a CompulsoryPurchase Order (CPO) for crossing the ditch;(b) The developer will provide a footpath across thesafeguarded area, subject to ADC procuring a CPO forcrossing the ditch; and(c) The developer will grant construction access rights forthe Council to use the site access road for constructionaccess, subject to ADC procuring a CPO for crossing theditch.

The following has been amended in and includes twoadditional conditions. No. 14 requires approval of the

P/125/14/PL


details of the additional 4 visitor spaces in order to ensurethat they are promoted for use by the general public.Condition 22 requires approval of boundary treatments.

1.4 Hectares.

28.6 dwellings per hectare.

Predominantly flat.

There are a number of trees within and adjacent to the site. The majority of those within the central areas are fruittrees. There are larger non-fruit trees close to the northand west boundaries.

Tree Preservation Orders have been served on three treeson the site. TPO/P/1/15 refers to 1 Ash Tree (referencedwithin the application as T28) located adjacent to the drainand proposed to be within the Public Open Space (POS).TPO/P/2/15 refers to 2 Poplar Trees (referenced within theapplication as T29 & T32) located adjacent or close to thenorth boundary. These are proposed to be retained.

Various - hedges, ranch style fencing, drainage ditch, closeboarded fencing. The boundaries to 8 & 9 Brooks End areformed by approximately 2m high close boarded fencingsupplemented by existing tree planting within the site(which is to be retained). The rear boundaries of 239-249Pagham Road are relatively low (around 1m) and open.Some of these properties have created unauthorisedaccesses into the site.

Roughly L shaped and includes 251 Pagham Road, a twostorey dwelling. This property comprises of three singlestorey outbuildings, two of which have pitched roofs andare situated to the north of the dwelling. The third is a flatroofed former shop building to the front. There isresidential garden to the rear and then a large amount ofadditional land to the west formerly used for horticulturalpurposes (for sale in the shop) and the grazing of animals.There are three dilapidated greenhouses on the land aswell as a number of fruit trees. Much of the land is litteredwith grassed tufts. The site access is from Pagham Roadbetween 251 and the Inglenook Hotel. There are 2 onstreet layby spaces on the site frontage.

The site is bordered by residential properties & a publichouse/hotel fronting Pagham Road; by grazing land with aresidential mobile home park beyond to the north & north-east; grazing land to the south with residential propertiesbeyond which front onto Summer Lane; and open farmland

SITE AREA

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DEN

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT



P/125/14/PL


to part of the western boundary.

Nos. 239-249 Pagham Road to the east are two storeyproperties with west facing principal windows and reargardens. The two Brooks End dwellings that border thesite do so with their flank walls and these elevations do notcontain any principal windows. There are rear elevations ofmobile homes totalling around 10-12m of the far westboundary.


REPRESENTATIONS

PAA/43/13/

PAA/48/14/

Pre-application advice for the scheme for the1.94 hectare site proposes 45 dwellings, carparking and associated works.14 of thedwellings would be affordable, comprising30% of the total.0.26 hectares of public openspace has been incorporated into thescheme.

Proposed 43 dwellings and associated carparking, landscaping and public openspace(revised from previous pre -appsubmission under reference PAA/43/13)

11-06-2013

28-04-2014

Approve Pre App

Refuse Pre App

Representations received:





ORIGINAL COMMENTS:

"Pagham Parish Council objects to this application. After two consultation meetings with thedevelopers there is still no landscape buffering or reptile (slow worms and grass snakes)translocation zones to the rear of the properties in Pagham Road as required by theneighbourhood plan master planning. Further, we would question the swept path analysis intoand out of the site based on the current roadside parking arrangements opposite.Neighbourhood plan negotiations requested a significant number of public car park space beincluded at the junction of Pagham Road and regrettably these seem to have been deleted.This is particularly relevant as existing layby spaces will be lost due to this development in anarea already severely lacking in parking facility. We would also question the receiving ditchsystem, which does not appear to be connected to any outflow. We believe the SUDS needto be closely investigated by the District Council's engineers."

The Pagham Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group objected in April 2015 raising the following:

* The Neighbourhood Plan (NP) has been developed in consultation with both Orchard and

P/125/14/PL


Hanbury and it is a great concern that Orchard Homes have put in a premature application;* The application is for a higher density than agreed in the draft NP;* On the other hand, Hanbury have agreed to the design principles in the NP; and* It is disappointing that Orchard have not spoken to Hanbury regarding site drainage.

18 letters and 1 petition (6 names) of objection. 9 letters and the petition were submitted tothe initial plans:

* The application is premature & cannot be considered until the Neighbourhood Plan isadopted;* No appropriate traffic calming scheme on this section of Pagham Road - this should beaddressed before increasing the volume of traffic;* Greenfield site;* Impact on nature conservation value of the site;* Impact on Grade II listed Nyetimber House;* Impact on landscape from the new houses and also buffer planting;* Flood risk from backing up of the existing ditch system;* Inadequate Flood Risk Assessment;* Loss of trees;* Loss of 3 layby parking spaces on Pagham Road;* Existing congestion made worse by regularly used bus stop opposite & Tesco deliveryvehicles;* Noise/disturbance, light (from streetlights) & air (exhaust fumes/BBQ smells) pollution;* Loss of light & privacy to existing properties;* Surrounding routes are not safe for use by cyclists;* Drainage report uses an unusually high discharge rate of 15 litres per second;* Tree Survey not carried out at the optimal time; and* Inadequate Ecology Survey particularly in respect that the drainage ditch is not totally dry.

Following a second consultation on the amended plans, a further 9 letters of objection werereceived:

* Impact on existing traffic congestion at the junction of the access & Pagham Road;* Loss of a historic building (251 Pagham Road);* Design of houses is out of character with the historic setting;* Drainage of the site could result in localised flooding;* The application is premature & cannot be considered until the Neighbourhood Plan isadopted;* There must be two-way access into the adjacent site;* Light pollution from street lighting;* No suitable screening to neighbouring properties and any proposed screening would result ina loss of light;* Parking spaces too close to boundaries of the Pagham Road dwellings;* Loss of 3 layby parking spaces on Pagham Road;* Existing congestion made worse by regularly used bus stop opposite & Tesco deliveryvehicles;* Noise/disturbance & air (exhaust fumes/BBQ smells) pollution;* Loss of privacy to existing properties;* Surrounding routes are not safe for use by cyclists;* Drainage report uses an unusually high discharge rate of 15 litres per second;* Tree Survey not carried out at the optimal time; and

P/125/14/PL


* Inadequate Ecology Survey particularly in respect that the drainage ditch is not totally dry.

COMMENTS RECIEVED SINCE THE APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED:

Pagham Parish Council submitted a further letter on 22 October 2015 as a follow-up to theCommittee Meeting; this is summarised below:

* Whilst the Neighbourhood Plan allocates the site for 35 dwellings, having regard to thepressure from Government on Planning Authorities to increase house building, no formalobjection is raised to the number of dwellings proposed.

* Parish Council members present at the meeting were approached by the Developersrepresentative whereby a willingness to incorporate a number of modifications to addressconcerns was apparent. Those modifications were as follows:

(1) Improvements to width, height and density of landscaping & translocation buffer to the rearof the dwellings in Pagham Road;(2) Revised layout to include compensatory public parking;(3) Commitment to provide a shared access to the adjoining land to be secured by condition;(4) Negotiation with ADC Engineers in respect of proposed SUDS ditch; and(5) Consideration of disposal of foul sewage to Pagham Road as proposed, having regard toseasonal surcharge and subsequent overflows.

* The comprehensive consideration of both the current application site and that which adjoinsis of importance to ensure satisfactory infrastructure is delivered.

* The comments of the Vice-Chairman in terms of heritage were noted - some alterations tothe materials would provide the improvement necessary.

Pagham Parish Council also submitted comments on the 4th of February. These stated that:

"Representatives of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee and Parish Council wereinvited to meet with ADC Planning Officers and Natural England representatives on 21stJanuary 2016. This meeting resulted in a commitment on the part of Natural England toendorse the conjoined development Hanbury/Orchard at 251 Pagham Road/Summer Lane,and to write a supporting letter having regard to the agreed mitigation requirements. TheNeighbourhood Plan is therefore proceeding through Regulation 16 towards referendum andfull adoption in accord with the revised ADC timetable (Final cost £56k).

At the Parish Council meeting of 2nd February 2016, members resolved to press fordetermination of both applications at the earliest convenience. The Neighbourhood Plan team(after 4 ½ years of volunteer input) had always promoted the delivery of this developmentpackage in accord with the parish consultation process. We believe that the shared roadaccess central to the site should be a feature stipulated by condition and that it should beunfettered and adoptable, but, in accord with WSCC Highways acceptance that a single,Summer Lane, access to the Hanbury site did not provide any reason for their objection, theParish Council recognizes that it should not insist upon the former if in any way that woulddelay or inhibit ADC approval.

We acknowledge that site drainage (SUDS) is a straightforward matter for Hanbury, but haverecommended specific supervision of the Orchard system by ADC engineers.

P/125/14/PL


CONSULTATIONS

Although Pagham Parish Council state that they would like there to be a vehicular access linkbetween the two adjoining sites, they do not want the proposed developments held upunnecessarily if this is not achievable. They are also supportive of the amendments made tothe scheme following the deferral by members at the 22-10-15 Meeting.

The issues raised by residents are considered in the "Conclusions" or "Comments onConsultations" sections. The following additional comments are made:

* It is not considered that the potential for odour pollution from BBQ's is a material planningissue; and* Regardless of whether surrounding routes are safe enough for use by cyclists, it is clear thatcyclists are able to use surrounding routes and will be able to access/egress the site.

NATURAL ENGLAND: No objections. Comments in full can be read on the Councils website butin summary:

Natural England supports the proposed on-site mitigation measures (public open space) butwould like to also see the inclusion of (1) an on-site dog walking route; and (2) an on-site dog offlead exercise area. Recommend additional off-site mitigation measures in the form of a financialcontribution towards the following:

* Provision of a part-time, all year round warden post (to be provided in perpetuity and in place

Comments on Representations received:

For the avoidance of doubt, we would confirm that the Parish Council is fully supportive ofthese two developments and, irrespective of the content of this letter, would wish to see noencumbrance to an early determination by the Planning Authority."

Consultations responses received:

P/125/14/PL


Highways Agency


Natural England





Listed Building Officer


Arboriculturist

Environment Agency

NHS Coastal West Sussex CCG





Ecology Advisor

Archaeology Advisor



prior to first occupation of homes);* Delivery of access management, education and interpretation;* Signage; and* Monitoring.

Also requested additional information in support of the submitted Habitat RegulationsAssessment including an assessment of the impact on habitats that support the SpecialProtection Area (SPA) - for example arable land in the Pagham area frequented by Brent Geese.

A follow-up response stated that: "Natural England has previously commented on this proposaland made comments to the authority in our letter dated 01 June 2015 (Our Ref: 143209). Theadvice provided in our previous response applies equally to this amendment although we madeno objection to the original proposal."

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: No comments - "Amendments to the Development ManagementProcedure Order (DMPO) came into effect on 15th April 2015. As a result we are no longer astatutory consultee on this application and we therefore have no comments to make."

HIGHWAYS AGENCY: No objection.

SUSSEX POLICE: No objection - make a number of advisory comments on the scheme.

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (WSCC) HIGHWAYS: No objection subject to conditionsand a contribution towards a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).

Comments in full can be read on the Councils website (version dated 24/09/15) but in summary:

* No concerns with the access in respect of width, visibility splays and the distance between thejunction and the proposed tabletop to the west;* No concerns with footways within the site;* Agree with the removal of the layby in order to ensure the required visibility splay;* No concerns with road widths generally;* Require a non-adoption of roads clause in the S.106 legal agreement - this is in part due to theuse of permeable paving;* Agree with the proposed traffic calming measures;* No concerns with swept path analyses/waste collection proposals;* No concerns regarding access by a Fire Engine; and* Consider that the location of some visitor parking spaces is not ideal (for example those to thewest of plot 11) but do not consider that this will lead to any obstruction of the highway.

WSCC Highways have also been consulted informally on the 4 additional visitor parking spacesand raised no objection to these minor changes.

WSCC Highways have also stated in respect of the adjoining scheme (Ref P/58/15/OUT) thatthe link into the Orchard Homes development (the application site) was only ever suggested asan indicative/potential future access to be considered at a later stage. It makes no difference tothe 90 dwellings presently under consideration whether this link is provided or not as these werealways indicated to be served from Summer Lane.

P/125/14/PL


WSCC INFRASTRUCTURE: No objection.

Require contributions in respect of (1) Primary Education - £92,850; (2) Secondary Education -£99,928; (3) 6th Form Education - £23,409; (4) Libraries - £12,054; (5) Fire & Rescue - £1,093;and (6) the on-site provision of 2 hydrants.

WSCC SURFACE FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT: No objection.

State that there is a low risk of surface water flooding on the site but a high risk of ground waterflooding. The site is within Flood Zone 1 but is also 200m from the edge of a Flood Zone 3 (thisbeing to the west of the adjacent mobile home park). Also comment that the ditch will need to bemaintained in the future. Recommend that a SUDS scheme be the requirement of a condition.

A follow-up response stated that: "Original comments submitted 17/09/2015 still current. Nothingfurther to add."

WSCC ARCHAEOLOGY: No objection

Comments in full can be read on the Councils website but in summary, they recommend acondition in respect of a programme of investigation.

Chichester District Council (CDC) ARCHAEOLOGY: No objection.

"Agree with the comments of the Principal Archaeologist for West Sussex County Council. Itherefore recommend standard condition ARC 1".

CDC ECOLOGY: No objection.

Comments in full can be read on the Councils website but in summary:

Bats - require conditions in respect of (1) ensuring that the proposed mitigation measures areimplemented; (2) that a licenced ecologist is present on site during all demolition works to thehouse; and (3) ensuring that the lighting scheme considers light impacts on bats.

Reptiles - request a condition to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures are implemented. State that no works can commence until the reptile translocation has taken place.

Badgers - request a condition to ensure that a badger survey is carried out prior tocommencement of any site works.

Recreational Disturbance - require that the developer contribute via a S.106 toavoidance/mitigation measures in respect of the Pagham Harbour SPA.

ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL (ADC) HISTORIC BUILDINGS ADVISER: No objection. Previouslyobjected to the scheme but following changes made to the design of Plot 1, has stated that theprevious objection can now be withdrawn.

ADC GREENSPACE: No objection.

P/125/14/PL


Comments in full can be read on the Councils website (version dated 16/09/15) but in summary:

* Open Space - The Public Open Space (POS) requirement is 2304m2 and the proposed POSexceeds this. Comment that the amended scheme results in a much better layout with a moreuseable central POS. A management plan would be sought for the forward maintenance of thepublic open space, detailing regime and responsibility or commuted sum should it to be adoptedby the local Authority.* Play - the development size triggers the need for an on-site local area play (LAP)* Landscape - No significant concerns. Recommend imposition of a landscaping condition.

ADC ARBORICULTURALIST: No objection.

The submitted comments make a number of recommendations in respect of the trees/groups oftrees mentioned in the submitted tree survey. These include pruning works, felling or protection.Request conditions in respect of crown reductions, crown cleaning, crown lifting, supervision ofprotective fencing and removal of any roots above 25mm in diameter.

ADC DRAINAGE ENGINEERS: No objection.

"The applicant states that surface water will be discharged to ditches/watercourses viapermeable pavements. The system must store the 1 in 100 year storm event plus 30%. Thesystem as proposed allows for greater discharge rates than the pre-development rates. Adetailed design should show how roofs etc are drained and also include levels and constructiondetails for structures. Infiltration should be utilised at the parts of the site where infiltration rateswere good. Flood flow routes should be shown on the plans, and also how is surface waterprevented from draining onto Pagham Road? Please apply standard conditions ENGD2A,ENGD4A, ENGD5A and ENGD6A."

A subsequent response following a site visit highlighted that the ditch needs significant clearancework to ensure that it has capacity for a new development to drain into, and also that furtherinvestigation is required off-site. It was also stated that it needs to be confirmed that the watercoming off of the proposed development would not cause backing up or flooding of the ditch, andthat the system it drains to will be able to cope with the runoff.

A final comment received on 01/10/15 states that that an informative can be used to relay theabove information to the developer and that the investigation work will be required as part of thecondition discharge process.

ADC AFFORDABLE HOUSING: No objection.

"My previous comments are still relevant for this revised application in respect of an affordablehousing proportion of 30% (12 units) with a tenure split of 9 x rented and 3 x intermediatehousing. The Council has a high requirement for 2 bed dwellings for rented affordable housing,we would not support 3 or 4 bed dwellings."

ADC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: No objection.

An initial response raised concerns as to noise impacts on proposed houses from the existingInglenook Hotel in particular from the boiler unit extract, kitchen ventilation extract, other vents

P/125/14/PL



Outside of the Built Up Area Boundary;Flood Zone 1;Class C Road; andTPO Refs TPO/P/1/15 & TPO/P/2/15.

It should also be noted that nos. 247 Pagham Road (Nyetyimber House) & 253-255 Pagham Road(The Inglenook Hotel) are both Grade II Listed Buildings.

POLICY CONTEXT

and noise from use of the gardens. Requested an acoustic report.

A follow-up response stated that: "Based on the latest acoustic report submitted, I agree with thewording of your non-standard condition (no. 32) and think it is appropriate for this application."


DEV17

GEN2

GEN3

GEN5

GEN7

GEN8

GEN9

GEN11

GEN12

GEN15

GEN18

GEN20

GEN29

GEN32

GEN34

NPPG

Affordable Housing

Built-up Area Boundary

Protection of the Countryside

Provision of New Residential Development

The Form of New Development

Development and the Provision of Infrastructure

Foul and Surface Water Drainage

Inland Flooding

Parking in New Development

Cycling and Walking

Crime Prevention

Provision of Public Open Space within NewDevelopment

Nature and Conservation Across the District

Noise Pollution

Air Pollution

National Planning Practice Guidance


Comments on Consultation responses:

In respect of the objection by the Council's Historic Buildings Adviser, the applicant was madeaware of these comments and submitted a revised Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment andhas amended plot 1 in consultation with the HBA. The HBA has subsequently lifted theirobjection to the proposal.

Natural England had requested the submission of further information to support the submittedHabitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The applicant has submitted the information andNatural England's further comments confirm that they have no objection to the application.

P/125/14/PL


PDS

ECSP1

EDDM1

EDDM3

EDSP1

EECCSP2

EENVDM1

EENVDM2

EENVDM4

EENVDM5

EENVSP1

EHDM1

EHERDM1

EHERSP1

EHSP2

EOSRDM1

EQEDM1

EQEDM3

ESDSP2

EINFSP1

ETDM2

ETELSP1

ETSP1

EWDM2

EWDM3

Pagham Parish Council's Village DesignStatement by PaghamPC

C SP1 Countryside

D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design Quality

D DM3 External Space Standards

D SP1 Design

ECC SP2 Energy and climate change mitigation

ENV DM1 Designated Sites of Biodiversity orGeological Imp

ENV DM2 Pagham Harbour

ENV DM4 Protection of Trees

ENV DM5 Development and Biodiversity

ENV SP1 Natural Environment

H DM1 Housing Mix

HER DM1 Listed Buildings

HER SP1 The Historic Environment

H SP2 Affordable Housing

OSR DM1 Open Space, Sport & Recreation

QE DM1 Noise Pollution

QE DM3 Air Pollution

SD SP2 Built -Up Area Boundary

INF SP1 Infrastructure provision andimplementation

T DM2 Public car parks

TELSP1 Strategic delivy of telecomsinfrastructure

T SP1 Transport and Development

W DM2 Flood Risk

W DM3 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

NPPFNPPG



POLICY COMMENTARY

P/125/14/PL

PDS

XXX6

Pagham Parish Council's Village DesignStatement by PaghamPCInterim Affordable Housing Policy



South East Plan:











Where applicable, Neighbourhood Development Plan's (more commonly known as aneighbourhood plan or NDP), once made by Arun District Council, will form part of the statutorylocal development plan for the relevant designated neighbourhood area and policies within them willbe considered in determining planning applications. Made NDP policies will be consideredalongside other development plan documents including Arun District Council's Local Plan. Whilstan NDP is under preparation it will afford little weight in the determination of planning applications.Its status will however gain more weight as a material consideration the closer it is towards it beingmade. Arun District Council will make reference to an NDP when it has, by the close of planningapplication consultation, been publicised for pre-submission consultation (Reg.14).

Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring; Kingston; Littlehampton;Rustington; and Yapton.

In December 2014, the Pagham Neighbourhood Plan was withdrawn from examination process toproduce further studies in respect of the impact on the Pagham Harbour SPA/Ramsar Site. Thiswork has been completed and the Neighbourhood Plan will commence a 6 week Regulation 14pre-submission consultation & publicity process on 02 October 2015.

P/125/14/PL



PROPOSAL:

The application proposes 40 dwellings (of which 12 will be affordable), 0.2434 hectares of publicopen space including a play area and an additional 0.1750 hectares as a reptile translocation area.92 parking spaces will be provided and the application will make changes to the existing access offPagham Road which will result in the loss of 5 existing layby parking spaces.

To off-set the loss of existing on-street parking spaces, since the application was last reported tothe Committee, the applicant has revised the layout to incorporate 4 additional visitor parkingspaces. A condition is proposed to agree the details of these spaces to ensure that these arepromoted to the wider public. The applicant has also confirmed in respect of a potential futurepedestrian link into the adjoining site, that:

(a) The developer will grant a pedestrian right of way via a footpath on the site to the application siteboundary, subject to Arun District Council (ADC) procuring a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO)for crossing the ditch;(b) The developer will provide a footpath across the safeguarded area, subject to ADC procuring aCPO for crossing the ditch; and(c) The developer will grant construction access rights for the Council to use the site access roadfor construction access, subject to ADC procuring a CPO for crossing the ditch.

These provisions will be included within the Section 106 legal agreement.

PLANNING HISTORY:

This site has been subject to two separate pre-application enquiries with the most recent one (April2014) being refused on the grounds that the site lies in the countryside and that there was nopressure to permit development outside of the built up area boundary.

An outline application has been lodged in respect of the larger site to the south (Ref P/58/15/OUT).

PRINCIPLE:

The site lies in a countryside location outside the built-up area boundary where the principle ofdevelopment is considered to be unacceptable. Development Plan policies seek to exert strictcontrol over development in the countryside to protect it for its own sake. Development will only be

CONCLUSIONS

Policy 2 of the draft Pagham Neighbourhood Plan is considered to be a material consideration inthe determination of this application.

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

P/125/14/PL


permitted where there is a strong justification for a countryside location. The Government's adviceindicates that planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of thewider countryside is protected and where possible enhanced.

Arun District Local Plan policies GEN2 and GEN3 seek to focus development within built up areashowever these boundaries have reduced weight as they are time expired since they do not relate tohousing provision beyond 2011.

The Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 Publication Version reflects the need to provide housing on landoutside of the defined built up areas. It sets out allocations for future housing for Parish and TownCouncils that they should bring forward over the plan period. Policy H SP1 of the Plan requiresNeighbourhood Plans to bring forward proposals for housing delivery.

In December 2014, the Pagham Neighbourhood Plan was withdrawn from the examinationprocess in order to produce further studies in respect of the impact on the Pagham HarbourSPA/Ramsar Site. This work has now been completed and the Neighbourhood Plan willcommence a 6 week Reg 14 (pre-submission consultation & publicity) period on 02 October 2015.

Policy 2 of the Draft Pagham Neighbourhood Plan identifies the application site and theneighbouring land to the south for the delivery up to 125 dwellings in the period of 2014 - 2019.

Given the stage of preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan and that the proposed site forms part ofa site allocated for housing within the Plan, it is considered that the draft Plan and its policies canbe a material decision.

The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5 year National Planning Policy Frameworkcompliant supply of housing and with the current objectively assessed housing need for the Districtat 845 dwellings per year and completions below the required rates, it is clear that housing supplyneeds to be maintained. This means that the Council should not be refusing applications fordevelopment outside of the built up area boundary solely on the grounds of principle.

This site lies in a sustainable location close to shops, services and existing communicationsroutes and is physically and visually connected to the existing built up area to the east.

It is considered that the application is acceptable in principle despite being located on a greenfieldsite outside of the built up area boundary. It will be assessed against normal development controlcriteria and regard will be had to the draft Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2.

PAGHAM NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN:

Policy 2 of the draft Pagham Neighbourhood Plan states that:

"The Neighbourhood Plan allocates the following sites for low density housing development, asshown on the Proposals Map, subject to the development principles outlined:

(i) up to 90 dwellings on Land off Summer Lane, comprising a mix of 2,3 and 4 bed bungalows andhouses, to be delivered in the period 2014 - 2019, provided the scheme ..... (this part of the policy isnot relevant to this site).

P/125/14/PL


(ii) approximately 35 dwellings on Land south of Inglenook Hotel - comprising a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4bed bungalows and houses, to be delivered as part of the comprehensive scheme withdevelopment in parallel on both sites subject to the implementation of the link road at thecommencement of the developments, provided the scheme:

a. makes provision for contributions towards the agreed Strategic Approach to AccessManagement at Pagham Harbour;b. makes an appropriate financial contribution to Pagham's Accessible Natural Open Green Space(ANOGS) shown on Inset Map 2 as the hashed area south of Summer Lane and provides openspace or green infrastructure with recognised qualities within the development area that links to theANOGS;c. demonstrates that locally valued and important habitats, including wildlife corridors and steppingstones will be retained and sympathetically incorporated into its public open space scheme thatlies in close proximity to a Biodiversity Opportunity Area (as defined on the Arun Local PlanProposals Map) and that any disturbance to habitats of the adjoining development scheme will beminimised;d. layout allows for road, footpath and cycle connectivity to the adjoining land off Summer Lane site;ande. makes provision for a ground floor unit for a village centre use at the entrance to the site fromPagham Road and makes provision for off-street public car parking as part of the village centre.

(iii) provision is made by one or both the allocated sites in this comprehensive scheme for a total ofat least 30 extra care dwellings to be restricted to occupation by older households.

(iv) planning applications must include a flood risk assessment to demonstrate how a scheme willnot increase pluvial or fluvial flood risk on any adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the local planningauthority and the Environment Agency."

The following is an analysis of the proposed scheme versus the relevant parts (ii, iii & iv) of thedraft policy:

ii) The scheme proposes 5 more dwellings than that stated in the draft policy. However, theoriginal plans were for 42 dwellings and therefore, the applicant has responded positively byreducing the scheme. In correspondence following the last Committee meeting, the ParishCouncil has confirmed that, notwithstanding that the draft policy seeks to allocate the site for 35dwellings, in the context of the pressure on local authorities to provide housing the Parish Councildoes not object in principle to 40 dwellings. The scheme does propose a mix of dwelling types andsizes.

In respect of the link road between the two sites, the applicant, in conjunction with the applicant forthe adjoining development P/58/15/OUT, has encountered an issue concerning the ownership ofthe ditch which divides the sites. The ditch is unregistered land and the applicants are thereforeunable to connect the sites by way of a road link.

Following further consultation by the applicant with the Parish Council, the Parish Council haveprovided a further response to the application and confirmed that they are satisfied with theproposal without a road link between the site. Furthermore, WSCC Highways have stated thatthere is no formal requirement for a vehicular link between the two sites.

P/125/14/PL


However, Arun District Council have sought to ensure that the two sites are in some wayconnected in the interests of urban design and place-making. As a result of this negotiationprocess, the applicant has agreed to the safeguarding of an area of land within the site to be calledupon by the Council, if required, to be laid as a footpath to facilitate the provision of a link across theditch between the two sites. This safeguarded land will be kept available for a period of 10 yearsfollowing first occupation of the first residential unit. Any subsequent link across the ditch will beconstructed at a cost to the Council. In particular, the developer will:

* grant a pedestrian right of way via a footpath on the site to the application site boundary, subjectto ADC procuring a CPO for crossing the ditch;* will provide a footpath across the safeguarded area, subject to ADC procuring a CPO forcrossing the ditch; and* grant construction access rights for the Council to use the site access road for constructionaccess, subject to ADC procuring a CPO for crossing the ditch.

These provisions will be incorporated into the proposed Section 106 legal agreement. It isconsidered that given the identified constraints, the above proposed resolution would ensure thatan acceptable link between the sites could be provided in accordance with policy 2 of the NP.

a./b. The applicant has agreed to an Access Management Contribution of £51,000 for the purposeof delivering mitigation at Pagham Harbour. This will be achieved through a S.106 legal agreement.

c. The application incorporates reptile translocation zones together with the open space proposals. The plans have been amended since the last Committee Meeting in order to respond tocomments raised. The plans show an increased reptile translocation zone to the rear of theproperties in Pagham Road. In addition, the larger proposed public open space will be locatedadjacent to that proposed by application P/58/15/OUT on land to the south.

d. As noted above, there is the potential for footpath connectivity to the adjoining land;

e. The application does not make any provision for a retail unit but as also noted above, theproposals do now incorporate four additional visitor parking spaces at the east end of the site tocompensate for the loss of the existing on-street lay-by parking. A condition is proposed to agreethe details of these spaces to ensure that they are promoted to the wider public.

(iii) The application does include 12 affordable dwellings but does not make any provision for anydwellings to be restricted to occupation by older households. However, a number of the affordableunits are bungalows which are very suitable for use by older residents.

(iv) The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which demonstrates to thesatisfaction of the local planning authority & the Environment Agency, that the scheme will notincrease pluvial or fluvial flood risk on any adjoining land.

Although the scheme does not fully comply with the above policy, it is important to note that it is stillat a draft stage and is only one material consideration in the determination of the application. It isnot considered that it would be appropriate to refuse the application on grounds of non-conformitywith a draft policy. Importantly, neither the Environment Agency nor WSCC Drainage Engineer'shave objected to the proposals. Furthermore conditions relating to SUDS and the requirement toagree discharge rates into surrounding watercourses are recommended and the applicant has

P/125/14/PL


expressed a commitment to work with the Council to ensure that the development of the site doesnot exacerbate any existing fluvial or pluvial flooding issues.

Concerns have been raised that the application is premature and should be refused for thatreason. The National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) gives advice on prematurity as follows:

"arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permissionother than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly anddemonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other materialconsiderations into account. Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited tosituations where both:

a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, thatto grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions aboutthe scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan orNeighbourhood Planning; andb) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development planfor the area.

Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draftLocal Plan has yet to be submitted for examination, or in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan, beforethe end of the local planning authority publicity period. Where planning permission is refused ongrounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant ofpermission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-makingprocess"

On the basis of this guidance, it is also not considered that the application should be refused ongrounds of prematurity.

It is noted that the Pagham NP Steering Group considers the application is for a higher density thanin the draft NP. The post-amble to the draft policy states that an assessment of the appropriatehousing density for this location in the parish set a range of 25-28 dwellings per ha. The proposedsite density is 28.6 dph and this is not significantly different to the stated range. The majority ofbuildings are two storeys with only three of them being 2.5 storeys.

DESIGN, CHARACTER & LANDSCAPE:

Planning Policies and Central Government Advice support the efficient and effective use of land.Policy GEN7(ii) requires that developments respond positively to the identified characteristics of aparticular site to create developments which respect local characteristics. Paragraph 7 of theNPPF states that one part of the sustainable development principle is a high quality builtenvironment and paragraph 9 expands by confirming that this is through seeking improvements tothe quality of the built environment and widening choice of high quality homes. One of the 'coreplanning principles' at paragraph 17 is securing high quality design and a good standard of amenity.

Section 7 relates to 'requiring good design' which states good design is a key aspect of sustainabledevelopment (56), that developments should establish a strong sense of place and be visuallyattractive as a result of good architecture (58). Paragraph 64 confirms that permission should berefused for poor design that fails to improve the character or quality of an area.

P/125/14/PL


The application was amended during the determination period in order to take account of concernsraised by both the planning officer and some of the other consultees. These changes resulted in:

* Decrease in the number of dwellings from 42-40;* Reorganisation of the Public Open Space which previously comprised of 3 areas. The schemenow proposes 1 large area of POS with a smaller area directly opposite. The POS is also nowconsidered to be better located for access by residents and in respect of a potential link to the siteto the south;* Retention of certain large trees previously shown to be felled;* Bin Collection Points now better hidden in the streetscene;* Instances of 2m high boundary treatments removed from the streetscene (i.e. previously somehouses had rear gardens fronting onto the internal road layout); and* Introduction of private amenity space (patios/balconies) to the apartments.

The applicant has provided a Development Grain plan and a Massing & Active Frontage plan tocomplement the previous package of drawings. The plan demonstrates that the built density of thesite is lower than the surrounding townscape. The Massing & Active Frontage plan shows thatalthough the east side of the site is predominantly two storeys, there is a mix of heights across thesite and the three 2.5 storey properties are all on the west part of the site but sandwiched betweentwo storey houses which ensures that they will not have any harmful impact in the streetscene orin the context of the surrounding area. This also shows all dwellings have active frontages thatface onto roads.

The drawings demonstrate there will be a mix of dwelling types/design/heights which break up thestreetscene and add visual interest. The addition of landscaping will be of benefit in this regard. Itis considered that the scheme now represents a good standard of design.

It is noted that the Councils Greenspace Officer has not raised an objection. The schemeproposes the retention of a number of trees/hedges including those that provide screening or visualrelief along parts of the south, north and west boundaries. The public open space provides a greentransition into the boundary with the adjacent site. The addition of planting proposed to the southhelps minimise visual impact from visual receptors to the southwest.

IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT:

It is clear from the comments of the Councils Historic Buildings Adviser that the setting of the siteis informed by two Listed Buildings (Inglenook Hotel & Nyetimber House) and a further buildingconsidered to be an non-designated heritage asset (249 Pagham Road).

Current policy is clear that in considering whether to grant planning permission for developmentthat affects a listed building or its setting, it is necessary to have special regard to the desirability ofpreserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interestwhich it possesses.

Since the application was last considered by the Committee, in consultation with the HistoricBuildings Advisor, the applicant has amended the proposed dwelling on plot 1 to provide designthat better reflects the character of the Inglenook Hotel and no. 249 Pagham Road. Havingconsidered the revised plans the Historic Buildings Advisor has lifted their objection to theapplication.

P/125/14/PL


The applicant has stated that "submitted photomontages indicate that there would be some limitedintervisibility between the Listed Building and the proposals but that neither the proposeddevelopment nor the Inglenook Hotel would be viewed in their entirety from any one particularlocation. Rather, only discrete elements of each would be visible". In addition, they add: "TheInglenook already has a relationship with surrounding existing built form and this would notmaterially change with the proposed development in place. The scale and massing of theindividual elements within the proposed development would be visually subservient to that of theInglenook Hotel whose visual presence in the landscape/townscape would remain substantiallyunaltered with the proposals in place."

The proposal will alter the setting the Listed Building (particularly the Inglenook Hotel). However,the context for considering these buildings is already urban including buildings that are moremodern and do not reflect the historic character of the listed building. Furthermore, in the contextof the existing buildings on the application site, which are in need of some repair, this proposalrepresents an opportunity to enhance this section of the streetscene in Pagham Road.

The proposal will lead to less than substantial harm and therefore, paragraph 134 of the NPPFapplies. This paragraph requires this (less than substantial) harm to be weighed against the publicbenefits of this proposal. It is considered that this scheme will bring substantial public benefits interms of providing homes for local people, affordable dwellings, new areas of open space andmitigation for the Pagham Harbour SPA. The proposal, therefore, complies with the aims andobjectives of the NPPF.

With regard to the neighbour objection regarding the loss of the existing dwelling, it is notconsidered that this has sufficient historic value to be considered. It is noted that the CouncilsHistoric Buildings Adviser does not consider 251 Pagham Road to be a heritage asset.

HIGHWAYS:

Several residents have objected on highway grounds and in particular with regard to the impact ontraffic congestion on Pagham Road and the loss of 5 on-street parking spaces.

Since the application was last considered by the Committee, the layout has been amended toincorporate 4 additional unallocated visitor spaces within the layout. This is a significantimprovement on the previous plans. A condition is proposed to agree the details of these spacesto ensure that they are promoted to the wider public.

Following design changes and two independent Road Safety Audits, WSCC Highways raise noobjection. They have no concerns with the access onto Pagham Road and aside from the removalof the layby to facilitate improved pedestrian connectivity/safety, do not require improvements to thehighway. The proposed parking provision is considered to comply with WSCC Standards.

PAGHAM HARBOUR SPA/RAMSAR SITE:

Policy ENV DM2 of the Emerging Local Plan requires that residential development within a 400m to5km distance ('Zone B') of Pagham Harbour make a financial contribution towards the provision ofaccessible natural open green spaces to serve the area. A contribution of £1,275 per new unit wasagreed by the Councils Cabinet on 20 July 2015. This contribution is required for all residentialdevelopments within Zone B. Proposals that fail to provide the contribution will be considered to be

P/125/14/PL


contrary to Policy ENV DM2 of the Emerging Local Plan. The applicant has agreed to thisrequirement and this will form part of Section 106 Legal Agreement being prepared.

The scheme proposes the creation of on-site public open spaces which helps to divert people andpets away from the Pagham Harbour area. It is noted that the adjacent site includes a proposedarea of natural/semi-natural open green space on farmland to the south of Summer Lane. Thefinancial contribution required by the application will contribute to the creation of this area and,assuming that the adjacent scheme is allowed, it will be available to residents of this site as well asthe wider public.

BIODIVERSITY:

Development will need to avoid impacts on protected species on sites and where this is notpossible mitigation or compensation is necessary. The presence of a protected species is amaterial consideration when considering a development proposal that would be likely to result inharm to the species or its habitat.

The Councils Ecologist has raised no objection to the proposals but requires a number ofconditions to ensure the site is developed in accordance with the submittedmitigation/enhancement measures and that protected species are not present on site when workscommence.

It is noted that two residents made objections to ecological aspects. It is clear from the commentsof the Council's Ecologist that there will be no harm to the nature conservation value of the site.Whilst it is agreed that the drainage ditch is wet at certain times of the year, the ecology survey hasbeen carried out by a qualified/chartered ecologist and checked by a similarly qualified person.

FLOOD RISK & DRAINAGE

The Draft Pagham Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2 requires that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) besubmitted with the applications and the applicant has complied with this. The site lies within FloodZone 1 and the report concludes there is a low or negligible risk of flooding on the site. TheEnvironment Agency have not commented on the FRA. Nevertheless, it is not considered thatresident concerns as to the adequacy of the FRA can be sustained.

The District and County Council's Drainage Engineers have assessed the proposal and have notraised objections subject to the imposition of conditions. ADC Drainage Engineers comment onthe existing ditch system but are happy for it to be investigated as part of a surface water drainagecondition. It is noted that there is an existing outfall issue but it has been demonstrated that thescheme will not exacerbate this issue.

Some of the resident's objections had regard to flood risk/drainage matters. It is considered thatwith the technical advice of the Drainage Engineers, that these objections cannot be sustained.

It is also understood that although the ditch lies outside of the ownership of either site, CouncilEngineers have the right to investigate the drain and also carry out any necessary repair orimprovement works to it.


P/125/14/PL


Arun District Local Plan Policy GEN7 indicates that planning permission will only be granted forschemes displaying high quality design and layout. It further indicates development will bepermitted if it takes into account impact on adjoining occupiers, land, use or property. The NPPFstates that new development should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Residents have specifically commented on the loss of light & privacy to existing dwellings; the lackof suitable screening to neighbouring properties and the impact of proposed screening in terms oflight; the siting of parking spaces too close to boundaries of the Pagham Road dwellings. It shouldbe noted that there is no right to a view and the screening of residential views is not strictlyrequired.

These issues are discussed below.

* 239-245 Pagham Road:

Some of the dwellings will face onto a single storey flank wall (plot 33). Since the application waslast considered by the Committee, the separation between the rear of these properties and theeastern elevation of plot 33 has been increased from 14.5m to 18m. This separation distance,together with the single storey height of plot 33, and the roof sloping away from the sharedboundary will ensure that there is no harmful impact on the amenities of the occupiers of theseadjoining residential properties. The revised plans also show the installation of a 1.8m closeboarded fence along the shared boundary together with planting. Both elements will be secured bycondition.

Seven parking spaces are proposed along part of this boundary. Since the last Committee, theseparking spaces have been moved further away from the shared boundary and are now 6m away(an increase of 1-2m) from the shared boundary with intervening planting which is to be secured bycondition.

* 247-249 Pagham Road:

247 is around 18m from the site boundary whilst 249 is 29m away. This part of the site hasparking spaces along the boundary and the two storey flank wall of plot 40. Since the applicationwas last considered by the Committee, the parking spaces have been moved further away fromthe boundary to provide a separation distance of 5m rising to 6m with the stagger in the boundary.In addition, the dwelling at plot 40 has been moved further west to provide a 2.5m separation to theboundary. The boundary treatment and planting, to be secured by condition, will ensure that therewill be no harmful impact on the adjoining residents. Therefore, taking into account the east - westarrangement of the proposed development to the existing dwellings, it is not considered there willbe any loss of privacy or overshadowing.

* 8&9 Brooks End:

These dwellings have flank walls containing secondary windows facing the site. 9 Brooks End is21m from the rear of plot 33 (which is single storey) whilst 8 Brooks End is 23m from the rear ofplots 28-30 (all two storey). No new trees are proposed in the reptile translocation area betweenthe new gardens and these two dwellings and there are existing fir trees in this area which willscreen the site.

P/125/14/PL


* 11, 15 & 17 Conifer Way (Mill Farm Park Home Estate)

These mobile homes are all single storey in height and therefore impacts will be limited particularlygiven the existing landscaping along the boundary. Notwithstanding the closest interface distanceis 21m (between the conservatory attached to 15 and the rear of plot 15.

It is not considered there will be any unacceptable harm to residential amenity. Conditions areproposed to ensure that certain windows are obscure glazed, that no new flank windows areallowed and that permitted development rights are removed for extensions & alterations.

NOISE/LIGHT/ODOUR POLLUTION:

Arun Local Plan Policy GEN32 states that:

"Noise sensitive development will not be permitted if its users would be affected adversely by noisefrom existing or proposed noise-generating uses. Development which is a potential source ofsignificant noise pollution will not be permitted unless the Council is satisfied that appropriatemeasures have been included in the proposal to reduce noise pollution to acceptable levels.Details of such measures will be required as part of the planning application."

Environmental Health Officers identified the Inglenook Hotel as being a source of noise and wereconcerned as to the impact on plot 1. The applicants submitted an acoustic report and thisspecifies mitigation measures. In the absence of a further response from Environmental Health, acondition has been drafted which will ensure that mitigation measures are implemented. FurtherEnvironmental Health responses and any amendments to the condition/new conditions will besubject to a report update.

Residents have raised concerns as to the potential for noise/disturbance from the newhouses/cars, for light pollution from street lighting and air pollution from exhaust fumes. If this siteis developed, there will be increased noise/disturbance/light pollution to existing residents. It is notconsidered that these impacts will result in significant harm. Street lighting will be controlled bycondition and the reptile translocation area ensures there is a buffer between the existing PaghamRoad/Brooks End residents and the dwellings.

IMPACT ON TREES:

The site is subject to 3 Tree Preservation Orders and all three of these as well as a number ofother trees are being retained. There will be a loss of some trees but these have been subject to atree survey undertaken by a qualified individual and this has been checked by the CouncilsArboriculturalist. These trees are not considered to be worthy of protection. It is not consideredthat concerns as to the adequacy of the tree survey can be sustained. It is considered that thescheme minimises loss of mature trees and those to the existing boundaries and together withnew landscaping, will not materially alter the amount of tree cover.

INTERNAL & EXTERNAL: SPACE STANDARDS:

It is necessary to assess the proposal against the internal space standards set out in theGovernments Technical Housing Standards (Nationally Described Space Standard) and also theexternal amenity standards, set out in Policy D DM3 of the Emerging Local Plan (publication

P/125/14/PL


version).

The applicant has submitted a table which details the internal/external space requirements andmeasurements for each plot. The scheme does not achieve 100% compliance in all respects butit is considered that a sufficient percentage of the scheme complies with the external standards. Itis noted there is public open space provided on the site and that all of the apartments have anelement of private space. A condition is proposed to remove permitted development rights foroutbuildings for those plots which fail to meet either the garden depth or garden area standard. Asnoted above, it is also proposed to remove permitted development rights for extensions across thewhole scheme.

In respect of the internal standards, the majority of the dwellings either meet or fall just short of therequired standards. The exceptions are plots 12-18, 20-21, 21-32, 37 & 40 however, in the contextof the large areas of on-site public open space, it is considered that the scheme can be supported.

SUMMARY:

It is considered that this application is now acceptable having regard to the policies of the adoptedand emerging local plans and noting the content of Policy 2 of the draft Pagham NeighbourhoodPlan. The issues highlighted above are considered to either be such that no objection can beraised or are otherwise resolved. Conditions are recommended to provide further mitigation.

It is considered this application should be approved subject to conditions set out below and a S.106legal agreement covering Affordable Housing; Public Open Space; Pagham ANOGS contribution;Primary Education; Secondary Education; 6th Form Education; Libraries; Fire & Rescue; FireHydrants; on-site provision of 2 hydrants; a Traffic Regulation Order; a non-adoption clause; amanagement company to maintain the road; and the provisions in respect of the potential futurefootpath link to the ditch.

However, if the S.106 legal agreement has not been signed within 3 months of the date of theresolution to approve then the application should be refused for the following reasons:

(1) The proposed development makes no contribution towards affordable housing provision and isthereby contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy DEV17 of the Arun District Local Plan 2003,Policy H SP2 of the Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 (Publication Version) and the Council's InterimAffordable Housing Policy adopted on the 18th August 2010;

(2) The application fails to make a financial contribution towards the cost of providing accessiblenatural open green spaces to serve the Pagham area and the proposal is therefore not inaccordance with Policy ENV DM2 of the Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 (Publication Version);

(3) The proposed development makes no contribution towards public open space or children's playequipment and is thereby contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy GEN20 and theSupplementary Planning Guidance of the Arun District Local Plan;

(4) The proposed development makes no contribution towards local infrastructure and is therebycontrary to the Policy GEN8 of the Arun District Local Plan and the National Planning PolicyFramework; and

P/125/14/PL


(5) The proposed development makes no contribution towards the necessary Traffic RegulationOrder and is thereby contrary to the aims and objectives of Policies GEN7 and GEN12 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan.


The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years fromthe date of this permission.

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

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans:

* 1:20,000 Site Location Plan Ref 0.0144_02 Rev B;* Landscape Designations Plan Ref 0.0144_03 Rev B;* Aerial Imagery Ref 0.0144_04 Rev B;* Zone of Theoretical Visibility Ref 0.0144_05 Rev B;* Landscape Features Plan Ref 0.0144_06 Rev B;* Draft Illustrative Masterplan Ref 0.0144_07 Rev B;* Permavoid Arboraft Urban Tree Planting System Documents 19/08/15;* Vehicle Swept Path Analysis at Junction Ref 002 Rev G;* Swept Path - Refuse Ref 003 Rev E;* Swept Path - Fire Appliance Ref 004 Rev E;* Swept Path - Pantechnicon Ref 006 Rev E;* Surface Water Strategy Ref P/250 Rev P4; * 1:1250 Site Location Plan Ref 11-1065-001;* Site Survey Ref 11-1065-002;* Site Plan Planning Layout Ref 11-1065-005 Rev K;* Site Plan Planning Layout Coloured 11-1065-006 Rev C;* Site Plan Surface Finishes Ref 11-1065-007 Rev C;* Site Plan Planning Layout Parking Provision Ref 11-1065-009 Rev D;* Plot 1 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-010 Rev C;* Plots 2-3 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-011;* Plots 4-6 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-012 Rev B;* Plots 7-9 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-013 Rev B;* Plots 10-11 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-014 Rev A;* Plots 12-14 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-015 Rev A;* Plots 15-17 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-016 Rev A;* Plots 18-21 Floor Plans Ref 11-1065-017 Rev A;* Plots 18-21 Elevations Ref 11-1065-018 Rev A;* Plots 22-27 2 Bedroom Apartments Floor Plans Ref 11-1065-019 Rev C;* Plots 22-27 2 Bedroom Apartments Elevations Ref 11-1065-020 Rev C;* Plots 28-30 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-021 Rev A;* Plots 31-33 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-022 Rev B;* Plot 34 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-023 Rev A;

1

2

RECOMMENDATION

P/125/14/PL


* Plots 35-37 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-024 Rev B;* Plots 38-40 Floor Plans and Elevations Ref 11-1065-025 Rev A;* Garages Floor Plans & Elevations Ref 11-1065-030 Rev B;* Street Scenes and Site Sections Ref 11-1065-035 Rev D;* Site Plan Massing and Active Frontage Ref 11-1065-036 Rev C;* Site Plan Refuse Strategy Ref 11-1065-037 Rev C;* Site Location Development Grain Information Plan Ref 11-1065-040 Rev B;* Site Plan Garden Plot Information Ref 11-1065-041 Rev D;* Site Plan Garage Plot Information Ref 11-1065-042 Rev A; and* Full Plot Information Schedule November 2015 Rev B 05-11-2015.


No windows (other than those shown on the plans hereby approved) shall be constructedin the first floor flank elevations of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted without the priorpermission of the Local Planning Authority on an application in that behalf.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the future occupiers in accordance withpolicy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The following proposed windows shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass and fixedto be permanently non opening or top vent opening only:

Plot 40 - first floor east facing bathroom window;Plot 1 - first floor north facing en-suite window;Plots 12 & 14 - first floor west facing en-suite windows; andPlots 15 & 17 - first floor west facing en-suite windows.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjacent properties in accordancewith policies GEN7, DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning(General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no extensions (including porches or dormer windows) to the dwellinghouses shall be constructed unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authorityon an application in that behalf.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjacent/adjoining dwelling houses andtheir future occupiers, maintain adequate amenity space and safeguard the cohesiveappearance of the development in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District LocalPlan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning(General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no buildings shall be erected within the curtilages of plots 12, 13, 16,17, 18, 19, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 or 40 unless permission is granted by theLocal Planning Authority on an application in that behalf.

Reason: To maintain adequate amenity space in accordance with policy GEN7 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan.

3

4

5

6

P/125/14/PL


No development above damp proof course (DPC) level shall be carried out unless anduntil a schedule of materials and finishes to be used for external walls and roofs of theproposed buildings have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.A 'statement of detail' shall be submitted setting out details of proposed windows anddoors, details of the depth of recess/reveal from the brickwork, sills and lintels, brickbonding, brick detailing, eaves detailing and rainwater goods. The materials and'statement of details' so approved shall be used in the construction of the buildings.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in details in theinterests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve buildings of visual quality in accordancewith policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

At least 10% of the energy supply of the development shall be secured from decentralisedand renewable or low-carbon energy sources. Prior to commencement of development,details and a timetable of how this is to be achieved, including details of physical works onsite, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority [as a partof the reserved matters submissions required by condition 1]. The approved details shallbe implemented in accordance with the approved timetable and retained as operationalthereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In order to seek to achieve high levels of energy efficiency in accordance with theaims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Prior to the commencement of development, a strategy for the provision of the highestavailable headline speed of broadband provision to future occupants of the site shall besubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shalltake into account the timetable for the delivery of "superfast broadband" (defined as havinga headline access speed of 24Mb or more) in the vicinity of the site (to the extent that suchinformation is available). The strategy shall seek to ensure that upon occupation of adwelling, the provision of the highest available headline speed of broadband service to thatdwelling from a site-wide network is in place and provided as part of the initial highwayworks and in the construction of frontage thresholds to dwellings that abut the highway.Unless evidence is put forward and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority thattechnological advances for the provision of a broadband service for the majority ofpotential customers will no longer necessitate below ground infrastructure, thedevelopment of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy.

Reason: To ensure suitable provision for all potential occupiers in accordance withparagraph 42 of the NPPF.

None of the dwellinghouses shall be occupied until refuse and recycling bins have beenprovided and space has been laid out for the storage of such in relation to that dwelling inaccordance with details that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by thelocal planning authority. Thereafter these areas shall not be used for any purpose otherthan the storage of refuse and recycling bins.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties in accordancewith Arun District Local Plan policy GEN7.

The development, hereby permitted, shall not be commenced until the access to PaghamRoad and removal of layby on Pagham Road to south of proposed access point has been

7

8

9

10

11

P/125/14/PL


implemented in accordance with the approved planning drawings and to approved WSCCHighways specifications.

Reason: To ensure fit-for-purpose access constructed to appropriate design and safetystandards in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan and the NationalPlanning Policy Framework.

The development shall not be occupied until the internal road layout has been constructedin accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure fit-for-purpose roads constructed to appropriate design and safetystandards in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan and the NationalPlanning Policy Framework.

The development shall not be occupied until car parking has been provided in accordancewith the approved planning layout. It shall, thereafter, be solely used for the purposes ofthe parking of cars.

Reason: To ensure adequate car parking for the development and to accord with policyGEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The development shall not be occupied until details of the measures to ensure that the 4proposed visitor parking spaces at the eastern end of the site are promoted to andavailable for general public use; are submitted to and approved by the local planningauthority. The approved measures shall thereafter be implemented and permanentlyretained/maintained.

Reason: To ensure compensatory parking for the wider public and to accord with policiesGEN7 & GEN12 of the Arun District Local Plan, the Emerging Pagham NeighbourhoodPlan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The development, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until provision has been madewithin the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the LocalPlanning Authority after consultation with the Highway Authority to prevent surface waterdraining onto the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun DistrictLocal Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The development, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until a scheme for streetlighting has been provided in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun DistrictLocal Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Prior to development commencing, a Construction Management Plan shall be submittedto and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with theHighway Authority. This shall require the applicant and contractors to minimisedisturbance during demolition and construction and will include (but not be limited to)details of the following information for approval:

12

13

14

15

16

17

P/125/14/PL


· the phased programme of construction works;· the means of access and road routing for all construction traffic associated with thedevelopment;· provision of wheel washing facilities and details of their operation and location;· Details of street sweeping;· construction working times including delivery times;· details of a means of suppressing dust arising from the development;· details of all proposed external lighting to be used during construction;· details of areas for the loading, unloading, parking and turning of vehicles associated withthe construction of the development;· details of areas to be used for the storage of plant and materials associated with thedevelopment;· details of the temporary construction site enclosure to be used throughout the course ofconstruction (including access gates).· Contact details for the site contractor, site foreman and CDM co-ordinator (including out-of-hours contact details).· Evidence of consultation with neighbours prior to works commencing.· Details of any temporary traffic management that may be required to facilitate thedevelopment including Chapter 8 traffic signage.

Details of how measures will be put in place to address any environmental and/or highwayproblems arising from any of the above shall be provided. A named person shall beappointed by the applicant to deal with complaints, shall be available on site and theircontact details (including out-of-hours and offsite contact details) made known to allrelevant parties.

Reason: To ensure safe and neighbourly construction in the interests of amenity and roadsafety in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan and the NationalPlanning Policy Framework.

The development shall not be occupied until cycle parking has been provided inaccordance with plans to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Itshall, thereafter, be maintained solely for the purpose of the parking of bicycles.

Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking ofbicycles in accordance with policies GEN7 and GEN12 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The garage buildings shall be used only as private domestic garages for the parking ofvehicles incidental to the use of the properties as dwellings and for no other purposes.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street provision of parking in the interests of amenity andhighway safety.

The burning of materials obtained by site clearance or from any other source shall nottake place within 6 metres of the furthest extent of the canopy of any tree or group of treesto be retained on the site or on land adjoining.

Reason: To protect trees and vegetation from fire damage in the interests of the visualamenities of the locality and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

No development above damp proof course (DPC) level shall take place until there has

18

19

20

21

P/125/14/PL


been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority, a landscaping schemeincluding details of hard and soft landscaping and details of existing trees and hedgerowsto be retained. The approved details of the landscaping shall be carried out in the firstplanting and seeding season, following the occupation of the buildings or the completion ofthe development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which, within a periodof five years from the completion of development, die, are removed or become seriouslydamaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similarsize and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to anyvariation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No development above damp proof course (DPC) level shall take place until the details ofany proposed screen walls/fences have been submitted to and approved by the LocalPlanning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screenwalls/fences associated with them have been erected.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the site and neighbouring properties inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

All of the proposed works to trees as set out in the submitted Arboricultural ImpactAssessment by "Sapling Arboriculture Ltd" shall be carried out in accordance with thefollowing:

Crown ReductionAll side branches to be retained should be at least 1/3rd in diameter of the removedbranch. Pruning cuts must be flat and smooth, kept as small as possible by cutting at anoptimum angle and should not exceed 100mm in diameter.

Crown CleanThe Crown Clean should consist of deadwood and stub removal where all cuts should bemade to the branch collar. Where crossing branches are encountered the weakerbranch/branches should be reduced or removed to avoid contact between them. Theremaining branch/branches should be shortened as appropriate to relieve 'end weight' andsudden exposure by reducing the leaf bearing branch tips by no more than 30%.

Crown LiftBranches found within the clearance height having diameters greater than 100mm shouldbe shortened and no more than 15% of the leaf bearing growth of that branch should beremoved to facilitate the unobstructed free passage of vehicles and pedestrians.

Reason: To ensure the retention and maintenance of trees and vegetation which is animportant feature of the area in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District LocalPlan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

No tree roots with a diameter of over 25mm shall be removed other than with the writtenconsent of the local planning authority and under the supervision of the Council'sArboricultural Officer.

Reason: To ensure the retention and maintenance of trees and vegetation which is an

22

23

24

P/125/14/PL


important feature of the area in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District LocalPlan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

No development including site access, demolition or associated construction activities,shall take place on the site unless and until the tree retention & protection scheme asdescribed within the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment by "Sapling ArboricultureLtd" is in place for all retained trees including trees whose root protection areas fall withinthe construction zone from neighbouring land. The tree protection fencing includingground protection shall then be checked on-site by the Councils Arboricultural Officer. Alltree protection works shall be in accordance with BS 5837:20012 "Trees in relation toconstruction" and shall be retained for the duration of the development works.

Reason: To ensure the retention and maintenance of trees and vegetation which is animportant feature of the area in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District LocalPlan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

No external lighting shall be installed on the site until plans showing the type of lightappliance, the height and position of fitting, illumination levels and light spillage have beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shouldalso minimise potential impacts to any bats using the trees, hedgerows and buildings byavoiding unnecessary artificial light spill through the use of directional light sources andshielding. The lighting approved shall be installed and shall be maintained in accordancewith the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area, the site biodiversity (particularly inrespect of bats) and to minimise unnecessary light spillage outside the development sitein accordance with Policies GEN7, GEN29 & GEN33 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No demolition works shall take place to the property known as 251 Pagham Road unlessa licenced ecologist is present on the site to supervise works.

Reason: In the interests of the protection of bats and their roosts in accordance withPolicy GEN33 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The development must be carried out in accordance with the reptile mitigation andenhancement measures as set out in section 6.3 of the submitted Ecosupport "Phase I &II Ecological Surveys" Rev 10/6/15. The enhancements and mitigation measures shall beretained and thereafter maintained.

Reason: In accordance with Arun District Local Plan policy GEN29 and the NationalPlanning Policy Framework.

Prior to development or any preparatory works commencing the reptile population shall betranslocated only in accordance with the submitted reptile mitigation strategy and retainedas such thereafter, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard resident reptile species in accordance with Policy GEN29 of theArun District Local Plan.

No development including site access, demolition or associated construction activities,shall take place on the site unless and until a badger survey has been undertaken in order

25

26

27

28

29

30

P/125/14/PL


to ensure that badgers are not using the site. If a badger sett is found on the site, then theapplicants shall provide a mitigation strategy to the Local Planning Authority for approval inconsultation with Natural England.

Reason: To safeguard resident badgers in accordance with Policy GEN29 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan.

Prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted, a scheme shall besubmitted for approval by the local planning authority, in consultation with Natural Englandwhich details a proposed on-site dog walking route and an on-site dog off lead exercisearea. Both of these measures shall then be implemented in accordance with theapproved plans and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area andaccordance with Arun District Local Plan policy GEN29 and the National Planning PolicyFramework.

No development shall take place within the site, until the applicant has secured theimplementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a writtenscheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by thePlanning Authority.

Reason: The site is of archaeological significance in accordance with Arun District LocalPlan Policy GEN7.

The construction of Plot 1 must be carried out in accordance with the recommendationsin respect of windows and ventilation as stated within sections 10 & 11 of the submittedBS4142 Acoustic Testing Report (27-28 April 2015). The mitigation measures shallthereafter be retained and maintained.

Reason: In accordance with Arun District Local Plan policies GEN7 and GEN32.

Development shall not commence until full details of the proposed surface water drainagescheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The design should follow the hierarchy of preference for different types of surface waterdrainage disposal systems as set out in Approved Document H of the BuildingRegulations, the recommendations of the SUDS Manual produced by CIRIA.


No building shall be occupied until the complete surface water drainage system servingthe property has been implemented in accordance with the agreed details and the detailsso agreed shall be maintained in good working order in perpetuity.


The development shall not proceed until formal consent has been approved in writing from

31

32

33

34

35

P/125/14/PL


the Lead Local Flood Authority (WSCC) or its agent (ADC) for the discharge of any flowsto watercourses, or the culverting, diversion, infilling or obstruction of any watercourse onthe site.

Any discharge to a watercourse must be at a rate no greater than the pre-developmentrun off values.


Development shall not commence until full details of the maintenance and management ofthe SUDs system is set out in a site-specific maintenance manual and submitted to, andapproved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The manual is to include details offinancial management and arrangements for the replacement of major components at theend of the manufacturers recommended design life. Upon completed construction of theSuDs System, the owner or management company shall strictly adhere to and implementthe recommendations contained within the manual.

Reason: To ensure the efficient maintenance and on going operation of the SuDs systemand to ensure the best practice in line with guidance set out in 'The SuDs Manual' CIRIApublication ref: C697 Chapter 22.

The development layout shall not be agreed until such time that arrangements for thefuture access and maintenance of any watercourse or culvert (piped watercourse)crossing or abutting the site has been submitted and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority.

No construction is permitted, which will restrict current and future land owners fromundertaking their riparian maintenance responsibilities of any watercourse on or adjacentto the site.

Reason: To ensure that the duties and responsibilities, as required under the LandDrainage Act 1991, and amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, can befulfilled without additional impediment following the development completion.


INFORMATIVE: This decision has been granted in conjunction with a Section 106 legalagreement relating to Affordable Housing; Public Open Space; Pagham ANOGScontribution; Primary Education; Secondary Education; 6th Form Education; Libraries;Fire & Rescue; Fire Hydrants; on-site provision of 2 hydrants; a Traffic Regulation Order;a non-adoption clause; a management company to maintain the road; and provisionsrelating to the safeguarding of an area of land within the site to potentially be laid as afootpath to facilitate the provision of a link across the ditch to the adjoining site.

36

37

38

39

P/125/14/PL


INFORMATIVE: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system isrequired in order to service this development. Please contact Southern Water, SouthernHouse, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel 033 0303 0119) orwww.southernwater.co.uk.

INFORMATIVE: Should any protected species or evidence of any protected species befound prior to or during the development, all works must stop immediately and anecological consultant or Chichester District Council's ecologist contacted for furtheradvice before works can proceed. All contractors working on site should be made awareof this advice and provided with the contact details of a relevant ecological consultant.

INFORMATIVE: Applications for S38 and/or S278 Agreements should be made to WSCCas Highway Authority. Full details are available on the WSCC website.

INFORMATIVE: Roads not forming part of the adopted highway network and/or notintended to be offered for adoption, will not be inspected by the Highway Authority during orafter any construction phases. Such roads should, however, be assessed and formallysigned-off or approved by a suitable Chartered civil engineer to the satisfaction of theLocal Planning Authority.

INFORMATIVE: A Natural England Protected Species Licence will be required for thedemolition works, and this will need to be obtained prior to any works taking place.

INFORMATIVE: Please note the following in respect of the surface water drainageconditions:

* The ditch needs significant clearance work to ensure it has capacity for a newdevelopment to drain into, and also further investigation off-site. The ditch appears toterminate at the south west corner of the site, where it may once have continued along thesouthern edge of the caravan site. However the only route appears to be a small pipe intothe caravan park itself, slightly away from the boundary line of the park. This systemneeds to be investigated by the applicant, especially as it may be the only route for surfacewater to exit the site. We would need to know that the water coming off of the proposeddevelopment would not cause backing up or flooding of the ditch, and that the system itdrains to will be able to cope with the runoff.

* A detailed design should show how roofs etc are drained and also include levels andconstruction details for structures. Infiltration should be utilised at the parts of the sitewhere infiltration rates were good.

* Infiltration rates for soakage structures are to be based on percolation tests undertakenin the winter period and at the location and depth of the proposed structures. Thepercolation tests must carried out in accordance with BRE 365, CIRIA R156 or a similarapproved method and cater for the 1 in 10 year storm between the invert of the entry pipeto the soakaway, and the base of the structure. It must also have provision to ensure thatthere is capacity in the system to contain below ground level the 1 in 100 year event plus30% on stored volumes, as an allowance for climate change. Adequate freeboard must beprovided between the base of the soakaway structure and the highest recorded annualgroundwater level identified in that location.

* Any SuDS or soakaway design must include adequate groundwater monitoring data to

40

41

42

43

44

45

P/125/14/PL


determine the highest winter groundwater table in support of the design. The applicant isadvised to discuss the extent of groundwater monitoring with the Council's Engineers.Supplementary guidance notes are also available for information.

P/125/14/PL


P/125/14/PL - Location Plan as submitted with the application (Do not scale)



and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Arun District Council 100018487.



30 March 2016

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

AGENDA ITEM 9


LIST OF APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT

THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

YAPTON

WALBERTON

PAGHAM

Y/105/15/PL

Y/106/15/L

WA/1/16/HH

Conversion of outbuilding to provide2No. 1 bedroom independentaccommodation units for rentalpurposes for short to medium term (1-28 nights) with access from ChurchLane. This application affects thesetting of a Listed Building.

Listed Building Consent for conversionof outbuilding to provide 2No. 1bedroom independentaccommodation units for rentalpurposes.

Two storey extension to providekitchen, dining room, glazed link toannexe, first floor bedroom & showerroom

Church House

Church House

Woodcroft

Church Lane

Church Lane

West Walberton Lane

Yapton

Yapton

Walberton

BN18 0EH

BN18 0EH

BN18 0QS

Mr R Temple

Mr R Temple

Mrs A Gardner

Approve Conditonally



Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Reference

Reference

Reference

Development Description



Location

Location

Location

LIST OF TREE APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

AT THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

NONE FOR THIS COMMITTEE


LITTLEHAMPTON

FERRING

P/5/16/HH

P/128/15/HH

LU/9/16/PL

LU/377/15/A

FG/5/16/HH

Two front dormer projections to new1st floor

Single storey rear extension & frontbay window extension.

Change of use from storage & repairof furniture, sale of goods & workshopcentre to B1 (Business) use

Retention of 12 No. non- illuminatedlamp post banners.

Two storey side extension & roofalterations (resubmission followingFG/163/15/HH).

8 Harbour View Road

7 St Thomas Drive

Enterprise Units 1 - 5

Various locations on Horsham Road

2 Grange Park

Pagham

Pagham

Harwood Road

Worthing RoadBridge Road/Termin

Ferring

Bognor Regis

PO21 4UB

Littlehampton

Littlehampton

BN12 5LS

West Sussex

BN17 7AT

Simon Davis

Mr R Leal

Mrs A Gardner

Mr D Easton

Mr D Easton






Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Reference

Reference



Location

Location

PO21 4RG


FELPHAM

EASTERGATE

FG/8/16/PL

FG/9/16/PL

FG/10/16/PL

FG/213/15/HH

FP/8/16/OUT

Variation of condition 7 imposed underFG/45/15/PL to extend the use of thesite hours.

Variation of condition 6 imposed underFG/45/15/PL relating to use of site.

Erection of a wash-down areaadjacent to existing wash-down bayincluding a connection to existinginterceptor at adjacent car dealershippremises.

Rooms in roof, raise ridge & install 4No. dormers (resubmission followingFG/86/15/HH).

Outline application for 1No. bungalow.Resubmission of FP/44/15/OUT

Hangleton Nurseries

Hangleton Nurseries

Hangleton Nurseries

White Thorne

84 Flansham Lane

Hangleton Lane

Hangleton Lane

Hangleton Lane

The Warren

Felpham

Ferring

Ferring

Ferring

Ferring

PO22 6AH

BN12 6PP

BN12 6PP

BN12 6PP

BN12 5PQ

Mrs A Gardner

Mrs A Gardner

Mrs A Gardner

Mr D Easton

Simon Davis





App Cond sub to S106

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Reference

Reference



Location

Location


EAST PRESTON

BOGNOR REGIS

EG/75/15/HH

EG/76/15/HH

EP/8/16/HH

BR/4/16/PL

BR/225/15/HH

Front, side & rear extensions.Resubmission of EG/31/15/HH

Erection of an ancillary annexe -Resubmission of EG/61/15/HH - Thisapplication affects the character andappearance of Church Lane(Eastergate) Conservation Area

Single & two storey extensions(resubmission followingEP/114/15/HH).

Coffee kiosk to include tables &chairs.

Retrospective application foralterations to existing outbuilding

Woosters

Manor Farm Cottages

19 Normandy Lane

South of Esplanade Grande

120 Collyer Avenue

Church Lane

Church Lane

East Preston

West of Foreshore Office

Bognor Regis

Eastergate

Eastergate

BN16 1LZ

The Esplanade

PO21 5HX

PO20 3XD

PO20 3UX

Bognor Regis

Mr R Temple

Mr R Temple

Mr D Easton

Mr R Temple

Mr R Temple






Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Reference

Reference



Location

Location

PO21 1LX


ARUNDEL

ANGMERING

BR/259/15/A

AB/162/15/A

AB/164/15/HH

A/144/15/PL



Construction of enlarged hall &replacement porch to front elevation &revised proposals for rear dormer

246 No. residential dwellings includinggarages & associated parking,affordable housing, associatedlandscape & infrastructure & additionof pumping station. Utilisation of 2 No.existing vehicular access points fromRoundstone Lane & formation of access road to serve thedevelopment. Departure from theDevelopment plan

Hotham Way, High Street adjacent

Various locations at Ford roundabou

62 Ford Road

Land at West End Nursery

to Hotham Park, Upper Bognor Roa

A27 roundabout, Ford Road

Arundel

Roundstone Lane

Bognor Regis

Arundel

BN18 9EX

Angmering

BN16 4AX

Mr R Leal

Mrs A Gardner

Mr D Easton

Mr D Innes




App Cond sub to S106

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Reference

Reference



Location

Location


ALDWICK

A/162/15/PL

AW/362/15/HH

Car showroom & workshop withassociated access, car parking &landscaping.

Single storey rear extension & sidedormer to form rooms in roof andpitched roof over existing garage.

Land North of Roundstone-By-Pass

9 Balliol Close

Roundstone By Pass

Aldwick

Angmering

PO21 5QE

BN16 4BDMrs A Gardner

Mr R Temple

Refuse


Case Officer :

Case Officer :

Recommendation:

Recommendation:

Reference Development Description Location


Church House

Church Lane

Conversion of outbuilding to provide 2No. 1 bedroom independent

accommodation units for rental purposes for short to medium term (1-28

nights) with access from Church Lane. This application affects the setting of

a Listed Building.

Y/105/15/PL

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Yapton

The outbuilding will not be extended but haveinternal/external alterations to convert it into two holidayunits for rent up to 28 days. These will have internalaccess to each other so they can be used as one largerunit if needed. The proposal will have parking off street infront of the existing unit.

0.41 hectares.

N/A

Predominantly flat.

None affected by the development.

Flint and brick wall 2m and parts of wall more than 2m.

Corner plot with Church Lane to the north and ChurchRoad to the east. Main house is a centrally located twostorey detached grade II dwelling with gardens to front sideand rear and large driveway to front, north side and rear.Within the grounds are two single storey outbuildings. Oneis used and has permission as permanent rentedaccommodation. The building subject of this application iscurrently used as a garage and playroom.

Conservation Area. Village setting, mainly residential otherthan Church to the east of the site. Two storey detacheddwellings on good sized plots, pair of semi-detachedcottages to the south east section of the site.


Consent for existing outbuilding to be used as rental accommodation granted in 2010. A concurrent


Y/44/10/ Change of use of 'annexe' to independantaccomodation for rental purposes 06-08-2010

ApproveConditionally


SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




Y/105/15/PL

BN18 0EH


application for the changes to the structure of the building to make it into two units is underconsideration (Y/106/15/L).

REPRESENTATIONS

Y/65/09/

Y/29/07/

Y/42/96

Y/86/90

Y/82/87

Amendments to previously approved planningapplication Y/29/07 for single detached houseand garage - Modification of ground floorlayout to rear & alterations to front entrancedoor & garage doors

Single detached dwelling and garage

Slate roof in lieu of flat, alterations andrefurbishment

Refurbishment of hobbies outbuildingincluding external staircase and conservatory(Previous approval Y/82/87- revised proposal).

Refurbishment of hobbies outbuildingincluding external staircase and conservatory

27-11-2009

04-07-2007

11-10-1996

28-01-1991

26-10-1987


Refused





Yapton Parish Council

Objection-

Believe it will constitute over intensification of an inappropriate use within a residential area ofpredominantly detached family homes. The Parish would also like to advise that the site lieswithin the Yapton Main Road and Church Lane Conservation Area.

1. Over-intensive use of the site.

The impact of the additional 2 rented units combined with the existing separate rented annexeand large family home would constitute over development of the site; changing the overallsetting from that of a family home to a small holiday complex in a residential area.

2. Traffic and parking

The proposal has insufficient parking provision to accommodate the existing uses plus theadditional rental units. All parking should be designated within the curtilage of the mainproperty accommodating for the existing 5 bed home and 1 bed rented annexe along withparking for the 2 additional rental units.

The parking layout plan does not sufficiently demonstrate that the 7 indicated parking spacesare adequate for the whole site or that they have adequate turning and manoeuvrability spaceto enable cars to easily access the proposed spaces unhindered and all times.

Y/105/15/PL

Appeal: Allowed+Conditions 04 12 2007

Appealed


CONSULTATIONS

The alterations to the outbuilding and its use (temporary holiday lets) are considered topreserve the Grade II listed dwelling and its outbuildings as the alterations are modest. Its formwill remain the same and the use will not be so intensive that it could be reasonably argued itwould have a detrimental impact on the buildings.

There is a driveway and parking area next to the site access and a large driveway and parkingarea to the rear of the main dwelling. This provides off street parking for approximately 8 ormore vehicles with adequate manoeuvring space. The additional holiday flats would requireone space each under WSCC parking standards. It is considered that there is an appropriatelevel of off-street parking provided and it is not considered the proposal would lead tosignificant on street parking pressure. The access would see an intensification of use but notto a level which could lead to significant highways danger.

Given there will be no extensions to the outbuilding to create the units, the site is large with asubstantial garden area and there is sufficient parking on the site for the additional units, theproposal would not represent an overdevelopment of the site.


No disabled parking bay provided.

Street parking on this section of Church Lane must be discouraged due to its close proximityto a dangerous blind corner (junction of Church Lane with Church Road) and the restrictedwidth of this section of lane.

Concern regarding the impact of increased traffic movement onto Church Lane close to ablind corner especially where the access point is only a single gated entrance.

The plan is inaccurate with regard to the size and location of the existing rented annexeabutting Church Lane which may impact on the proposed parking layout.

3. Impact on setting of the listed dwelling house.

The location of car parking will impose on the listed house rather than enhance its setting.

12 letters of representation received.

11 letters of representation (from 8 separate addresses) objecting on the grounds of:-

-Detrimental impact on the grade II listed building-Conversion will lead to additional on-street parking and highways danger from more intensiveuse of existing access- no disabled parking bay-The additional two holiday units represent an overdevelopment of the site.

1 letter of support stating the use of the land is appropriate and likely to prevent thedeterioration of the outbuilding and improve the appearance of the existing buildings.

Y/105/15/PL

Conservation Officer




Environment Agency


Designation applicable to site:

Within built up area boundaryGrade II listed buildingConservation Area

POLICY CONTEXT

Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CAAC)- Objection. Out of character with the existingoutbuilding. Suggest applicant look at all external joinery and retain existing features.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS OFFICER

Objection

Whilst the principle of converting this building to residential use might be acceptable, theproposed treatment of the elevations and fenestration does not preserve or enhance theoutbuilding, or the setting of the listed house to which it relates.

The outbuilding has experienced some unfortunate changes which compromise its characterand appearance and so any future alterations should seek improvements which counter this.

Of particular concern is the use of large panes of glazing which are not sympathetic in thiscontext and should be redesigned to reflect the outbuilding's character. A multi-paned window islikely to be more appropriate in most instances (including the doors at the rear), whilst the door atfirst floor level on the front elevation would be better retaining strips of glazing. The off-set natureof the window below also appears at odds.

The glazing itself may be double-glazed in this instance though we would expect this to be 11-12mm and puttied. The 'velux' windows should be a conservation standard but also kept to aminimum. We would recommend removing the one form the 'front' elevation as this faces theasset.

The internal alterations appear to be limited and should not represent any issues.

SECOND RESPONSE- following amendments

Amendments are generally acceptable though the window in the door detail should have aslimmer glazing unit. Please condition all window/door details to make sure these aresympathetic.


AREA2

DEV14

DEV34

GEN12

GEN2

Conservation AreasListed Buildings and Enabling DevelopmentTourist Accommodation and AttractionsParking in New DevelopmentBuilt-up Area Boundary




Comments noted. Following amendments it is considered that the Historic Buildings Officer'sand CAAC's objections have been addressed. The recommended condition will be attached.

Y/105/15/PL


GEN7 The Form of New Development

NPPFNPPG










POLICY COMMENTARY

Y/105/15/PL

D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityD DM4 Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings(residential and non-residential)D SP1 DesignHER DM1 Listed BuildingsHER DM3 Conservation AreasHER SP1 The Historic EnvironmentSD SP2 Built-Up Area BoundaryTOU SP1 Sustainable tourism and the visitor economyT SP1 Transport and Development


Conservation Areas

Listed Buildings and Buildings or Structures ofCharacter

Parking standards for new residentialdevelopment

Yapton neighbourhood plan 2014 Policy E8


Yapton neighbourhood plan 2014 Policy PK1






PRINICIPLE

The site is within the built up area boundary and as such the principle of the development to twoholiday lets is acceptable.

The use of the units will be for 1-28 nights for separate visitors. Someone could not stay for morethan 28 nights consecutively as this would be considered to fall within the category of permanentresidential let. To give the Council control it is reasonable to impose a condition to state how longthe units may be used. This will require the owners to keep a record of who has stayed in them,their address and what dates they occupied the units. This will allow the Council to check the useof the units should an enforcement complaint be made.

IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA

Following amendments to the application the Historic Buildings Officer has no objections to theworks subject to a condition requiring details of the windows/doors. The condition to be attached isreasonable and necessary as the windows/doors being of the type that will preserve the characterof the outbuilding is integral to the application being acceptable. The works to the building are notconsidered to be extensive. The removal of the external staircase is considered to be acceptableas this feature is not significantly important to the character of the building. The building has hadsome damaging additions, namely the first floor conservatory style extension to the south of thebuilding and replacement doors. The conservatory style extension will be retained but the doors areto be replaced and to this end the application is considered to enhance the appearance of thebuilding, its setting and the conservation area should the condition be fully complied with. Whenconsidered in the context of the street scene, the alterations to the outbuilding make little difference

CONCLUSIONS

It is considered that there are no other material considerations to warrant a decision otherwise thanin accordance with the Development Plan and/or legislative background.



Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; Bognor Regis; Clymping; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring;Kingston; Littlehampton; Rustington; Yapton

Y/105/15/PL


to the existing, especially when viewed from the road. The proposal preserves the character of thelisted building, its associated outbuildings, neighbouring properties and the conservation area.

NEIGHBOUR AMENITY

The alterations to the outbuilding are not substantive enough to warrant any significant detrimentalimpact on neighbours. The nearest neighbouring property (Little Orchard) is set approximately 22maway so the increased use of the outbuilding and garden are not considered to result in significantadditional noise and disturbance from the use as holiday lets. The units are likely to be vacant forcertain periods of the year. The proposal is acceptable in terms of impact on neighbour amenity.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

An application of this type would normally be subject to affordable housing contributions. In thisinstance although a C3 use is proposed it will be restricted by condition for occupation of 1-28 daysat a time and this means that they are not subject to the affordable housing contribution. Aninformative will be added to the decision to state that should an application be made to remove thecondition and use the units as permanent residential then they would be subject to affordablehousing contributions should the removal of the condition be acceptable.

PARKING

There is currently a driveway and parking area next to the access of the site and a large drivewayand parking area to the rear of the main dwelling. This provides off street parking for approximately8 or more vehicles with turning space to exit the site in a forward gear. The additional holiday flatswould require one space each under WSCC parking standards. There is an appropriate level of off-street parking already provided and the proposal would not lead to significant on street parkingpressure. The access would see an intensification of use but not to a level which could lead tosignificant highways danger.

The application is recommended for conditional approval.

APPROVE CONDITIONALLY



The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans:-

003 B; 004 E; 005 D; 006 B Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No development shall take place until scaled plans, including details of materials andfittings for all new windows and doors have been submitted to and approved by the LocalPlanning Authority. The details so approved shall be used in the conversion of the building.

1

2

3

RECOMMENDATION

Y/105/15/PL


Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise the necessary control overworks likely to affect the character of the Listed Building in accordance with the NationalPlanning Policy Framework.

The accommodation approved shall be used exclusively as tourist accommodation forindividual lets for up to and no more than 28 consecutive nights. No unit shall be occupiedby one person for more than 28 days in a calendar year The owner shall maintain aregister of occupiers including how long they occupied the units, their permanent homeaddress and contact details for each calendar year. This register shall be made availableto the Council on requested.

Reason: To preserve the availability of the accommodation as a holiday let in accordancewith policy DEV34 of the Arun District Local Plan and to prevent the establishment ofpermanent dwellings in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.


INFORMATIVE: The applicant should be made aware that should, in the future, anapplication is made to remove condition 4, they will be required to pay affordable housingcontributions should the removal of the condition be granted.

4

5

6

Y/105/15/PL


Y/105/15/PL

Y/105/15/PL Indicative Location Plan







Church House

Church Lane

Listed Building Consent for conversion of outbuilding to provide 2No. 1

bedroom independent accommodation units for rental purposes.

Y/106/15/L

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Yapton

Internal and external works to create two 1 bed holiday flatsfor short term rental. These units would have an internallink so they could be used as one unit if required. The mainexternal works include:-

-removal of staircase-new and some replacement windows and replacementdoors-new roof lights

The application was amended following comments fromthe Historic Buildings Officer.

0.41 hectares.

Predominantly flat.

Flint and brick wall 2m and parts of wall more than 2m.

Corner plot with Church Lane to the north and ChurchRoad to the east. Main house is a centrally located twostorey detached grade II dwelling with gardens to front,side and rear with large driveway to front, north side andrear. Within the grounds are two single storey outbuildings.One is occupied and has permission as permanent rentedaccommodation. The building subject of this application isused as a garage and playroom.

Conservation Area. Village setting, mainly residential otherthan the Church to the east of the site. Two storeydetached dwellings on good sized plots, pair of semi-detached cottages to the south east section of the site.


Consent for existing outbuilding to be used as rental accommodation granted in 2010. A concurrent


Y/44/10/ Change of use of 'annexe' to independantaccomodation for rental purposes 06-08-2010



SITE AREA

TOPOGRAPHY

BOUNDARY TREATMENT



LISTED BUILDING CONSENT REPORT

Y/106/15/L

BN18 0EH


application for the use of the outbuilding as holiday lets is under consideration (Y/105/15/PL).

CONSULTATIONS

Amendments were made to the proposal to reflect requirements of the Historic BuildingsOfficer. The alterations are considered to preserve the character and appearance of theoutbuilding and other listed buildings on site. A condition is to be attached to the planningapplication for details of windows/door to be submitted prior to works commencing.

REPRESENTATIONS

Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CAAC)- Objection. Out of character with existingoutbuilding. Suggest applicant look at all external joinery and retain existing features.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS OFFICER

Objection

Whilst the principle of converting this building to residential use might be acceptable, theproposed treatment of the elevations and fenestration does not preserve or enhance theoutbuilding, or the setting of the listed house to which it relates.

Y/43/96/L

Y/87/90/L

Y/81/87/L

Application for Listed Building Consent forslate roof in lieu of flat, alterations andrefurbishment

Application for Listed Building Consent forrefurbishment of hobbies outbuilding includingexternal staircase and conservatory.(Previousapproval Y/81/87/L-Revised proposal).

Application for Listed Building Consent forrefurbishment of hobbies outbuilding includingexternal staircase and conservatory

11-10-1996

28-01-1991

26-10-1987






Yapton Parish Council

No response received.

12 letters of representation received.

11 letters of representation received from 6 addresses, objecting on the grounds of:-

-Harm to the appearance and character of the listed buildings and Conservation Area-Harm to the setting of the listed buildings-Many objections were actually on planning grounds and will be addressed in the concurrentplanning application.

1 letter of support stating the use is appropriate and likely to prevent the deterioration of theoutbuilding and improve the appearance of the buildings.


Y/106/15/L




Grade II listed building. Conservation Area.

POLICY CONTEXT

The outbuilding has experienced some unfortunate changes which compromise its characterand appearance and so future alterations should seek improvements which counter this.

Of particular concern is the use of large panes of glazing which are not sympathetic in thiscontext and should be redesigned to reflect the outbuilding's character. A multi-paned window islikely to be more appropriate in most instances (including the doors at the rear), whilst the door atfirst floor level on the front elevation would be better retaining strips of glazing. The off-set natureof the window below also appears at odds.

The glazing itself may be double-glazed in this instance though we would expect this to be 11-12mm and puttied. The 'velux' windows should be a conservation standard but kept to aminimum. We would recommend removing the one form the 'front' elevation as this faces theasset.

The internal alterations appear to be limited and should not represent any issues.

SECOND RESPONSE- following amendments

Amendments are generally acceptable though the window in the door detail should have aslimmer glazing unit. Condition all window/door details to make sure these are sympathetic.



NPPFNPPG





POLICY COMMENTARY


Comments noted. Following amendments it is considered that the Historic Buildings Officer'sand CAAC's objections have been addressed. The condition for the windows/door details will beattached to the planning application. It is not considered reasonable to duplicate the condition sothe applicant would have to discharge the same condition twice.

Y/106/15/L

HER DM1 Listed BuildingsPublication Version of theLocal Plan (October 2014):

Conservation Areas

Listed Buildings and Buildings or Structures ofCharacter




Section 16(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states:"In considering whether to grant Listed Building Consent for any works, the Local PlanningAuthority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or anyfeatures of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."Where the building is located in a Conservation Area, Section 71(1) of the Act states:In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a Conservation Area of any powers(under the Planning Acts), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving orenhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The proposal is considered to comply with these criteria in that it preserves the character and thesetting of the Grade II Listed Building and the character of the Conservation Area.


Following amendments the Historic Buildings Officer has no objections to the works subject to a

CONCLUSIONS







Where applicable, Neighbourhood Development Plan's (more commonly known as aneighbourhood plan or NDP), once made by Arun District Council, will form part of the statutorylocal development plan for the relevant designated neighbourhood area and policies within them willbe considered in determining planning applications. Made NDP policies will be consideredalongside other development plan documents including Arun District Council's Local Plan. Whilstan NDP is under preparation it will afford little weight in the determination of planning applications.Its status will however gain more weight as a material consideration the closer it is towards it beingmade. Arun District Council will make reference to an NDP when it has, by the close of planningapplication consultation, been publicised for pre-submission consultation(Reg.14).


Y/106/15/L


condition requiring further details of the windows/doors. The condition to be attached to theplanning application is reasonable and necessary as the windows/doors being of the type that willpreserve the character of the outbuilding is integral to the application being acceptable. Theproposed works are not considered to be extensive. The removal of the external staircase isacceptable as this feature is not significantly important to the character of the building. The buildinghas had some damaging additions previously, namely the first floor conservatory style extension tothe southern end of the building and replacement doors. The conservatory style extension will beretained but the doors are to be replaced and the application is considered to enhance theappearance of the building, its setting and the Conservation Area should the condition be fullycomplied with. The proposal preserves the character of the listed building, the outbuildings and theconservation area and complies with emerging Local Plan policy HER DM1, Yapton NDP Policy E9and the requirements of the NPPF and NPPG.

The proposal is recommended for conditional approval.


The works for which Listed Building Consent is hereby granted must be begun not laterthan the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this consent.

Reason: To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Building and ConservationAreas) Act 1990.


003 B; 004 E; 005 D; 006 B

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity, the listed building, theconservation area and the environment in accordance with the National Planning PolicyFramework.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant must be aware that works approved by this consent cannotbegin until condition 3 of planning application Y/105/15/PL for details of windows and doorshas been discharged following submission to the Local Planning Authority.

1

2

3

RECOMMENDATION

Y/106/15/L


Y/106/15/L

Y/106/15/L Indicative Location Plan







Woodcroft

West Walberton Lane

Two storey extension to provide kitchen, dining room, glazed link to

annexe, first floor bedroom & shower room

WA/1/16/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Walberton

2 storey side extension and single storey glazed link toprovide relocated dining/kitchen room at ground floor withfirst floor extension to increase the size of bedrooms. Thematerials will match the dwelling and other buildings onsite. The footprint of the extension would be 7.8m x 6.3m.The first floor would have an area of 5.1m x 6.3m. The setback of the first floor extension above the ground floor willbe utilised as a roof terrace. The ground floor extensionwould have a flat roof and be 2.8m high. The height of the 2storey extension would match the existing dwelling. Theglazed link is 2.7m high and 1.3m wide.

N/A

N/A

Predominantly flat.

None of significance affected.

Close boarded fencing to rear garden. Hedging to sitefrontage

Detached 2 storey dwelling with painted renderedelevations and slate roof. Single storey annexe and storagebuildings to west.

Rural lane with detached dwellings in relatively large plotsfronting onto it.




SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




WA/1/16/HH

BN18 0QS


Designation applicable to site:Outside Built Up Area Boundary

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

The dwelling has a large curtilage. Whilst the property has previously been extended it isconsidered that the amount of development on the site is not excessive in relation to the plotsize. The 2 storey extension would retain a significant gap to the side boundary.

REPRESENTATIONS

Southern Water- No Objection. Request imposition of a condition regarding an application forconnection to the public sewerage system.Engineers - No Objection. Standard conditions requested.

WA/61/15/HH

WA/71/14/HH

WA/80/94

WA/23/93

WA/88/88

Removal of existing conservatory. Two storeyextension, single storey front & rearextensions, 3 No. dormer windows to southelevation, detached three bay garage,relocation of site entrance, construction ofboundary wall, demolition of side storagebuilding & construction of conservatory to sideelevation.

Construction of a detached building to provideannexe for an elderly relative & single garage(amendment to WA/23/93)

Utility room with extended bathroom over

Two storey side and rear extension formingannexe and kitchen with bedroom over and 3car garage

Two storey extension to form study, playroom,kitchen, utility room, porch, 2 bedrooms,master bedroom, 2 bathrooms and garage for3 cars

01-12-2015

06-02-2015

25-11-1994

04-06-1993

02-11-1988

Withdrawn







Walberton Parish Council

Objection - The site is being overdeveloped



None.

WA/1/16/HH






GEN3

GEN7Protection of the CountrysideThe Form of New Development


NPPFNPPG










Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; Bognor Regis; Clymping; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring;Kingston; Littlehampton; Rustington; Yapton. Walberton does not yet have an adoptedNeighbourhood Plan.

POLICY COMMENTARY

WA/1/16/HH

D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityD DM4 Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings(residential and non-residential)D SP1 DesignC SP1 Countryside







PRINCIPLEThe site is outside of the built-up area boundary. A precedent for development has been set in thislocation and as such development would generally be acceptable subject to accordance withrelevant policies. The main criteria against which this application will be assessed is in the LocalPlan which in this case are policies GEN7 and DEV19.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITYThe application seeks permission for a single and 2 storey side extension and a glazed structure tolink the existing annexe to the main house. The extension would be on the west side of the houseand would include a roof terrace over part of the ground floor extension.

The property comprises a 2 storey dwelling within a relatively large curtilage. The dwelling is setback from the site frontage. The glazed link would be screened from direct view from the sitefrontage by the exiting annexe. The 2 storey extension would be seen given its height, but it wouldbe visually assimilated into the dwelling by the use of matching materials and a design whichreplicates the height, window sizes and proportions of the dwelling. The property has a largefootprint and the extension represents an increase in floor area of the dwelling of less than 50%.

The proposal remains subservient and well integrated with the host dwelling and is deemed to be inaccordance with policies GEN7 (ii) and DEV19 (i) & (ii) of the Local Plan.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe proposed extension will be set in 7.5m at its closest point from the neighbouring boundary.This distance is adequate to ensure no adverse overbearing impacts result. With regard topotential overlooking from the sun terrace given the distance to the boundary, the presence ofestablished boundary planting and that any overlooking would be to the front garden area of theadjoining dwelling it is considered the impact upon residential amenity of neighbouring propertieswould be acceptable and would not result in a material loss of privacy in accordance with policiesGEN7 (iv) and DEV19 (iii) of the Local Plan.

SUMMARYThe proposal is considered to be in accordance with relevant development policy and as such it isrecommended that planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions.

CONCLUSIONS



WA/1/16/HH





The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans Location 11423.01, Block Plan 11423.04c, Ground Floor Plan 11423.19,First Floor 11423.20, South and North Elevations 11423.22 , East and West Elevations11423.23 and roof plan 11423.21. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

With the exception of the glazed link, the materials and finishes of the external walls androof of the extensions hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those of theexisting building.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policies GEN7 and DEV19 of theArun District Local Plan.


The design should follow the hierarchy of preference for different types of surface water

1

2

3

4

RECOMMENDATION

WA/1/16/HH

Human Rights Act:The Council in making a decision should be aware of and take into account any implications thatmay arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority suchas Arun District Council to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention onHuman Rights.

Consideration has been specifically given to Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life)and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that therecommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes unreasonably withany local residents' right to respect for their private and family life and home, except insofar as it isnecessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant).The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interestand the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to thesubmitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


In assessing this proposal neutral impacts have been identified upon those people with thefollowing protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civilpartnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation).



drainage disposal systems as set out in Approved Document H of the BuildingRegulations, the recommendations of the SUDS Manual produced by CIRIA.



Reason : To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily drained in accordancewith policies GEN7 and GEN9 of the Arun District Council Local Plan.

INFORMATIVE: Statement pursuant to Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning(Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015. The Local PlanningAuthority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessingthe proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and anyrepresentations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grantplanning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

INFORMATIVE: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system isrequired in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check toidentify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact SouthernWater, Southern House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel 0330303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk.

INFORMATIVE: Should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation ofthe sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, andpotential means of access before any further works commence on site. The applicant isadvised to discuss the matter further with Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House,Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel 033 0303 0119) orwww.southernwater.co.uk.

INFORMATIVE: Due to surface water inundation issues in the Lidsey Catchment theapplicant is advised to adopt, where appropriate, the measures in the table 'Practicalmeasures to reduce the potential impacts of development.'The Developer should look to protect the public sewerage system from inundation andinfiltration, which contribute to flooding in unfavourable conditions.

5

6

7

8

WA/1/16/HH


WA/1/16/HH

WA/1/16/HH Indicative Location Plan







8 Harbour View Road

Pagham

Two front dormer projections to new 1st floor

P/5/16/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Bognor Regis

The dormers measure 1.8m wide, 2.2m high (with apitched roof) and 3m deep at the maximum extent.

N/A.

N/A.

Predominantly flat.

None affected by the proposed development.

Open plan to the front.

Single storey semi-detached bungalow in red brick andbrown clay tiles.

Residential area typified by bungalows. It is noted thatthere are several properties in the streetscene includingthe adjoining property no. 10 with front velux windows.There are also lots of other examples of rear dormers.The only other instance of a front dormer on Harbour ViewRoad is at no. 96 (Planning Ref P/132/06).


The above permissions have all been checked and none included any conditions that removedpermitted development rights.


REPRESENTATIONS


SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT





P/21/60

P/18/58

P/42/50

Bungalow and garage

7 pairs of bungalows with garages

Estate layout

20-07-1960

16-07-1958

02-05-1951

Approve




P/5/16/HH

West Sussex

PO21 4RG



Within Built Up Area Boundary; andPD Restriction.

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

These issues are discussed within the Conclusions section of the report. However, it shouldalso be noted that the rear dormer shown on the plans does not form part of the applicationand therefore issues relating to overlooking of the neighbour's rear garden cannot be takeninto consideration.

None.



DEV19

GEN2

GEN7

GEN12

Extensions to existing residential buildingsBuilt-up Area BoundaryThe Form of New DevelopmentParking in New Development


NPPF National Planning Policy Framework


"The Committee felt that dormer projections at the front of the property would represent achange to the streetscape and would set an unacceptable precedent whereby propertiesbecame two storey dwellings. This was contrary to the provisions of the Village DesignStatement. The Committee wished to OBJECT to the proposed plans on the followinggrounds:

(1) Pagham Village Design Statement Page 7 - Development criteria - bullet point 5 - exercisestrict control over any roof development likely to be particularly intrusive by virtue of proximityto neighboring dwellings; and (2) Arun District Council Local Plan 2003 (Saved Policies) Gen 7(iv) - ... avoid ... intrusive ... unneighbourly ... overlooking"

One letter of objection from the neighbour at no. 10 on the grounds of overdevelopment arisingfrom the increase from 2 bedrooms to 5 bedrooms. Also that allowing a front dormer wouldset a precedent and that there would be insufficient external amenity space. Finally that therear dormer will result in overlooking of the neighbours garden.



N/A.

P/5/16/HH

D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityD DM4 Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings(residential and non-residential)D SP1 DesignENV DM2 Pagham HarbourT SP1 Transport and DevelopmentSD SP2 Built-Up Area Boundary





The proposal is considered to comply with relevant Development Plan policies in that it would have


NPPG National Planning Practice Guidance








Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; Bognor Regis; Clymping; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring;Kingston; Littlehampton; Rustington; Yapton. Pagham Parish Council has publicised itsNeighbourhood Plan for Pre-Submission purposes. This process is on hold whilst more work iscarried out.

POLICY COMMENTARY

P/5/16/HH




no materially adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality or the residential amenities of theadjoining properties, nor would it have an adverse impact upon the established character of thesurrounding area.

PRINCIPLE & PROPOSAL:

The site is located within the built up area boundary. As such the principle of extending theproperty is acceptable.

The application seeks permission for two new pitched roof dormers to the front elevation. The reardormer shown on the plans is not part of this application and the applicant states that it will beimplemented in accordance with permitted development rights.

DESIGN, CHARACTER & RESIDENTIAL AMENITY:

Arun Local Plan Policy DEV19 requires that extensions:

(i) sympathetically relate to and are visually integrated with, the existing building in siting, design,form, scale and materials;(ii) are visually subservient to the main building;(iii) do not have an adverse overshadowing, overlooking or overbearing effect on neighbouringproperties; and(v) do not compromise the established spatial character and pattern of the street.

It is further noted that Policy GEN7 (iv) requires that development does not "have an unacceptableadverse impact on adjoining occupiers, land, uses or property and, where relevant, facilitates thedevelopment of adjoining sites".

The Pagham Village Design Statement states in respect of the Kings Beach estate that "controlshould be exercised over any roof development likely to be particularly intrusive by virtue ofproximity to neighbouring dwellings".

In respect to these policies, it is not considered that the proposed front dormers will be intrusive toneighbouring properties as they look out over the front and will be a distance of over 40m from thedwelling on the opposite side of Harbour View Road. Therefore, the proposal cannot be consideredcontrary to DEV19 (iii), GEN7 (iv) or the Pagham Village Design Statement.

Furthermore, given that the dormers are proportional in size to the existing roof, unobtrusive andthat the dwelling is well set back (19m) from the highway, it is considered that the proposalcomplies with the remaining parts of Policy DEV19. It is not considered that this proposal will set aprecedent as there is already a front dormer elsewhere on Harbour View Road. However, as allapplications are decided on their own merits, the granting of one set of front dormers will notautomatically result in permission being granted for front dormers elsewhere.

PARKING:

CONCLUSIONS



P/5/16/HH


The proposed front dormer assists in the conversion of the existing roof to create 3 bedrooms atfirst floor level and 4 in total. The existing property only has 2 bedrooms. According to the WestSussex Parking Demand Calculator, the likely parking demand is 3 spaces. The property benefitsfrom a single garage and 2 tandem parking spaces in front of the garage. It is therefore consideredthat the increase in bedrooms will not be to the detriment of the highway.

SUMMARY

This application is recommended for approval on the basis that the dormers are proportional insize to the existing roof, are unobtrusive given that the dwelling is well set back (19m) from thehighway. Notwithstanding the existing front dormer at 96 Harbour View Road, it is not consideredthat this would set a precedent for new front roof development in the streetscene. Accordingly, it isrecommended that permission is granted subject to the following conditions.





1

2

RECOMMENDATION

P/5/16/HH



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT






* Sheet 1 of 3 - Proposed Ground and First Floor Plans;* Sheet 2 of 3 - Proposed Location, Block & Elevation Plans;* Sheet 3 of 3 - Existing Elevations, Existing Ground Floor Plan & Existing/Proposed RoofPlans.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policies GEN7 and DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The materials and finishes of the external front & side walls of the dormers herebypermitted shall match in colour and texture with those of the existing building.



3

4

P/5/16/HH


P/5/16/HH

P/5/16/HH Indicative Location Plan







7 St Thomas Drive

Pagham

Single storey rear extension & front bay window extension.

P/128/15/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

PO21 4UB

Rear extension 4.55m deep and 8.5m wide set slightlyaway from side boundaries. Accommodation creates 3rdbedroom and enlarged kitchen/dining area. Garageconverted to study, WC and utility. Roof has double pitchand valley. 1.8m deep front bay window extension withhipped roof within existing gable area.

Predominantly flat.

None affected by proposed development.

The front of the site is open plan. To the rear there iswooden 2m high wooden fencing.

Semi-detached bungalow with integral garage and drive.Red brick and brown concrete tiles.

Residential with open plan appearance.


None.


CONSULTATIONS

Noted, see conclusions.

REPRESENTATIONS


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT






The Committee expressed concern as to the impact on the existing street scape and onbalance chose to OBJECT to the proposals.

P/45/66

P/11/58/C

Addition

67 Bungalows and garages

12-10-1966

16-03-1960

Permit'd Devel



P/128/15/HH


Designation applicable to site:Within Built Up Area

POLICY CONTEXT

No consultees.


GEN2

GEN7

DEV19

Built-up Area BoundaryThe Form of New DevelopmentExtensions to existing residential buildings


NPPFNPPG









POLICY COMMENTARY



N/A

P/128/15/HH



SD SP2 Built-Up Area BoundaryD DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityD DM4 Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings(residential and non-residential)D SP1 Design









Pagham Parish Council publicised its Neighbourhood Plan for Pre-Submission purposes. Howeverthe process has not progressed to further stages at this time.

The Pagham Village Design Statement (PVDS) 2007 was Adopted by this Council for the purposesof determining planning applications in January 2009 and is a material planning consideration.

St Thomas Drive is within Kings Beach Estate, Area 2, in the PVDS. The Statement includes thefollowing Development Criteria:

- Retain open plan aspects, avoiding front garden walls; frontage and streetscape materials shouldbe consistent.

- Preserve existing green space and amenity trees within the development.

- New or replacement buildings or extensions should not vary significantly in height or bulk fromthose nearby.

- Where planning permission is required, preserve existing separation of dwellings, and preventun-neighbourly cramped or visually intrusive closure of gaps or establishment of ill-conceivedlinkages between buildings.

- Exercise strict control over any roof development likely to be particularly intrusive by virtue ofproximity to neighbouring dwellings.

The proposal is generally consistent with these criteria.

P/128/15/HH


PRINCIPLEThe site is in the built-up area where the principle of development is acceptable, subject toaccordance with relevant planning policies. The main criteria against which the application will beassessed are contained within the Local Plan which in this case is considered to bepolicies GEN7 and DEV19 and policies D DM1, D DM4 and D SP1 in the Emerging Local Plan2011-2031 (Publication Version, October 2014) which seek to prevent development that wouldhave an adverse impact upon visual and residential amenities.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITYThe application seeks permission for the development outlined in this report and will result inlimited change to the appearance of this dwelling at the front. The rear extension will not begenerally visible from the front. The front extension by reason of its size and design is consideredto be sympathetic to the appearance of the existing dwelling and as such is visually acceptable.The rear extension is not unduly dominant in terms of impact on adjoining dwellings and the frontextension has a very limited visual impact.

The front extension would not be unduly intrusive in this location and there are two other dwellingsadjoining with much less sympathetic flat roofed front extensions. The pitched roof mitigates visualimpact and the front extension is considered acceptable in design and visual amenity terms.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe proposal will result in some limited loss of light to the property to the north as a result of therear extension. There is very good separation between the extension and the main part of thedwelling to the north as a consequence of its garage which sits between it and the extension.

There will be no additional loss of privacy. There is good separation and the 45 degree outlook isnot encroached upon for either adjoining dwelling. Overlooking is not an issue given the singlestorey development. The dual pitch mitigates potential dominance since the roofs of the rearextension slope away from adjoining development.

The proposal is not considered to result in a harmful impact on the amenity of other dwellingsadjoining or in the vicinity and is considered to be consistent with policies.

PARKINGExternal parking remains for 3 cars which is adequate to meet the required standard.

It is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the following conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

It is considered there are no other material considerations to warrant a decision otherwise than inaccordance with the Development Plan and/or legislative background.


P/128/15/HH


Consideration has been specifically given to Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 1 of

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT





The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved drawings:

Proposed Site Plan - Dated 21.12.15Proposed Roof Plan - Dated 22.12.15Proposed Elevations, Revision B - Dated 20.01.16Proposed Ground Floor plan - Dated 21.12.1545 Degree Plan, Revision A - Dated 21.02.16 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policies GEN7 and DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan, 2003 andpolicies D DM1, D DM4 and D SP1 in the Emerging Arun Local Plan 2011-2031(Publication Version, October 2014).

The materials and finishes of the external walls and roofs of the development herebypermitted shall match in colour and texture those of the existing dwelling.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policies GEN7 and DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan, 2003 andpolicies D DM1, D DM4 and D SP1 in the Emerging Arun Local Plan 2011-2031(Publication Version, October 2014).

INFORMATIVE: Statement pursuant to Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning(Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015. The Local PlanningAuthority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifyingmatters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and acceptingamendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local PlanningAuthority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in

1

2

3

4

RECOMMENDATION

P/128/15/HH

the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approvalof the grant of permission in this case interferes unreasonably with any local residents' right torespect for their private and family life and home, except insofar as it is necessary to protect therights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is alsopermitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and therecommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submittedapplication based on the considerations set out in this report.

In assessing this proposal the Neutral impacts have been identified upon those people with thefollowing protected characteristics - age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civilpartnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation.



accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out withinthe National Planning Policy Framework.

P/128/15/HH


P/128/15/HH

P/128/15/HH Indicative Location Plan







Enterprise Units 1 - 5

Harwood Road

Change of use from storage & repair of furniture, sale of goods & workshop

centre to B1 (Business) use

LU/9/16/PL

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Littlehampton

The proposal relates to the use of single storey unitscurrently used for furniture repair under a 2 year temporarypermission granted on 31-07-2014.

0.08 hectares

N/A

Predominantly flat.


Metal railings and close boarded fence to frontapproximately 1.8m high. Close boarded fenceapproximately 1.8m high along west and rear boundaries.The rear wall of the units and a brick wall forms the eastboundary at over 1.5m high.

Commercial use and comprises a group of five attachedunits with associated car parking to the front. The unitshave pebbledash render elevations and a pitchedcorrugated steel roof.

Mixed commercial and residential in character. There is adepot and Harwood Road Industrial Estate to the west.Residential properties to the east and garage compound tothe north.



LU/147/14/PL

LU/130/09/

Change of Use from B1 (Business) to storageand repair of furniture, sale of goods andworkshop centre.

Temporary change of use to D1(education)(previously approved under LU/138/06/)

31-07-2014

24-07-2009




SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




LU/9/16/PL

BN17 7AT


Designation applicable to site:Within Built Up Area Boundary

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

None

REPRESENTATIONS

Economic Regeneration - There is currently a severe shortage of small starter units in the districtand demand is growing. Pleased that these units are being returned to their original use and willhelp small companies to establish themselves and grow.

County Highways - The parking is considered acceptable. The proposal would not have a severeimpact on the operation of the highway network. Suggest a condition relating to car parkingprovision is imposed.

Environmental Health - No Objection. Please place the following condition on any approval givento this application:

No machinery, vehicles or plant shall be operated on the site except between the hours of:

7.00am - 6.00pm Monday to Fridays inclusive7.00am - 1.00pm SaturdaysNot at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays

LU/33/08/

LU/138/06/

Provision of portable cabin type unit forstorage.

Temporary change of use to D1 education (3years) and minor alterations to front elevation.

09-04-2008

02-08-2006





GEN2

GEN7Built-up Area BoundaryThe Form of New Development



Littlehampton Town Council

No Objection



Comments noted. There is no need for a car parking condition to be imposed. Parking is alreadyavailable on the site opposite the units. The conditions requested by Environmental Health havebeen imposed.

LU/9/16/PL


Economic Regeneration


D SP1 DesignPublication Version of the



"If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be madeunder the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless


NPPFNPPG










Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; Bognor Regis; Clymping; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring;Kingston; Littlehampton; Rustington; Yapton. There are no specific policies in LittlehamptonNeighbourhood Plan relating to this type of development.

POLICY COMMENTARY

LU/9/16/PL

EMP SP1 Employment land provisionD DM1 Aspects of Form and Design Quality

Local Plan (October 2014):


material considerations indicate otherwise."


POLICY PRINCIPLEThere is no policy which seeks to promote industrial floorspace within the built up area boundary inthe Local Plan but the Emerging Local Plan makes provision for 'Employment and Enterprise'.

Paragraphs 18-21 of the National Planning Policy Framework encourages Local Authorities toencourage economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity. The site is within the built-up area where the principle of development is acceptable and wherepolicy GEN7 of the Local Plan is relevant. GEN7 seeks to prevent development that would have anadverse impact upon visual and residential amenities.

SITE HISTORY AND CONTEXTThe units previously had B1 (business) use and are owned by this Council. There have been twotemporary planning permissions approved for educational (D1 class) under LU/138/06 andLU/130/09. The units have not therefore been solely used for business purposes (B1) in recentyears. The earlier temporary permissions were granted because the training of students in tradeswas more desirable for the community and outweighed their retention for business use. The mostrecent permission (LU/147/14/PL) granted consent for the empty units and brought them back intoan active quasi employment use which was of benefit to the area and outweighed their vacantstatus.

Th application seeks permission to change the use of the units from repair, storage and sale offurniture with a workshop drop-in centre and training facilities used by Stonepillow to B1 use whichwould be in accordance with condition 1 of temporary permission LU/147/14/PL. Condition 1 states'The use of the Enterprise Units hereby permitted shall be for a two year temporary period from thedate of this permission after which the use shall cease and the use will revert to B1.

Reasons: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the special circumstances under whichthis permission is granted and to protect the long-term needs of business use in the district.'

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITYNo external changes are proposed. There will be similar activity levels generated between theexisting use and that proposed. The site is in close proximity to the industrial estate and the mixedcommercial and residential setting of the units, the intensity of use can be supported withoutcausing harm to the visual amenities or characteristics of the area. It is important to note that theuse of these five units in the past would have generated comings and goings.

It is considered the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance

CONCLUSIONS



LU/9/16/PL


of the area.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe units are situated in relative close proximity to 36 Harwood Road. Given the previous businessand educational uses it is considered the reinstatement of business use is consistent with theadjoining uses and will not have a materially increased impact on residential amenity. The principleof a B1 use is that it is capable of being carried out in a residential area without having anunacceptable impact on residential amenity.

It is considered acceptable in residential amenity terms and complies with GEN7(iv) of the LocalPlan.

CONCLUSIONIt is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.




The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans: drawing numbers 01 (Location plan), 02 (Block plan), 03 (Site plan), 04

1

2

RECOMMENDATION

LU/9/16/PL



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT





(Ground floor plan), 05 (Front west elevation), 06 (Side elevations) and 07 (Rear eastelevation) all dated January 2016. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No operations authorised or required under this permission shall take place exceptbetween the hours of 07.00am - 6.00pm on Mondays - Fridays and 07.00am and 1.00pmon Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays or recognised Public Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the general amenity of the locality and to minimise disturbancearising from the activity on site in accordance with Arun District Local Plan policy GEN7.

INFORMATIVE: Statement pursuant to Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning(Development Management Procedure)(England Order 2015. The Local PlanningAuthority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessingthe proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and anyrepresentations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grantplanning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3

4

LU/9/16/PL


LU/9/16/PL

LU/9/16/PL Indicative Location Plan







Various locations on Horsham Road,

Worthing RoadBridge Road/Terminus R

Retention of 12 No. non- illuminated lamp post banners.

LU/377/15/A

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Littlehampton

As above submitted by Arun District Council.

N/A

Predominantly flat.


N/A

The advertisements the subject of this application arelocation on lampposts in three locations aroundLittlehampton.

The character of the localities varies with the signssituated at Bridge Road being located in close proximity topredominantly commercial uses; Terminus Road arelocated nearby to a mixture of commercial and residentialproperties; and the advertisements located adjacent toHorsham Road are situated in close proximity to primarilyresidential properties.


None.


CONSULTATIONS

Comments noted.

REPRESENTATIONS

None


SITE AREA

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT





Littlehampton Town Council

The Town Council's Planning and Transportation Committee considered this matter at itsmeeting held on 11th January 2016 and had no objection to the application.


COUNTY MATTER CONSULTATION

LU/377/15/A


Designation applicable to site:Within built area boundary

POLICY CONTEXT



NPPFNPPG









Where applicable, Neighbourhood Development Plan's (more commonly known as aneighbourhood plan or NDP), once made by Arun District Council, will form part of the statutorylocal development plan for the relevant designated neighbourhood area and policies within them willbe considered in determining planning applications. Made NDP policies will be consideredalongside other development plan documents including Arun District Council's Local Plan. Whilstan NDP is under preparation it will afford little weight in the determination of planning applications.Its status will however gain more weight as a material consideration the closer it is towards it beingmade. Arun District Council will make reference to an NDP when it has, by the close of planning

POLICY COMMENTARY


N/A

LU/377/15/A

SPD5 AdvertisementsSupplementary Guidance:



Regulation 3(1)(a)(b), 3(2)(a)(b) and 4(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Control ofAdvertisements) Regulations 2007 states:-

"3(1) A local planning authority shall exercise its powers under these Regulations in the interests ofamenity and public safety, taking into account -(a) The provision of the development plan, so far as they are material; and(b) Any other relevant factors.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1)(b) -(a) Factors relevant to amenity include the general characteristics of the locality, including thepresence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest;(b) Factors relevant to public safety include -(i) The safety of persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civilor military);(ii) Whether the display of the advertisement in question is likely to obscure or hinder the readyinterpretation of any traffic sign, railway sign or aid to navigation by water or air;(iii) Whether the display of the advertisement in question is likely to hinder the operation of anydevice used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

4(3) In determining an application for consent for the display of advertisements, the local planningauthority may have regard to any material change in circumstances likely to occur within the periodfor which the consent is requested.


PRINCIPLE Para. 67 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that 'advertisements should besubject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulativeimpacts'. Para. 3.1 of the Councils adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for advertsconfirms that 'The display of outdoor advertisements can only be controlled in the interests of'amenity' and 'public safety'.

AMENITYThe advertisements measure 1.15m in height and 0.74m in width and will project 0.84m from thelamppost at a height of 3m above ground level. The advertisements are already in place and assuch it is possible to fully assess their impact upon the amenity of the area. It was considered thatgiven their size, design and position the advertisements have only a limited impact upon the visual

CONCLUSIONS



application consultation, been publicised for pre-submission consultation(Reg.14).


The Littlehampton Neighbourhood Plan has been made but there are considered to be no relevantpolicies to the determination of this application.

LU/377/15/A


amenity of the areas in which they are located.

Therefore, they are not considered to have an unacceptable detrimental impact upon amenity.

PUBLIC SAFETYIn the evaluation of these signs consideration has been given to their impact upon public safety, it isvital to consider whether the advertisement itself or its location is likely to be so distracting or soconfusing, that it creates a hazard, or endangers people in the vicinity who are taking reasonablecare for their own, or others, safety.

The location and scale of these signs are such that they are not considered to post a hazard topublic safety, especially when it is considered that they do not feature any means illumination.

CONCLUSIONIn the absence of unacceptable harm to amenity or public safety, it is recommended that theapplication be approved, subject to the conditions set out below.


No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or anyother person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

Reason: As required by Regulation 14(1)(a) of the Town & Country Planning (Control ofAdvertisements) Regulations 2007.

1

RECOMMENDATION

LU/377/15/A


Consideration has been specifically given to Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 1 ofthe First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approvalof the grant of permission in this case interferes unreasonably with any local residents' right torespect for their private and family life and home, except insofar as it is necessary to protect therights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is alsopermitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and therecommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submittedapplication based on the considerations set out in this report.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


In assessing this proposal, a neutral impact has been identified upon those people with thefollowing protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civilpartnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation.



No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to-(a) endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome(civil or military);(b) obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid tonavigation by water or air; or(c) hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance orfor measuring the speed of any vehicle


Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall bemaintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.


Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displayingadvertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.


Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shallbe left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.


2

3

4

5

LU/377/15/A


LU/377/15/A

LU/377/15/A Indicative Location Plan







2 Grange Park

Ferring

Two storey side extension & roof alterations (resubmission following

FG/163/15/HH).

FG/5/16/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

BN12 5LS

The application seeks permission for the alteration of theroof through the levelling in height and design of thesouthern portion with the addition of a gable and first floorbalcony to the south; creation of two storey gableextension forward of the primary elevation; the creation of anew dormer window to the rear of the existing dwelling;and a single storey side extension.

Approximately 850 m2.

Predominantly flat.


The front boundary of the site consists of mature plantingto approximately 3m in height with the rear and sideboundaries featuring close boarded fencing to a height of1.8m and mature planting.

The site is occupied by a detached chalet bungalow withdormers located on the east and west elevations. Theexisting dwelling features white render at ground floor levelwith an integrated garage and a brown tiled roof.

The character of the locality is predominantly residentialand consists of bungalows and chalet bungalows ofvarious designs and styles.


Planning application FG/163/15/HH was previously refused due to inconsistencies in the planssubmitted. This meant the scheme could not be fully considered and may have led to confusionwhen being viewed by members of the public.


REPRESENTATIONS

FG/163/15/HH Two storey extension & roof alteration.

15-12-2015

Refused


SITE AREA

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT





FG/5/16/HH


In response to the 8 No letters of objection:·The overlooking concerns raised in relation to the rear dormer can be overcome through theuse of condition - restricting the window to obscure glazing. ·The block plan is in accordance with the Council's own mapping system although it isacknowledged that part of the rear garden of 1 Malcolm Close is under the ownership of 2Malcolm Close. However, this inaccuracy in the block plan is not considered to haveprejudiced the consultation of this document or impacted upon the officers recommendationas the land remains in the same use, even if associated with a different property.·No trees are proposed to be removed and it is intended for a condition to be imposedrequiring their retention. ·The balcony is not considered to be level with ground floor windows. Although, its potentialimpact upon residential amenity will be considered further in the conclusion of this report. ·The proximity of the proposed extension to neighbouring properties will be considered in theconclusion of this report. ·Boundary screening to be retained through the use of condition.

In response to the comments received by residents of Berkeley Court:- It is considered that it should be highlighted that Berkeley Court does not share a boundarywith the application site and is located 91.74m from the application dwelling.·The proposal is not considered to give rise to any overshadowing of Berkeley Court due to theseparation distance between the two sites.·No details have been provided to suggest that additional planting is proposed by thisapplication. Regardless the planting of trees does not constitute development and cannot becontrolled by the Local Planning Authority.·The proposed extension is not considered to have any impacts upon the structural integrity ofBerkeley Court.·The proposal is not considered to result in additional roof area to the extent that drainagewould become an issue. It must be considered that the roof area created by the proposal does


No comments received from Parish Council.

1 No. letter of no objection:· No comments raised.

8 No. letters of objection (from 7 addresses):·The proposed rear dormer will create overlooking to the west of the site.·The block plan is incorrect and shows incorrect garden orientation to the west of the site.·Trees will be removed.·Balcony is level with ground floor windows to the west of the site.·Extension is located within 7m of windows of neighbouring property.·Hedge should be retained.

Comments relating to Berkeley Court:·Proposed extension will take sunlight from my garden during winter.·Replanting of trees will further block light.·Trees previously removed due to subsistence at Berkeley Court will these trees cause this tohappen again.·Increased roof area will affect drainage of water on site.·Increase property size will have additional impacts on sewerage system.·Increase traffic from larger dwelling will impact upon the road system.·The proposal will block sunlight.·The windows will overlook Berkeley Court.·Hours of work should be restricted.

FG/5/16/HH


Designation applicable to site:Within built area boundary.

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

not drastically go beyond that which could be achieved as permitted development.·The proposed increase in size of the dwelling through its extension and alteration is notconsidered to generate additional foul waste to the extent that the integrity of the seweragesystem is in question.·The proposed increase in size of the dwelling through its extension and alteration is notconsidered to generate additional vehicular movements to the extent that the safety of theroads would be adversely impacted. ·The hours during which construction works can be carried out are controlled byEnvironmental Health.

None


GEN2

GEN7

DEV19

Built-up Area BoundaryThe Form of New DevelopmentExtensions to existing residential buildings


NPPFNPPG







POLICY COMMENTARY



N/A

FG/5/16/HH

D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityD DM4 Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings(residential and non-residential)D SP1 DesignSD SP2 Built-Up Area Boundary







PRINCIPLEThe application site falls within the built up area boundary where the principle of development isacceptable subject to accordance with relevant development plan policies. In the determination ofthis application the relevant policies are considered to be GEN7 and DEV19 of the Arun DistrictLocal Plan.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITYThe existing dwelling features a dual height roof with the southern portion of the dwelling being 1mlower than the highest point of the existing roof. The application seeks permission for the increase

CONCLUSIONS







The Ferring Neighbourhood Plan has been made but there are considered to be no relevantpolicies to the determination of this application.

FG/5/16/HH


in height of this southern portion of the roof to match the height of the original roof.

The alterations will also include the replacement of the existing western dormer window with alarger dormer window featuring a picture window. The proposed dormer will measure 8.2m in width(3.2m wider than the existing rear dormer window) with a sloped roof to just below the ridge heightof the existing dwelling. This element of the proposal will not be visible within the street scene andas such is not considered to adversely impact upon the established character and appearance ofthe dwelling.

It is also proposed that a first floor extension featuring a gable roof will be constructed on theprimary elevation of the dwelling above the existing porch. The proposal will not extend any furtherforward at ground floor level with the exception of a small 0.4m extension around the front door.The first floor extension will be 0.1m lower than the existing ridge height and will extend a maximumof 4.5m from the roof slope at first floor level. Despite the size of this proposed addition it is notconsidered to adversely impact upon the character of appearance of the host dwelling. Theproposal does not appear subservient and as such is in conflict with policies DEV19(ii) of the ArunDistrict Local Plan but will appear well integrated. The first floor extension forward of the primaryelevation will not have a considerable presence within the street scene due to the level of boundaryscreening adjacent to the highway. Therefore, the proposal is deemed to be in accordance withpolicies GEN7(ii) and DEV19(v) of the Arun District Local Plan.

The proposal also includes the addition of 4 No. roof lights on the primary elevation of the dwelling.These roof lights are not considered to adversely impact upon the character of the host dwelling orthe wider street scene.

A single storey side extension to be used as an integrated garage is also proposed. This elementof the scheme will feature a hipped roof with no windows and will match the gradient of the existingdwelling. This aspect of the proposal alone would be deemed subservient to the host dwelling butfor the cumulative impact of all the proposed alterations.

The cumulative impact of the proposal is not considered to appear subservient to the host dwellingand as such is not considered to comply with policy DEV19(ii) of the Arun District Local Plan.

However, the design of the proposal is considered to integrate well with the existing dwellingappearing better integrated than the existing southern extent of the existing dwelling. The materialsproposed to be used in the alteration of the dwelling are recommended to match those alreadypresent on the dwelling ensuring that the proposed alterations appear further integrated with thehost dwelling. The materials are also considered in keeping with the existing character andappearance of the host dwelling and wider locality. Therefore, the proposal is considered to complywith policies GEN7(ii) and DEV19(i) of the Arun District Local Plan.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe proposal has generated a number of neighbour objection in relation to overlooking impacts.The primary concern raised by neighbours related to the rear dormer which has the potential togive rise to overlooking of a number of properties to the west of the application site. However, thisoverlooking issue can be overcome through the use of condition restricting the windows of thisdormer to being obscurely glazed and non-opening.

Concerns in relation to overlooking have also been raised in relation to the proposed balcony on thesouthern elevation of the property. However, the only property which could be overlooked by theproposed balcony would be 1 Malcolm Close which is situated 8.5m (at its closest point) to thesouth-west of the dwelling the subject of this application. The majority of the western boundary of

FG/5/16/HH


the site features planting to a height of between 2.5 and 3 metres, this boundary screening runshalf the length of 1 Malcolm Close where it is in closest proximity to the original dwellinghouse.Only the top of the ground floor kitchen window of 1 Malcolm Close which is not screened by theexisting boundary planting and this window is located approximately 1m from the boundary whichfeatures 1.8m high close boarded fencing. Only the fan lights will be visible above the fence line atan oblique angle - therefore, it is considered that due to the proximity of 1 Malcolm Close to theboundary and the distance of this window from the proposed balcony (approximately 15m away)there will not be an unacceptably adverse level of overlooking. 1 Malcolm Close also features 3 No.roof lights on the eastern elevation facing towards the rear garden of 2 Grange Park. However, dueto the angle of these roof lights and their design the overlooking resulting from the creation of thefirst floor balcony is considered acceptable.

It must also be considered that the proposed balcony will be accessed directly from the first floorbedroom and will measure 1.35m in depth. Therefore, it is considered that the balcony would notlend itself to use by large numbers of standing people and as such is more likely to be used as asitting out area in association with the use of the bedroom. The presence of the balcony has alsohad the effect of moving the bedroom windows further back from the gable end reducing anypotential overlooking due to the presence of the roof to the sides of the balcony. It is proposed thatthe balcony screening will be conditioned to remain obscurely glazed ensuring protection of theresidential amenity of neighbours and to help prevent any unacceptably adverse overlooking.Therefore, subject to the retention of the boundary screening the proposed balcony and windows atfirst floor level on the southern elevation of the dwelling are not considered to result in adverseoverlooking contrary to policies GEN7(iv) and DEV19(iii) of the Arun District Local Plan. As such, acondition requiring details of the existing boundary screening and its permanent retention willensure continued protection of the residential amenity of neighbours.

The proposed single storey side extension is not considered to give rise to any unacceptableadverse overlooking given the absence of any proposed windows at first floor level and is notdeemed to appear overbearing or overshadowing due to its design. The proposal features a hippedroof on the northern elevation which increased the first floor spacing to the northern boundary.

The proposed alterations to the roof and first floor extension are not considered to appearoverbearing upon neighbours due to their design and the presence of considerable boundaryscreening on the western boundary which is recommended to be protected. Therefore, theproposal is not considered to generate unacceptable adverse overlooking, overshadowing oroverbearing impacts and is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies GEN7(iv) andDEV19(iii) of the Arun District Local Plan.

CONCLUSIONThe proposal is considered to comply with relevant development plan policies and as such isrecommended for approval subject to the below conditions.

FG/5/16/HH


Consideration has been specifically given to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) andArticle 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT





The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans: Drawing 3 - Location and Block Plan (4th October 2014); Drawing 2 -Existing and Proposed Elevations (4th October 2014); and Drawing 1 - Proposed FloorPlans (4th October 2014).


The materials and finishes of the external walls and roof of the extensions and alterationshereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those of the existing building.


The windows located at first floor level on the western elevation shall at all times beobscurely glazed and non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be openedare more than 1.7m above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.


Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the westernboundary planting and screening shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority andagrees. The boundary screening will be retained in its current approved form in perpetuity.

Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved details for obscurely glazedbalustrade for the first floor balcony on the southern elevation shall be submitted to andapproved by the Local Authority. The obscurely glazed balcony screening herebyapproved shall be constructed within 1 month of the completion of this development andthereafter permanently retained.

1

2

3

4

5

6

RECOMMENDATION

FG/5/16/HH

for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes unreasonably with any local residents'right to respect for their private and family life and home, except insofar as it is necessary toprotect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council isalso permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and therecommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submittedapplication based on the considerations set out in this report.


In assessing this proposal no impacts have been identified upon any protected characteristics.





7

FG/5/16/HH


FG/5/16/HH

FG/5/16/HH Indicative Location Plan







Hangleton Nurseries

Hangleton Lane

Variation of condition 7 imposed under FG/45/15/PL to extend the use of the

site hours.

FG/8/16/PL

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Ferring

As above. Condition 7 of planning permission FG/45/15/PLstates'No vehicle movements shall take place on the site and nodeliveries taken at or despatched from the site outside thefollowing times 0800 hours to 1600 hours Monday to Fridayand not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays'The condition does not refer to the proposed hours ofoperation on a Saturday. The applicant wishes to amendthe condition to include Saturday mornings between 0800hours and 1300 hours. Originally the application soughtapproval for all day Saturday and Sunday from 0800 hoursto 1800 hours, but following negotiation the application hasbeen reduced to Saturday mornings only.

0.87 hectares

N/A

Predominantly flat.

None of any significance affected by development.

Close boarded fencing approximately 1.8m high on westboundary with tree line and fencing above 2m high alongthe north boundary. Walling part of which is in flint andtrees above 2m high along east and south boundaries

Mainly devoid of structures. The majority is concretehardstanding. Aggregate piles situated towards north andeast boundaries. A number of metal storage containers arepositioned on the west boundary

Predominantly residential character in rural setting. Carsales garage to tsouth which has recently been extendedand a farm to the east. Greenhouses and horticultural usesexist to the north. The dual carriageway stretch of the A259to the south. Hangleton Lane passes the site to the westwhich is a rural road and becomes a footpath andbridleway to the north providing access to Highdown Hilland the National Park.



SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




FG/8/16/PL

BN12 6PP


The use of the site for the storage of vehicles has been allowed on appeal and the principle of theuse cannot therefore be considered as part of this application.


REPRESENTATIONS

FG/161/15/CLE

FG/46/15/PL

FG/45/15/PL

FG/162/14/PL

Lawful development certificate for an existinguse of the land for Storage & Distribution ofmaterials (Use Class B8)

Change of use of land fromagricultural/compost production to B8 storage.This application is a Departure from theDevelopment Plan

Change of use of land fromagricultural/compost production to B8Storage. This application is a Departure fromthe Development Plan

Change of use from agricultural/compostproduction (Sui Generis) to B8 (Storage orDistribution) (resubmission followingFG/127/14/PL). This application is aDeparture from the Development Plan.

12-11-2015

10-06-2015

10-06-2015

23-12-2014

Withdrawn

Refused

Refused

Refused


Ferring Parish Council

Objection - Arun District Local Plan states that the Gap on the north side of the A259 is to beprotected from such development. This site is knowingly used for agricultural use and not fora storage or distribution facility. This application is inconsistent with the Local Plan and is acontradiction to the Ferring Neighbourhood Plan.*Would have an impact on the infrastructure of the A259. Additional traffic to and from the site,will have to exit onto the already congested A259. *Will cause unacceptable impact on the local environment and neighbouring residentialproperties by reason of noise and disturbance.*The site is countryside and agricultural land, a planning application clearly falls foul of this.Proposal is completely unacceptable.

Ferring Conservation Group - Objection. Would further intensify the commercial use of thesite within the Angmering Gap, designated as countryside. The application must be seen inthe context of FG/8/16 and FG/10/16 and the appeal decision on FG/45/15/PL. The latterdecision was explicitly for open-air storage of motor vehicles only. The applicant is gaming thesystem, seeking to change the use further incrementally.The conditions on hours of operation has been approved by the Inspector as limiting thenuisance to the residential neighbours and to others who wish to enjoy the quiet access thatthis lane gives to Highdown. The site lies in a countryside location where development isallowed only in particular circumstances.

One objection - No material change to support the removal of restrictions placed on the use ofthe facility to, protect close neighbours. The applicant knew what the nature of the motor

FG/8/16/PL

Appeal: Dismissed 31 12 2015


Appealed

Appealed


Designation applicable to site:Outside the Built-Up Area BoundaryGaps Between Settlements

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

The principle objection to the use for car storage in this rural area cannot be considered inrelation to this application since it has been allowed on appeal. The proposal has beenreduced to relate to the additional use of the premises on a Saturday morning only. This isgenerally accepted as reasonable for business/retail uses adjacent to residential propertiesand would not therefore result in demonstrable harm to neighbouring properties.

Environmental Health - No Objection. Agree to hours of operation 8.00 to 18.00 Monday to Fridayand 8.00 to 13.00 hours Saturday and no operation Sundays or bank holidays.



GEN7

DEV30The Form of New DevelopmentLocal and Village Centres


NPPFNPPG





Paragraph 215 of the NPPF ensures specific policies in the Arun District Local Plan 2003 can carryweight. The weight afforded to the policies can be assessed according to their level of consistencyof the various policies with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Paragraph 216 of the NPPF confirms that weight can be given to policies in emerging plans fromthe day of publication. The Council resolved that the policies and maps in the Publication Version ofthe Local Plan be used in the determination of this planning application. Following 'publication' of

POLICY COMMENTARY

business was when they accepted the restricted planning consent but went ahead with theintent purpose to appeal a revision.



Comments noted.

FG/8/16/PL


RET DM1 Retail DevelopmentD DM1 Aspects of Form and Design Quality


Land north of Littlehampton Road, encouragingof existing rural businesses

Ferring Neighbourhood Plan 2014 Policy 7






SITE HISTORYThe permitted use of the site was for horticultural use which included the production of compost.The nursery use ceased in approximately 2000 and since then the site has been largely vacantwith just the buildings on site being used for storage. However the site has recently been thesubject of an allowed appeal against FG/45/15/PL.

POLICY PRINCIPLEThe site is outside the built up area boundary where the principle of development is unacceptableunless it complies with Local Development Plan policies. The principle of the use of the site has

CONCLUSIONS



the Local Plan a formal public consultation, examination and adoption process takes place.




Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; Bognor Regis; Clymping; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring;Kingston; Littlehampton; Rustington; Yapton. Policy 7 ' Land North of Littlehampton Road,encouragement of existing rural business' of Ferring Neighbourhood Plan is relevant.

FG/8/16/PL


been allowed at appeal and only the impact of the noise and activity generated at the site for anadditional 5 hours on a Saturday morning can be considered.

GAPS BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS (POLICY SD SP3, EMERGING LOCAL PLAN)The site lies within the defined Angmering to Worthing Gap as set out in policy SD SP3 of theEmerging Local Plan. Development will only be permitted if it (a) would not undermine the physicaland/or visual separation of settlements (b) it would not compromise the integrity of the gap, eitherindividually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development; (c) it cannot be locatedelsewhere. It is considered that the extended hours of use of the site would not compromise orharmfully undermine the integrity of the Gap. There would be no additional erosion of the ruralappearance of the site beyond that resulting from the approved car storage.

FERRING PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2014 - 2029The application site is within Policy 7: Land North of Littlehampton Road, within the NeighbourhoodPlan. The use of the site for storage of cars has been permitted on appeal and the buildingproposed would be used in association with this permitted use. The land is not thereforeagricultural, horticultural or horse-related and as such this part of the policy does not apply.

BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSALDue to the nature of the cars sales business there is a requirement for members of staff to be ableto access the vehicle compound during the normal opening hours of the garage premises, whichincludes weekends and Bank Holidays and move vehicles on and off the site. The adjoining garageon the A259 is open all week, with current opening hours being 0800hrs - 1900hrs Monday -Saturday and 0800hrs - 18:00hrs on Sundays.The applicant wished to extend the use of the site to 0800hrs - 1800hrs Monday to Friday and0800hrs - 1700hrs on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays which was 1 hour less than thegarage business. Following negotiations the hours sought have been reduced to Saturday morningonly. The applicant has no requirement for any transporter deliveries to take place during weekendsor bank holidays, and requires vehicular access only during these times.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITYThe application increases the hours of operation to include Saturday mornings. Whilst activitylevels across the site would increase it is not considered this would be sufficient to sustain refusalof the application. There would be no harm to the rural setting of the area since no furtherdevelopment is proposed. It is considered the proposal is acceptable in visual amenity terms.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe increase in noise and activity levels arising from the use of the site on Saturday morningswould not be significant or generate an unacceptable level of activity above that currentlygenerated. The use of business premises on Saturday mornings is generally accepted asreasonable in residential areas. The additional 5 hours would not result in disturbance toresidential amenities at times when peace and quiet would be expected. It is considered theproposal is acceptable in residential amenity terms.

HIGHWAYS AND PARKINGThe proposal would have no additional impact on the highway network above the levels allowed onappeal. The car movements generated in the morning would not be significant.

SUMMARY ON PLANNING POLICYThe proposal does not represent further expansion of the built environment within the rural areaand would have no adverse impact on the character of the area or the residential amenities ofadjoining properties. It is recommended the application be approved subject to the following

FG/8/16/PL


conditions.




The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans 1555/5, 1555/3, 1555/201, 1555/7, 1555/200 and 4582/SPA/203 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

With the exception of storage of items associated with the use of the site includingbusiness paper archives, marketing paraphernalia and business furniture, the premisesshall be used for the open storage of vehicles associated with the use of the cardealership premises adjacent, and for no other purpose (including any other purpose inClass B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987,or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

1

2

3

RECOMMENDATION

FG/8/16/PL

FOR APPROVAL Human Rights Act:The Council in making a decision should be aware of and take into account any implications thatmay arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority suchas Arun District Council to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention onHuman Rights.


HUMAN RIGHTS ACT





Reason: In the interests of the visual and residential amenities of the locality inaccordance with policies GEN3 and GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The existing buildings on site as annotated on the accompanying Block Plan (existingoffices) Drawing Number 1555/5 shall only be used for storage purposes associated withthe use of the car dealership premises adjacent and shall not be used for vehicle cleaningor valeting.


The use hereby approved shall not begin until details of drainage works have beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approvedscheme has been put in place and made operative, and the scheme shall be retained assuch thereafter.


The use hereby approved shall not begin until details of a scheme for the control of cartransporter deliveries has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority. The submitted details shall include numbers/frequency, and measures toensure that transporters unload/load only within the site boundary and enter and leave thesite in forward gear. Only the approved scheme of transporter deliveries shall be operatedthereafter.

Reason : To ensure that the proposed development has no adverse impact on highwayand in the interests of residential amenity in accordance with policy GEN7 of the ArunDistrict Council Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

No external lighting shall be provided on the site other than has first been submitted to andapproved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any scheme submitted is to includedetails of the times of operation and the control of light spillage.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with policiesGEN3 and GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No vehicle movements shall take place on the site and no deliveries taken at ordespatched from the site outside the following times 0800hrs to 1800hrs Monday to Fridayand 0800hours to 1300 hours Saturday and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or PublicHolidays

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of adjoining properties in accordancewith policies GEN3 and GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.


4

5

6

7

8

9

FG/8/16/PL


FG/8/16/PL

FG/8/16/PL Indicative Location Plan







Hangleton Nurseries

Hangleton Lane

Variation of condition 6 imposed under FG/45/15/PL relating to use of site.

FG/9/16/PL

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Ferring

Condition 6 of planning permission FG/45/15/PL states 'The premises shall be used for the open storage ofvehicles associated with the use of the car dealershippremises adjacent, and for no other purpose (including anyother purpose in Class B8 of the Schedule to the Townand Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in anyprovision equivalent to that Class in any statutoryinstrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with orwithout modification).'The proposal is to include the use of existing buildings onthe site for storage associated with the car dealership use.This would include the storage of business paper archives,marketing paraphernalia and business furniture that is notcurrently in use. The use for car cleaning has been deletedfrom the application. The application seeks amendment to the wording ofcondition 6 to 'the premises shall be used for the openstorage of vehicles associated with the use of the cardealership premises adjacent, and for no other purposes(including any other purpose in Class B8 of the Scheduleto the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order1987, whilst all existing buildings on site (as annotated onthe accompanying Block Plan (existing offices) DrawingNumber 1555/5 shall be used for storage purposes.

0.867 hectares

N/A

Predominantly flat.

None of any significance affected by the proposeddevelopment.

Close boarded fencing at approximately 1.8m in heightalong the western boundary with a tree line and fencingabove 2m in height along the northern boundary. Wallingpart of which is in flint and trees above 2m in height alongthe eastern and southern boundaries



SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT


FG/9/16/PL

BN12 6PP


The site is mainly devoid of structures and the majority laidin concrete hardstanding. There are aggregate pilessituated towards the northern and eastern boundaries ofthe site. A number of metal storage containers arepositioned along the western boundary

Predominantly residential in character in a rural setting.There is a car sales garage to the south which hasrecently been extended and a farm to the east.Greenhouses and horticultural uses exist to the north. Thedual carriageway stretch of the A259 to the south.Hangleton Lane passes the site to the west which is a ruralroad and becomes a footpath and bridleway to the northproviding access to Highdown Hill and the South DownsNational Park.

The use of the site for the storage of vehicles has been allowed on appeal and the principle of theuse cannot therefore be considered as part of this application.


REPRESENTATIONS

FG/45/15/PL

FG/162/14/PL



10-06-2015

23-12-2014

Refused

Refused





Objection - Arun District Local Plan states that the Gap on the north side of the A259 is to beprotected from such development. This site is knowingly used for agricultural use and not fora storage or distribution facility. This application is inconsistent with the Local Plan and is acontradiction to the Ferring Neighbourhood Plan.*Would have an impact on the infrastructure of the A259. Additional traffic to and from the site,will have to exit onto the already congested A259. *Will cause unacceptable impact on the local environment and neighbouring residentialproperties.*The site is countryside and agricultural land, a planning application clearly falls foul of this.Proposal is completely unacceptable.

Ferring Conservation Group - Objection. Would further intensify the commercial use of thesite within the Angmering Gap, designated as countryside. The application must be seen inthe context of FG/8/16 and FG/10/16 and the appeal decision on FG/45/15/. The latter decision

FG/9/16/PL


Appealed



POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

Comment on Parish Council objection - The principle objection to the use for car storage inthis rural area cannot be considered in relation to this application since it has been allowed onappeal. The proposal does not involve the provision of any new buildings on the site and thesite area is not increasing. There would therefore be no additional traffic generation above thatpreviously approved. Any storage would take place internally within existing buildings andwould not therefore result in demonstrable harm to neighbouring properties.

Comment on other representations - The use of buildings for storage and car valeting wouldnot intensify the use of the site. The site area would not increase and the internal use ofexisting buildings would reduce noise and activity levels by enclosing them.

Environmental Health - Given the restricted hours of operation of this site agreed in FG/8/16/PLthere is no objection to the premises being used for storage purposes. However, any 'other useof buildings associated with the car dealership' shall not cause nuisance to any neighbour. In theinstance that such a situation might reasonably be expected to arise, then a scheme shall besubmitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority and Environmental Health Departmentwhich specifies the proposed use and provisions to be made for the control of noise and anyemissions, including odour associated with that use, before such use goes ahead.This is in order to protect the amenity of nearby occupied premises , in accordance with ArunDistrict Local Plan policies GEN7 and GEN32



GEN3

GEN7

DEV8

GEN12

Protection of the CountrysideThe Form of New DevelopmentCirumstances in which AdditionalDevelopment may be Permit'dParking in New Development


was explicitly for open-air storage of motor vehicles only. The applicant is gaming the system,seeking to change the use further incrementally.The conditions on attached to FG/45/15 are there to limit the use of the site so as to minimisethe impact of the motor vehicle business on the residential neighbours and on the ruralcharacter of this important lane, footpath and bridleway up to the National Park at Highdown.Using these buildings for storage of the paraphernalia of the motor vehicle trade would involvemore activity on the site, more noise and disturbance.

One objection - No material change to support expansion of the use of the site is evident. Theoriginal planning consent took into account the close proximity to residential properties.



Comments noted. The proposed wording of condition 3 restricts the use of the premises inaccordance with the Inspector's decision. Any additional control over noise and emissions wouldnot be reasonable given the conditions imposed by the Inspector.

FG/9/16/PL



NPPFNPPG











POLICY COMMENTARY

FG/9/16/PL

C SP1 CountrysideD DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualitySD SP3 Gaps Between SettlementsT SP1 Transport and DevelopmentEMP DM1 Employment land: Development Management


Land north of Littlehampton Road, encouragingof existing rural businesses

Ferring Neighbourhood Plan 2014 Policy 7






SITE HISTORYThe permitted use of the site was for horticultural use which included the production of compost.The nursery use ceased in approximately 2000 and since then the site has been largely vacantwith just the buildings on site being used for storage. However the site has recently been thesubject of an allowed appeal against FG/45/15/PL.

POLICY PRINCIPLEThe site is located outside the built up area boundary where the principle of new development isunacceptable unless it complies with relevant Local Development Plan policies. The principle of theuse of the site has been allowed at appeal and only the impact of the use of the existing buildingscan be considered as part of this application.

GAPS BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS (POLICY SD SP3, EMERGING LOCAL PLAN)The site lies within the defined Angmering to Worthing Gap as set out in policy SD SP3 of theEmerging Local Plan. Development will only be permitted if it (a) would not undermine the physicaland/or visual separation of settlements (b) it would not compromise the integrity of the gap, eitherindividually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development; (c) it cannot be locatedelsewhere. It is considered that the proposed use of existing buildings would not compromise orharmfully undermine the integrity of the Gap. There would be no additional erosion of the ruralappearance of the site beyond that resulting from the approved car storage.

FERRING PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2014 - 2029The application site is within Policy 7: Land North of Littlehampton Road, within the NeighbourhoodPlan. The use of the site for storage of cars has been permitted on appeal and the buildingproposed would be used in association with this permitted use. The land is not thereforeagricultural, horticultural or horse-related and as such this part of the policy does not apply.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITYThe application is for the use of the existing buildings on the site for storage in addition to theapproved storage of vehicles numbering 70-100 in association with the Yeomans Peugeot Garageto the south. No additional structures are proposed as part of the application and the retention ofthe buildings would reduce the visual impact of the approved car storage immediately adjacent tosite boundaries. The impact on visual amenity would not be altered. It would not be harmful to therural setting of the area since no further development is proposed.

CONCLUSIONS



FG/9/16/PL


It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in visual amenity terms.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe use of the buildings for vehicle, office and furniture storage would not increase the amount ofactivity on the site. The use of the buildings would reduce noise levels by internalising some of theuses already approved. Some of the buildings to the west of the site are located adjacent toresidential properties, but the buildings are existing and the nature and level of use proposed iscomparable with level of activity currently generated which is not considered to cause harmfullevels of disturbance to residential amenity.

It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in residential amenity terms.

HIGHWAYS AND PARKINGThe proposal would have no additional impact on the highway network above the levels allowed onappeal. The storage uses would not facilitate additional car storage.

SUMMARY ON PLANNING POLICYThe proposal does not represent a further expansion of the built environment within the rural areaand would have no adverse impact on the visual amenities of the locality or the residentialamenities of adjoining properties.

It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.


RECOMMENDATION

FG/9/16/PL



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT







The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans 1555/5, 1555/3, 201, 1555/200 and 4582/SPA/203 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

With the exception of storage of items associated with the use of the site includingbusiness paper archives, marketing paraphernalia and business furniture, the premisesshall be used for the open storage of vehicles associated with the use of the cardealership premises adjacent, and for no other purpose (including any other purpose inClass B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987,or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).


The existing buildings on site as annotated on the accompanying Block Plan (existingoffices) Drawing Number 1555/5 shall only be used for storage purposes associated withthe use of the car dealership premises adjacent and shall not be used for vehicle cleaningor valeting.


The use hereby approved shall not begin until details of drainage works have beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approvedscheme has been put in place and made operative, and the scheme shall be retained assuch thereafter.


The use hereby approved shall not begin until details of a scheme for the control of cartransporter deliveries has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority. The submitted details shall include numbers/frequency, and measures toensure that transporters unload/load only within the site boundary and enter and leave thesite in forward gear. Only the approved scheme of transporter deliveries shall be operatedthereafter.

Reason : To ensure that the proposed development has no adverse impact on highwayand in the interests of residential amenity in accordance with policy GEN7 of the ArunDistrict Council Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

No external lighting shall be provided on the site other than has first been submitted to andapproved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any scheme submitted is to includedetails of the times of operation and the control of light spillage.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

FG/9/16/PL


Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with policiesGEN3 and GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No vehicle movements shall take place on the site and no deliveries taken at ordespatched from the site outside the following times 0800hrs to 1800hrs Monday to Fridayand 0800hours to 1300 hours Saturday and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or PublicHolidays

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of adjoining properties in accordancewith policies GEN3 and GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.


8

9

FG/9/16/PL


FG/9/16/PL








Hangleton Nurseries

Hangleton Lane

Erection of a wash-down area adjacent to existing wash-down bay including

a connection to existing interceptor at adjacent car dealership premises.

FG/10/16/PL

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Ferring

The proposal relates to the provision of a washdown bay tofacilitate the cleaning of vehicles on site, prior to beingdelivered to customers. The washdown area would have acanopy over and would measure 9.68m by 5.84 with aheight of 3.8m. The canopy would be made of profiledvertical steel cladding finished in light grey. The canopywould comprise a galvanised tubular framework within apvc coated polyester canvas. It would have a curved roof.The pressure washer that would be utilised is in use at theadjoining garage premises and would be relocatedadjacent to the rear boundary of the existing cardealership.

0.867 hectares

N/A

Predominantly flat.


Close boarded fencing at approximately 1.8m in heightalong the western boundary with a tree line and fencingabove 2m in height along the northern boundary. Wallingpart of which is in flint and trees above 2m in height alongthe eastern and southern boundaries.

The site is mainly devoid of structures and the majority laidin concrete hardstanding. There are aggregate pilessituated towards the northern and eastern boundaries ofthe site. A number of metal storage containers arepositioned along the western boundary.

Predominantly residential in character in a rural setting.There is a car sales garage to the south which hasrecently been extended and a farm to the east.Greenhouses and horticultural uses exist to the north. Thedual carriageway stretch of the A259 to the south.Hangleton Lane passes the site to the west which is a ruralroad and becomes a footpath and bridleway to the north



SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




FG/10/16/PL

BN12 6PP


providing access to Highdown Hill and the South DownsNational Park.


REPRESENTATIONS

FG/45/15/PL

FG/46/15/PL

FG/162/14/PL


Change of use of land fromagricultural/compost production to B8 storage.This application is a Departure from theDevelopment Plan


10-06-2015

10-06-2015

23-12-2014

Refused

Refused

Refused



Objection - Arun District Local Plan states that the Gap on the north side of the A259 is to beprotected from such development. This site is knowingly used for agricultural use and not fora storage or distribution facility. This application is inconsistent with the Local Plan and is acontradiction to the Ferring Neighbourhood Plan.*Would have an impact on the infrastructure of the A259. Additional traffic to and from the site,will have to exit onto the already congested A259. *Will be an unsightly structure that will cause a nuisance to local residential properties.*The site is countryside and agricultural land, a planning application clearly falls foul of this.Proposal is completely unacceptable.

Ferring Conservation Group - Objection. This should be seen in the context of the very recentappeal decision and the two simultaneous applications FG/8/16 and FG/9/16. Had these 3proposals been part of the planning application which the Council refused last year, theywould certainly have been refused. By making these applications, for an intensification of thecommercial use of the site, the applicant is gaming the system, seeking to change the usefurther incrementally. The erection of a building for a wash-down facility is not consistent with the use of thepremises for B8 storage. The operation of the wash-down facility would add considerably tothe noise and intrusion already suffered by the occupiers of Florence Villa. The site isdesignated as countryside and the Local Plan stipulates that development will only be allowedin very particular circumstances, which do not apply here.

FG/10/16/PL



Appealed

Appealed



POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

Comment on Parish Council objection - The principle objection to the use for car storage inthis rural area cannot be considered in relation to this application since it has been allowed onappeal. The proposal would not involve any increase in vehicular movements. There would beno additional traffic generation above that previously approved. Indeed, the agents haveadvised that by moving the wash down area to the Hangleton Nursery site the number ofcomings and goings between the 2 sites is likely to be reduced. Following delivery of cars tothe site, they can be washed and delivered directly to the garage ready for collection.Comment on other representations - The provision of a building for car washing would not bean inappropriate use in this application site as it is an ancillary use. The applications submittedare being considered separately, but are being determined at the same time. The buildingwould be sited a sufficient distance from Florence Villa to ensure no adverse impact onresidential amenity would result.

Environmental Health - There is insufficient detail as to how this proposal will alter the acousticenvironment. Please advise on the likely noise output from operation of the car wash andpressure hose at this facility and on steps which will mitigate this.

Engineers - No Objection in principle standard conditions requested.



GEN3

GEN7

DEV8

GEN12

Protection of the CountrysideThe Form of New DevelopmentCirumstances in which AdditionalDevelopment may be Permit'dParking in New Development


One Objection - There is no sound reason given why this is needed. The neighbours to thisoperation are already protected and this needs to continue.



Comments noted. It is considered that the concerns of the environmental health officer havebeen addressed by the imposition of a condition restricting use of machinery on the site to handheld tools only.

FG/10/16/PL




C SP1 CountrysideD DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualitySD SP3 Gaps Between SettlementsT SP1 Transport and DevelopmentEMP DM1 Employment land: Development Management


Land north of Littlehampton Road, encouragingFerring Neighbourhood Plan 2014 Policy 7





NPPFNPPG











POLICY COMMENTARY

FG/10/16/PL

of existing rural businesses



SITE HISTORYThe permitted use of the site was for horticultural use which included the production of compost.The nursery use ceased in approximately 2000 and since then the site has been largely vacantwith just the buildings on site being used for storage. However the site has recently been thesubject of an appeal against FG/45/15/PL where permission was granted for the change of use ofland to storage use as an extension of the existing car dealership.

POLICY PRINCIPLEThe site is located outside the built up area boundary where the principle of new development isunacceptable unless it complies with relevant Local Development Plan policies. However, theprinciple of the use of the site has been allowed at appeal and only the impact of the use of theexisting buildings can be considered as part of this application.

GAPS BETWEEN SETTLEMENTS (POLICY SD SP3, EMERGING LOCAL PLAN)The site lies within the defined Angmering to Worthing Gap as set out in policy SD SP3 of theEmerging Local Plan. Development will only be permitted if it (a) would not undermine the physicaland/or visual separation of settlements (b) it would not compromise the integrity of the gap, eitherindividually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development; (c) it cannot be locatedelsewhere. It is considered that the proposed building would not compromise or harmfullyundermine the integrity of the Gap. There would be no material additional erosion of the ruralappearance of the site beyond that resulting from the approved car storage. The building wouldhave a low profile and would be located adjacent to the southern site boundary close to adjoiningdevelopment. it would not erode the gap being located in an area where other buildings exist on thesite boundaries.

FERRING PARISH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2014 - 2029The application site is within Policy 7: Land North of Littlehampton Road, within the NeighbourhoodPlan. The use of the site for storage of cars has been permitted on appeal and the buildingproposed would be used in association with this permitted use. The land is not thereforeagricultural, horticultural or horse-related and as such this part of the policy does not apply.However, the proposal would accord with the policy in that it is discretely sited to reduce its visualimpact on the surrounding countryside and does not result in an incursion into the countryside.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITYThe application is for a new structure located behind the rear of the existing garage showroompremises, adjacent to the boundary flint wall. The structure would only project 1.1m above theheight of the wall. The material would be similar to other buildings in the locality and the precisecolour of the pvc coated canvas is proposed to be conditioned so that it blends in. The impact onvisual amenity would not be significant given the limited dimensions and appearance of the buildingand its location close to existing buildings. It would not be harmful to the rural setting of the area

CONCLUSIONS



FG/10/16/PL


since the building would be discretely sited and not appear as a visually isolated structure whenviewed from outside the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal would have no materiallyadverse impact on visual amenity or the character of the area.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe provision of a building for wash down purposes would not increase the amount of activity onthe site. In fact the agent has advised that this will be reduced since it would delete a trip to andfrom the car showroom part of the site. The use of washing cars down within a building wouldreduce noise levels by internalising some of the noise generation. The building would be locatedmore than 20m from the boundary of the nearest residential curtilage which is consideredadequate to prevent harmful levels of disturbance to residential amenity.

It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in residential amenity terms.

HIGHWAYS AND PARKINGThe proposal would have no additional impact on the highway network above the levels allowed onappeal. The agent has advised that traffic movements will decrease as a result of the proposal. SUMMARY ON PLANNING POLICYThe proposal does not represent a further expansion of the built environment within the rural areaand would have no unacceptable adverse impact on the visual amenities of the locality or theresidential amenities of adjoining properties.

It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.

FG/10/16/PL



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


In assessing this proposal the neutral impacts have been identified upon those people with thefollowing protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civilpartnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation).






The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans 1555/201, 1555/6 and 1555/4 A. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.






No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishesto be used for the roof of the proposed building have been submitted to and approved bythe Local Planning Authority and the materials so approved shall be used in theconstruction of the building.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in theinterests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordancewith policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No power tools or machinery shall be used at the premises other than portable hand tools.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring properties in accordance withArun District Local Plan policies GEN7 and GEN32.


1

2

3

4

5

6

RECOMMENDATION

FG/10/16/PL


FG/10/16/PL








White Thorne

The Warren

Rooms in roof, raise ridge & install 4 No. dormers (resubmission following

FG/86/15/HH).

FG/213/15/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Ferring

The application seeks permission to increase the height ofthe gable roof by 1.3m and the addition of 4 No. dormer's.2 No. dormer windows will be located on the east and 2No. dormer windows on the west of the property.

Approximately 593 m2.

Predominantly flat.


The front is open to the highway with a 1.8m high closeboarded fence located to the side and rear of the dwellingwith mature planting.

Detached bungalow constructed from brick with grey tiledgable roof.

Predominantly residential consisting of various designsand styles.


Refused application FG/86/15/HH sought permission to increase the ridge and install 6 dormers.


REPRESENTATIONS

FG/86/15/HH

FG/110/11/

FG/87/10/

Rooms in roof, raising ridge & installation of 6No. dormers.

Proposed detached bungalow, detachedsingle garage & new landscaping.

Two detached bungalows.

07-08-2015

02-11-2011

27-08-2010

Refused

App Cond with S106

Refused


SITE AREA

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT





FG/213/15/HH


BN12 5PQ

Appealed


Designation applicable to site:PD RestrictionWithin built area boundary

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

Noted. Impact on street scene is covered in "Conclusions". Concerns regarding overlookingfrom the dormers on the south could be overcome by conditions requiring non-opening/obscurely glazing.

None



DEV19

GEN2

GEN7

Extensions to existing residential buildingsBuilt-up Area BoundaryThe Form of New Development


NPPFNPPG






Paragraph 216 of the NPPF confirms that weight can be given to policies in emerging plans fromthe day of publication. The Council resolved that the policies and maps in the Publication Version ofthe Local Plan be used in the determination of this planning application. Following 'publication' of

POLICY COMMENTARY


Objection: Although re-application has been scaled back in terms of numbers and design ofthe dormers the ridge height has been increased by 1.3m. The dormers on the south elevationmight give rise to unacceptable overlooking of the adjacent property. It is not in keeping withthe surroundings and it would look radically different to neighbouring properties.



N/A

FG/213/15/HH








PRINCIPLEThe site is in the built-up area boundary where the principle of development is acceptable, subjectto accordance with relevant planning policies. The main criteria against which the application willbe assessed is in the Local Plan which in this case is policies GEN7 and DEV19.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITYRefused application (FG/86/15/HH) identified the increase in height of the roof as detrimental to the

CONCLUSIONS



the Local Plan a formal public consultation, examination and adoption process takes place.





The Ferring Neighbourhood Plan has been made but there are considered to be no relevantpolicies to the determination of this application.

FG/213/15/HH


character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene contrary to policies GEN7(ii) andDEV19 (i), (ii) & (v) of the Local Plan. The concerns in relation to the proposed ridge heightincrease were exacerbated by the proposed dormers which were situated approximately 2.4mfrom the primary elevation of the dwelling. The position of the dormers in conjunction with theirdesign resulted in a dwelling of a bulk, mass and height which was unacceptable.

The proposal has been amended although the increase in height remains unchanged. The numberof dormers has reduced from 6 to 4 with them being relocated further back from the primaryelevation. The dormers are positioned between 5.48m and 7.2m from the primary elevation of thedwelling. The design of the dormers has been amended with the pitched roofs being removedwhich has had a significant improvement upon the bulk and mass of the dwelling. The alterationshave significantly reduced the cumulative impacts of the proposal, whilst reducing the visibility andimpact of the dormer windows on the character of the dwelling and the street scene.

Rooflights are used in lieu of the western most dormers proposed under FG/86/15/HH. These arenot considered to have a detrimental impact upon the established character of the area or the hostdwelling and accords with GEN7 (ii) and DEV19 (v) of the Arun District Local Plan.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe distance of the host dwelling from the northern elevation and the absence of any residentialproperties in this location prevents any detrimental overbearing, overlooking or overshadowingimpacts on the northern boundary of the application site.

The host dwelling is 1.7m from the southern boundary of the site at its closest point although thissection of the dwelling is a flat roofed side extension which is not to be altered. The roof alterationis 4m from the southern boundary and this distance in conjunction with the neighbouring propertiesdistance from the boundary is considered to prevent unacceptable adverse overbearing impacts.Due to the position of the dwelling to the north of Swallows Drift it is considered the increase in roofheight will not generate unacceptably adverse overshadowing.

Concerns are raised by the Parish Council regarding potential overlooking which could begenerated by the dormers on the south elevation. Whilst it is acknowledged that the south-easternmost dormer has the potential to create unacceptable overlooking of the rear garden of SwallowsDrift this can be overcome by condition to obscure glaze the window and make it non openingbelow a certain height. It is considered that no unacceptable adverse overlooking would begenerated by the roof lights and additional dormer on the south elevation with only two smallbathroom windows being located on the north elevation of Swallows Drift.

The proposal is not considered to give rise to unacceptable adverse overlooking, overshadowing oroverbearing impacts upon residential amenity of neighbouring properties and accords withGEN7(iv) and DEV19(iii) of the Arun District Local Plan.

SUMMARYThe proposal is considered to comply with relevant development plan policies and isrecommended for approval subject to conditions.

FG/213/15/HH

The Council in making a decision should be aware of and take into account any implications thatmay arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority suchas Arun District Council to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT





The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans: Block Plan; Existing and Proposed Elevations - SB/15/314/2/B; ProposedFloor Plans - AB/15/314/1 A; and Proposed Section and Roof Plan - SB/15/314/3 A. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The materials and finishes of the roof and dormers of the building hereby permitted shallmatch in colour and texture those of the existing building.


No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishesand samples of the Marley Eternit Cladding to be used for gable ends of the proposedbuilding have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thematerials so approved shall be used in the construction of the roof alteration.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in theinterests of amenity in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The eastern most dormer on the southern elevation of White Thorne shall at all times beobscurely glazed and non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be openedare more than 1.7m above the floor level of the room in which the window is installed.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policies GEN7 and DEV19 of the

1

2

3

4

5

RECOMMENDATION

FG/213/15/HH

Human Rights.

Consideration has been specifically given to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) andArticle 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendationfor approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes unreasonably with any local residents'right to respect for their private and family life and home, except insofar as it is necessary toprotect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council isalso permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and therecommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submittedapplication based on the considerations set out in this report.





Arun District Local Plan.


6

FG/213/15/HH


FG/213/15/HH

FG/213/15/HH Indicative Location Plan







84 Flansham Lane

Felpham

Outline application for 1No. bungalow. Resubmission of FP/44/15/OUT

FP/8/16/OUT

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

PO22 6AH

All matters except access are reserved and the submittedlayout and elevations are for indicative purposes only.

The dwelling will be sited in part of No. 84s rear garden andwill front onto Summerhill Drive. It will be single storey withno accommodation in the roof (the roof level velux windowshown simply provides light to the bathroom). A privategarden screened by the existing high hedge will beprovided on the east side with two off-street parkingspaces to the front of the dwelling and bin and cycle storeson the west.

0.0292 hectares.

34 dph.

Predominantly flat.

Existing 3m high hedge fronting onto Summerhill Drive.There are immature trees on the site and semi-maturewithin the rear garden of 88 Flansham Lane.

The site is bordered to Summerhill Drive by a 1.6m highclose boarded fence which continues to the boundary with11 Summerhill Drive. The Summerhill Drive boundary isaugmented by a 3m high hedge. The boundary with theside of 86's rear garden is a 1.8m high close boardedfence.

Part of 84 Flansham Lane's rear garden. The site is flatand covered with allotment style planted beds, a couple ofgreenhouses and a small concrete garage.

Part of Summerhill Drive which is a private residentialstreet comprising a fairly uniform character of detachedbungalows and 1.5 storey houses. The exception to this isthe land opposite which forms a rear car park tocommercial premises fronting Flansham Lane.

The following was observed in respect of neighbouring



SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




FP/8/16/OUT


properties:

* 11 Summerhill Drive is a single storey bungalow with aflat roofed garage on the affected side and no flankwindows;* 86 Flansham Lane is a two storey dwelling with rearfacing first floor windows including a bedroom; and* 84 Flansham Lane is a single storey bungalow with nowindows above ground floor.

Summerhill Drive is a narrow road and part of a privateestate. There are no on-street parking facilities.

Planning Application FP/44/15/OUT was refused for two reasons:

(1) The site by virtue of its size and shape, is considered unsuitable to accommodate a dwelling andprivate amenity space satisfactorily without damaging the character of this established residentialarea. The proposal would therefore result in an unduly cramped and unneighbourly form ofdevelopment with its garden to the side and would be detrimental to the character and amenities ofthe surrounding residential area, contrary to policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan, policy DDM1 of the Arun District Local Plan 2011-2031 (Publication Version) and Policy ESD1 of theFelpham Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2029.

(2) Insufficient information has been provided in order to assess the impact of the proposal on treesboth within the site and on adjoining land. In order to meet the criteria within BS 5837:2012, theapplication should have provided a tree protection plan, an arboricultural implications assessmentand an arboricultural method statement. In the absence of these documents, the proposal cannotbe assessed against and is therefore contrary to Policy ESD9 of the Felpham Neighbourhood Plan2013-2029, Policy ENV DM4 of the Arun District Local Plan 2011-2031 (Publication Version) andsection 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


REPRESENTATIONS

FP/44/15/OUT

FP/211/06/

Application for Outline Planning Permissionfor a 2 bedroom 3 person disabled personsdwelling with parking

Construction of private estate entrancefeature in the form of a brick wall with flintpanel and end pier 1.4m high.

14-05-2015

09-10-2006

Refused



Felpham Parish Council

"FPC objects as there is insufficient information and cannot see any difference to the plansfrom the re-submission FP/44/15/OUT which was previously refused and objected by FPC."

Their comments on the previous application stated that:

"This is an outline so no details but the division of a garden in this way is out of keeping withthe open layout of the area and presents a cramped form of development. NP policies have

FP/8/16/OUT


CONSULTATIONS

Those objections relating to land ownership or access rights are not material planningconsiderations. The concerns of no. 11 are noted but this is a private matter and should beresolved separately. With regard to highway issues it should be noted that WSCC haveraised no objection. 2 parking spaces is considered to meet the parking demand.

Southern Water - no comments received. Previously requested an informative.

West Sussex Highways - The proposal is for a single dwelling with access onto SummerhillDrive, a private road, and onto Flansham Lane via an existing access point. From an inspectionof the plans alone, there is no apparent visibility issue at the point of access onto FlanshamLane. There are no Highway safety concerns arising from this proposal. Recommend cycleparking condition.

ADC Drainage Engineers - The application is for one property outside of the Lidsey WastewaterTreatment Works (WwTW) catchment area. If deemed necessary apply standard conditionsENGD2A. The applicant has stated surface water is to drain to soakaways.

ADC Arboricultural Officer - Object on the basis that the applicant has not provided any reportsrelating to the trees that could potentially be affected by the development process.


not been addressed at this stage but would need to be."

Three letters of objection including one from the Hurstwood Resident's Association:-

* The site is 2 foot higher than 11 Summerhill Drive and this causes problems for the dampproof course in 11's garage. The height of the site should be lowered to match 11 SummerhillDrive;* The hedge to the front has not been plotted accurately as it does not straddle the siteboundary. The hedge is privately maintained and any removal of part of it to create the accesswould be detrimental to the streetscene;* It is not clear whether the applicant owns the verge or has a legal right to create a newaccess onto Summerhill Drive;* Highway safety issues arising from proximity of access to a speed hump, its locationopposite a private car park, use of the street by parked cars associated with the nearbyplayground and limited visibility at the junction of Summerhill Drive & Flansham Lane; and* No on-street parking available on Summerhill Drive;



It is not necessary to impose the surface water drainage condition as the site is for 1 dwellingand lies outside of the Lidsey WwTW Catchment Area. Regarding the Arboricultural objection, itwas clear from a site visit that there are no on-site trees of any note and it is not considered thatthe proposal will affect those growing in adjacent gardens. A part of the hedge will be removedbut this is necessary for access and the bulk of the hedge will remain as screening for thedwelling and garden.

FP/8/16/OUT




Arboriculturist




Class A Road; andTree Preservation Order.

POLICY CONTEXT


GEN2

GEN7

GEN9

GEN12

DEV17

Built-up Area BoundaryThe Form of New DevelopmentFoul and Surface Water DrainageParking in New DevelopmentAffordable Housing


NPPFNPPG





Paragraph 215 of the NPPF ensures that specific policies in Arun District Local Plan 2003 cancarry weight. The weight afforded to the policies with Local Plan policies can be assessedaccording to their level of consistency of the various policies with the National Planning Policy

POLICY COMMENTARY

FP/8/16/OUT

XXX6 Interim Affordable Housing PolicySupplementary Guidance:

D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityD DM3 External Space StandardsD SP1 DesignECC SP2 Energy and climate change mitigationENV DM4 Protection of TreesH DM1 Housing MixH SP2 Affordable HousingSD SP2 Built-Up Area BoundaryT SP1 Transport and DevelopmentW DM3 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems


Design of new development

New dwellings - code for sustainable homes

Surface water management

Building design

Tree protection

Increasing the energy efficiency of ourbuildings

Felpham Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYESD1Felpham Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYESD4Felpham Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYESD5Felpham Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYESD8Felpham Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYESD9Felpham Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYESD11




The proposal is considered to comply with relevant Development Plan policies in that it would haveno materially adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality or the residential amenities of theadjoining properties, nor would it have an adverse impact upon the established character of thearea.


PROPOSAL & PRINCIPLE:

This application seeks outline permission with all matters reserved for the erection of a singlestorey bungalow in the rear garden of 84 Flansham Lane. The rear garden borders with

CONCLUSIONS



Framework.





Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; Bognor Regis; Clymping; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring;Kingston; Littlehampton; Rustington; Yapton. It is considered that the relevant FelphamNeighbourhood Plan policies are: ESD1, ESD4, ESD5, ESD8, ESD9 & ESD11.

FP/8/16/OUT


Summerhill Drive, part of a private estate and the new dwelling will front onto this road. The newvehicular access will result in the loss of a 5m wide section of the existing hedge which is situatedwithin the grassed verge to the front.

The site is in the built up area boundary where the principle of development is acceptable subject toother policies in the development plan. Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF) states with regard to housing: "Housing applications should be considered in the context ofthe presumption in favour of sustainable development". The Felpham Neighbourhood Plan doesnot contain housing allocations nor windfall type housing policies. The Plan does not seek toprevent new residential development but focusses on controlling design & character.

VISUAL AMENITY AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA:

Local Plan policy GEN7 (ii) requires new development to respond positively to the identifiedcharacteristics of a site to create developments which respect local characteristics. CentralGovernment advice indicates that more intensive development is not always appropriate anddesign which is inappropriate in its context should not be accepted. New development should bewell integrated with and complement the local area in terms of layout.

It was previously considered the proposal was out of character with the surrounding area by virtueof the shallow nature of the plot and the location of garden to the side. The applicant has provideddetails of an appeal decision concerning a site in Fareham which proposed a dwelling with a sidegarden. The Inspector addressed the lack of a rear garden by stating:

"The lack of space behind the house would not in my view be particularly noticeable when thedwelling is seen from The Hillway, and the garden to one side of the dwelling and the parking spaceto the other would together avoid it having a cramped appearance on the road frontage."

The site shares similarities with the appeal site in that they both have garden to one side andparking to the other. Although it would be preferable to have private rear garden, it is not consideredthat refusal on these grounds could be defended at an appeal particularly in light of the Farehamcase. It is considered the plot depth cannot be out of character with the area.

The dwelling is set slightly further forward than the building line of 11-17 Summerhill Drive but in thecontext of the position of the flank wall of 84 Flansham Lane, this is considered to be acceptable.The height of the dwelling is acceptable having regard to the single storey nature of the immediatestreetscene.


It is not considered that residential amenity issues would arise from the proposal. The dwelling is abungalow with no rooms above ground floor. Boundary treatments are such that none of thewindows will overlook adjacent properties and the low rise nature of the dwelling will not adverselyaffect light to nearby properties. Although the side garden will be an unusual arrangement and willbe end on to the flank wall of 11 Summerhill Drive, this is considered to be acceptable given that 11has a windowless garage wall on the affected elevation.

PARKING PROVISION & ACCESS:

The site is in a private estate and fronts onto an un-adopted highway. WSCC do not consider thatthere are concerns with the small intensification of the junction with Flansham Lane. It is noted thatSummerhill Drive is a low speed road (signposted 15mph) and it is not considered there will be

FP/8/16/OUT


safety issues arising from the location of the access close to a speed hump or opposite a privatecar park. The West Sussex Parking Demand Calculator indicates a likely demand of 2 spaces andthe proposal meets this demand. A condition requiring secure cycle storage spaces will ensureoccupiers have an alternative form of transport to the car.

Two representations made by local residents suggest the verge is not owned by the applicant butjointly with the other estate residents. Notice has been served on the Residents Association.

IMPACT ON TREES:

The proposal results in the loss of a small number of immature trees on the site and of a section ofexisting hedge along Summerhill Drive. The hedge may fall outside of the applicants ownership butthis is not a material planning consideration as permission could be given despite it not beingimplementable.

Although the hedge has amenity value only a 5m wide section will be lost and the remainingsections (1 x 4.4m & 1 x 19.8m) are to be retained. This is considered to be acceptable.

The Arboricultural Officer did not previously object to the loss of on-site trees, the part of the hedgeor to any impacts on trees on adjoining land. It clear that none of the trees within the adjoining landwill be affected and there are no grounds to maintain the previous objection.

INTERNAL & EXTERNAL SPACE STANDARDS:

It is necessary to assess the proposal against internal space standards set out in theGovernments Technical Housing Standards (Nationally Described Space Standard). Therequirement for a single storey, 2 bed, 3 person dwelling is 61m2 but the dwelling provides a grossinternal area of 63.4m2 and complies with the standard.

In respect of external standards it is necessary to have regard to policy D DM3 of the emergingLocal Plan (publication version) which has been approved by the Council for developmentmanagement purposes. The requirement for the new dwelling is for a rear garden of at least 10mdeep and 85m2 in area. The garden is not to the rear but is 10m deep (wide) and has an areawhich only falls short of the requirement by 2.5m2. This is considered to be acceptable. Acondition will be added to ensure privacy of the garden by retention of the hedge. A condition isalso proposed to prevent extensions or outbuildings from encroaching in to the proposed garden.

SUMMARY:

This application is acceptable having regard to relevant development plan policies and in respect ofthe concerns identified by the Parish Council and objectors. Although the garden area is to theside and is not a typical arrangement its presence serves to widen the frontage and as such thedwelling will not appear cramped in the streetscene. The hedge to the front will ensure that the sidegarden is a private space.

The application should be approved subject to conditions below and a S.106 agreement coveringaffordable housing (£9,128). If the S.106 has not been completed within 2 months of the date ofthe resolution to approve then the application should be refused for the following reason:

"The proposed development makes no contribution towards affordable housing provision and isthereby contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy H SP2 of the Arun Local Plan 2011 - 2031(Publication Version) and the Council's Interim Affordable Housing Policy adopted on the 18th

FP/8/16/OUT


August 2010."


The permission hereby granted is an outline permission under s92 of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and an application for the approval of the LocalPlanning Authority to the following matters must be made not later than the expiration of 3years beginning with the date of this permission:-

(a) Layout;(b) Scale;(c) Appearance;(d) Landscaping.


1

RECOMMENDATION

FP/8/16/OUT



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT





A S106 agreement is being prepared in respect of a contribution of £9,128 towards the provisionof off-site affordable housing. The recommendation to approve is made subject to completion ofthe Section 106 agreement.

SECTION 106 DETAILS


The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 yearsfrom the date of this permission, or before expiration of 2 years from the date of approvalof the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.



Drawing 1 - Location Plan (1:1250);Drawing 2 - Block Plan (1:500);Drawing 14234/2b - Site Block Plan of Proposed Dwelling (1:200); andDrawing 14234/3b - Proposed Elevations and Floor Plan (1:100).


No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parkingspaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking ofbicycles in accordance with policies GEN7 and GEN12 of the Arun District Local Plan.

With the exception of the section to be removed to facilitate the new access, no part of thehedgerow currently growing on the Summerhill Drive frontage shall be damaged,uprooted, felled, topped or lopped without the prior written consent of the Local PlanningAuthority and shall be retained in perpetuity thereafter. Any hedgerow removed withoutsuch consent or which becomes severely damaged or seriously diseased or dying in thefuture shall be replaced with a hedgerow of such size and species as may be agreed withthe Local Planning Authority to ensure the boundary landscaping is retained in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure the retention of screening vegetation important to the visual amenity ofthe streetscene and the privacy of the dwelling in accordance with policy GEN7 of theArun District Local Plan.

The proposed dwelling shall be constructed as a single-storey building with the maineaves line approximately level with the ground floor window-heads.

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the locality in accordance withpolicy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning(General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no extensions (including porches or dormer windows) to the dwellinghouses shall be constructed or buildings shall be erected within the curtilage unlesspermission is granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application in that behalf.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjoining occupiers, maintain adequateamenity space and safeguard the cohesive appearance of the development in accordancewith policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

INFORMATIVE: This decision has been granted in conjunction with a Section 106 legalagreement relating to an affordable housing contribution of £9,128.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

FP/8/16/OUT


A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order toservice this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriateconnection point for the development, please contact Southern Water, Southern House,Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel 033 0303 0119) orwww.southernwater.co.uk.


9

10

FP/8/16/OUT


FP/8/16/OUT

FP/8/16/OUT Indicative Location Plan







Woosters

Church Lane

Front, side & rear extensions. Resubmission of EG/31/15/HH

EG/75/15/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Eastergate

The property is a detached bungalow and the proposalinvolves the removal of the detached garage on the westside and rear conservatory with the replacement with aside, rear extension and first floor addition to provide a twostorey dwelling with hipped roof.

Approximately 0.07 hectares.

N/A

Predominantly flat.

None of any significance affected.

Front has wall with wood infill panels approximately 1.8m inheight and wooden ranch type entrance gates, east sideboundary has close boarded fencing with establishedshrubs and trees, west side boundary has newlyconstructed close boarded fencing approximately 1.8m-2min height, rear boundary has close boarded fencing plusestablished trees and hedging.

Detached bungalow with single storey extension on rear,conservatory on rear, detached garage on west.Greenhouse and Summer House in rear garden. Lightbrown brickwork with tile hanging on front gables, tiled roof.

Residential with predominantly detached properties ofvarious ages designs and styles. To the east is a twostorey with dormers flat development (The Corner House),to the west a detached bungalow (Strathcoma).




SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




EG/75/15/HH

PO20 3XD


Previous rear kitchen extension EG/121/78/B and porch extension EG/19/79/B the subject ofBuilding Regulations approval.

Previous application EG/31/15/HH for a similar scheme was refused for the following reasons:-

-The proposal by way of its extended footprint, height and visual prominence would not appearsubservient and visually integrated with the host dwelling in conflict with policies GEN7 & DEV19 ofthe Arun District Local Plan and policies DSP1 & DDM4 of the Emerging Local Plan.

-The proposal by reason of its extended height and close proximity to the boundary would bedetrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property to the westStrathcoma in conflict with policies GEN7 & DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan and policiesDSP1 & DDM4 of the Emerging Local Plan.

But this was allowed at appeal as the Inspector did not agree with the reasons for refusal, found theimpact on Strathcoma acceptable and that the proposal was acceptable in design terms in relationto the existing dwelling and street scene.


POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

The property is not within a Conservation Area. The proposal would be similar to the schemeallowed at appeal which is a material consideration in the assessment of this application. Theincrease in size of the first floor extension to the front is not considered to be a significantaddition to the property which would make the proposal visually unacceptable in comparisonto the allowed scheme. This is not considered to be a reason for permission to be withheld.

REPRESENTATIONS

SOUTHERN WATER

Please attach informative regarding permission being needed for connection to the public sewer.

EG/31/15/HH Side & rear extensions & conversion ofbungalow to house 26-05-2015

Refused



Eastergate Parish Council

The Parish objects on the grounds that the proposal is within the Conservation Area and thestyle is inappropriate contrary to policy ES5, is an overdevelopment of the site, contrary topolicy ES6 and the shallow pitch of the roof angles are inappropriate contrary to policy ES8 ofthe Barnham and Eastergate Neighbourhood Plan.



Comments noted. An informative will be attached.

EG/75/15/HH



Appealed


Within the built up area boundaryLidsey Catchment Drainage Area


DEV19

GEN2

GEN7



NPPFNPPG









Where applicable, Neighbourhood Development Plan's (more commonly known as aneighbourhood plan or NDP), once made by Arun District Council, will form part of the statutory

POLICY COMMENTARY

EG/75/15/HH



Quality of design

Contribution to local character

Buildings should be designed to reflect the three-dimensional

qualities of traditional buildings

Barnham & Eastergate Neighbourhood Plan 2014POLICY ES5Barnham & Eastergate Neighbourhood Plan 2014POLICY ES6Barnham & Eastergate Neighbourhood Plan 2014POLICY ES8






DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITY

Whilst Local Plan and NDP policies must be considered, the previous, similar, application wasallowed on appeal. This is a material consideration in the assessment of the application andcarries significant weight.

The extensions would not result in an appearance that would be significantly different to theproposal allowed at appeal. The two storey front extension would project further forward and onlyhave a small flat roof porch. The Planning Inspector found the previous application to be acceptablein appearance. As this proposal is not significantly different it is considered to be acceptable in thestreet scene given the large development of Corner House and varying property styles of ChurchLane.

The materials proposed are brick to match existing, grey-green cedral cladding to first floor andgrey slate roof tiles. These are residential in appearance and acceptable in the street scene whichhas properties of varying materials. Brick to match existing can be controlled via condition.The application is considered to be acceptable in terms of design and visual amenity.

NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

The differences to the scheme compared to the allowed appeal includes an additional side windowin the first floor to each side elevation and the two storey front extension projecting further forward.The increase in the projection of the two storey front extension is modest. It would only face overthe front garden of Strathcoma and is not set close enough to the flats of Corner House to have a

CONCLUSIONS

local development plan for the relevant designated neighbourhood area and policies within them willbe considered in determining planning applications. Made NDP policies will be consideredalongside other development plan documents including Arun District Council's Local Plan. Whilstan NDP is under preparation it will afford little weight in the determination of planning applications.Its status will however gain more weight as a material consideration the closer it is towards it beingmade. Arun District Council will make reference to an NDP when it has, by the close of planningapplication consultation, been publicised for pre-submission consultation(Reg.14).


Barnham & Eastergate NDP policies ES5, ES6 and ES8 will be considered in this application.

EG/75/15/HH


significant impact in terms of visual intrusion, overbearing impact or loss of light. The addition of theside windows at first floor level would not represent an opportunity for loss of privacy throughoverlooking as a condition will be included requiring obscure glazing with only the top light capableof being opened, in line with the Inspector's condition on appeal decision.

The property to the rear (Kuldana) is a detached bungalow sited approximately 26m away. Theaddition of windows at first floor level has the potential for overlooking onto the rear garden.However with considerable distance to this property and tree screening to the rear boundary it isnot considered that this would create harmful overlooking or loss of outlook.

In terms of neighbour amenity impact on Strathcoma (for the rest of the proposal which is thesame as the previous application) the Inspector stated his decision:-

"On the second issue the Council's concern is that the proposal would cause a loss of outlook andlight for the occupiers of Strathcoma, whilst the occupiers themselves have referred to a loss ofprivacy in their garden. In respect of the Council's concerns, I acknowledge that the extensionwould be close to the boundary but with the two storey element set back from this flank and thenorthern orientation of the rear elevation of Strathcoma I can see no prospect of a materiallyharmful effect on either outlook or light.

In respect of the occupiers of Strathcoma's fears of a loss of privacy, this has not been fullyexplained in any of the documents available to me, but it seems likely that this refers to views oftheir garden that would be available from the proposed first floor windows of the extended building.However, because of the respective sitings of the properties there would be no direct views of thearea of garden immediately to the rear of Strathcoma, whilst some overlooking of rear gardens ofproperties in a linear development pattern is generally accepted as being inevitable and normallyacceptable. Indeed this already occurs in Church Lane where there are several examples ofhouses next to bungalows and chalet bungalows.

On this issue I consider that there would be no unacceptably adverse effect on the living conditionsfor adjoining occupiers as regards outlook and light in conflict with Local Plan Policies GEN7 andDEV19; Policies DSP1 & DDM4 of the 'Emerging Local Plan' and the core planning principles ofthe Framework."

It is considered the proposal is acceptable in terms of impact on neighbouring residential amenity.

SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE

The site is located in the Lidsey Catchment Drainage Area. The Inspector held that drainage issuescould be dealt with under the Building Regulations. The usual pre-commencement drainagecondition cannot be added to this scheme and the proposal is not considered to create a flood risk.


EG/75/15/HH


HUMAN RIGHTS ACT






15/12/315/12/1A Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 and DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The bricks of the external walls of the extensions hereby permitted shall match in colourand texture those of the existing dwelling.


The bathroom windows on the side elevations at first floor level shall be glazed withobscure glass with only the top light capable of being opened, and the windows shallthereafter be retained in that form.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property in accordance withpolicies GEN7, DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan.

INFORMATIVE: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is

1

2

3

4

5

RECOMMENDATION

EG/75/15/HH

Consideration has been specifically given to Article 8 (right to respect of private and family life) andArticle 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendationfor approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes unreasonably with any local residents'right to respect for their private and family life and home, except insofar as it is necessary toprotect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council isalso permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and therecommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submittedapplication based on the considerations set out in this report.


In assessing this proposal the following impacts (negative, Neutral or positive) have been identifiedupon those people with the following protected characteristics (age, disability, genderreassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexor sexual orientation).

The assessment of the proposal is considered to have a neutral impact.



required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check toidentify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact SouthernWater, Southern House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel 0330303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk.


6

EG/75/15/HH


EG/75/15/HH

EG/75/15/HH Indicative Location Plan







Manor Farm Cottages

Church Lane

Erection of an ancillary annexe - Resubmission of EG/61/15/HH - This

application affects the character and appearance of Church Lane

(Eastergate) Conservation Area

EG/76/15/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Eastergate

Shallow pitched roof detached single storey outbuilding tobe located 0.8m off the north west boundary to be used asa residential annexe incidental to Manor Cottages. Theannexe has an eaves height of 2.7m and is 3.95m to theridge. The external walls will be clad with cream cedralweatherboarding and the roof is imitation slate tiles in darkgrey.

0.12 hectares.

Site is set up from the side road of School Lane andslopes up from Church Lane.


2m boundary fences to north east side boundary and 2mflint wall to north rear boundary. 1.3m wall with 1.8m hedgebehind to the west boundary (School Lane) and 1.3m flintand red brick wall to front (south).

Hipped roof detached building which was previously twosemi-detached cottages. The building has a two storeyside extension which includes ground floor double garageand rear extension. Driveway and garden to front andgarden to rear.

Semi-rural residential area characterised by a mix ofdetached and semi-detached two storey dwellings andbungalows set back from the road with gardens to frontand rear. The site abuts the Conservation Area. The roadand south side of Church Lane is part of the ConservationArea and the street has a traditional character.



EG/61/15/HH Erection of ancillary annexe. This applicationaffects the character and appearance ofChurch Lane (Eastergate) Conservation Area

16-12-2015

Withdrawn


SITE AREA

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




EG/76/15/HH

PO20 3UX


Previous application for similar annexe located to the other side of the rear garden was withdrawnfollowing objections from the Council with regard to its prominent and detrimental siting adjacent tothe Conservation Area as it would have been highly visible from School Lane and Church Lane.

The site abuts the Conservation Area. The annexe would not be directly visible from the streetscene so would have a very limited impact on the Conservation Area. This view is shared bythe Council's Conservation Officer.

The eaves would be 2.7m high and recede away to the ridge which has been amended to3.95m high. There will be a set off from the boundary of 0.8m and it will be set 3m away fromthe rear of West Lodge's rear wall and nearest window. The common boundary betweenWest Lodge and the host dwelling angles away to the north west of West Lodge. Even thoughWest Lodge's ground level is set down from the host dwelling it is not considered that theproposed outbuilding would lead to significant loss of light or visual intrusion to the amenitiesof West Lodge. An outbuilding of 2.5m high could be constructed right up to the boundary (withno set off), under permitted development. The impact of this proposal would not besignificantly different to this. The annexe is not considered to be large enough or close enoughto Broadworth Cottage to have a detrimental impact on its residential amenities. The annexewould not be adjacent to its rear amenity space.

REPRESENTATIONS

EG/98/04/

EG/39/02/

Conservatory

Extension/Alterations

05-11-2004

11-10-2002





Eastergate Parish Council

Objection. Maintains objection to the previous application. It is accepted that the re-positioningof the building is an improvement from the point of view of the Conservation Area but it still isout of keeping and unsightly from some positions within the area. The new position would beunneighbourly and the application is an over development of the site. The building is too highand too large.

Second response following amendments:

The council has considered the reduction in roof height but takes the view that the height isstill unacceptable in this location. All other objections raised in relation to the previousapplication are repeated and maintained. It is considered that a condition requiring the removalof the premises as a habitable building when the requirement for a "granny annexe" ceases beapplied.

5 letters of objection:-

-detrimental impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area and existing dwelling-loss of light and overbearing impact on residential amenities of West Lodge and BroadworthCottage-loss of wildlife habitats

EG/28/82 Single storey side extension

07-04-1982


EG/76/15/HH


CONSULTATIONS

No evidence has been provided or noted when the site visit was made to the presence ofprotected wildlife habitats. The construction of the annexe would lead to loss of wildlifehabitats.

It is not considered reasonable to require, by condition, for the annexe to be removed after itceases to be used by the current applicant's relative. Another relative may require the use ofthe building for the current occupiers and future occupiers of the main dwelling.

CONSERVATION OFFICER

The proposal is a resubmission of a previously unacceptable scheme. A number of concernswere raised, with the most significant one being the location of the structure.

The property is an attractive structure located within a key part of the local area. It appears onhistoric mapping and as a result is worthy of more detailed assessment during the determinationof a planning application.

The age and quality of the property is such that it can be considered as a heritage asset for thepurposes of planning policy. A heritage asset is defined as "A building, monument, site, place,area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planningdecisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assetsand assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing)".

The proposal is to construct a standalone structure in the grounds of the property. This structureis to provide additional living accommodation and as a consequence appears to be of a size toallow for a number of facilities to be included within it.

As with the previous application, there are two issues to consider: the design/appearance of thestructure and its location within the curtilage of the host property.

It is noted that both the location of the structure and its design have changed. It is considered thatthe revised location is acceptable, as it does not look as though it can be viewed from theConservation Area.

The design of the structure has been simplified, but appears to be a formulaic approach. It is asubstantial structure, whose impact can be mitigated by successful design/use of qualitymaterials.

DRAINAGE ENGINEER

Soakaways should be investigated for the annexe. Please apply standard conditions ENGD2A.

SOUTHERN WATER

Should permission be recommended please apply standard informative to make applicant aware


EG/76/15/HH







Built up area boundaryLidsey Drainage Catchment AreaAbuts Conservation Area

POLICY CONTEXT

that permission is needed from Southern Water to connect to the sewer system.


AREA2

GEN2

GEN7

Conservation AreasBuilt-up Area BoundaryThe Form of New Development


NPPFNPPG




POLICY COMMENTARY


Comments noted.

The dark grey imitation slate roof tiles and cream white weatherboarding are considered to beacceptable because the outbuilding would not be directly visible from the street scene and wouldtake on the appearance of a garden building appropriate within private amenity space.

It is not considered reasonable to add the pre-commencement surface water drainage conditionrecommended by the Council's Drainage Engineer because an outbuilding with a larger roof areacould be built without a planning application.

The Southern Water informative will be added.

EG/76/15/HH

D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityD SP1 DesignHER DM3 Conservation AreasHER SP1 The Historic EnvironmentSD SP2 Built-Up Area Boundary


Applications for new development must meet the local drainage

requirements

Quality of design

Contribution to local character

Development affecting heritage assets

Barnham & Eastergate Neighbourhood Plan 2014POLICY ES1

Barnham & Eastergate Neighbourhood Plan 2014POLICY ES5Barnham & Eastergate Neighbourhood Plan 2014POLICY ES6Barnham & Eastergate Neighbourhood Plan 2014POLICY ES7




The proposal is considered to comply with relevant Development Plan policies in that it would haveno materially adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality or residential amenities of theadjoining properties, nor would it have an adverse impact upon the established character of thesurrounding area and preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area.











Policies within the Barnham and Eastergate NDP will be considered in this application.

EG/76/15/HH


PRINCIPLE

The site is within the built-up area where the principle of development is acceptable, subject toaccordance with relevant planning policies. In this instance, the main criteria against which theapplication will be assessed is contained within the Local Plan which in this case are considered tobe policies GEN7 and DEV19 which seek to prevent development that would have an adverseimpact upon visual and residential amenities.

The annexe would have a floor area of a small studio or one bed flat. To prevent the annexe beingused as a unit of separate accommodation a condition will be imposed to control the use of theannexe as ancillary to the host dwelling.


The site abuts the Conservation Area but is not within the Conservation Area. The annexe would beto the rear of the dwelling and would not be directly visible from the street scene so would have avery limited impact on the Conservation Area. This view is shared by the Conservation Officer. Thedark grey imitation slate roof tiles and cream white weatherboarding are acceptable because theoutbuilding would not be directly visible from the street scene and would take on the appearance ofa garden building appropriate within private amenity space. The annexe is not overly large and anoutbuilding with a larger footprint could be constructed without the need for a planning application.The proposal is acceptable in terms of design and visual amenity and preserves the appearance ofthe adjacent Conservation Area in compliance with DEV19, GEN7 and AREA2 of the Local Planand policies ES5, ES6 and ES7 of the Barnham and Eastergate NDP.

IMPACT ON NEIGHBOUR AMENITY

The main property to be effected by the proposal would be West Lodge to the east of the hostdwelling. The eaves would be 2.7m high and recedes away to the ridge which has been amendedto 3.95m high. There will be a set off from the boundary of 0.8m and it will be set 3m away from therear of West Lodge's rear wall and nearest window. The common boundary between West Lodgeand the host dwelling angles away to the north west of West Lodge. Even though West Lodge'sground level is set down from the host dwelling it is not considered that the outbuilding would leadto significant loss of light or visual intrusion to the amenities of West Lodge. It must be consideredthat an outbuilding of 2.5m high could be constructed right up to the boundary (with no set off)under permitted development. The impact of this proposal would not be significantly different tothis. The annexe is not considered to be large enough or close enough to Broadworth Cottage tothe north to have a detrimental impact on its residential amenities. The annexe would not beadjacent to its direct rear amenity space. Given the site is currently a rear garden of a dwelling, theuse of the outbuilding as an annexe is not considered to be significantly detrimental to residentialneighbour amenities in term of noise and disturbance from its use. The proposal is considered tobe acceptable in terms of impact on neighbour amenity in compliance with Local Plan policiesGEN7 and DEV19.

SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE

The site is within the Lidsey Drainage Catchment Area. The Drainage Engineer has requested apre-commencement drainage investigation condition. It is not considered reasonable to add thecondition because an outbuilding with a larger roof area could be built without a planningapplication.


CONCLUSIONS

EG/76/15/HH






1582.5 Revision 2; 1582.1; 1582.2 Revision 1 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 and DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The annexe shall be occupied solely for purposes ancillary to the occupation andenjoyment of Manor Farm Cottages, Church Lane, Eastergate PO20 3UX as a dwellingand shall not be used as a separate unit of accommodation.

Reason: To accord with policies GEN7 and DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan and toprevent the establishment of an additional independent unit of accommodation whichwould give rise to an over-intensive use of the site and lead to an unsatisfactoryrelationship between independent dwellings.

1

2

3

RECOMMENDATION

EG/76/15/HH



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT







4

EG/76/15/HH


EG/76/15/HH

EG/76/15/HH Indicative Location Plan







19 Normandy Lane

East Preston

Single & two storey extensions (resubmission following EP/114/15/HH).

EP/8/16/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

BN16 1LZ

Alteration of the half hipped roof to a gable end; two storeyrear extension; single storey rear extension; and extensionof the existing first floor dormer. This application is aresubmission of EP/114/15/HH with the length of the firstfloor dormer having been reduced.

Approximately 383 metres squared.

Predominantly flat.


The front boundary of the site is open to the highway with1.5 metre high brick walls on the side boundaries forwardof the primary elevation. Rear of the dwelling the boundarytreatments consist of 1.5 - 1.8 metre high close boardedfencing.

The site is occupied by a link-detached bungalow, withpainted bricks and a half-hipped roof featuring brown tileswith a dormer on the northern elevation of the property.

The character of the locality is predominantly residentialand features properties of a similar design and appearanceto the application site.


Planning application EP/114/15/HH was refused due to the impact of the proposed first floor dormeron the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.


REPRESENTATIONS

EP/114/15/HH Single & two storey extensions

23-10-2015

Refused


SITE AREA

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




East Preston Parish Council

This council's Planning & Licensing Committee considered this Application at its meeting on


EP/8/16/HH


Designation applicable to site:Within built area boundary

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

In response to the comments of the Parish Council:The East Preston Neighbourhood Plan paragraphs 4.14 and 4.16 are acknowledged.However, the proposal does not exceed two storeys in height and the proposed roofalterations are considered to appear subservient to the host dwelling. The proposal is notconsidered to result in development which appears unbalanced or so large as to be out ofcharacter with other houses in the road, whilst the proposed gable end is in keeping with theestablished character of the area (despite similar alterations having been carried out prior tothe implementation of the East Preston Neighbourhood Plan).

The materials to be used in the construction of the proposed alterations have beenconditioned and must match in colour and appearance those used in the construction of theoriginal dwellinghouse.

None



DEV19

GEN2

GEN7



Monday, 22nd February. The applicant's agent was aware he could attend but did not.

The committee agreed to raise objections as the proposal to replace the half hip with a gableis contrary to the East Preston Neighbourhood Plan, in particular sections 4.14 and 4.16 asthe proposal is considered too great a change to the streetscene.

The fact other properties in that stretch of houses were permitted to make such a changeprior to the Neighbourhood Plan being made does not reduce the validity of the NeighbourhoodPlan in this matter. The East Preston Neighbourhood Plan is a forwardlooking document.

The committee remains concerned at the lack of detail for the materials to be used in theproposal.

The committee asks the District Council to take note of the Neighbourhood Plan andconsiders refusing Planning Permission for this Application.



N/A

EP/8/16/HH



East Preston Neighbourhood Plan 2014 Policy 1




NPPFNPPG











The East Preston Neighbourhood Plan has been made and policies 1 and 4 are consideredrelevant to the determination of this application.

POLICY COMMENTARY

EP/8/16/HH

Housing - General Principles

Design in Character Area TwoEast Preston Neighbourhood Plan 2014 Policy 3




PRINCIPLE The site is situated within the built-up area boundary where the principle of development isacceptable, subject to accordance with relevant planning policies. The main criteria against whichthis application will be assessed is contained within the Arun District Local Plan which in this caseare policies GEN7 and DEV19. Policies 1 and 3 of the East Preston Neighbourhood Plan are alsokey considerations in the determination of this application.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITYThe proposed alteration from half hip to gable on the primary elevation is not considered toadversely impact upon the character of the area or the established spatial pattern of the streetscene. Whilst the majority of properties on Normandy Lane feature half-hipped roofs on the primaryelevation in close proximity to the application site 5 properties feature gabled roofs adjacent to thehighway - including properties 24, 25, 26, 30 and 32 Normandy Lane. Therefore, this aspect of theproposal is considered to be in accordance with policies GEN7(ii) and DEV19 (i) and (ii) of the ArunDistrict Local Plan. It is also considered that this aspect of the proposal will be in accordance withPolicy 1 and Policy 3 of the East Preston Neighbourhood Plan.

The proposed dormer window on the northern elevation of the dwelling has been reduced in sizefrom that originally proposed under reference EP/114/15/HH. The proposed dormer the subject ofthis application will measure 10.8m in length as opposed to the previously proposed 13.8m. Theamended dormer will be situated 2.5m back from the primary elevation of the dwelling and 1.2mfrom the rear. This set back is considered to have a beneficial impact upon the presence of theproposed dormer within the street scene, when viewed from the north the dormer would be hiddenby the neighbouring property except from the most direct angle. The proposed dormer due to itsposition would have no presence within the street scene when viewed from the south. Thereforethe proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies GEN7(ii) and DEV19 (i) & (ii) of theArun District Local Plan. It is also considered by virtue of its size and location to comply with Policy1 (4.14 & 4.16) of the East Preston Neighbourhood Plan.

The proposed two storey rear extension will extend 3 metres from the rear of the original dwellinghouse and maintain the existing ridge height and gable end with the addition of a Juliet balcony atfirst floor level. A scheme of the same size and scale was previously approved under referenceEP/55/11/ for 21 Normandy Lane - the neighbouring property immediately to the north. Therefore,this aspect of the proposal is considered to be well integrated and subservient to the host dwellingin accordance with policies GEN7(ii) and DEV19 (i) & (ii) of the Arun District Local Plan as well asPolicy 1 of the East Preston Neighbourhood Plan.

CONCLUSIONS



EP/8/16/HH


The single storey element of the proposal will extend an additional 2 metres to the rear of theoriginal dwelling and garage. The single storey extension will measure 3.1 metres in height and beconstructed from materials which will match the rest of the dwelling. This aspect of the proposal istherefore considered to appear subservient and integrated with the host dwelling in accordancewith policies GEN7(ii) and DEV19 (i) & (ii) of the Arun District Local Plan and Policy 1 of the EastPreston Neighbourhood Plan.

Drawing 2 Proposed Floor Plans & Elevations appears to show the first floor of the dwelling clad inweatherboarding. However, no reference to this material is made in writing on the plans or theapplication form and as such it is presumed that this is not the case and it is intended for the firstfloor to be constructed from materials which will match those already present on the dwelling.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe proposed single storey & two storey extensions; dormer window; and alteration to the roof onthe primary elevation of the property are not considered to give rise to any overbearing orovershadowing impacts upon neighbouring properties and as such are considered to be inaccordance with policies GEN7(iv) and DEV19 (iii) of the Arun District Local Plan.

The property to the north (21 Normandy Lane) does not have any roof openings on the southernelevation and as such the proposed additional dormer will not generate any unacceptably adverseoverlooking or overbearing impacts.

The proposal does include the addition of a roof light on the southern elevation of the dwelling atfirst floor level which has the potential to give rise to unacceptable overlooking of the neighbouringproperty. Therefore, this aspect of the proposal is considered to be in conflict with policiesGEN7(iv) and DEV19 (iii) of the Arun District Local Plan. However, this aspect can be suitablycontrolled through condition, requiring this window to be obscurely glazed and non-opening.

SUMMARYIt is recommended that planning permission is granted for the proposed development subject to thebelow conditions.

EP/8/16/HH



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT







The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans: Drawing 2 - Proposed Floor Plans & Elevations (11th December 2015. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The materials and finishes of the external walls and roof of the extension and alterationshereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those of the existing building.


The first floor dormer window proposed on the northern elevation and western most firstfloor roof light located on the southern elevation of the dwelling shall at all times beobscurely-glazed, and non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be openedare more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy GEN7 of the Arun DistrictLocal Plan.


1

2

3

4

5

RECOMMENDATION

EP/8/16/HH



EP/8/16/HH

EP/8/16/HH Indicative Location Plan







South of Esplanade Grande

West of Foreshore Office

Coffee kiosk to include tables & chairs.

BR/4/16/PL

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

The Esplanade

Single storey coffee kiosk, square in shape with a curvedroof. It would be of a standard mobile refreshment unitstyle with red walls and black roof with company logo ontop. Tables and chairs would be located either side withseating for up to 48 people. Tables, chairs and wastewould be stored in the rear of the unit which does not formpart of the service area.

74m2.

Predominantly flat.

None affected.

Promenade with railings on north section bounding thedrop down to road level.

Promenade bounding beach to south and The Esplanadeto north. Underground public conveniences with entrancefrom the promenade are located either side.

Sea front promenade with various single buildings along itincluding refreshment kiosks and foreshore station. Stepsdown to The Esplanade which is set lower than thepromenade. The buildings facing the promenade aregenerally 5 storeys or more including Esplanade Grandewhich faces the site.


Temporary permission granted for a smaller refreshment kiosk in 2011 for one year.


REPRESENTATIONS

BR/181/11/ Application under Regulation 3 of the Town &Country Planning General Regulations 1992for siting of seafront coffee kiosk concessionwith adjacent seating area

02-11-2011



SITE AREA

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




Bognor Regis Town Council


BR/4/16/PL

Bognor Regis

PO21 1LX


CONSULTATIONS

The kiosk is not considered to be unattractive in design and would be in line with general streetscene appearance of a seafront promenade. It is not overly large or obtrusive. As it is notlocated at the end of one of the road junctions facing out to the sea it is not considered toimpinge on views from these roads. Bognor Regis NDP policy 7 seeks to protect these viewsvia the Bognor Regis Characterisation Study which notes that these views should beprotected. The views from flats along the seafront are not protected, nor does the NDP seekto project these. A sufficient width of the promenade will be retained for the road train andother promenade users.

Environmental Health have raised no objection to potential disturbance created from theresultant use of the coffee kiosk. The promenade is already a busy and well used area and theadditional activity associated with the coffee kiosk does not unacceptably increase the level ofactivity.

The National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy Guidance do notspecifically reference what food should be offered for sale. However they do promote accessto healthier foods at a strategic level. The Council could not refuse permission based solely onthe reason of what the kiosk sells.

The Seafront Strategy aims to improve the amount of refreshments services available all yearround. From an economic regeneration point of view all year round use is positive.


Objection.

Goes against Policy 7 of the Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Development Plan - Anydevelopment proposal on the seafront at these service points will be expected to maintain thevisual integrity of the key views and vista defined in the Bognor Characterisation Study 2014from the Town out to the sea and along the seafront.

The siting is wrong as it is the narrowest part of the seafront with pedestrians, cyclists and thetrain using the Prom. Members suggested if ADC approve this application consideration isgiven to siting the kiosk on the pebbles with the facade facing the Promenade making it moreattractive visually, with the seating at the side and keeping the narrow part of the Promenadeclear.

20 letters of representation received. 19 objecting on the grounds of:-

-Detrimental impact on the seafront street scene of the promenade and negative impact onthe views outlined in the Bognor Characterisation Study.

-Noise and disturbance from use to residents of nearby properties. Blocking of thepromenade.

-Health issues from the sale of unhealthy products.

One letter of support stating most refreshment services along seafront are closed most of thetime and it would be a good addition to the area.

BR/4/16/PL





Built up area boundary

POLICY CONTEXT

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

No comments. Place INFORMEH7 (food hygiene) onto any approval given.

ECONOMIC REGENERATION

Support this application which is in line with the adopted Bognor Regis Seafront Strategy.

DRAINAGE ENGINEERS

No surface water drainage comments.


GEN2

GEN7Built-up Area BoundaryThe Form of New Development


NPPFNPPG






POLICY COMMENTARY



Comments noted. The informative will be included.

BR/4/16/PL

Engineers (Coastal Protection)





Promotion of tourism and beach service pointsBognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan 2015 Policy 7






PRINCIPLE

The site is within the built-up area where the principle of development is acceptable, subject toaccordance with relevant planning policies. The main criteria against which the application will beassessed is contained within the Local Plan which in this case is considered to be policy GEN7which seeks to prevent development that would have an adverse impact upon visual and

CONCLUSIONS

It is considered that there are no other material considerations to warrant a decision otherwise thanin accordance with the Development Plan and/or legislative background. The Council's BognorRegis Seafront Strategy must also be considered in this application.







BR/4/16/PL


residential amenities and policy 7 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

The Bognor Regis Seafront Strategy support a range of new amenities and structures along theseafront. The use is not unreasonable in this location. The Seafront Strategy aims to improve andincrease the amount of refreshment services available all year round. From an economicregeneration point of view it is considered a positive aspect of the proposal for all year round use tobe offered.


The kiosk is not unattractive in design and would be in line with general street scene of a seafrontpromenade. It is not overly large or obtrusive. As it is not located at the end of one of the roadjunctions facing out to the sea it does not impinge on views from these roads. Policy 7 of theBognor Regis NDP seeks to protect views via the Bognor Characterisation Study which notes thatthese views should be protected. The proposal acceptable in terms of design and visual amenity.

NEIGHBOUR AMENITY

The kiosk would be located across the road from the nearest properties (Esplanade Grande) andwould be single storey. It is a modest sized proposal and not considered to create loss of light orvisual intrusion to the residential amenities of these properties. Environmental Health have raisedno objection to potential disturbance created from the use of the kiosk. The promenade is already abusy, well used area and the additional activity associated with the kiosk is not considered toincrease activity levels unacceptably.

The application is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions.

BR/4/16/PL



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT









Buy A Plan; Coffee Cup, Bognor Regis Esplanade; Outside Seating Area with 48 covers;Coffee Cup Kiosk and Coffee Cup Dimensioned Photos



INFORMATIVE: The premises may require registration under the Food Safety Act 1990and will need to comply with the standards contained in the relevant Food HygieneRegulations prior to becoming operational. The applicant is advised to contact AnnaAppleton, [email protected] Tel:01903 737676 for further information.

1

2

3

4

RECOMMENDATION

BR/4/16/PL



BR/4/16/PL

BR/4/16/PL Indicative Location Plan







120 Collyer Avenue

Bognor Regis

Retrospective application for alterations to existing outbuilding

BR/225/15/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

PO21 5HX

The extension to the building includes a 2.94m highpent/mono-pitched. The outbuilding is mainly clad with darkstained wood but has some white rendered sections, aUPVC window and door and a timber shed door. It has alean-to canopy to front with felt roof and is at the very rearof the back garden.

0.02 hectares.

Predominantly flat


1.8m close boarded fencing to rear and side boundaries.

Two storey end of terrace dwelling with good sized reargarden. Two off-street parking spaces to front.

Residential area, formed of two storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings, set back from the road.


None relevant.


REPRESENTATIONS

BR/92/10/ Erection of conservatory to rear

28-05-2010



SITE AREA

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT





Objection- the building is excessively high for an outbuilding and is out of character with thearea. Concern that this building was possibly being used as a habitable dwelling with nobuilding regulations or sanitation, this building should not be used for habitation.

Two letters of representation received objecting on the grounds of:-

-outbuilding being excessively large-outbuilding used as a separate dwelling and having a bathroom and kitchen, the site is not


BR/225/15/HH



Built up area boundary.

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

The outbuilding is not too large for the site. An outbuilding of larger footprint could be builtunder permitted development and the 2.94m height is not excessively above the 2.5m heightwhich could be constructed under permitted development. It is only one side of the roof whichreaches this height as it has a pent roof and the outbuilding is located to the very rear of thegarden in a discreet location.

A compliance officer has been inside the building and confirms there is no bathroom andkitchen facilities. A condition can be added to ensure the use of the building remains incidentalto the main house. The application is not to retain the outbuilding as a granny annexe.

None



GEN7

GEN2The Form of New DevelopmentBuilt-up Area Boundary


NPPFNPPG






Paragraph 216 of the NPPF confirms that weight can be given to policies in emerging plans fromthe day of publication. The Council resolved that the policies and maps in the Publication Version of

POLICY COMMENTARY

suitable for a separate dwelling



N/A

BR/225/15/HH








PRINCIPLE

The site is within the built-up area where the principle of development is acceptable, subject toaccordance with relevant planning policies. The main criteria against which the application will beassessed is contained within the Arun District Local Plan which in this case is policy GEN7 whichseeks to prevent development that would have an adverse impact upon visual and residentialamenities.

CONCLUSIONS



the Local Plan be used in the determination of this planning application. Following 'publication' ofthe Local Plan a formal public consultation, examination and adoption process takes place.





None of the Bognor Regis NDP policies are relevant to this application.

BR/225/15/HH


The application is to retain the building as incidental to the main dwelling not as a granny annexewhich can be lived in whilst being ancillary to the host property. To retain control over the future usea condition will be added to ensure its use is incidental to the main dwelling and not used as aseparate residential dwelling.


The outbuilding does not look significantly different to a large shed/workshop which is a normal typeof building expected to be found in a rear garden of a residential dwelling. The materials arereasonable for a residential environment. It is not readily visible from the street scene and, isacceptable in terms of design and visual amenity.

NEIGHBOUR AMENITY

The location of the outbuilding to the rear of the site is significantly far away from the properties ofCollyer Avenue to not have a detrimental impact on their residential amenities. It is closer to therear and side of 11 Westloats Lane but this section of the outbuilding is 2.32m high. It is not highenough to have a detrimental impact on the amenities of 11 Westloats Lane. An outbuilding of 2.5mcould be built under permitted development and have a similar impact. The proposal has anacceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenities.

The application is recommended for conditional permission.

RECOMMENDATION

BR/225/15/HH



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT







The development hereby approved shall be retained in accordance with the followingapproved plans:-

Buy a Plan- 400mm; Shed Floor Plan; Shed Side Right Elevation; Shed Side LeftElevation; Shed Rear Elevation and Shed Front Elevation


The accommodation permitted shall be used solely for purposes incidental to theoccupation and enjoyment of 120 Collyer Avenue, Bognor Regis PO21 5HX as a dwellingand shall not be used as a separate unit of accommodation and shall remain free of anykitchen facilities.

Reason: To accord with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan and to prevent theestablishment of an additional independent unit of accommodation which would give riseto an over-intensive use of the site and lead to an unsatisfactory relationship betweenindependent dwellings.


1

2

3

BR/225/15/HH


BR/225/15/HH

BR/225/15/HH Indicative Location Plan







Hotham Way, High Street adjacent

to Hotham Park, Upper Bognor Road


BR/259/15/A

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Bognor Regis

As above submitted by Arun District Council.

N/A

N/A

Predominantly flat at High Street and Upper Bognor Road(east of Hotham park roundabout). At Hotham Way, thelevels vary as the banners are located on the bridge overthe railway.


N/A

The advertisements the subject of this application arelocated on lampposts in the three locations mentionedabove.

The character of the localities vary. All are main roadsleading towards the Hotham Park roundabout and theseafront/town centre. No signs are located particularlyclose to dwellings. Those in Upper Bognor Road (east ofHotham park roundabout) and High Street are located inproximity to Listed Buildings at Hotham Park andChichester University. Many are located within theConservation Area.


None.


Noted.

REPRESENTATIONS


SITE AREA

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTDENSITIY

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT






No objection.


BR/259/15/A


Designation applicable to site:Conservation AreaClass A RoadListed Buildings

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

WSCC Highways does not wish to comment.

The Conservation Area Advisory Committee raises no objection.



NPPFNPPG









POLICY COMMENTARY



Noted.

BR/259/15/A











PRINCIPLEPara. 67 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that 'advertisements should besubject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulativeimpacts'. Para. 3.1 of the Councils adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for advertsconfirms that 'The display of outdoor advertisements can only be controlled in the interests of

CONCLUSIONS





The Bognor Regis Neighbourhood plan contains no policies directly relevant to the advertisements.

BR/259/15/A


'amenity' and 'public safety'.

AMENITYThe advertisements measure 1.15m in height and 0.74m in width and project 0.84m from thelamppost at a minimum height of 3m above ground level. The advertisements are already in placeand as such it is possible to fully assess their impact upon the amenity of the area. It wasconsidered that given their size, design and position the advertisements have only a limited impactupon the visual amenity of the areas in which they are located.



The location and scale of these signs are such that they are not considered to post a hazard topublic safety, especially when it is considered that they do not feature any means illumination.




1

RECOMMENDATION

BR/259/15/A


Consideration has been specifically given to Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 1 ofthe First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approvalof the grant of permission in this case interferes unreasonably with any local residents' right torespect for their private and family life and home, except insofar as it is necessary to protect therights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is alsopermitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and therecommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submittedapplication based on the considerations set out in this report.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

In assessing this proposal, a neutral impact has been identified upon those people with thefollowing protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civilpartnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation.












2

3

4

5

BR/259/15/A


BR/259/15/A

BR/259/15/A Indicative Location Plan







BR/259/15/A





BR/259/15/A





Various locations at Ford roundabout,

A27 roundabout, Ford Road


AB/162/15/A

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Arundel

This application has been submitted by Arun DistrictCouncil. It relates to the display of 8 banner signs atvarious locations on the outskirts of the town centre,namely 2 near Arundel station, one on the roundabouttowards the Causeway, 3 on Ford Road and 2 on the A27roundabout. The signs are 0.84m by 1.15m and aredisplayed 3m above ground level. One additional signclose to the Causeway roundabout has been deleted fromthe application.

N/A

N/A

Predominantly flat


N/A

The advertisements the subject of this application arelocation on lampposts in eight locations around Arundel.

Varied. All advertisements are located along roads, somein residential areas others outside the town centreboundary.


None


REPRESENTATIONS


SITE AREA

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTDENSITIY

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




Arundel Town Council

No Objection.9 letters of objection have been received.The lamp post banners on Ford Road are ugly, ruin the views, are left battered after stormsand provide no benefit as the majority of passing vehicles are local and therefore already


AB/162/15/A


CONSULTATIONS

The signs to advertise the application have been posted close to the banner in positions wherethey can be easily seen and read by residents. 2 of the signs are within the National Park andan application for these has been made to the National Park Authority separately. It is not agreed that these relatively small signs, which total 8 in number, visually detract fromthe appearance of the area. The content of the sign cannot be considered. Given the constant battering and position of the banner on lamp post 12 it has been deletedfrom the application.

County Highways - No Objection. The application is for the retention of nine non-illuminated lamppost banners in various locations in the vicinity of Ford Roundabout and the A27. Eight of thesesigns are placed on lampposts within the highway boundary.It is understood that the lamp post banners have caused some concern to highway safetyespecially in relation to lamp post no. 12 on The Causeway. This lamp post has a triangular'Cycles crossing' warning sign. The banner sign has fallen across this in the past and thusobscured the road safety sign. It is not acceptable for a road safety sign to be obscured ashighways safety could be compromised. The Local Highway Authority (LHA) wishes to stresshow important it is that the applicant up keep maintenance of these signs to avoid suchincidences.The WSCC Area Highway Manager for Arun area was consulted with regards to the retention ofthese signs. It is anticipated that there would be no highway safety implications by the retention ofthe signs. They are 3 metres up from the carriageway level and thus not likely to cause anobstruction to vehicular visibility. SSE Contracting are responsible for the lamp posts on whichthe signs are located and thus should be consulted for their views on the retention of thebanners.Provided SSE have no concerns and the banners are fixed securely and maintained regularly theLHA would not wish to raise any highways concerns as a result of the proposals. It may be


aware of events. Advertising in this manner is not conducive to the appearance of historicArundel. They are out of character with the area and visually distracting and unnecessary andare not maintained. This represents legalised fly posting. They are gaudy, unattractive and notpleasant to live with daily. Residents think these banners are a waste of money especially withcut backs elsewhere. Notice has not been posted next to banner. Following strong winds thebanner has been damaged and left in a state. These are unsightly, commercial, poor qualityand some obscure road safety signs. These signs are made of poor quality materials, the design and graphics are an eyesore.Have made numerous calls to Arun when the banner on lamp post 12 has ripped. Theconstant clinking has caused no end of distress. West Sussex County Highways havepreviously been contacted regarding damage and obscuring of traffic signs. Due to thepositioning of this sign, it is continually ripped by the wind. This is the second time in afortnight. A warning sign for the new cycle path to Arundel station is also positioned on thislamp post, which is just before the cycle crossing. The ripped sign hangs over the hazardwarning sign obscuring important road safety information. Highways deemed it to be a roadsafety hazard and contacted Arun to ask for its removal. Arun has complied to this requestuntil the outcome of this planning process. Due to the position of this banner to be read byroad users it must face east/west and as such it is vulnerable to the south, which is normallythe direction of the prevailing wind. These signs will continue to rip and continually obscure thesigns. The ripped signs generate continual noise of clanking or clinking like masts in a harbourwhich is tedious and distracting. Some of the signs are in the National Park.


AB/162/15/A



Designation applicable to site:Within and outside built up area boundary

POLICY CONTEXT

necessary to obtain an over sail licence as the banners overhang the highway.2 'Informatives' are suggested.



NPPFNPPG










POLICY COMMENTARY


Comments noted. The suggested informatives are included in the recommendation.

AB/162/15/A









BACKGROUNDThe main purpose of the signs is to promote events and tourism in Arun and to inform the public ofon going events in the local area. The display of the banners will vary every 2-4 weeks, dependingon the event. The banners have already been used to raise awareness of the Arundel Festival,Arundel by Candlelight and Arundel Farmer's market.

PRINCIPLE Para. 67 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that 'advertisements should besubject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulativeimpacts'. Para. 3.1 of the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for adverts

CONCLUSIONS





The Arundel Neighbourhood Plan has been made but there are considered to be no relevantpolicies to the determination of this application.

AB/162/15/A


confirms that 'The display of outdoor advertisements can only be controlled in the interests of'amenity' and 'public safety'.

AMENITYThe advertisements measure 1.15m in height and 0.74m in width and will project 0.84m from thelamppost at a height of 3m above ground level. The advertisements are already in place and assuch it is possible to fully assess their impact upon the amenity of the area. It is considered thatgiven their size, design and position the advertisements have only a limited impact upon the visualamenity of the areas in which they are located.



The location and scale of these signs are such that they are not considered to pose a hazard topublic safety, especially since they do not feature any means of illumination. Provided they areadequately maintained they should not compromise highway safety.


AB/162/15/A



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
















INFORMATIVE:The applicant is advised to contact the operator of the street lighting poles (SSEContracting) to gain their permission on the placement of the banners on lamp posts forwhich they are responsible/maintain.

INFORMATIVEBefore the commencement of any operation, the applicant is advised to contact WestSussex County Council (Tel no: 01243 642105 or [email protected]) to ascertain whether a Section 177 Licence under theHighways Act 1980 to cover any structure that overhangs the highway, would be required.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

RECOMMENDATION

AB/162/15/A


AB/162/15/A

AB/162/15/A Indicative Location Plan







62 Ford Road

Arundel

Construction of enlarged hall & replacement porch to front elevation &

revised proposals for rear dormer

AB/164/15/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

BN18 9EX

Single storey extension forward of the primary elevation inplace of existing porch and a rear dormer. The porch infillsa corner forward of the primary elevation, with the roofextending 3m forward of the primary elevation and a 1.8mextension to the hallway being located forward of theprimary elevation. The porch has 3.1m high eaves and ahipped roof with a maximum height of 4.7m.

The rear dormer measures 9 m3 and is smaller in areathan approved under AB/3/12/. It is 1m higher due to thepitched roof.

Approximately 387 square metres.

Predominantly flat.


1m high brick wall to front.

Semi-detached two storey dwelling. Brown brick with abrown tiled roof. Single storey side extension on southelevation.

Within built-up area alongside a main road lined on oneside by semi-detached two-storey dwellings in a lineararrangement. The majority of dwellings have detachedgarages to the side with a small number having beenreplaced with side extensions.


Permission granted under AB/3/12/ for a single storey side extension and a rear dormer.


REPRESENTATIONS

AB/3/12/ Single storey side extension, loft conversionwith dormer window & internal alterations 09-03-2012



SITE AREA

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT





AB/164/15/HH


Designation applicable to site:Built area boundary.

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

The dormer will be smaller in size and scale than approved under AB/3/12/. The proposal isnot considered to be out of proportion with the host dwelling. The dormer is higher thanapproved. However the dormer would have an extremely limited presence within thestreetscene and would benefit from permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 1,Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015.

Southern Water:

Southern Water have proposed the inclusion of conditions/informative on any approval:-

1] "The developer must advise the local authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of themeasures which will be undertaken to protect the public sewers, prior to the commencement ofdevelopment."2] "Due to changes in legislation that came in to force on the 1st October 2011 regarding thefuture ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could becrossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works,an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of propertiesserved, and potential means of access before any further works commence on site. Theapplicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House,Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) orwww.southernwater.co.uk".3] "A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order toservice this development, please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove,Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk".4] Reference is also made to the disposal of surface water and Part H3 of the BuildingRegulations.



Arundel Town Council

The changes to the dormer would render the dormer too big; out of proportion and above theadjacent roofline. No objection was raised to the porch.



In response to the comments from Southern Water:

1] This condition is excessive given the evidence submitted by Southern Water which appears toshow drains running to the rear of the dwelling and along the front boundary of the site. Thedevelopment proposed will not interfere with the sewers based upon these approximatelocations. The informative under 2] is adequate.2) and 3) These informatives will be included in the recommendation.4] This aspect will be controlled by Building Regulations and the inclusion of an additionalcondition relating to this is not necessary.

AB/164/15/HH


Environment Agency


DEV19

GEN2

GEN7



NPPFNPPG











The Arundel Neighbourhood Plan has been made but there are considered to be no relevantpolicies to the determination of this application.

POLICY COMMENTARY

AB/164/15/HH

D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityD DM4 Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings(residential and non-residential)SD SP2 Built-Up Area Boundary







PRINCIPLEThe site is within the built area boundary where the principle of development is acceptable subjectto compliance with relevant development plan policy. The most relevant policies to thedetermination of this application will be policies DEV19 and GEN7 of the Local Plan.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITYThe application seeks permission for an extension forward of the primary elevation to provide aporch and rear dormer.

The porch by virtue of its size, location and design appears subservient to the host dwelling, onlyextending 0.3m at eaves height beyond the existing side elevation and most forward elevation ofthe dwelling. The materials to be used will match in those used in the original dwelling and this inconjunction with the design helps ensure integration.

The porch appears sympathetic to the character and appearance of the streetscene due to itsdesign, which maintains the building line and the space between the property and the highway aswell as the spacing between the dwellings. It is noted that a number of porches and frontextensions exist on neighbouring properties.

The porch complies with policies GEN7(ii) and DEV19 (i), (ii) & (v) of the Local Plan.

The dormer by virtue of its design appears subservient and well integrated through the use ofmaterials. It will not be overly prominent within the streetscene due to its location to the rear.

The dormer complies with policies GEN7(ii) and DEV19 (i), (ii) & (v) of the Local Plan. The dormerwould comply with the limitations of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning(General Permitted Development) Order 2015.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe porch forward of the primary elevation due to its position and distance from any boundaries willnot give rise to any unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing.

The dormer is on the rear and not considered to give rise to unacceptable adverse overbearing orovershadowing. Whilst it is acknowledged that a window at second floor level will give rise to

CONCLUSIONS



AB/164/15/HH


additional overlooking this is not considered to be unacceptably adverse given the length of the reargarden and the location and orientation of the properties to the rear.

The rooflight on the south-west elevation will be conditioned requiring it to be obscurely glazed.

The works are deemed to be in accordance with policies GEN7(iv) and DEV19(iii).

SUMMARYIt is recommended that the application is approved subject to the below conditions.




The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans: Proposed Ground Floor Plan - 11531.06; Proposed First Floor Plan -11531.07; Proposed Second Floor Plan - 11531.08; Proposed South-East Elevation -11531.10; Proposed South-West Elevation - 11531.11; Proposed North-West Elevation -11531.12; Proposed North-East Elevation - 11531.13; and Proposed Cross Section -11531.09. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

1

2

RECOMMENDATION

AB/164/15/HH



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT





The materials and finishes of the external walls and roof of the extension and dormerwindow hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those of the existing building.


The roof light on the south-west elevation shall at all times be obscurely-glazed unless theparts of the window which can open are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the roomin which the window is installed.



INFORMATIVE: Due to changes in legislation that came in to force on the 1st October2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed tobe public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be foundduring construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain itscondition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before anyfurther works commence on site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter furtherwith Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire,SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk

INFORMATIVE: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system isrequired in order to service this development, please contact Southern Water,Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire, SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 3030119) or www.southernwater.co.uk

3

4

5

6

7

AB/164/15/HH


AB/164/15/HH

AB/164/15/HH Indicative Location Plan







Land at West End Nursery

Roundstone Lane

246 No. residential dwellings including garages & associated parking,

affordable housing, associated landscape & infrastructure & addition of

pumping station. Utilisation of 2 No. existing vehicular access points from

Roundstone Lane &

formation of access road to serve the development. Departure from the

Development plan

A/144/15/PL

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Angmering

The proposal is for a Full Planning application for 246residential units, associated open space, access and carparking. This application follows an earlier Outline planningapplication that established the principle of residential useon this site - application reference A/122/12 /OUTapproved February 2015.

The proposed development provides for a detailed layout of246 units comprising:

· 13 x 1bed dwellings, 51 x 2 bed dwellings, 110 x 3 beddwellings, 60 x 4 bed dwellings and 12 x 5 bed dwellings.

· The development proposes an agreed 20% level foraffordable housing. 49 units will be affordable with a mixand tenure agreed by the Housing and enabling manager.These include 7x1bed chalet bungalows, 7x2bed flats,8x2bed houses, 16x3bed houses, 11x4bed houses. Theaffordable housing is integrated through the development inclusters of a maximum of 15 dwellings.

· Public Open Space amounts to 3.014ha - 2.1ha is activeopen space, which amounts to 85sq.m for each of the 246proposed dwellings. There is a detailed landscapestrategy which has used the Masterplan and developmentprinciples February 2014 as the basis for provision.Equipped provision will comprise two 100sq.m Local Areasfor Play (LAPs) and a minimum 1000sq.m NeighbourhoodEquipped Area for Play (NEAP). The long term landscapingmanagement will be the responsibility of a managementcompany - this includes all areas of open space andplanting outside private gardens.




A/144/15/PL

BN16 4AX


· The proposal includes two access points on RoundstoneLane, one is an existing access point to the current WestEnd Nursery site. The other was approved as an accesspoint from the Bramley Way roundabout as part of theoutline planning permission. Revised detailed highwaysdrawings have been submitted with this application whichseeks detailed permission.

· The proposed layout indicates a total of 584 parkingspaces - 535 allocated parking spaces and 49 unallocatedspaces within the red line site boundary. In addition there iscycle parking provision in accordance with WSCCguidance.

9.72ha

Gross density of 25.3dph and net density of 36.68dph notincluding open space.

Predominantly flat within the site. The site sitsapproximately 1-2 m above the height of Roundstone Lane.

There are trees and hedging along the four siteboundaries. There are bunds along the Roundstone Lanefrontage to the west of the site and along the A280/CowLane eastern boundary. There is a substantial screen ofcypress trees between the site and the Worthing RugbyClub pitches on the northern boundary.

The site has a mix of bunds and security fencing aroundthe 4 edges of the site. The red line application siteincludes hedgerows and trees around the site whichprovides some established screening to the siteboundaries particularly from the east.

The site characteristics have changed dramatically in thelast 2 months. The site had been commercial growerswhere almost the whole of the site had been covered bylarge scale commercial glass houses and additionalbuildings for office/reception, industrial warehouses forplant and machinery used at the nursery. The glasshouses were completely removed where the frameworkwill be reused and recycled off site. The intention is toretain the remaining office and industrial buildings on thesouthern part of the site as a construction yard and officesduring the construction of the proposed development.

The removal of the glass houses allows uninterruptedviews across the extensive 9ha site.

The site is located to the east of Angmering village and isbounded by Roundstone Lane to the west. Immediatelyopposite the site entrance is an entrance to a variety ofindustrial units behind the frontage residential properties.

SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT



A/144/15/PL


The edge of Angmering village has a mix of existingresidential development with 2 and 2.5 storey propertiesfronting Roundstone Lane. There is a strong green edge tothe settlement with trees and hedges on both sides of thelane.

To the south of the proposed site there is the HaskinsGarden Centre and extensive retail development withassociated car parking.

The North of the site has a cypress tree belt, beyond whichis Worthing Rugby Club. The proposed site, WorthingRugby Club and the land to the north of the rugby club hasall been agreed as a strategic housing allocation. Twosites one by Barratt Homes and one by David WilsonHomes are under construction with a number of homesalready completed and occupied.

To the east the A280 which clearly defines the built edge toAngmering. To the east of the A280 is open farmland.

A/122/12 - Outline planning consent granted for 195 residential units subject to a s106.This was granted planning permission alongside two planning applications which were bothapproved following the submission of a concept Masterplan showing how all of the sites, land toeast of Roundstone Lane, would be delivered. The two applications to the north of Worthing RugbyClub are: the Barratt/David Wilson Homes application for 138 dwellings to the north of WorthingRugby Club (Application Ref A/82/12/PL), approved May 2015; and JV Plants application for 36dwellings at the former nursery site (application ref A/135/12) approved December 2014.


REPRESENTATIONS

A/122/12/ Outline Application for demolition of theexisting glasshouses, ancillary buildings andhardstanding and redevelopment of up to 195dwellings with associated access, public openspace and landscaping. Departure from theDevelopment Plan.

11-02-2015

App Cond with S106


Angmering Parish Council

Angmering PC - Object

The PC objected to the outline application for 195 units and remains opposed to the principleof large scale housing development to the east of Roundstone lane. The PC acknowledgesthe reality of the situation, specifically that the various sites have been designated as strategic, and outline permission has been granted for the subject site. Also that development will takeplace on the subject site.

Development Density

A/144/15/PL


Policy HD7 of the Angmering NDP requirements:· Within the built up area boundary, development must be of a density appropriate for; and inkeeping with; the setting of the immediate surrounding area.

· New residential developments that propose a site density greater than the immediatesurrounding area will generally be refused unless clear justification can be provided to supportthe need for higher density development and how effectively the design integrates into thesurrounding built form of landscape.

The development provides for 51 more dwellings than the outline consent. The AngmeringBuild Density Survey 2013 noted that the net build density, excluding public open space wasjust under 25dph, with the western side of Roundstone Lane having a density of 14dph. Basedon the 195 units included in the outline consent the density would have been 19dph (29dphexcluding open spaces).

The current layout proposes a density of just over 25dph gross and a net of around 36dph(this figure was assumed by the PC - The case officer has calculated it as 36.68dph based oninformation in the report).

The PC states that this is clearly a greater density than found in the surrounding area. Thereasons for this increase are not explicitly stated in the application. This justification should bestated. The application does not accord with Policy HD7 Angmering NDP.

Housing Mix

ANDP Policy HD3 seeks that for a development of more than 6 dwellings, the applicant shoulddemonstrate how local needs are met; and, proposals should provide for a mix of housingsizes and the delivery of more smaller and fewer larger dwellings is encouraged.

A comparison is made between the SHMA mix and the proposal to demonstrate that there is29.3% 4+ bed dwellings where the SHMA indicates the mix should be 10-15% for 4+ beddwellings.

The PC is of the view that there is no lack of 4+bed provision in Angmering and therefore thePC is not persuaded that local needs will be met by the proposed housing mix and thereforethe proposal does not accord with Policy ANDP HD3.

Built Form

ANDP Policy HD5 - new developments must not contain buildings of over 2.5 storeys andmust integrate with both character of nearby developments as well as the landscape setting.

It is noted that the proposal does not exceed 2.5 storeys but while there are 2.5 storeydwellings on the adjacent Bramley Green development these amount to less than half the totalnumber of dwellings on that development.

S106 Developer Contributions

In the event that ADC decides to grant planning permission the level of contributions will needto increase as acknowledged by the applicant in their planning statement.

In summary the PC is seeking justification for the increased number of dwellings on the sitefrom the number approved in the outline planning consent in order to comply with ANDPPolicy HD7.

A/144/15/PL


CONSULTATIONS

The list of matters included by the objectors are dealt with in the consultee responses and inthe assessment of the planning application. The siting and location of the SUDS pond needsto be in a lower part of the site. By its very nature the design of SUDS improves the drainagein an area. The location was set out in the Masterplan published in February 2014. The pointsraised do not lead to officers to recommend overturning the principle of development on thissite and the location of play areas, and SUDs drainage is appropriate.


In addition if the justification is demonstrated the housing mix requires to be adjusted to matchthe SHMA recommendations and comply with ANDP Policy HD3, as follows:

· 1 bed dwellings - 18no. (7.5%)· 2 bed dwellings - 74no. (30%)· 3 bed dwellings - 123no. (50%)· 4+ bed dwellings - 31no. (12.5%)

The reduction in 4+ dwellings as suggested has the consequence of reducing the number of2.5 storey dwellings which would be a more acceptable built form than that currently proposedand would comply with ANDP Policy HD5. PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS

4 representations have been received objecting to the proposal. The following is a summary ofthe points made.

· In 2012 a questionnaire circulated in Angmering found that the majority of respondents99.69% were against large scale housing developments in Angmering.· Increasing the number of units proposed will increase the problems already created by largescale developments to the east of Roundstone Lane.· Flood risk· The pond/reservoir in the south east corner is near a property and concerned that thiscauses a risk of flooding. The existing reservoir has not been lined and it is understood thattwo sink holes have appeared. Excess water will flood the nearby property.· Water supplies, drains and sewerage unable to cope· Overcrowded schools· Medical services at near capacity· Local leisure facilities at near capacity· Inadequate infrastructure· Village roads unsuitable for extra traffic. Angmering is a traffic island and a rat run.· Houses too expensive to buy.· Lack of local jobs· There are unsold properties in Angmering· New properties may remain unsold or occupied by people who have to commute a longdistance to work increasing CO2 emissions.· Without the incentive for businesses to settle here, it seems pointless to allow large housingestates to be built.· Noise created by youth play area in south east corner of the site which would affectresidential amenity. Surprised that it is not located at the north close to rugby club.

A/144/15/PL

Health & Safety Executive

Highways England


Economic Development No comments but would ask that the developer be asked to sign up to Arun Developer & PartnerCharter as well as producing an Employment and Skills Plan.

Housing Strategy and Enabling Manager - No Objection

The Council has previously agreed to a 20% affordable housing quota for this development. All affordable housing details are set out in the s106 agreement including transfer of dwellings toand affordable housing provider.

ADC Engineer

No specific structural comments to make but refer the applicant to the contaminated landassessment submitted under planning application A/122/12 with respect to foundations.

Environment Agency

No Objections subject to conditions addressing:1. Risk assessment and site investigation;2. Remediation strategy including sampling and monitoring;3. Contamination not previously identified;4. No infiltration of surface water drainage in to the ground is permitted.

Sussex Police

No Objections subject to standard comments in relation to secured by design.It would be beneficial for plots 189-190, 194-195, & 197 to have gable windows to assist inproviding addition observation over an unobserved area.

Sussex Police is therefore seeking a financial contribution of £67,492 (equivalent to £274.36 perdwelling) towards the provision, maintenance and operation of Sussex Police infrastructure, to beused in the policing of the Arun Police District.

The contribution is to mitigate against the impact of this development. Their letter sets out how


A/144/15/PL


Environment Agency



Arboriculturist







Engineers (structural)

NHS Coastal West Sussex CCG


CIL compliance is achieved. The contribution of £67,492 can be secured through Section 106legal agreement, should planning permission be granted. Without this contribution, SussexPolice would object to this development. WSCC Flood Risk

The site is at LOW risk from surface water flooding, although some areas of the site are shownto be at risk due to local topography.

Roundstone lane is shown to be at HIGH risk from surface water flooding due to localtopography. There should be no site level rise and any excavated material should be kept on site.

There is a negligible risk from ground water flooding. The site is not within or close to an existingFloodzone and there are no records of historic flooding within the confines of the site or within theclose vicinity of the site. Advice has been given in relation to SUDS.

ADC Engineer (Drainage)

No Objections subject to conditions.SuDS features are proposed for the site. Deep-bore soakaways should be avoided unless thereis no other option, and we may even consider restricted discharge to a ditch to be more suitable.Groundwater monitoring should confirm the maximum water table level through the winter, andshallow soakage investigated further. The layout should retain the easements adjacent to thewatercourse.

Standard conditions ENGD2A, ENGD5A, ENGD6A.

Highways England

No Objections subject to condition requiring a construction traffic management plan.


No objections subject to conditions to address:1. Construction hours of operation;2. ENV3 - Risk assessment associated with contaminated land; 3. ENV5 - Unsuspected contamination;4. ENV6 - Remediation strategy report.

Southern Water

The is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal toservice the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to thewaste water sewerage system and as a result increase the risk of flooding in and around theexisting area. Condition to be added that requires a drainage strategy detailing the means of fouland surface water drainage and an implementation timetable.

If approved the Developer would enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to providethe necessary infrastructure.

Advice is provided in relation to the ongoing maintenance and management of the proposedSUDS scheme for the lifetime of the project.

A/144/15/PL


ADC Parks & Greenspace - No Objection

The level of Public Open Space provision would appear to be adequate and with the councilguidelines. Full details of the play areas will be required with the range of equipment provided.A detailed landscaping scheme along with management plan will be required.

ADC Tree Officer

No Objections subject to conditions

Cultural Development Officer

The capacity of the leisure centre in Littlehampton needs to be increased to cater for theincrease in population generated by the development. Through the preparation of the Council'sLeisure and Cultural Strategy an assessment for the Council by Sport England, using theirFacilities Planning Model shows that there is 25% less swimming pool space than is necessaryto match at minimum the demand for swimming. It identifies that the level of sports hall provisionis insufficient to cater for the existing capacity and that there is a deficit of artificial turf pitches inthe District to cater for overall public demand. Any new housing development generatingadditional population will put more strain on existing facilities and generate a need for additionalsports, arts and cultural facilities. All new housing and, where viable, commercial development is required to contribute to theprovision of additional indoor sport, arts and cultural facilities to a level at least commensuratewith the additional population generated by that development, and in accordance with therequirements and guidance set out in the relevant Technical Appendix. Where the developmentdoes not generate sufficient demand for one whole unit of the relevant indoor sport, arts orcultural facilities (the threshold for a new facility on site), contributions will be made to strategicprojects identified within the Arun District Council Leisure and Cultural Strategy 2013 - 2028. Thecontributions we require are as follows:

1. Swimming pools £103,422 - contributions are required towards increasing the pool capacity inLittlehampton from a 6 lane 25m pool to an 8 lane 25m pool.2. Sports halls £133,258 - contributions are required to increase the sports & leisure provision interms of indoor sports and activity space at Littlehampton Leisure Centre.3. 3G Artificial pitch £15,554 - contributions are required to support the need for additional 3Gspace at Littlehampton Leisure Centre.

Archaeology

An Archaeology mitigation strategy has been submitted and approved.

Health & Safety Executive

The HSE does not advise against the development on safety grounds.

WSCC Highways

Outline consent was previously granted under permission A/122/12 for up to 195 dwellings withassociated Section 106 Agreement. The current submission proposes an increase in residentialdwellings to 246 properties.

A/144/15/PL


No objection is raised to the principle of development and it is not considered that the increase inresidential property will have a material impact beyond that of the original submission, for whichan appropriate package of mitigation has been agreed. Minor modification of the internal layout isrequired; in its current form the layout could not be adopted by WSCC.

AccessAccess remains in the same form as previous consented, and is considered appropriate toaccommodate the slight increase in vehicular movements. Conditions relating to access shouldbe replicated from the previous consent. The Applicant would be required to enter into a Section278 Agreement prior to commencing any works on the highway.

Off-Site Highway WorksA range of off-site works were identified, through the overarching PBA Transport Assessment,which were required to make the development acceptable in planning terms. This includedimprovement to the A259 and the A280, as well as a range of schemes within Angmering Villageto enhance accessibility by sustainable modes of transport.

As the development location consisted of a number of parcels of land under various ownerships,proportional financial contributions were sought to enable WSCC to undertake the necessarymitigation works. The level of contribution should be uplifted to take account of the increase in thenumber of dwellings proposed.

Internal LayoutWhilst not specified, it is assumed that the internal layout is to be offered for adoption as perother developments that form the wider development site. A coloured plan showing extent oflayout intended for adoption should be provided. In addition the following points should beaddressed.

1. Clarification is sought as to why the footway outside properties 19-30 measures 3.0m wide; isit intended to be a shared footway/cycleway?2. Details of landscaping/tree specification adjacent to where paths emerge to roadways needsto be specified.3. Footways not tied-in at either end of access road serving plots.4. Footways not tied-in properly at junction of access road serving plots.5. Potentially too-long a straight run without turning head for refuse and Fire and Rescue vehiclesfor access. Recommend early discussion with both providers for their requirements.6. Service margin running alongside roads serving a number of the plots are too narrow at 1.0mfor adoption. Should be 2.0m wide.7. Tactile paving not shown in places at crossing points.8. No visibility splays shown throughout layout (including forward visibility on bends).9. Poor definition of footway connection adjacent to plots 204 and 177.10. Road 'feature' (assumed to be raised) adjacent to plots 19 and 236 needs to meet accessroads at 90 degrees and be extended with ramps shown for safety reasons.11. Junction detail shown at adjacent to plots 140 and 186 and central green area is not clear.12. Are paths around NEAP and close to PRoW intended to be off-road sharedfootpath/cycleways? If so, they should be widened - ideally to 3.0m.13. Footway/footpath access to LAP opposite plot 110 not shown.14. Cycle parking for plots not shown.15. Materials pallet for roads and footways/paths required.

WSCC Strategic InfrastructureThe following contributions are required to be included in the s106 agreement.

A/144/15/PL


Arun District Local Plan 2003

Angmering Neighbourhood Development Plan 2014

Emerging Local Plan - Publication Version October 2014.

Planning Policy Guidance

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

POLICY CONTEXT

Primary Education £679,295Secondary Education £731,0796th Form Education £171,265Library £74,457Fire & Rescue £6,754

Total £1,662,850

NHSDeveloper contributions sought of £284,817. Comments are awaited on where the contributionswill be spent, in order that the CIL regulations are met.


DEV17

GEN11

GEN12

GEN15

GEN18

GEN2

GEN20

GEN25

GEN26

GEN28

Affordable HousingInland FloodingParking in New DevelopmentCycling and WalkingCrime PreventionBuilt-up Area BoundaryProvision of Public Open Space within NewDevelopmentWater ResourcesWater QualityTrees and Woodlands



The consultation comments are noted. There are no objections to the proposal subject toconditions. There is a requirement for developer contributions and these are listed at the end ofthis report and a s106 - heads of terms table will be circulated as an update.

In relation to developer contributions the Council have requested comments from WSCC -Strategic Planning and Infrastructure - views awaited which will include the requirements foreducation, fire service and libraries.

The Local Highway authority has confirmed that the marginal increase in the number of dwellingsdoes not impact the local road network, once the works associated with the whole east ofRoundstone Lane development is completed. The highway authority has provided the applicantwith a list of minor amendments that need to be considered. these amendments will have beensubmitted prior to the committee meeting.

A/144/15/PL


GEN3

GEN32

GEN33

GEN5

GEN7

GEN8

GEN9

Protection of the CountrysideNoise PollutionLight PollutionProvision of New Residential DevelopmentThe Form of New DevelopmentDevelopment and the Provision ofInfrastructureFoul and Surface Water Drainage

NPPFNPPG



The Development Plan consists of the Arun District Local Plan 2003, West Sussex County

POLICY COMMENTARY

A/144/15/PL

D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityD SP1 DesignH DM1 Housing MixH SP1 Strategic housing, parish and town council allocationsH SP2 Affordable HousingOSR DM1 Open Space, Sport and RecreationQE DM1 Noise PollutionQE DM2 Light PollutionQE DM4 Contaminated LandSD SP1 Sustainable DevelopmentT SP1 Transport and DevelopmentW DM1 Water Supply and QualityW DM2 Flood RiskW DM3 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems


Flood Prevention


Housing Mix

Materials

Built Form

Housing Layout & Design

Housing Density

Parking for New Developments

Phasing of Residential Development

Local Highways

Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYEH3Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYHD1Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYHD3Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYHD4Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYHD5Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYHD6Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYHD7Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYHD8Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYHD9Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYTM1




The proposal does not comply with the Development Plan in that it proposes residentialdevelopment outside the village development boundary, however there are material considerationsthat justify the officer recommendation.


PROPOSALThe application site is currently in Horticultural use. At the time of the submission the site had beenalmost full enclosed by glass houses with an additional office and machinery sheds along thesouthern boundary. The glass houses have since been demolished and recycled prior to the

CONCLUSIONS

Material considerations include the extant permission on the site for 195 dwellings and the lack of a5 year deliverable housing land supply.


Council's Waste and Minerals Plans and Made Neighbourhood Development Plans.





Where applicable, Neighbourhood Development Plan's (more commonly known as aneighbourhood plan or NDP), once made by Arun District Council, will form part of the statutorylocal development plan for the relevant designated neighbourhood area and policies within them willbe considered in determining planning applications. Made NDP policies will be consideredalongside other development plan documents including Arun District Council's Local Plan. Whilstan NDP is under preparation it will afford little weight in the determination of planning applications.Its status will however gain more weight as a material consideration the closer it is towards it beingmade. Arun District Council will make reference to an NDP when it has, by the close of planningapplication consultation, been publicised for pre-submission consultation (Reg.14).

Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring; Kingston; Littlehampton;Rustington; and Yapton.

A/144/15/PL


development of the site.

The application proposes 246 dwellings which will have 2 access points from Roundstone Lane.

PRINCIPLE: The principle of housing development on the application site has already been established by anearlier planning application for outline permission. (A/122/12/OUT - approved in February 2015 isstill extant).

The site forms part of a wider strategic housing site identified within the draft Local Plan to deliver600 homes. The land to the east of Roundstone Lane also forms the lower third (land south ofWorthing Rugby Club) which forms part of the wider masterplan. The Masterplan & DevelopmentPrinciples - Sites East of Roundstone Lane, Angmering, February 2014.

The masterplan document has been prepared as a supporting document to current and futureplanning applications; it is not an adopted policy document. The document provides a coherentframework to coordinate the delivery of the sites independently, while showing how the overalldevelopment would appear. It is also identifies a planning framework against which the planningapplications can be assessed in terms of design and layout uses. The Council and developers have also had ongoing discussions with relevant service providers toaddress infrastructure requirements resulting from the development to ensure that the proposedscheme can be considered sustainable, as required by paragraph 49 of the NPPF.

The masterplan identifies improvements in connectivity between the existing settlement and theexisting range of services within the village to ensure that pedestrian and cycle links can beprovided from the new development. WSCC have identified the specific improvements required forthis site which includes improvements to bus shelters and passenger information systems,upgrades to footpaths into the centre of the village as well as additional cycle parking at Angmeringstation. As a result of these improvements, there would be a choice means of transport, either byfoot, cycle, or public transport.

This together with the design of this proposed development fitting together with the adjacent rugbyclub site to the north will ensure that the site as proposed would provide a sustainable form ofdevelopment which accords with the wider masterplan produced to support the cohesive deliveryof the independent sites.

The proposal seeks to maintain the green spaces and road layout as set out in the masterplan butincreases the housing density to increase the number of units from the approved 195 to 246dwellings in this proposal. However this increase does not affect the principle of residentialdevelopment on the site.

The NPPF is a key consideration as it has the core principle that "housing applications should beconsidered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevantpolicies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the Local PlanningAuthority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites". Para 49 NPPF.

As the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5 year National Planning Policy Frameworkcompliant supply of housing and with the current objectively assessed housing need for theDistrict, where the OAN has been raised to 845 dwellings per year and completions below therequired rates, it is clear that housing supply needs to be maintained. The significant housing landsupply shortfall means that the increase in housing numbers is fully in line with the NPPF. However

A/144/15/PL


even if the council had met its housing land supply figures the principle of increasing the number ofdwellings at this location could still be supported (subject to other policy requirements). Theincrease in the number of units is not excessive particularly given the gross density is still around25dph.

Angmering PC have made a number of points of objection as detailed in the comments sectionabove. While acknowledging that the site has been designated as a strategic site for housingdevelopment and that there is an outline permission, the PC state that they remain opposed to thedevelopment. In particular the PC requested further justification for the increase in the number ofdwellings by a further 51 units.

In response to the PC objection Arun Council have set out a strategic allocation for at least 600dwellings in the strategic allocation for Angmering. In addition to the Strategic Allocation theEmerging Local Plan Policy H SP1 sets out the Council's allocated housing units for Parishes andTowns over the life of the plan. These are minimum allocations where it is expected that thepositive planning carried out by Neighbourhood planning groups will bring forward their ownallocations. Angmering was allocated a further 100 dwellings to allocate in the NeighbourhoodDevelopment Plan.

As a result of the lack of deliverable housing land supply and the increased OAN figures there is aclear justification for the increase in housing numbers on this site which is in line with both theemerging local plan and the requirements of the NPPF. The site will make the best use of anallocated site which has already been considered as a sustainable location.

DESIGNPlanning Policies and Central Government Advice support the efficient and effective use of land.Policy GEN7(ii) requires new developments to respond positively to the identified characteristics ofa particular site to create developments which respect local characteristics. Policy GEN7 also sets out a requirement for schemes to display high quality design and layout.The NPPF also attaches great weight to the design of the built environment and states that gooddesign is a key aspect of sustainable development and should contribute to making places betterfor people.

Paragraph 7 of the NPPF states that one part of the sustainable development principle is a highquality built environment and para 9 expands by confirming that this is through seekingimprovements to the quality of the built environment and widening choice of high quality homes.One of the 'core planning principles' at para 17 is securing high quality design and a good standardof amenity.

Section 7 of the NPPF relates to 'requiring good design'. The section states good design is a keyaspect of sustainable development (para 56), that developments should establish a strong senseof place and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture (58). Para 64 confirms thatplanning permission should be refused for poor design that fails to improve the character or qualityof an area.

The design layout respects the design principles that were established in the outline application.The detailed layout includes a range of dwelling sizes with a mix of 2, 3, 4, and 5 bedroomdwellings. It includes a 20% affordable housing contribution - details in separate section below.

The design uses the existing access and creates a new access point off of the Roundstone laneroundabout. Both access roads lead through to the central community green and the residentialstreets to the east of the site.

A/144/15/PL


The proposed dwellings are 2 - 2.5 storeys in height this provides a maximum ridge height of10.5m.The types and design use a modern take on the local vernacular. This is reinforced by thematerials palette which uses red brick; flint on key corner plot properties; tile hanging; white render;and, to a lesser degree white painted timber cladding. Roofing is red tile and slate effect roofing.

The applicant has submitted revisions to the dwelling designs as requested by officers to ensurethat the mix of materials in different parts of the development did not become too fussy. All therequested revisions were made. Also a number of properties through the development havechimney stacks as this provides more interest to the roof scape of the development.

Angmering PC has raised concerns about the housing mix where the PC states that they are notconvinced that local needs will be met. The applicant has submitted that the percentage mix hasnot significantly altered from the approved outline consent which included an indicative layout.

Nos. and types of dwellings Approved Proposed

One bed dwellings 5.3% 4%Two bed dwellings 20.7% 16%Three bed dwellings 44.7% 50%Four bed dwellings 24.4% 27%Five bed dwellings 4.9% 3%

The PC is objecting to the number of 4 bed units when the combination of 4 and 5 bed units is only30% of the development. The applicant also confirms that this percentage is similar to the SHMAwhich identifies 31% for 4 & 5 bed houses. (24.9% 4 bed and 6.1%5 bed dwelling).

In addition to this, local needs will also be met by the 49 affordable units proposed by thisdevelopment.

The objection from the PC on the built design with comparisons to Bramley Green is not justified.There are a number of 2.5 storey properties in Angmering, a number on Roundstone lane and themaximum height to ridge is only 10.5m which is acceptable in design terms. 2.5 storey propertiesare a common and traditional built form, in this application context it makes an efficient use of thesite and it is included in the Master plan where it states that there should be a development mix of 2- 2.5 storey dwellings. NEIGHBOUR AMENITYArun District Local Plan Policy GEN7(iv) indicates planning permission will only be granted forschemes displaying high quality design and layout. It further indicates development will bepermitted if it takes into account impact on adjoining occupiers, land, use or property. The NPPFstates that new development should contribute positively to making places better for people. Theseguiding principles are also contained in the Angmering NDP.

The proposed layout for the site would likely ensure that there would be no undue harm to theresidents of the proposed dwellings.

AFFORDABLE HOUSINGThe applicant has discussed the proposals with the Housing Strategy and Enabling Manager andan agreed residential mix and tenure have been proposed. The development proposes 20%affordable housing which amounts to 49 units which are integrated throughout the site in clusters ofup to 15 dwellings.

A/144/15/PL


HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT AND PARKINGNo objection is raised to the principle of development by the Local Highway Authority and it is notconsidered that the increase in residential property, from 195 dwellings to 246 dwellings, will have amaterial impact beyond that of the original submission, for which an appropriate package ofmitigation has been agreed. Further modifications to the internal layout are, however, still required;in its current form the layout could not be adopted by WSCC.

WSCC also identified a number of internal layout issues with the proposal and a number of theircomments related to ensuring that the development would meet adoptable standards. Theapplicant has explained that the proposed site, if permitted, would not be seeking highwaysadoption but further details have been submitted to address the various highways points.

AccessAccess remains in the same form as previous permission, and is considered appropriate toaccommodate the increase in vehicular movements. Conditions relating to access should bereplicated from the previous consent. The Applicant would be required to enter into a Section 278Agreement prior to commencing any works on the highway.

Off-Site Highway WorksA range of off-site works were identified, through the overarching Transport Assessment, whichwere required to make the development acceptable in planning terms. This included improvementto the A259 as well as a range of schemes within Angmering Village to enhance accessibility bysustainable modes of transport. As the development location consisted of a number of parcels of land under various ownerships,proportional financial contributions were sought to enable WSCC to undertake the necessarymitigation works. Bespoke formulas were derived to calculate the contribution based on thenumber of dwellings put forward. The formulas used in the original S106 should be used and thelevel of contribution should be uplifted to take account of the increase in the number of dwellingsproposed.

FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE

FOUL DRAINAGE

There is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal toservice the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the publicsystem and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Acondition will be included that requires a drainage strategy detailing the means of foul and surfacewater drainage and an implementation timetable.

If approved the Developer would enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide thenecessary infrastructure.

FLOOD RISK

The site is low risk from surface water flooding. Roundstone lane is shown to be at high risk fromsurface water flooding due to local topography. The site is slightly elevated from Roundstone Lanewhich will ensure that with the proposed SUDS drainage the site will not be adding to any existinglocal potential flooding and would ensure that the site does not contribute to local flooding byensuring the onsite drainage is managed.

A/144/15/PL


There is negligible risk from ground water flooding and the site is not within a flood zone.

LANDSCAPING AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

The landscape strategy is comprehensive and the layout of public open space and areas oflandscaping, particularly to the east and west boundaries has taken account of the requirements ofthe masterplan to create a 'garden village' character around a central green.

The current application provides a total of 3.014 hectares within the red line. The additional areanorth of the current site boundary which was included in the outline masterplan provides anadditional 0.307 hectares, which amounts to an equivalent total of 3.321 hectares. Of this, 2.1hectares is active open space which includes the 2 central spaces and the area of recreationalamenity space at the eastern end of the site. This amounts to approximately 85sqm for each of the246 proposed dwellings, so an increase on the approved active provision.

The Open space provision being proposed is adequate and within the SPG guidelines.

The layout provides 2 Local Areas for Play, one in the north-west corner of the central green andanother in the square in the north-east corner of the site. The applicant has also provided aNeighbourhood Equipped Area for Play which has been subdivided within the layout. Part of this isprovided within the central green and the remainder within the open space in the south-east cornerof the site. Additional details of these will be provided at a later date in response to a condition if thescheme is approved.

IMPACT ON TREES

The proposal requires the loss of trees which are on the boundary of the Roundstone lanefrontage. The tree officer has agreed to the removal of these trees as they are poor specimens andthis works have been carried out as part of the site clearance. The trees are located on a bundwhich has been formed out of construction waste which was moved into this position following the1987 storm. On site it is clear that these 'contaminated land areas' were not properly treated asthere is no formal capping membrane or topsoil. Following removal of the trees the proposal ifapproved will reduce the height of the bunds, properly cap and provide new landscaping along thefrontages and boundaries of the site. The felling of the trees has already been agreed and theCouncil were advised.

SUMMARY

It is considered that the this application is acceptable on the basis that it creates a residentialdevelopment in a sustainable location near to services, main routes which offer public transportopportunities. There will be a requirement to upgrade foul drainage as there is currently nocapacity. The developer would also be required to make significant contributions for education,library and fire and rescue; Police; NHS; Sport - Littlehampton swimming pool, sports hall and 3GPitch.

The developer has also agreed to a housing mix and tenure as set by the Strategic Housing andEnabling Manager which delivers 49 affordable housing units to the area. The recognised undersupply of housing within the area means that there is an urgent need to findsustainable housing sites that can be delivered in the short/medium term to assist Arun DC meetits housing target.

It is considered that the application should be approved subject to conditions and a s106 covering:

A/144/15/PL


· Open Space and Structural Landscaping; · Amenity Spaces;· Management and Maintenance Commuted Sum;· Affordable Housing for 49 dwellings;· Education Contributions - Primary Education £679,295 Secondary Education £731,079 6th Form Education £171,265 · Fire and Rescue contribution £6,754; · Library Contribution £74,457; · NHS - £284,817· Police - £67,492;· Leisure - Swimming Pool £103,422, sports hall £133,258 and 3G Pitch £67,492; and · Highways - offsite improvements and developer contributions pro rata increase on the previously agreed offsite works.

The applicant had agreed to almost £2m of developer contributions on the 195 dwelling outlinepermission. The applicant has set out in their planning statement that, where necessary, anyfurther contributions would be based on a pro rata basis. A detailed s106 Heads of Terms table thatincludes increased levels of developer contributions will be circulated prior to committee.

A/144/15/PL


Consideration has been specifically given to Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). Itis not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this caseinterferes unreasonably with any local residents' right to respect for their private and family life andhome, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case,the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property inaccordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be aproportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in thisreport.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT




The s106 will need to include:· Open Space and Structural Landscaping; · Amenity Spaces;· Management and Maintenance Commuted Sum;· Affordable Housing;

SECTION 106 DETAILS





The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the followingapproved plans:S101 (Location Plan)S102 (Existing Site Survey)

C101D (Coloured Site Plan)C102C (Coloured Street Scenes)C103D (Coloured Street Scenes)C104E (Coloured Street Scenes)

P102P (Proposed Site Layout)P105D (Proposed Street Elevations)P106D (Proposed Street Elevations)P107E (Proposed Street Elevations)

P110A (Type 1A Proposed Plans & Elevations)P111A (Type 2A Proposed Plans & Elevations)P112A (Type 3A Proposed Plans & Elevations)P113A (Type 3B Proposed Plans & Elevations)P114B (Type 3C Proposed Plans & Elevations)P115A (Type 4A Proposed Plans & Elevations)P116A (Type 4B Proposed Plans & Elevations)P117B (Type 2B Proposed Plans & Elevations)P118A (Type 2C Proposed Plans & Elevations)P119A (Type 3D Proposed Plans & Elevations)P120C (Type 3E Proposed Plans & Elevations)P121D (Type 3F Proposed Plans & Elevations)P122D (Type 3F Proposed Plans & Elevations)P123C (Type 3F Proposed Plans & Elevations)P124C (Type 3G Proposed Plans & Elevations)P125C (Type 3G Proposed Plans & Elevations)P126C (Type 3H Proposed Plans & Elevations)P127A (Type 3J Proposed Plans & Elevations)P128C (Type 3K Proposed Plans & Elevations)P129B (Type 3L Proposed Plans & Elevations)P130C (Type 4C Proposed Plans & Elevations)P131D (Type 4D Proposed Plans & Elevations)P132D (Type 4D Proposed Plans & Elevations)

1

2

RECOMMENDATION

A/144/15/PL

· Education Contributions;· Fire and Rescue contribution; · Library Contribution; . Allotments contributions; and· Public Right of Way improvement contributions.


P133D (Type 4D Proposed Plans & Elevations)P134D (Type 4D Proposed Plans & Elevations)P135B (Type 4E Proposed Plans & Elevations)P136D (Type 4F Proposed Plans & Elevations)P137F (Type 4F Proposed Plans & Elevations)P138A (Type 4G Proposed Plans & Elevations)P139C (Type 5A Proposed Plans & Elevations)P140C (Type 5A Proposed Plans & Elevations)P141E (Type 5B Proposed Plans & Elevations)P142D (Type 5B Proposed Plans & Elevations)P143C (Flats 49-56 Proposed Plans)P144C (Flats 49-56 Proposed Elevations)P145A (Flats 111-120 Proposed Plans)P146A (Flats 111-120 Proposed Plans)P147B (Flats 111-120 Proposed Elevations)P148A (Flats 140-147 Proposed Plans)P149A (Flats 140-147 Proposed Elevations)P150C (Type 3M Proposed Plans & Elevations)P151 (Type 4H Proposed Plans & Elevations)P152 (Type 4J Proposed Plans & Elevations)

P160A (Ancillary Buildings Proposed Plans & Elevations)P161A (Ancillary Buildings Proposed Plans & Elevations)

P163 (Highways Layout)







Development shall not commence until full details of the maintenance and management ofthe SUDs system is set out in a site-specific maintenance manual and submitted to, andapproved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The manual is to include details offinancial management and arrangements for the replacement of major components at theend of the manufacturers recommended design life. Upon completed construction of theSuDs System, the owner or management company shall strictly adhere to and implementthe recommendations contained within the manual.

3

4

A/144/15/PL


Reason: To ensure the efficient maintenance and on going operation of the SuDs systemand to ensure the best practice in line with guidance set out in 'The SuDs Manual' CIRIApublication ref: C753 Chapter 32.

The development layout shall not be agreed until such time that arrangements for thefuture access and maintenance of any watercourse or culvert (piped watercourse)crossing or abutting the site has been submitted and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority.

No construction is permitted, which will restrict current and future land owners fromundertaking their riparian maintenance responsibilities of any watercourse on or adjacentto the site.

Reason: To ensure that the duties and responsibilities, as required under the LandDrainage Act 1991, and amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, can befulfilled without additional impediment following the development completion.

If during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at thesite then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LocalPlanning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtainedwritten approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediationstrategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests ofprotection of the environment and prevention of harm to human health in accordance withArun District Plan policy GEN7.

Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (orsuch other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the LocalPlanning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risksassociated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, inwriting, by the local planning authority:

1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: all previous usespotential contaminants associated with those usesa conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptorspotentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2.A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailedassessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3.The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these,an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediationmeasures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4.A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order todemonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirementsfor longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements forcontingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planningauthority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

5

6

7

A/144/15/PL


Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests ofprotection of the environment and prevention of harm to human health in accordance withArun District Local Plan policy GEN7.

Prior to commencement of development, a verification report demonstrating completion ofthe works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of theremediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority.The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance withthe approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have beenmet. It shall also include any plan (a "long-term monitoring and maintenance plan") forlonger-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements forcontingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to thelocal planning authority.

Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring thatthe remediated site has been reclaimed in an appropriate standard in accordance withArun District Local Plan policy GEN7.

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to, and approved by, theLocal Planning Authority, a landscaping scheme including details of hard and softlandscaping and details of existing trees and hedgerows to be retained, together withmeasures for their protection during the course of the development. The approved detailsof the landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season, followingthe occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is thesooner, and any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion ofdevelopment, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall bereplaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless theLocal Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development inaccordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No development including site access, demolition or associated construction activities,shall take place on the site unless and until all the existing trees/bushes/hedges to beretained on the site have been protected by a fence in accordance with BS5837 (2012)and Section 9, to be approved by the Local Planning Authority for erection around eachtree, group of trees and vegetation to a distance of 15m or to the Root Protection Area(RPA) as calculated in accordance with Table 2 of BS5837 (2012) to be agreed in writingby the Local Planning Authority. Within the areas so fenced off the existing ground mustnot be cultivated, nor must it be lowered or raised or added to by the importation andspreading of top soil unless agreed by the Local Planning authority. There must be nomaterials, temporary buildings, plant machinery or surplus soil shall be placed or storedthereon without prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

No trenching should occur within the protective fencing surrounding the Root ProtectionArea. If however there is no alternative but to locate the services then its encroachmentinto the Root Protection Area must be kept to a minimum and where the roots should beexposed using compressed air technology, such as the air spade to reduce damagecaused by mechanical methods. If roots requiring severance to allow for the passage ofservices is necessary then an arboriculturist would be required to assess and determinewhether the loss of the roots would be detrimental to the continued health and stability ofthe affected tree.

Reason: To ensure the retention and maintenance of trees and vegetation which is an

8

9

10

A/144/15/PL


important feature of the area in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District LocalPlan.

No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishesand samples of such materials and finishes to be used for external walls (and roofs) of theproposed buildings have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authorityand the materials so approved shall be used in the construction of the development.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in theinterests of amenity and in accordance with policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No development shall take place until a Construction Management Plan has beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter theapproved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire constructionperiod. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted tothe 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 impactof construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary TrafficRegulation Orders), · details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area.

Prior to the commencement of development, a plan shall be submitted to the LocalPlanning Authority to show how the development shall be divided into phases and aphasing programme for the entire site shall be submitted in writing to the Local PlanningAuthority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Prior to the commencement of construction works details of a proposed foul drainagesystem shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority(including details of its siting, design and subsequent management/maintenance) and nodwelling shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been fullyimplemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily drained in accordancewith policies GEN7 and GEN9 of the Arun District Local Plan.

Prior to the commencement of construction works on each phase of the development ofany preparatory works a detailed ecological enhancement scheme (which shall includethe installation of bat boxes throughout the site) shall be submitted to the LPA for approvaland will be based on the recommendations within the supporting ecological statement andas appropriate. All approved details shall then be implemented in full and in accordancewith the agreed timings and details.

Reason: This condition is necessary to ensure the protection of wildlife and supporting

11

12

13

14

15

A/144/15/PL


habitat and secure opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value ofthe site in line with national guidance and Policy GEN23 and GEN29 of the Arun DistrictLocal Plan (2003).

No operational or construction vehicles shall be operated on the site except between thehours of:

7.00 and 19.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive7.00 and 13.00 on SaturdayNot at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Arun District Local Plan policiesGEN7 and GEN32.

Prior to commencement a landscape management plan shall be submitted to includelong-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules forall landscape areas other than privately owned domestic gardens. The landscapemanagement plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interest of amenity and the environment of the development in accordancewith policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No development shall take place until details of laying out, timetable for provision andfuture maintenance of Public Open Spaces has been submitted to and approved by thelocal planning authority. The layout details submitted shall define the boundaries of suchareas, their proposed use, the items of equipment, means of enclosure and all otherstructures to be installed. The development shall be carried out in accordance with theapproved details.

Reason: To ensure that the informal open space, which is considered a necessary part ofthe development, is provided to an acceptable standard within an agreed timescale inaccordance with policies GEN7 and GEN8 of the Arun District Local Plan.

No demolition, ground clearance or vegetation clearance works shall take place within thebird nesting season (between 1 March and 31 August inclusive in any year). If such workscannot be undertaken outside of the nesting season, a nesting bird check shall berequired, which should be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist immediately prior tothe works taking place. Subsequently if any active nest sites are identified, these nestsshould remain undisturbed until all the young have fledged naturally.

REASON: To minimise disturbance to nesting birds.

At least 10% of the energy supply of the development shall be secured from decentralisedand renewable or low-carbon energy sources or equivalent fabric first standards thatwould secure a 10% reduction in energy use. Details and a timetable of how this is to beachieved, including details of physical works on site, shall be submitted to and approved inwriting by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented inaccordance with the approved timetable and retained as operational thereafter, unlessotherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In order to seek to achieve high levels of energy efficiency in accordance with theaims of the NPPF.

No development shall take place until a street lighting scheme has been submitted andapproved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This must comply with the Institute of

16

17

18

19

20

21

A/144/15/PL


Lighting Engineers Guidance Notes for the reduction of obtrusive light.

Reason: To enable the LPA to control the development in detail in the interests ofresidential amenity and in accordance with GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan and alsoto ensure there is no impact on Bats within the vicinity of the site.

Prior to the commencement of the development details showing the proposed location ofone fire hydrant (in accordance with the West Sussex Fire and Rescue Guidance Notes)shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority inconsultation with West Sussex County Council's Fire and Rescue Services. Theseapprovals shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling unit forming part of the proposed developmentthat they will at their own expense install the fire hydrant (or in a phased programme if alarge development) in the approved location to BS 750 standards and arrange for theirconnection to a water supply which is appropriate in terms of both pressure and volumefor the purposes of fire fighting. The fire hydrant shall thereafter be maintained as part ofthe development by the water undertaker at the expense of the Fire and Rescue Service ifadopted as part of the public mains supply (Fire Services Act 2004). Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy GEN7 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan 2003

No development shall commence until the vehicular access serving the development hasbeen constructed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved inwriting by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking spaces have beenconstructed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing bythe Local Planning Authority. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times fortheir designated use.

Reason: To provide car-parking space for the use.

No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parkingspaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance withcurrent sustainable transport policies.

No part of the development shall be first occupied until the road, footways, and casualparking areas serving the development have been constructed, surfaced and drained inaccordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the Local PlanningAuthority.

Reason: To secure satisfactory standards of access for the proposed development.

No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as a Travel PlanStatement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.The Travel Plan Statement shall be completed in accordance with the latest guidance andgood practice documentation as published by the Department for Transport or as advisedby the Highway Authority.

22

23

24

25

26

27

A/144/15/PL


Reason: To encourage and promote sustainable transport.

No part of the development shall be first occupied until provision has been made within thesite in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the LocalPlanning Authority to prevent surface water draining onto the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

The garage buildings shall be used only as private domestic garages for the parking ofvehicles incidental to the use of the properties as dwellings and for no other purposes.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street provision of parking in the interests of amenity andhighway safety.

Development shall not commence until a programme of archaeological work has beenimplemented in accordance with a written Archaeological Mitigation Strategy document tobe submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Mitigation Strategyshall include commitments to:

- carry out on site archaeological investigation in accordance with an agreed projectdesign;- preserve in situ and intact non-designated archaeological heritage assets that aredemonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments (with reference toHistoric Environment guidance in Paragraphs 132, 133 and 139 of the National PlanningPolicy Framework (March 2012));- fully investigate, record, analyse and report, to a specification to be submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority, and to a standard proportionate to theirsignificance, archaeological heritage assets that unavoidably will be affected adversely bydevelopment-related ground excavations;- prepare and implement satisfactory procedures to communicate the findings ofarchaeological investigation to the local community.

Reason: To ensure the archaeological interests of the site are protected.

Prior to the commencement of development, a strategy for the provision of the highestavailable headline speed of broadband provision to future occupants of the site shall besubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shalltake into account the timetable for the delivery of "superfast broadband" (defined as havinga headline access speed of 24Mb or more) in the vicinity of the site (to the extent that suchinformation is available). The strategy shall seek to ensure that upon occupation of adwelling, the provision of the highest available headline speed of broadband service to thatdwelling from a site-wide network is in place and provided as part of the initial highwayworks and in the construction of frontage thresholds to dwellings that abut the highway.Unless evidence is put forward and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority thattechnological advances for the provision of a broadband service for the majority ofpotential customers will no longer necessitate below ground infrastructure, thedevelopment of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy.

Reason: To ensure suitable provision for all potential occupiers in accordance withparagraph 42 of the NPPF.

At least 10% of the energy supply of the development shall be secured from decentralisedand renewable or low-carbon energy sources. Details and a timetable of how this is to beachieved, including details of physical works on site, shall be submitted to and approved in

28

29

30

31

32

A/144/15/PL


writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented inaccordance with the approved timetable and retained as operational thereafter, unlessotherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In order to seek to achieve high levels of energy efficiency in accordance with theaims of the NPPF.

No dwelling shall be occupied until refuse and recycling bins have been provided andspace has been laid out for the storage in relation to that dwelling in accordance withdetails that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planningauthority. Thereafter these areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the storageof refuse and recycling bins.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties in accordancewith Arun District Local Plan policy GEN7.

Garages provided on the site shall measure a minimum of 6m x 3m internally.

Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking (andgaraging) of vehicles clear of all highways in accordance with policy GEN7 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan.

INFORMATIVE

Please note that related to this permission there is an agreement under Section 106 of theTown & Country Planning Act 1990.

INFORMATIVE:

The reserved matters application will provide full details of all roads and footpathsassociated with the development. In the event that neighbouring land is approved fordevelopment at some point in the future this layout must include footpath and pedestrianlinks right up to the boundary to ensure access.

INFORMATIVE:

If there is a requirement for security lighting during construction or proposed at anydwelling prior to installation the lighting details must be provided to and approved by theLocal Planning Authority.

INFORMATIVE: The developer must agree with Southern Water, prior to commencementof the development, the measures to be undertaken to protect the public water supplymain.

INFORMATIVE: Statement pursuant to Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning(Development Management Procedure)(England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012. TheLocal Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this applicationby identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) andnegotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address thoseconcerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planningpermission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour ofsustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

INFORMATIVE: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system isrequired in order to service this development. Please contact Southern Water, Southern

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

A/144/15/PL


House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel; 0330 303 0119) orwww.southernwater.co.uk.

INFORMATIVE: A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in orderto service this development. Please contact Southern Water, Southern House,Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel; 0330 303 0119) orwww.southernwater.co.uk

INFORMATIVE:

Section 59 of the 1980 Highways Act - Extra-ordinary TrafficThe applicant is advised to enter into a Section 59 Agreement under the 1980 HighwaysAct, to cover the increase in extraordinary traffic that would result from constructionvehicles and to enable the recovery of costs of any potential damage that may result to thepublic highway as a direct consequence of the construction traffic. The Applicant isadvised to contact the Highway Officer (01243 642105) in order to commence thisprocess.

INFORMATIVE:

Section 278 Agreement of the 1980 Highways Act - Works within the Highway. Theapplicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, asHighway Authority, to cover the off-site highway works. The applicant is requested tocontact 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 highwayprior to the agreement being in place.

INFORMATIVE:

Section 38 Agreement of the 1980 Highways Act - Provision of Adoptable Highway. Theapplicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, asHighway Authority, to cover the proposed adoptable on-site highway works. The applicantis requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader (01243 642105) to commencethis process. The applicant is advised that any works commenced prior to the S38agreement being in place are undertaken at their own risk.

41

42

43

44

A/144/15/PL


A/144/15/PL

A/144/15/PL Indicative Location Plan







Land North of Roundstone-By-Pass

Roundstone By Pass

Car showroom & workshop with associated access, car parking &

landscaping.

A/162/15/PL

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

Angmering

The proposal involves demolition of 2 residential propertiesand a disused greenhouse associated with HaskinsNursery. The development comprises the erection of a 2storey car showroom and workshop with space for 10 carsales and 12 workshop spaces, a total of 193 parkingspaces, comprising 118 workshop spaces to the rear, 38used car spaces and 13 customer spaces to the front ofthe site and 6 valeting bays to the rear. Landscaping isproposed to the southern boundary with the road frontageA259 and narrower strips are indicated to the rear and sideboundaries with Kelston House. The development wouldallow the Caffyns car dealership in Broadwater, Worthing,which has outgrown its existing site to relocate.

1.12 hectares

N/A

Predominantly flat.


The site frontages to the A259 comprise hedging toapproximately 2m.

2 detached residential properties on A259 site frontage,one is a bungalow and one is 2 storey set back from theroad. The glasshouses to the rear are accessed fromRoundstone Lane are redundant. Public house and hotelopposite.

Predominantly rural with glasshouses to the north, agarden centre to the east and a residential dwelling to thenorth.




SITE AREA


TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




A/162/15/PL

BN16 4BD


REPRESENTATIONS

A/156/03/CLE

A/124/94

A/36/91

A/87/90

A/27/90

A/98/87

Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness forexisting use of premises for 2 self containedflats

Erection of glasshouse

Single storey flat roof extension to front andrear of existing bungalow

Removal of Condition No 3 imposed onplanning permission A/27/90 for retention ofexisting access

Proposed garage & new access and closureof existing access

Horticultural glasshouse

19-01-2004

03-02-1995

29-04-1991

18-06-1990

02-04-1990

10-08-1987

Approve



Refused


Approve


Angmering Parish Council

No Objection to the proposed development, but note objection raised by occupiers of adjoiningproperty and understand that the applicant will continue to negotiate with them with a view toreaching an agreement.

6 Objections - Location is already heavily congested with traffic both on the A259 andRoundstone Lane with existing and future building development. This road used to berelatively quiet by introducing this extensive commercial hub for a car dealership will impactsignificantly. Extra traffic will inevitably add to delay, hazard on entering and leaving site andpollution. This business will have no advantage to Angmering or its residents. The impendingdeparture of BMW dealership demonstrates this.This is completely the wrong place for another big showroom and associated buildings. Withthe extra traffic from all the Roundstone Land developments, the new Chandlers and theproposed extra food stores further along, the whole area will become unusable and extremelyhazardous at times. The entrances will inevitably cause added congestion. Why can't anymore development wait until the A259 is widened to see if that helps? There is no immediateneed for this development. Angmering is becoming a no-go area because it is too stressful totravel anywhere. This will add to the destruction of a once beautiful place.The proposal is simply a replacement for an existing business in Worthing - the employmentopportunities outlined therefore already exist and are not additional. Further under employmentlaw the existing employees will relocate.Caffyns have recently constructed a large car dealership site to the east of Titnore Lane,further along the A259. Good planning would have included the relocation of the Audi aspect to

A/96/71

A/87/62

Conversion of house to 2 self-contained flats

Alterations and extensions and a new doublegarage

10-09-1971

19-12-1962



A/162/15/PL


CONSULTATIONS

Comment on Parish Council Representation - Not agreed. It is considered that the proposalwould have an adverse effect on the residential amenities of the adjacent dwelling KelstonHouse. This dwelling is surrounded on all sides by the development and would experiencemore noise and activity adjacent to these boundaries than is generally associated with aresidential property. Some buffer planting is indicated, but this would not adequately reducethe noise. The main access roads to the rear of the site are next to the property boundary.

Comment on other representations - It is agreed that the employment gain would not besignificant given that the dealership is relocating and there would be nothing to preventemployees from neighbouring authorities taking jobs at the site. The Haskins development isnot comparable since this proposal does not replace an established garden centre. The issueof the provision of a dual carriageway does not form part of this application. The site is not atpresent readily visible from the A259 being screened from view by hedging and buildings and itdoes not appear overly untidy or ripe for redevelopment.

Drainage Engineer - No Objection request imposition of standard conditions

Council's Arboricultural Officer - No Objection to the proposed development process that has


the same site. Also it would have made better sense to have expressed an interest in thesame site as Chandlers BMW further west on the A259; there is little or no impact onresidential areas at that site. This is ill conceived, lazy planning and applies scant concern for a residential neighbourhood.The vast majority of users of this new venture will not be local people and the fact that theapplication is dressed up as employment opportunities for local people is disingenuous atbest. Haskins Garden Centre replaced a long-standing locally used facility and is notcomparable.To introduce a large-scale development of an industrial high impact commercial nature on aroad that that already suffers congestion at all times of day, will only have a negative impacton the area.With increased housing development currently underway off Roundstone Lane, and morelikely to follow, the residential nature of this area should be preserved and valued.

10 support letters - More jobs are needed in the area. Caffyns would be a good employer formany years to come. A lot of thought has gone into the design of the building. It will be anattractive addition. There is already a large commercial business in the area. Sensiblelocation. Good use of redundant land. Will bring more business to garden centre and pubopposite. A dual carriageway is needed. This particular plot has looked untidy for some yearsnow, since the Haskins development and is in great need of development.


A/162/15/PL

Highways England








Arboriculturist


been outlined in the application. Request imposition of conditions.

Sussex Police - Direct agent to web site for advice on design and layout.

Highways England - No Objection

County Engineers - Modelled surface water flood risk is low risk. Any existing surface water flowpaths across the site should be maintained or appropriate mitigation strategies proposed.Where the intention is to dispose of surface water via infiltration/soakaway, these should beshown to be suitable through an appropriate assessment carried out under the methodology setout in BRE Digest 365 or equivalent.

Ground water contamination and Source Protection Zones.The potential for ground water contamination within a source protection zone has not beenconsidered by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). The LPA should consult with the EA if thisis considered as risk. There are no records of any historic local flooding. No Ordinarywatercourses are located nearby. The FRA indicates the use of an infiltration SuDS system forthe disposal of surface water from the site. Development should not commence until finaliseddetailed surface water drainage designs for the site, based on sustainable drainage principlesand an assessment of hydrological and hydro geological context of the development have beenapproved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage strategy should demonstratethat the surface water runoff generated up to and including the 100 year plus 30% for climatechange critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the current site following the correspondingrainfall event.

SuDs offer significant advantages over conventional piped drainage systems in reducing floodrisk by reducing the quantity of surface water run-off from a site and the speed at which itreaches water courses, promoting groundwater recharge, and improving water quality andamenity. Government policy set out in paragraph 103 of the NPPF expects LPAs to give priorityto the use of SuDs in determining planning applications. Approved Document Part H of theBuilding Regulations 2000 establishes a hierarchy for surface water disposal, which encouragesa SuDs approach beginning with infiltration where possible e.g. soakaways or infiltrationtrenches. Where SuDs are used, it must be established that these options are feasible, can beadopted and properly maintained and would not lead to any other environmental problems.Provision for long- term maintenance should be provided as part of any SuDs scheme submittedto the LPA.

Economic Development - Support. Economic Development are pleased to understand that thisdevelopment will create an additional 10 jobs across a range of levels including administrative,manual, technical, sales and managerial. Therefore, a full range of skills and experience will beaccommodated. There will also be at least one apprenticeship set up as part of the new posts. Itwill also safeguard a number of additional jobs for Arun residents as well as cutting down outcommuting from the district.Economic Development would request that the developer signs up to the Arun Develop andPartner Charter and works with us to open up opportunities from the development to localcontractors.

Environmental Health - : No objection as long as noise mitigation measures, as recommended inSection 5 of the Noise Assessment accompanying this application are fully implemented. Thisrelates to that document prepared by 'Hepworth Acoustics Noise and Vibration Consultants,Report No P15-397-R03, dated November 2015, Noise Impact Assessment of the ProposedNew Audi Dealership and Servicing Centre, Angmering, on behalf of Caffyns plc.'

A/162/15/PL


County Highways - West Sussex County Council (WSCC), in its capacity as the local highwayauthority (LHA), has been consulted on the proposed development of a car showroom andworkshop. The site is accessed via the A259 and sits to the south of Angmering village, adjacentto Haskins. It is understood that the development site has existing permitted land uses, includingtwo dwellings and an agricultural nursery. No objection is raised to the proposed development subject to conditions. AccessThere is an existing vehicular access to the site in the form of a simple priority junction servingthe two residential dwellings. The applicant proposes to implement at left in, left out (LILO)arrangement at a near identical location which would result in the closure of the existing access.The LILO access has been designed in accordance with TD 41/95 Design Manual for Roads andBridges on the basis that the road will be widened to as part of the A259 improvement scheme toa dual carriageway. As the A259 improvement scheme is currently at the public consultation stage, the detaileddesign of this section of road is not currently confirmed. However, the applicant has engagedboth WSCC and WSP, who are acting as design consultants on behalf of the County Council forthe A259 project, to determine the suitability of the access. WSCC/WSP is satisfied that theaccess does not prejudice the delivery of the A259 project. It is unclear as to when an application for a Section 278 Agreement would come forward shouldthe development be permitted. It is recommended that, should permission be granted, acondition is inserted that requires the submission of further access drawings to be reviewed andagreed in consultation with the LHA in order to take into account any changes to the detaileddesign that may arise from the public consultation phase or any further design work undertakenin respect of the A259 improvement project. Any revised drawing should be based indicatively ondrawing 2015/2654/001 rev B and 2015/2654/003 Rev B and be submitted to the District Councilin advance of the S278 application. Reference is made within the Transport Assessment to a Road Safety Audit: Stage 1 that hasbeen undertaken on the site access arrangements, with summary of the commentary within4.5.2 of this document. The full RSA, including the Designer Response, does not appear to beavailable for viewing on the planning page. However, the problems identified should be fullyaddressed and form part of the design submission that would be required by condition prior tosubmission of the S278. Any revisions to the drawing at that time should be forwarded to theAuditor, prior to submission to the LPA, for further review/comment on the changes. Trip Generation and CapacityTrip generation of both the existing uses and proposed use has been calculated using the TripRate Information Computer System (TRICS). The site selections accord with TRICS 'BestPractice Guidance' and the LHA are satisfied the rates are robust. Movements associated withthe car showroom occur primarily outside of peak network hours aside from staff movementswhich are expected between 0800 and 0900 hours. It is anticipated that the site will generate 18movements during the peak hour in addition to the 3-4 movements that would be generated bythe existing use. During the course of the day an additional 180 movements would be generated,although a proportion of those trips would already be on the network and would represent pass-by or diverted trips. Assessing against the methodology set out within the WSCC TransportAssessment Methodology it is not considered that the proposed development would result in amaterial capacity impact on the operation of the network. Movements exiting the site would bedirected to the east. Any movements to the north would therefore not route through Angmering

A/162/15/PL


Village as they would be directed towards the A280, and would be required to use the A280/A259roundabout junction in order to turn and travel west. Car and Cycle ParkingA car parking provision of 155 spaces has been proposed to serve both the showroom andworkshop. This is slightly in excess of the WSCC standard which recommends a maximumprovision of 138 spaces. However, given the location of the site it is considered necessary toensure that parking demand can be retained within site in order to ensure that there is nocongestion at the site entrance, given the network importance of the A259 to the south, and toensure that overspill can be accommodated within the site so that Roundstone Lane does notbecome obstructed. Staff parking bays are shown to be clearly marked and it is recommendedthat the parking strategy is conditioned within any consent to ensure that the strategy is adheredto should permission be granted. There is no set cycle parking standard for this type of use class and the applicant has used dataon existing cycle parking demand to inform a provision of 14 spaces (7 number of Sheffieldstands). Given the size of the development it is recommended that a Travel Plan is sought viacondition in accordance with WSCC travel plan policy and guidance. Within this, a commitmentshould be made to monitor the capacity of cycle stands and increase provision should demandexceed capacity on site. ServicingThe applicant proposed that transporters will access the site via the LILO access and egress thesite on the northern boundary using the existing service road, which is also used by Haskins.This is necessary as the left out arrangement does not provide suitable access onto the networkfor car transporters or vehicles of similar size. Should permission be granted it is recommendedthat a condition is sought in respect of the access arrangement. ConditionsAccessNo part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the vehicular access hasbeen constructed in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved in writingby the Local Planning Authority, incorporating the recommendations given in the Stage 1 RoadSafety Audit and as shown indicatively in drawings 2015/2654/001 rev B and 2015/2654/003 RevB.Reason: In the interests of road safety. Service AccessMeans of access for servicing vehicles to the site, including car transporters, shall be from thesouth from the A259 and vehicles shall egress to the north via the service road onto RoundstoneLane only, as shown in drawing 2015/2564/004 Rev B and 2015/2654/002 Rev B.Reason: In the interests of road safety. Car parking space No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking has been constructed inaccordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all timesfor their designated purpose.Reason: To provide car-parking space for the use Construction Management PlanNo development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a ConstructionManagement Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

A/162/15/PL


Designation applicable to site:Outside Built Up Area BoundaryClass A roadTree Preservation Order

POLICY CONTEXT

Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entireconstruction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily berestricted 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 ofconstruction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic RegulationOrders), · details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works.Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area. Travel PlanNo part of the development shall be first occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to andapproved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan once approved shallthereafter be implemented as specified within the approved document. The Travel Plan shall becompleted in accordance with the latest guidance and good practice documentation as publishedby the Department for Transport or as advised by the Highway Authority.Reason: To encourage and promote sustainable transport. InformativeSection 278 Agreement of the 1980 Highways Act - Works within the Highway The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, asHighway Authority, to cover the off-site highway works. The applicant is requested to contactThe Implementation Team Manager (01243 642105) to commence this process. The applicantis advised that it is an offence to undertake any works within the highway prior to the agreementbeing in place.


GEN2

GEN3

GEN7

GEN32

GEN33

Built-up Area BoundaryProtection of the CountrysideThe Form of New DevelopmentNoise PollutionLight Pollution



Comments noted. With regard to the comments of Economic Development it is noted that theproposal will only create 10 new jobs the other staffing positions being met by staff who will beredeployed. The proposal will not necessarily safeguard a number of additional jobs for Arunresidents as well as cutting down out commuting from the district. There would be no conditionsor limitations restricting employment opportunities to Arun residents. The site is close toWorthing and Adur and some existing staff would be redeployed who may not live in Arun.

A/162/15/PL


GEN28 Trees and Woodlands









Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; Bognor Regis; Clymping; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring;

POLICY COMMENTARY

A/162/15/PL

SD SP1 Sustainable DevelopmentC SP1 CountrysideD SP1 DesignD DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityQE DM1 Noise PollutionQE DM2 Light PollutionENV DM5 Development and Biodiversity


Local Employment


Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYER2Angmering Neighbourhood Plan 2014 POLICYHD1




The proposal is considered to conflict with relevant Development Plan policies in that it would havea materially adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality and the residential amenities ofthe adjoining properties, and it would have an adverse impact upon the established character of thesurrounding area.


PRINCIPLE The main issue of principle central to the assessment of this application is the acceptability ofcommercial development outside the built-up area boundary within the context of the presumptionin favour of sustainable development in paragraph 14 of the National planning Policy Framework.

DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE BUILT UP AREA BOUNDARY The site lies in a countryside location, outside the built up area boundary as defined in Arun DistrictLocal Plan (as established by policies GEN2 and GEN3). It should be noted that whilst it isaccepted that the Local Plan is out of date, the area is defined as countryside in the EmergingPlan. Since it is outside the built-up area boundary the principle of development is consideredunacceptable. Development Plan policies seek to exert a strict control over new development in thecountryside to protect it for its own sake. Development will only be permitted in exceptionalcircumstances or where there is a strong justification for a countryside location. The Government'splanning advice indicates that planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality andcharacter of the wider countryside is protected, and where possible enhanced. Within this areaonly certain categories of development are allowed as an exception to the general policies ofrestraint that apply. The proposal does not fall into one of these exceptions, as the proposed carshowrooms is not required in association with an identified need for an agricultural or forestrypurpose. The site is not allocated for commercial development within any adopted developmentplan documents and as such the application is contrary to local plan policies GEN2 and GEN3.

CONCLUSIONS



Kingston; Littlehampton; Rustington; Yapton. Policy ER2 'Local Employment' of AngmeringNeighbourhood Plan is considered relevant. This states:There will be a general presumption against the loss of locations that provide employment withinthe Parish, either as a result of proposals for a change of use or for the redevelopment of existingpremises or sites of employment for non-employment use.Proposals for change of use or redevelopment, which would result in the loss of employment use,will only be acceptable if they demonstrate the following:The premises or site is no longer required for employment use in terms of need or demand, by thepremises or site having been marketed for a period of not less than one year for employment useand no occupier has been found. Full details relating to the marketing must accompany anyproposal;That the alternative use proposed will be a positive contribution to the sustainability of Angmering.

A/162/15/PL


The site includes the area of glasshouses to the rear which were previously used for horticulturalproduction and are currently unused. The proposal would not comply with policy GEN3 since itwould not meet the operational needs of agriculture, be for quiet, informal recreation, diversificationof the rural economy or for an essential roads scheme.

It is recognised that the weight ascribed to these policies needs to be assessed in accordance withthe NPPF. Those in the Local Plan have been saved and retain the full standing of developmentplan policies. The Framework states that policies not adopted since 2004 should be given dueweight according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. Recent Inspector's decisionshave commented to the effect that there is a timeless element to policies GEN2 and GEN3, as anaim of the Framework is to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside (notunlike the intention of policy GEN3 to safeguard the countryside for its own sake).

However, the way these policies are expressed through boundaries on the ground has becomeout-of-date as they need to take account of development needs arising in the District after 2011,and will be revised in the forthcoming Arun District Local Plan (or as otherwise assessed once thatplan is revoked). Therefore, policies within the NPPF would attract greater weight than thesepolicies.

In light of the considerations in the preceding paragraphs, simply because the site is within thecountryside and is contrary to policies GEN2 and GEN3 of the District Local Plan 2003 is not initself considered to be a sufficient reason to refuse the application. The proposal should beconsidered in light of paragraph 14 of the NPPF which sets out a "Presumption in Favour ofSustainable Development" for decision taking. The NPPF continues by stating that in the absenceof an up to date Local Plan, or where the development plan is absent, silent or out of date, planningpermission should be granted unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly anddemonstrably outweigh the benefits. It is therefore necessary to establish the suitability of locationfor commercial development and assess the impact of the proposed development on the characterand appearance of the locality.

SUITABILITY OF THE LOCATION FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTAs set out above the proposed development is located outside the built up area boundary asestablished through policies GEN2 and GEN3. The detailed application element of this proposal forthe sui-generis car sales show room would fall to be considered against Arun District Local PlanPolicy DEV8.

The NPPF gives explicit support for employment and job creation, it is therefore considered that theArun District Local Plan Policy DEV8 is compliant with the NPPF insofar as it sets out testswhereby employment generating development will be acceptable on unallocated sites. Arun DistrictLocal Plan Policy DEV8 supports development by Local Firms looking to expand in locationsoutside the built-up area boundary. However the applicant's, Audi, do not currently operate a sitewithin the District and the proposal is not considered as a suitable business that meets the "localfirm" criteria in the policy. There would be no guarantee that a significant number of new jobs wouldbe created. Since the business is relocating it is very likely that several staff would be redeployedfrom outside the district and there would be no way of restricting job opportunities specifically toArun residents. The site is located with easy access to the road network and is convenientlylocated for quick access from Worthing to the east.

Compliance with policy DEV8 would constitute an acceptable exception to the countryside policies,but it is not relevant to consideration of this application since the proposal does not represent therelocation of a firm currently located within the District. The proposal is to relocate a business froma neighbouring authority.

A/162/15/PL


EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIESPolicy ER2 of the Neighbourhood Plan refers to loss of employment opportunities. This proposalincludes glasshouses and ancillary buildings which are not currently used. No loss of employmentwould therefore result. It is accepted that the land to the north of the site has approval for housing and that the use wouldprovide employment opportunities, but it is not considered that this would be sufficient justificationto allow an exception to policy principle.Para 19 of the NPPF states 'The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning systemdoes everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate toencourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weightshould be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.' It is acknowledged that the proposed commercial use would assist in supporting a strong andvibrant community by creating some jobs and contributing to the prosperity of the area generally. Itis claimed that there will be 41 full time job opportunities. However, there would be no guaranteethat the dealership would employ local people and 31 staff presently employed in Worthing wouldbe redeployed, reducing the number of new jobs to 10. The agents have advised that 63% of thecurrent Audi workforce in Worthing are residents from Arun. Whilst this may be the case this doesnot relate to any new jobs created. The number of additional jobs to be provided is not assignificant as asserted by the applicant's agent. As a point of comparison the new Chandlersgarage to the west will employ 110 people, more than double that proposed at the application site.

IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA The site comprises 2 residential properties and their gardens and an area of glasshouses andancillary buildings. It is enclosed by hedging and trees along the A259 frontage and the buildingsare set back and are not readily visible from the road. Haskins garden centre adjoins the site to theeast and to the west there are fields and a few low profile workshop units. Nurseries adjoin the sitefurther to the north where permission exists for residential development. The site therefore has arural back drop and is located adjacent to low density residential properties which front RoundstoneLane. The relatively new Haskins garden centre replaced the Roundstone Garden Centre which atone time sold produce grown at the site. The use of the land until it recently ceased is classified ascountryside. The main garden centre building on the adjoining Haskins site has retained theappearance of the original garden centre buildings, by providing a development that appears as aseries of large glasshouses, is set back from the road frontage and has significant landscapingscreening the car parking area and buildings. The buildings reflect their rural backdrop and blendinto their setting.

The application site as existing displays the verdant and horticultural characteristics of a rural area.The 2 dwellings, a bungalow and chalet style house, are not visually apparent from the roadfrontage benefiting from significant boundary screening and do not occupy a large proportion of thesite area. This low density, unobtrusive development is considered to respect the rural setting. Thebuilding has been designed to accord with a context of commercial or retail buildings as present atother car dealership sites along the A259 which does not positively respond to the sitecharacteristics and is therefore not appropriate in this location. The area adjoining the applicationsite is not commercial in nature. Most of the site and that immediately adjoining to the north is lowdensity residential use with significant landscaping/ planting. The garden centre to the east has asignificant proportion of the site given over to soft landscaping. VISUAL IMPACT OF DESIGN AND LAYOUTThe proposal would transform the appearance of the area by significantly increasing theprominence of the site from the A259 by removing the established and mature boundary hedgingand providing visually unattractive and intrusive car parking across a large proportion of the site, inparticular adjacent to the road. Whilst some landscaping is provided and the two recently

A/162/15/PL


preserved beech trees (the subject of TPO/A/3/15) are being retained, this is not consideredsufficient to robustly screen and soften the development, particularly if the road is widened in thefuture. The inherent intention of the car dealership would be to promote and advertise car salesfrom the site which is counter to the significant landscaping and screening the Local PlanningAuthority would wish to see to ameliorate the impact of the development on visual amenity. Interms of site coverage very little space is given over to grass or landscaping, the vast majority ofthe site area would comprise visually intrusive car parking. The car sales spaces along the sitefrontage adjacent to the A259 would be particularly visible when lighting, hard surfacing andadvertising are included and would further contribute to the overall inappropriateness of suchcommercial development in this location.

The NPPF promotes sustainable development and refers to good design as a key element. Para61 states 'planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and theintegration of new development into the environment'. Although the car showroom building wouldbe set back from the road frontage it would be 2 storeys in height and would be readily visiblebehind vehicle parking. It would have the appearance of a modern and contemporary carshowroom which would visually appear out of keeping with the residential properties and gardencentre adjoining the site. It would not fully integrate with its surroundings. It would be overlydominant and apparent. By its very nature the proposal would seek to be visually apparent topeople passing the site and would need to be readily identifiable. It would be openly promoted in theform of advertising. Such advertising would inevitably add to the visual clutter and prominence ofthe site.

Para 60 of the NPPF states "decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles orparticular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiatedrequirements to conform to certain development forms or styles" and that that it is proper topromote or reinforce local distinctiveness. The proposal is considered contrary to this advise. Thebuilding would have a contemporary appearance utilising glass, rainscreen cladding honeycombmesh, anodised silver and a composite panel roof as the main materials and black frame anodisedwindows. This would appear at odds with the general appearance and textures of the materials onthe residential buildings adjoining the site which have traditional brick elevations and tiled roofs.Even the public house/hotel use opposite has a more traditional domestic appearance. Thebuildings at Haskins Garden Centre have the appearance of large scale glasshouses appropriateto their use and unlike the application site they do not abut residential properties. It is consideredthat the design, materials and significant extent of car parking and buildings across the site woulddetrimentally impact on the visual amenities of the locality. The design and materials would bethose generally used by car dealerships and do not reflect or utilise any design elements fromdevelopments adjoining the site. In terms of compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework it is not considered that theproposal accords with paragraph 14 in that the proposal does not accord with the existing oremerging local plans. The adverse impact on the character and visual amenities of the localitywould outweigh any benefits. It is not considered that the location of the site is appropriate forcommercial growth in terms of its adverse impact on the visual amenities and character of thearea and is not therefore considered to be acceptable in principle.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITYThe proposed development would be located adjacent to the north, east and west boundaries ofKelston House. Whilst it is accepted that this dwelling has a large curtilage and already adjoins theaccess road to the glasshouses to the north it currently benefits from bordering neighbouringresidential curtilages and an open grassed area to the south and east. The plot shape and layout ofthe development is such that the internal access road and car parking would be located close to

A/162/15/PL


the boundary of the neighbouring property. A landscaped buffer strip together with fencing to thesouth and a brick and timber screen to the east is proposed to ameliorate any noise anddisturbance, but it is considered that this would not be sufficient to address the un-neighbourlinessof the proposed development. The customer parking and used car sales area would generatenoise and activity from customers and sales staff and vehicles adjacent to the side boundary of thegarden which would adversely affect the residential amenities of the adjacent dwelling. In additionthe access road to the 118 workshop spaces and 17 staff spaces, to the north is likely to generatea volume of activity that exceeds that generated by the previous horticultural use, which wouldfurther adversely affect residential amenity. Kelston House would effectively become a residentialproperty surrounded by car parking and roads.

HIGHWAY CONSIDERATIONSWest Sussex County Council (WSCC), in its capacity as the local highway authority (LHA), hasbeen consulted on the proposed development of a car showroom and workshop and has raised noobjection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions.

IMPACT ON PRESERVED TREES The proposal has taken account of the need to retain the 2 preserved trees on the site frontage andincludes an Arboricultural Survey dated 20-09-2015. It is considered that the impact on theproposed trees would be acceptable provided appropriate conditions are imposed with regard toroot protection.

BIODIVERSITY AND ECOLOGY A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Internal and External Bat Survey has been submitted withthe application.

The site is found to be of low ecological value. The garden habitats are largely common andwidespread. It was concluded that it was very unlikely that great crested newts were present onsite. A reptile survey was carried out and it concluded that it was unlikely that reptiles were present.Similarly the site is of limited significance for bats.

The report recommends a condition requiring enhancement by the replacement of existing treeswith native species and the installation of bat and bird boxes on site. By ensuring that the proposalswill not have a detrimental ecological impact, and the provision of ecological enhancements, theproposal is considered to accord with the provisions of section 11 of the NPPF.

CONCLUSIONThe proposal has been considered in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainabledevelopment at paragraph 14 of the Framework. Having balanced the proposal against the mutuallydependent economic, social and environmental objectives in paragraph 7 of the Framework it isconsidered the proposed development would not contribute to protecting and enhancing theenvironment and would not therefore fulfil the environmental objectives of sustainable development.The adverse impacts would outweigh the public benefits of the proposal, when assessed againstthe policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policy and is recommended for refusal for thefollowing reasons

A/162/15/PL

Human Rights Act:

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


REFUSE

The site lies in a rural area and the proposal, which comprises an undesirable form andextent of commercial development unrelated to agriculture/horticulture, would beprejudicial and out of keeping to the rural character and visual amenities of an area wherepermission for development unrelated to an essential rural activity will not normally begranted. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies GEN3 and GEN7 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Given the shape and size of the plot and the close proximity of the proposed layout to theneighbouring residential property Kelston House, the proposal would detract from theamenities and quiet enjoyment of the nearby residential property in conflict with policiesGEN7 and GEN32 of the Arun District Local Plan and the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF).

The size, design, materials and appearance of the showroom, together with the amount ofcar parking would adversely affect the visual amenities and character of the area inconflict with policy GEN7 of Arun District Local Plan and the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF).

INFORMATIVE: Statement pursuant to Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning(Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015. The Local PlanningAuthority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifyingmatters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timelymanner, clearly setting out the reasons for refusal, allowing the Applicant the opportunityto consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied by a revision to theproposal.

1

2

3

4

RECOMMENDATION

A/162/15/PL

The Council in making a decision, should be aware of and take into account any implications thatmay arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority suchas Arun District Council to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention onHuman Rights.

Consideration has been specifically given to Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life),Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendationfor refusal of permission in this case interferes with applicant's right to respect for their private andfamily life and their home, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms ofothers (in this case, the rights of neighbours). The Council is also permitted to control the use ofproperty in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for refusal is consideredto be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out inthis report.





A/162/15/PL

A/162/15/PL Indicative Location Plan







9 Balliol Close

Aldwick

Single storey rear extension & side dormer to form rooms in roof and

pitched roof over existing garage.

AW/362/15/HH

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

REF NO:

PO21 5QE

Single storey rear extension with gable roof with slopematching the main roof of the house, flat roof box sidedormer window roof extension to south east roof slope withfront side window to have obscure glazed section andgable end roof to be constructed over existing flat roof sidegarage. This would have a roof slope to match existing.Dark grey weatherboarding is proposed to clad the dormerwindow and materials to match existing would be used onthe extension and new garage roof.

0.12 hectares.

Predominantly flat.


1.8m close boarded fence to all sides other than frontboundary which is open.

Bungalow with gable end roof on inverse corner plot withopen front garden and driveway, single storey garage toside, existing single storey side extension. Garden to siderear and front.

Suburban residential location formed of detached andsemi-detached bungalows set back from the road withgarages to side and gardens to front.


Existing single storey side extension approved in 2005.


REPRESENTATIONS

AW/287/04/ Single storey side extension.

21-01-2005



SITE AREA

TOPOGRAPHY

TREES

BOUNDARY TREATMENT




Aldwick Parish Council

Objection:


AW/362/15/HH



Open plan conditionPD restrictionWithin built up area boundary

POLICY CONTEXT

CONSULTATIONS

The side dormer extension could be carried out without a planning application under permitteddevelopment. Given this fall back position the Council cannot object to the form of theproposed roof extension, even if it is contrary to the Aldwick Parish Design Guide.

With regards to overlooking from the dormers, they would overlook a small section of thegarden at the side and rear of number 11 and the nearest glazing panel is to be condition to beobscure glazed and fixed shut which will not allow direct overlooking into the front bedroom ofnumber 11 or the front garden or the front garden of number 15. The roof lights to the roof ofthe rear extension on the north west elevation is not considered to provide a view of number7's garden or rear windows given this is a single storey extension. The roof lights would beapproximately 3m above finished floor level so no overlooking could be reasonably achieved.

None



DEV19

GEN12

GEN2

GEN7

Extensions to existing residential buildingsParking in New DevelopmentBuilt-up Area BoundaryThe Form of New Development


Members strongly objected to the application on the grounds that the proposed extensionwould notsympathetically relate to nor be visually integrated with the existing building in siting, design,form, scale and materials; because the extension would not be visually subservient to themain building; because the extension would have an adverse overshadowing, overlooking oroverbearing effect on neighbouring properties and because the extension would compromisethe established spatial characteristics of the street. Therefore Members agreed that theproposed extension is in direct conflict with Policy Dev 19 (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) of The ArunDistrict Local Plan and with the Parish Design Statement Development Criteria (p.71).

10 letters of representation received objecting on the grounds of:-

-overdevelopment and detrimental impact on the established character of the street sceneand existing bungalow-loss of privacy through overlooking to the front bedroom window of number 11 Balliol Closeand its side and rear garden and the front garden of number 17 Balliol Close-loss of privacy through overlooking from roof lights to number 7 Balliol Close



N/A.

AW/362/15/HH

D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design QualityPublication Version of the


NPPFNPPG











Aldwick does not have a NDP but does have an adopted Parish Design Statement that forms partof the consideration for this application.

POLICY COMMENTARY

AW/362/15/HH

SPD10 Aldwick Parish Design StatementSupplementary Guidance:

D DM4 Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings(residential and non-residential)D SP1 DesignSD SP2 Built-Up Area BoundaryT SP1 Transport and Development

Local Plan (October 2014):




The proposal is considered to comply with relevant Development Plan policies in that it would haveno materially adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality or the residential amenities of theadjoining properties, nor would it have an adverse impact upon the established character of thesurrounding area. Whilst the proposed side dormer roof extension would not comply with theAldwick Parish Design Statement it could be constructed under permitted development without aplanning application so it's form cannot be a reason for refusal.


PRINCIPLE

The site is within the built-up area where the principle of development is acceptable, subject toaccordance with relevant planning policies. In this instance, the main criteria against which theapplication will be assessed is contained within the Local Plan which in this case are considered tobe policies GEN7 and DEV19 which seek to prevent development that would have an adverseimpact upon visual and residential amenities.


The side dormer could be carried out under permitted development. Given the fall back position is amaterial consideration the Council cannot object to the form of the proposed roof extension, even ifit is contrary to the Aldwick Parish Design Guide. The dormer roof would be clad in dark greyweatherboarding which would be similar to the grey tiles on the existing house and is acceptable indesign terms.

The side roof and rear extension would have gable end roofs with roof slopes to match the existinghouse with matching materials. They are considered to be modest additions, are subservient to itscharacter and matching materials would be ensured via condition. The proposal is in characterwith the dwelling and the rear extension and new side roof over the garage would meet with theaims of AREA 15 of the Aldwick Parish Design Statement and policy DEV19 of the Local Plan.

NEIGHBOUR AMENITY

The side dormer could be constructed under permitted development so its mass and form cannotbe a reason for refusal on grounds of loss of light, visual intrusion or overbearing impact. Withregards to overlooking from the dormer windows, they would only overlook a small section of thegarden at the side and rear of number 11 and the nearest glazing panel is to be conditioned to beobscure glazed and fixed shut which will not allow direct overlooking into the front bedroom ofnumber 11 or the front garden. The roof lights to the roof of the rear extension on the north westelevation are not considered to provide a view of number 7's garden or rear windows given this is asingle storey extension. The roof lights would be approximately 3m above finished floor level so nosignificant overlooking could be achieved.

The gable roof over the garage is not considered to add significant mass to the existing garage thatwould lead to an overbearing impact on the rear garden or windows of number 7. This is becausethere is an existing greenhouse on number 7's boundary and the nearest facing windows would still

CONCLUSIONS

AW/362/15/HH


pass the 45 degree daylight test. This element of the proposal would be acceptable in terms ofdaylight and sunlight. The rear extension would be located away from neighbouring boundaries andwould be single storey so would have a limited impact on neighbouring properties. The proposal isconsidered to be acceptable in terms of impact on neighbouring residential amenity.

PARKING

The 5 off street parking spaces are retained. The proposal is for a 4 bed dwelling. 5 spaces meetsWSCC standards which require 3 spaces. the proposal will not lead to a significant increase in onstreet parking pressure.

The proposal is recommended for conditional approval.




The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following

1

2

RECOMMENDATION

AW/362/15/HH



HUMAN RIGHTS ACT






approved plans:-

02; 06 Revision B; 07; 08 Revision B Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of amenity and the environment inaccordance with policy GEN7 and DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan.

The materials and finishes of the external walls and roofs (not including the cladding of theproposed dormer roof extension) of the extensions hereby permitted shall match in colourand texture those of the existing dwelling.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with GEN7 and DEV19 of the ArunDistrict Local Plan.

The northernmost side window pane on the north west elevation of the first floor dormerhereby approved shall at all times be obscured glazed and opening as shown on approvedplan 08 Revision B.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property in accordance withGEN7, DEV19 of the Arun District Local Plan.


3

4

5

AW/362/15/HH


AW/362/15/HH

AW/362/15/HH Indicative Location Plan








30 March 2016

PLANNING APPEALS

AGENDA ITEM 10


APPEALS RECEIVED AGAINST PLANNING DECISIONS & ENFORCEMENTS

Appeals Awaiting a Decision

A/153/15/HH

AB/115/14/OUT

AW/82/15/PL

BE/47/15/PL

BR/132/15/PL

EG/98/14/PL

EP/146/15/PL

Removal of existing detached garage, proposed two and single-storey side & rear extensions.

Outline application with some matters reserved for 2 No. 3 bedsemi detached houses

Demolition of existing dwelling & erection of 2 No. detachedbungalows & 2 No. maisonettes with associated access, parking& landscaping works.

Erection of 1 No. convenience foodstore. This application affectsthe setting of a listed building.

Change of use from Warehouse (B8 Storage & Distribution) toGymnasium (D2 Assembly & Leisure)

Construction of 3 No. two storey detached houses with newaccess.

Demolition of house & erection of 2 No. dwellings (resubmissionfollowing EP/15/15/PL).

Cherry Tree Cottage Station Road Angmering

12 & 14 Canada Road Arundel

5 Parkfield Avenue Aldwick

Land to the rear of The Royal Oak Public House Chichester RoadBersted

Unit 9 Durban Business Centre Durban Road Bognor Regis

Rear of 59 Elm Grove Barnham

Slaters Cottage 3 The Street East Preston

Written Representations







Received:

Received:

Received:

Received:

Received:

Received:

Received:

21-01-2016

24-02-2015

20-11-2015

25-02-2016

26-11-2015

20-11-2015

28-01-2016

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

APP/C3810/D/16/3142345

APP/C3810/W/15/3003824

APP/C3810/W/15/3134631

APP/C3810/W/15/3140815

APP/C3810/W/15/3135864

APP/C3810/W/15/3133730


FG/116/15/PL

FG/26/15/OUT

FG/84/15/PL

R/151/15/PL

WA/13/15/A

WA/22/15/OUT

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 10 No. 2 bedapartments, new access & cycle & bin stores

Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of 1No. four bedroom dwelling. This is a Departure from theDevelopment Plan.

Temporary stationing of 1 No. residential caravan for 3 years.

Relocation of bin store from internal to external & relocation ofcycle store.

1No. non-illuminated 3 way stack sign & 2No. Non-illuminatedFlag signs

Outline application with some matters reserved to provide up to400 No. new dwellings, up to 500 sqm of non-residentialfloorspace (A1, A2. A3, D1 and/or D2), 5000 sqm of lightindustrial floorspace (B1 (b)/(c)) & associated works includingaccess, internal road network, highway works, landscaping,slected tree removal, informal & formal open space & play areas,pedestrian & cyclist infrastructure utilities, drainage infrastructure,car & cycle parking & waste storage. This application is adeparture from the Development Plan & also lies within the parishof Eastergate.

1 Beehive Lane Ferring

Eastlands Littlehampton Road Ferring


Willow Court 52-58 Woodlands Avenue Rustington

Holly Tree Grove The Street Walberton

Land to the East of Fontwell Avenue Fontwell


Informal Hearing

Informal Hearing



Public Inquiry

14-06-2016

14-06-2016

01-11-2016

Received:

Received:

Received:

Received:

Received:

Received:

15-01-2016

03-11-2015

03-11-2015

25-02-2016

23-10-2015

20-01-2016

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

APP/C3810/W/16/3142013

APP/C3810/W/15/3138194

APP/C3810/W/15/3132939

APP/C3810/W/15/3135188

APP/C3810/W/16/3142198

APP/C3810/Z/15/3136183

APP/C3810/V/16/3143095


ENF/454/14/

ENF/236/14/

ENF/199/15/

ENF/378/15/

ENF/192/14/

Alleged unauthorised creation of a dwelling house

Alleged unauthorised change of use.

Alleged unauthorised breach of Condition 1 of FG/41/14/PL

Alleged unauthorised building works

Alleged unauthorised car ports and gazebo

Highdown Hill Farm Hangleton Lane Ferring West Sussex

Highdown Hill Farm Hangleton Lane Ferring

Eastlands Littlehampton Road Ferring West Sussex

36 Fitzalan Road Arundel West Sussex


Public Inquiry

Public Inquiry

Informal Hearing


Informal Hearing

14-06-2016

14-06-2016

Received:

Received:

Received:

Received:

Received:

12-08-2015

12-08-2015

03-11-2015

20-11-2015

30-11-2015

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

APP/C3810/C/15/3100579

APP/C3810/C/15/3103251

APP/C3810/C/15/3135180

APP/C3810/C/15/3138921

APP/C3810/C/15/3132558

WA/27/15/PL

Y/60/14/OUT

Demolition of existing garages & erection of 2No. chaletdwellings

Outline planning application with some matters reserved for 4.5hectares of residential development comprising 3.4 hectares ofland for up to 100 dwellings (up to 30 (30%) affordable housing)together with 1.1 hectares of land set aside for public open spaceand strategic landscaping and 2.2 hectares of public open spaceand green corridors with vehicular access from Ford Lane andpedestrian/cycle access only from North End Road. Thisapplication is a Departure from the Development Plan.

Deans Yard Orchard Way Walberton

Land to the south of Ford Lane East of North End Road Yapton


Public Inquiry 07-07-2015

Received:

Received:

16-11-2015

17-11-2014

PINS Ref:

PINS Ref:

APP/C3810/W/15/3132744

APP/C3810/A/14/2228260


West Barn Old Dairy Lane Norton

AL/79/14/PL

LOCATION:

SUBJECT:

The Inspector considered the main issues to be (a) the effect of the proposed development on thecharacter and appearance of the area; and (b) whether the proposal would constitute sustainabledevelopment.

With regard to character, the Inspector stated that although the building would differ from thetraditional design of development along Norton Lane within the conservation area, it would beacceptable having regard to the fact that it would reflect the layout and design of West Barn.However, the Inspector did consider that the extension of the parking area into open countryside tothe rear of West Barn would cause harm to the character and appearance of this rural area.

Turning then to sustainability, the Inspector noted that the site is some distance from basicservices and facilities and poorly related to public transport links, such that it would increasereliance on the private car. The Inspector stated that given the lack of local services and facilitiesin this settlement, the proposed development would do little to enhance of maintain the vitality ofrural communities and that this would result in environmental harm.

These concerns outweighed the limited social and economic benefits of the proposed developmentand as such the proposal could not be considered to be sustainable development.

KEY ISSUES

Planning Application Reference: AL/79/14/PL

Mews of 6 No. two storey low rise live work studios.This application is

a Departure from the Development Plan.

None.

APPLICATION FOR COSTS MADE/REASON

N/A.

COSTS AWARDED

Appeal Decision: Dismissed 05 February 2016

Appeal Procedure: Written Representations

Application Decision: Refused Date: 26 June 2015

Decision Process: Delegated

Original Officer Recommendation: Refuse

Background Papers: AL/79/14/PL

Contact: Mr S Davis

Telephone: 01903 737874

APPEAL DECISION

Date:


Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 December 2015

by Andrew Steen BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 5 February 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/C3810/W/15/3134557 West Barn, Old Dairy Lane, Norton, West Sussex PO20 3AF

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as

amended against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Mr A Cozens against the decision of Arun District Council.

The application Ref AL/79/14/PL, dated 10 October 2014, was refused by notice dated

26 June 2015.

The development proposed is mews of 6 no. two storey low rise live work studios.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matter

2. The form of development was amended during the course of the application

process. I have taken the description of development from the decision notice as that best reflects the proposed development before me.

3. The draft replacement Arun Local Plan has been submitted for examination but

the exact stage it has reached is not clear, nor are the extent of outstanding objections or whether the policies concerned will be considered as consistent

with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Consequently, I am only able to give it limited weight in my decision.

Main Issues

4. The main issues in this appeal are:

the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of

the area;

whether the proposal would constitute sustainable development.

Reasons

Character and appearance

5. The proposed development comprises a single building to contain six live/work

units in a terrace replacing a tennis court. Part of the site that would form the shared rear garden area of the proposed live/work units is located within the Norton Conservation Area.


Appeal Decision APP/C3810/W/15/3134557

2

6. The conservation area comprises the historic development of the settlement of

Norton, detached dwellings along Norton Lane in an informal layout, with space between buildings. Some of the larger houses are located further back in

extensive grounds, the smaller houses further forward. There are outbuildings or former agricultural buildings to the rear of the houses, including West Barn that is currently being converted to commercial use and the buildings

converted to tourist accommodation adjacent to the site.

7. The proposed live/work units would reflect the layout and design of West Barn,

to provide a similar large building in modern style, divided from the barn by a landscaped courtyard that would provide parking for the proposed units. This differs from the traditional design of development along Norton Lane within the

conservation area, but given the relationship with West Barn it would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and preserve the

character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting.

8. In laying out the development to provide sufficient parking, it is proposed to extend that parking beyond the front of West Barn and a short distance into

the open countryside beyond. That incursion into the surrounding grazing land would cause harm to the character and appearance of this rural area. Whilst

additional landscaping could help to screen the parking, no details have been proposed and I am not satisfied on the basis of evidence before me that effective landscaping could be secured through a condition.

9. For the above reasons, the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the

Framework and Policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan (LP). This policy seeks to ensure development is of a high standard of design that responds positively to the character of the site and surrounding area.

Sustainable development

10. The Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development,

defined as development in accordance with the Framework as a whole. Sustainable development has three dimensions that must be considered together, being economic, social and environmental.

11. The Council have confirmed that there is not a five year supply of deliverable housing sites within the district and, as such relevant policies for the supply of

housing should not be considered up to date in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework. Policies GEN2 and GEN3 of the LP are such policies. The Council also accept they are out of date as they relate to a time period that has

elapsed. As such, I have considered the appeal in the light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 14 of the

Framework.

12. Whilst the site is not within a defined settlement boundary in either an adopted

development plan or a made Neighbourhood Plan, it is not in an isolated location, being well related to other dwellings and built development. However, it is some distance from basic services and facilities and poorly

related to public transport links, such that it would increase reliance on the private car.

13. I accept that as the proposals are intended to be live/work units the need for residents to travel is limited and the development will incorporate modern



3

technology to enable working from home and facilitating internet shopping. In

addition, cycle parking is proposed to provide an alternative to the private car. However, given the lack of local services and facilities in this settlement, the

proposed development would do little to enhance of maintain the vitality of rural communities. As noted above, I also consider that it would harm the character and appearance of the area.

14. In this case, there would be limited economic benefits during the construction of the development and the work element of the dwellings will ensure

employment is brought to the village. The provision of dwellings would have a positive social impact to meet the needs of current and future residents, who are likely to be involved in the local community as this is both where they live

and work.

15. In overall terms, I consider that the environmental harm resulting from the

poor location in terms of access to local services and facilities including public transport provision, along with the harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

limited social and economic benefits of the proposed development. As such, the proposal does not constitute sustainable development when considered

against policies in the Framework taken as a whole. It would also conflict with Policy GEN7 of the LP that seeks to promote sustainable development.

Other matters

16. My attention has been drawn to other cases in the district that may be similar, but I have been provided with limited details and need to consider this case on

its own merits. I note that there is support from a local estate agent for this form of development, but that does not outweigh the harm I have found on the main issues.

Conclusion

17. For the above reasons and taking into account all other matters raised, I

conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Andrew Steen

INSPECTOR


3 The Street East Preston

EP/15/15/PL

LOCATION:

SUBJECT:

The key issue was the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of theproperty.

It was concluded by the Inspector that the building is a non-designated heritage asset and that itsdemolition would result in a complete loss of the local historical and visual significance itpossesses. Notwithstanding the description of the existing building in the NP, Heritage Englanddeclined to list it due to the standard construction and lack of any special architectural interest. Thebuilding is unoccupied and its physical condition is deteriorating. A structural survey submitted withthe appeal concluded that the building would require substantial remedial works and it is beyondeconomic repair. This suggests that the longer term survival of the structure could not be assuredin any event.

He considered that the proposed dwellings would have a balanced appearance, the detailingechoing traditional design features. They would have a deep plan form and would therefore utilise adouble pitch roof design with a central valley and flat roof section, in order to minimise the overallheight. Together with their general design and external materials, the roof form would have somesimilarities with existing older development in the locality including the nearby 'Southsea Cottage'and would not appear at odds with the surroundings. Although larger than the existing building thedwellings would not be viewed as being unduly high or out of scale with the substantialneighbouring dwellings in the street scene. There would be reasonable open space retainedbetween the flank walls and the boundaries on either side. The dwellings would not thereforeappear cramped.

With regard to Paragraph 135 of the Framework which states ' where there is an effect on thesignificance of a non-designated heritage asset, a balanced judgement will be required havingregard to the scale of any loss and the significance of the asset' the Inspector concluded that whilstthe proposal would result in the total loss of the existing building, the significance is at a local leveland due to its poor condition it is unlikely to be sustained in the longer term. He found that the lossof the existing building's significance would be substantially outweighed by the high quality designof the proposed dwellings that would replace it and the consequent lack of any material harm to thecharacter and appearance of the area.

A completed Planning Obligation making a financial contribution towards affordable housingprovision was submitted with the appeal. The Inspector considered the contribution would complywith the Council's adopted Interim Housing Policy which seeks to enable affordable housingprovision. The Policy is supported by evidence which demonstrates the need for affordable housing

KEY ISSUES

Planning Application Reference: EP/15/15/PL

Demolish the existing house & replace with 2No. semi-detached

houses.

Appeal Decision: Allowed+Conditions


Application Decision: Refused Date: 15 April 2015



APPEAL DECISION

Date:


EP/15/15/PL

in the area, the viability of seeking contributions in respect of schemes of this size and themethodology for calculating the scale of the contribution. He was satisfied that the PlanningObligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

None


N/A

COSTS AWARDED

Background Papers: EP/15/15/PL

Contact: Mrs A Gardner

Telephone: 01903 737529


Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 February 2016

by Stephen Hawkins MA MRTPI


Decision date: 8 March 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/C3810/W/15/3132499 3 The Street, East Preston, Littlehampton BN16 1JJ

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Ms Sally Gardiner against the decision of Arun District Council.

The application Ref EP/15/15/PL, dated 4 February 2015, was refused by notice dated

15 April 2015.

The development proposed is to demolish the existing house and replace it with two

semi-detached houses.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to demolish the

existing house and replace it with two semi-detached houses at 3 The Street, East Preston, Littlehampton BN16 1JJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref EP/15/15/PL, dated 4 February 2015, subject to the conditions

in the schedule at the end of this decision.

Main Issues

2. The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Reasons


3. The existing dwelling dates from the 19th Century and is of modest size. It is

constructed in flint with brick surrounds, under a slate roof. It is sited adjacent to The Street and has a long back garden. The adjoining properties to the west including the extended ‘Forge House’ and ‘Southsea Cottage’ exhibit traditional

characteristics. Beyond the adjacent low profile restaurant and its associated buildings, ‘Preston Cottage’ a substantial Grade II listed building stands on the

corner of The Street and Sea Road.

4. I note that the Proposals Map accompanying the made East Preston

Neighbourhood Plan (NP) shows the appeal site is in Character Area Three, which comprises the older parts of the village and its main roads. Nevertheless, the surroundings contain a range of mainly residential buildings

of different size ages and styles, using a variety of roof forms and materials. This includes substantial modern terraced properties on the opposite side of

The Street and flats at the rear of the appeal site. This serves to lend the surroundings a somewhat mixed suburban character.



2

5. Notwithstanding the reference in the NP, it is unclear whether the Council has

added the existing building to its local list of heritage assets. However, local listing is not a prerequisite to the building being a non-designated heritage

asset as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). An Article 4 Direction has been confirmed by the Council, having the effect that express planning permission would be required to demolish the building. The

building has traditional construction, is prominent in the street scene and makes some contribution to the small group of older buildings in the vicinity,

which includes ‘Preston Cottage’. Whilst noting the appellant’s views on the extent to which the existing structure has been altered over time, it would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the building is a non-designated

heritage asset.

6. Demolition of the structure will result in a complete loss of the local historical

and visual significance it possesses. Notwithstanding the description of the existing building in the NP, Heritage England declined to list it due to the standard construction and lack of any special architectural interest. I am also

mindful that the building is unoccupied and at my site visit, I saw that its physical condition is deteriorating. A structural survey submitted with the

appeal concluded that the building would require substantial remedial works and it is beyond economic repair. This suggests that the longer term survival of the structure could not be assured in any event.

7. The proposed dwellings would have a balanced appearance, the detailing echoing traditional design features. The dwellings would have a deep plan

form and would therefore utilise a double pitch roof design with a central valley and flat roof section, in order to minimise the overall height. Together with their general design and external materials, the roof form would have some

similarities with existing older development in the locality including the nearby ‘Southsea Cottage’ and would not appear at odds with the surroundings.

8. The dwellings would be set back deeper into the plot than the existing building, slightly behind the front of the adjoining ‘Forge House.’ Buildings in the locality are sited irregularly in terms of their distance away from The Street and the

proposed siting would not appear especially at odds with the existing pattern. The siting of the dwellings and the similar eaves level in comparison with

adjoining buildings would also largely offset the effect of the slightly higher ridgeline, which is a result of providing living space in the roof area. Consequently, although larger than the existing building the dwellings would

not be viewed as being unduly high or out of scale with the substantial neighbouring dwellings in the street scene.

9. The proposed dwellings would not extend across the entirety of the appeal site and there would be reasonable open space retained between the flank walls

and the boundaries on either side. As a result, the dwellings would have a relatively spacious feel and they would not appear overlarge or unduly cramped on their plot in comparison with surrounding development.

10. Paragraph 135 of the Framework states that where there is an effect on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, a balanced judgement will be

required having regard to the scale of any loss and the significance of the asset. Whilst the proposal would result in the total loss of the existing building, the significance is at a local level and due to its poor condition it is unlikely to

be sustained in the longer term. I find that the loss of the existing building’s



3

significance would be substantially outweighed by the high quality design of the

proposed dwellings that would replace it and the consequent lack of any material harm to the character and appearance of the area.

11. The proposal would therefore accord with saved Policy GEN7 of the Arun District Local Plan (LP), which requires development to have a high quality design and layout, responding positively to the identified characteristics of the

site and the area to create attractive places and spaces. It would also accord with Policy D DM1 of the emerging Arun Local Plan (ALP), which requires

consideration to be given to matters of character, appearance and attractiveness, public realm, layout, density and scale in new development. The proposal would also be consistent with the Framework at paragraph 17 and

Section 7 concerning the importance of achieving high quality design and Section 12 concerning conservation and enhancement of the historic

environment.

Other matters

12. A completed Planning Obligation making a financial contribution towards

affordable housing provision was submitted with the appeal. The contribution would comply with the Council’s adopted Interim Housing Policy which seeks to

enable affordable housing provision. The Policy is supported by evidence which demonstrates the need for affordable housing in the area, the viability of seeking contributions in respect of schemes of this size and the methodology

for calculating the scale of the contribution.

13. I am satisfied that the Planning Obligation is necessary to make the

development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development and is fairly related to it in scale and kind. The Planning Obligation would therefore comply with Section 122 of the Community

Infrastructure Regulations 2010 and I have afforded it weight in my decision.

14. In accordance with legislation and paragraph 132 of the Framework, I have

also afforded great weight to conservation of the listed ‘Preston Cottage’. This building stands some way away to the east of the appeal site, beyond intervening buildings. The listed building is a prominent feature around the

junction of The Street with Sea Road. These roads follow the historic street pattern and together with adjacent buildings are part of the setting of the listed

building, as they are the surroundings in which it is experienced.

15. The existing dwelling forms part of the wider setting of the listed building. Nevertheless, due to its modest scale, the physical distance from the listed

building and the intervening buildings which are of limited architectural merit, the existing building is a subsidiary feature in the setting. It does not affect

any important views of the listed building. It does not make a significant contribution to informing the appreciation and understanding of the listed

building. Consequently, its loss would not substantially change how the listed building is experienced.

16. The proposed dwellings would also be a background feature, set well away

from the listed building and would largely be viewed in the context of other development, set back from The Street. Consequently, the proposed dwellings

would not have any significant harmful effect on the setting of the listed building.



4

17. I have taken the comments of third parties on matters into account. These

raise matters including overbearing, overlooking and loss of light and privacy to neighbouring properties and the effect on highway safety. The Council did not

object to the proposal on any of these grounds and I have found no reason to disagree with their assessment in those respects.

Planning Balance and Conclusions

18. The Council cannot demonstrate a five–year housing land supply and the proposed development therefore has to be considered in accordance with the

presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 of the Framework. I have considered the proposal against the mutually dependent economic, social and environmental objectives in paragraph 7 of the

Framework.

19. There would be economic benefits arising from the additional jobs, albeit short

term, created during the construction of the dwellings together with additional revenue flowing from incoming residents to services and facilities in the village and surrounding towns. I have attributed weight to the social benefit of

increasing the supply of housing in an area where there is an identified unmet need, albeit that the proposal would make a modest net contribution.

20. For reasons I have set out above, the proposed development would contribute to protecting and enhancing the built environment and would therefore fulfil the environmental objectives of sustainable development. There are no

adverse impacts which would outweigh the public benefits of the proposal, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

Conditions

21. In addition to the standard time limit on commencement, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant approved plans as this provides certainty. To

ensure that the development harmonises with its surroundings I have imposed a condition requiring prior approval of the samples of the external materials.

Approval of the details of landscaping together with their implementation will be necessary to ensure a visually satisfactory setting for the development.

22. Approval of the details of the junction of the new access with The Street is

necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in a manner which safeguards highway safety. Approval of the details of car and bicycle parking

together with their implementation is also necessary to ensure that the development makes adequate provision for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety and to ensure that proper provision for non-car modes of

transport is made. Approval of the means of surface water drainage together with its implementation is also necessary to ensure that the site is adequately

drained and to reduce the risk of flooding.

23. Where necessary I have amended the conditions suggested by the Council so

that they comply with the six tests in paragraph 206 of the Framework and the guidance in paragraph 004 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) ‘Use of Planning Conditions’. I have also amended the order of the conditions to

comply with paragraph 024 of the above guidance in the PPG.

24. After seeking the views of both parties and in accordance with the guidance in

paragraph 136 of the Framework, I have also imposed a condition which requires that the existing building is not demolished until all reasonable steps



5

have been taken to ensure that the development will proceed thereafter. This is

to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is not harmed by an empty site.

25. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Stephen Hawkins

INSPECTOR



6

SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan, 21/A, 22/A, 201/A, 202/C, 203/A, 204/A, 311/A, 312/A, 313/A, 315/A.

3) The existing building shall not be demolished until a formal legal contract for the erection of the dwellings hereby approved has been made, agreed

and signed.

4) No development above damp proof course (DPC) level shall take place in respect of the dwellings hereby permitted until samples of the materials

to be used in the construction of the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

5) No development above damp proof course (DPC) level shall take place in

respect of the dwellings hereby permitted until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing

by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include the existing trees and hedgerows to be retained, together with measures for their protection during the

course of the development. The approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the

occupation of the dwellings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner and any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or

become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

6) No dwelling shall be occupied until details of the junction between the access and the highway, including the kerb radii, visibility slays and sight lines have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning

authority and the junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

7) No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the public carriageway in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Thereafter the approved parking areas shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles.

8) No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site for bicycles to be parked in accordance with details submitted to and

approved by the local planning authority. Thereafter the approved bicycle parking areas shall not be used other than for the parking of bicycles.

9) No dwelling shall be occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted

to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system

and the results of the assessment provided to the local planning



7

authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the

submitted details shall:

i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the

method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;

ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and

iii) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the

development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its

lifetime.


14 Worthing Road East Preston

EP/93/15/HH

LOCATION:

SUBJECT:

The main issues identified by the Inspector were the effect of the proposed development on thecharacter and appearance of the area and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 16Worthing Road, having regard to outlook.The Inspector considered that the proposed extensions would have a coherent, unified designwhich echoed the horizontal emphasis and simple linear character of the host dwelling and wasnot at odds with the wide variety of building designs in the street scene. The single storey form andlow roof profile minimised the apparent scale of the extensions and would assist in theirassimilation with the host dwelling. In relation to the concerns expressed over the footprint of theextensions he considered they would not subsume the host dwelling but would appear subservientand would not substantially alter its existing scale or proportions. He considered that the hostdwelling was capable of accommodating the front extensions without them appearing as alien orincongruous intrusions into the street scene. Extending at the side of the dwelling at single storeylevel would not erode the current sense of space about the dwelling in the street scene. Moreover,generous front and rear gardens would be retained. As a result, the extended dwelling would notappear overlarge or cramped on its plot in comparison with nearby development and the proposalwould not erode the existing spatial qualities of the area. It was therefore considered that theproposal was in accordance with policy DEV19 of Arun District Local Plan and policy 4 of the EastPreston Neighbourhood Plan. With regard to residential amenity he considered that the long flank wall of the front and rearextension forming the annexe would be in proximity to the boundary with No 16. The extensionwould be single storey, set back from the boundary by about a metre and its roof would slopefurther into the appeal site. This would all substantially offset the visual impact of the extensionwhen viewed from No 16. As a result and notwithstanding the overall length of the extension, theproposal would not significantly intrude on the existing aspect of No 16 either at the front or therear.Consequently, even accounting for the slight differences in levels between the properties, theInspector considered that the proposal would not appear as particularly dominant or overbearingwhen viewed from No 16. It would not cause an unacceptable loss of outlook or an undue sense ofenclosure nor would the proposal create significant overshadowing or loss of sunlight. As a result,he concluded there would not be unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No16.

KEY ISSUES

Planning Application Reference: EP/93/15/HH

Single storey wrap around extension to provide annexe

None


N/A

COSTS AWARDED

Appeal Decision: Allowed+Conditions 26 February 2016


Application Decision: Refused Date: 24 September 2015

Decision Process: D C Committee

Original Officer Recommendation: Approve Conditonally

APPEAL DECISION

Date:


EP/93/15/HH

Background Papers: EP/93/15/HH


Telephone: 01903 737529






Appeal Ref: APP/C3810/D/15/3136545 14 Worthing Road, East Preston, West Sussex BN16 1AZ



The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs P Rollason against the decision of Arun District

Council.

The application Ref EP/93/15/HH, dated 30 June 2015, was refused by notice dated

24 September 2015.

The development proposed is single storey wrap around extension to provide a granny

annexe for applicants.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey wrap around extension to provide a granny annexe for the applicants at 14

Worthing Road, East Preston, West Sussex BN16 1AZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref EP/93/15/HH, dated 30 June 2015, subject to the

following conditions:


2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 15006/01, 15006/02R1, 15006/03a.

3) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4) The accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 14 Worthing Road, East Preston, West Sussex BN16 1AZ.

Main Issues

2. The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of

the area and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 16 Worthing Road, having regard to outlook.


Appeal Decision APP/C3810/D/15/3136545

_________________________________________________________________________________

2

Reasons


3. The East Preston Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was made by the Council in April

2015 and forms part of the Development Plan for the area. On the Proposals Map which accompanied the Plan the appeal site lies in Character Area Three, which makes up the older parts of the village and its main roads. The appeal

site comprises a substantial detached building of modern appearance sited well back from the road in a spacious plot. The dwelling has previously been

extended with a variety of mostly flat roofed single storey extensions, a detached flat roof garage standing adjacent to the eastern boundary. The dwelling is in a row of detached properties of differing ages and styles, mostly

set back varying distances from the road in generous, well-spaced gardens. Overall, the area has a spacious suburban character.

4. The proposal entails removing the later accretions and the detached garage and erecting single storey extensions encompassing the front, rear and eastern side of the host dwelling. This is principally to form an annexe, but also to

provide a new garage at the front and additional accommodation at the rear. The extensions would use materials similar to the existing building and would

utilise a hipped roof form with hidden flat roof sections to minimise their overall height.

5. The proposed extensions would have a coherent, unified design which echoes

the horizontal emphasis and simple linear character of the host dwelling. The design would not be at odds with the wide variety of building designs in the

street scene. The single storey form and low roof profile would minimise the apparent scale of the extensions and would assist in their assimilation with the host dwelling. I have had regard to the concerns expressed over the footprint

of the extensions. Nevertheless, the extensions would not subsume the host dwelling but would appear subservient and would not substantially alter its

existing scale or proportions.

6. The extensions would project forward of the front of the host dwelling and the neighbouring dwelling to the east (16 Worthing Road). However, the front of

the extensions would still be behind the front of other buildings along the road. The appeal site has a deep front garden with mature boundary planting on both

side boundaries. Together with the irregular alignment of dwellings along the road, this would have the effect that the host dwelling is capable of accommodating the front extensions without their appearing as alien or

incongruous intrusions into the street scene.

7. Extending at the side of the dwelling at single storey level would not erode the

current sense of space about the dwelling in the street scene. Moreover, generous front and rear gardens would be retained. As a result, the extended

dwelling would not appear overlarge or cramped on its plot in comparison with nearby development and the proposal would not erode the existing spatial qualities of the area.

8. Overall, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would accord with saved Policy GEN7 of the adopted Arun

District Local Plan (LP), which requires new development to be of high quality design, responding positively to the identified characteristics of the site. The proposal would also accord with saved LP Policy DEV19. This requires



_________________________________________________________________________________

3

residential extensions to relate sympathetically to and be visually integrated

with the existing building in terms of siting, design, form, scale and materials, to be visually subservient to the main building and to not compromise the

established spatial character and pattern of the street.

9. The proposed extensions would accord with Policy 4 of the NP, which requires the scale, density, massing, height, landscape design and materials to sustain

and enhance the significance of the historic character of the area and employ building materials that harmonise with those used in existing buildings.

Furthermore, the extensions would look as if it were part of the original design, would not make the host dwelling unbalanced or be so large as to be out of scale with other houses in the road. The proposal would also harmonise with

the dwelling in scale, design and materials and would not be visually intrusive, thereby complying with paragraph 4.16 of the NP concerning the development

principles for extensions.

10. The proposal would also accord with Policy D DM1 of the emerging Arun Local Plan (ALP), which requires consideration of amongst other matters, design,

character, appearance, attractiveness and scale in new development. It would also accord with ALP Policy D DM4, which largely reiterates Policy DEV19.

Furthermore, the proposal would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) at paragraph 17 and at Section 7 in which the Government underlines its commitment to high quality design outcomes.

Living conditions

11. The neighbouring dwelling 16 Worthing Road is a detached property stood in

ample gardens. At my site visit, I was able to see that the neighbouring dwelling was sited well away from the appeal site boundary. This boundary is largely defined by a line of maturing evergreen trees in front of the dwellings

and by a stone wall running between the dwellings and at the rear.

12. The long flank wall of the front and rear extension forming the annexe would

be in proximity to the boundary with No 16. The extension would be single storey, set back from the boundary by about a metre and its roof would slope further into the appeal site. This would all substantially offset the visual impact

of the extension when viewed from No 16. As a result and notwithstanding the overall length of the extension, the proposal would not significantly intrude on

the existing aspect of No 16 either at the front or the rear.

13. Consequently, even accounting for the slight differences in levels between the properties, the proposal would not appear as particularly dominant or

overbearing when viewed from No 16. It would not cause the occupiers an unacceptable loss of outlook or an undue sense of enclosure nor would the

proposal create significant overshadowing or loss of sunlight. As a result, there would not be unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No

16.

14. Therefore, the proposal would accord with saved LP Policy GEN7, which at (iv) requires that development should not have an adverse impact on adjoining

occupiers. The proposal would also accord with saved LP Policy DEV 19(iii), which requires that extensions should not have any adverse overshadowing or

overbearing effect on neighbouring properties. The proposal would accord with Policy D DM1, which requires development to have a minimal impact on the users and occupiers of nearby property, avoiding loss of sunlight and



_________________________________________________________________________________

4

overshadowing or having an overbearing presence. The proposal would also

accord with Policy D DM4 (e), which reiterates Policy DEV 19(iii).

15. Furthermore, the proposal would be consistent with the Framework at

paragraph 17 which seeks to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing occupants of buildings.

Other matters

16. I have considered the other matters raised in third party representations. These include amongst other things, the effect on the view from the adjoining

recreation field, the development taking place in stages and the accuracy of the submitted plans. However, the Council did not object to the proposal on any of these grounds and I have found no reason to disagree with their assessment.

Conditions

17. I have imposed the standard time limit condition. I have also imposed a

condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty. I have imposed a condition requiring the prior approval of samples of the external materials, in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. I

have also imposed a condition restricting occupation of the annexe to safeguard the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of the appeal

site.

Conclusion

18. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Stephen Hawkins

INSPECTOR


24 Wroxham Way Felpham

FP/145/15/HH

LOCATION:

SUBJECT:

The main issue in this case was the effect of the proposed wall on the character and appearanceof the area.

Planning permission was refused on design and visual amenity grounds as notwithstanding aprevious leylandii hedge which no longer existed, full enclosure of the south garden by a wall atback edge of footpath would result in the introduction of a harsher more urban and therefore alsovisually intrusive enclosure. This was considered to be unacceptable in terms of visual amenityand detrimental.

The Inspector considered that the wall would not significantly erode the sense of openness in thestreet scene and it would not appear as an especially harsh or urbanising feature in itssurroundings. He considered that unlike its front garden, the bungalow's side garden contributeslittle to the sense of openness in the street scene and that any increased sense of enclosurecreated by the new wall would be largely offset by the generous width of Ormesby Crescent. Heconsidered the proposal to be in accord with policies and granted permission with a conditionrequiring wall materials to match those of an existing dividing wall.

KEY ISSUES

Planning Application Reference: FP/145/15/HH

Proposed 1.8m brick wall

No.


N/A

COSTS AWARDED

Appeal Decision: Allowed+Conditions 26 February 2016


Application Decision: Refused Date: 17 September 2015



Background Papers: FP/145/15/HH

Contact: Ross Leal

Telephone: 01903 737593

APPEAL DECISION

Date:






Appeal Ref: APP/C3810/D/15/3135800 24 Wroxham Way, Felpham, West Sussex PO22 8EW



The appeal is made by Mr Kenneth Doel against the decision of Arun District Council.

The application Ref FP/145/15/HH, dated 13 July 2015, was refused by notice dated

17 September 2015.

The development proposed is replace hedge at side of garden with brick wall.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacing the hedge at the side of the garden with a brick wall at 24 Wroxham Way,

Felpham, West Sussex PO22 8EW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref FP/145/15/HH, dated 13 July 2015, subject to the following

conditions:


2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: existing side elevation-photographs;

proposed brick wall-photomontage; sections plan; photograph of hedge.

3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the wall hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing 1.8

metre high wall between the front and side garden of the property.

Main Issue

2. The effect of the proposed wall on the character and appearance of the area.

Reasons

3. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached bungalow occupying a corner plot

on a modern suburban estate. When I visited, the hedge and timber fencing previously enclosing the side garden, which faces onto Ormesby Crescent, had

been removed. A low brick wall had been erected adjacent to the footpath.

4. Front gardens unencumbered by high boundary enclosures are a characteristic of the estate layout. This creates a sense of openness in the street scene,

which contributes strongly to the spacious character of the surroundings. High timber fencing enclosing the side gardens of some corner plots does not

significantly affect the established character.



_________________________________________________________________________________

2

5. The proposed wall would be sited adjacent to the back edge of the pavement

and would extend parallel to the side elevation of the bungalow enclosing the side garden. Unlike its front garden, the bungalow’s side garden contributes

little to the sense of openness in the street scene. It is already partly enclosed by the existing 1.8 metre high wall dividing the front and rear garden, which extends from the side of the bungalow up to the back edge of the pavement on

Ormesby Crescent.

6. Set well back from the bungalow’s open front garden, the proposed wall would

largely be viewed in the street scene in conjunction with the existing dividing wall, the substantial side elevation of the bungalow and adjoining buildings. Consequently, notwithstanding its position adjacent to the pavement, the

proposed wall would generally be seen as a subservient addition. Any increased sense of enclosure created by the new wall would be largely offset by

the generous width of Ormesby Crescent. The proposal would also therefore be comparable in its effects with the side boundary treatments of other corner properties in the locality.

7. As a result of all of the above, the proposed wall would not significantly erode the sense of openness in the street scene and it would not appear as an

especially harsh or urbanising feature in its surroundings. I acknowledge that planning permission was refused on two occasions in the early 1970s for a similar proposal. Nevertheless, for the above reasons I conclude that the

proposed wall would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

8. The proposal would therefore accord with saved Policy GEN7 of the adopted

Arun District Local Plan (LP), which requires development to be of high quality design. It would also accord with Policy ESD1 in the Felpham Neighbourhood Plan, which requires development to be of high quality design, contributing to

the local character by creating a sense of place appropriate to its location. Furthermore, the proposal would accord with Policy D DM1 and Policy S SP1 of

the emerging Arun Local Plan. These policies also seek high standards of design in new development.

Conditions

9. I have imposed the standard time limit condition. I have also imposed a condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty. After seeking

the view of both parties, I have also imposed a condition to ensure that the materials of the proposed wall match those of the existing dividing wall, in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

Conclusion

10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Stephen Hawkins

INSPECTOR


Church Farm Bungalow site Binsted Lane Binstead

WA/8/15/CLE

LOCATION:

SUBJECT:

The basic assertion made by the appellant was that although only vestigial remains of the formersemi-detached dwellings still existed on the land (in essence the slabs, the footings up to damp-proof course and a pair of chimneys) that the residential use had not been abandoned. To supportthis claim reliance was placed on the recognised legal tests for the consideration of the issue ofabandonment flowing from established court authority.The Council did not accept this but the core arguments opposing the issuing of an LDC wererooted in a different legal test, that is whether the land has been in continuous residential use for 4years prior to the submission of the application. The appellant argued that this was a flawedanalysis as no case had been made on this basis. It was asserted that the Council failed toconsider the actual arguments put forward which relate solely to the claim that the residential usehas not been abandoned even though there has been no residential occupation of dwellings on theland for many years (since 1999). The Inspector agreed that the Council had not considered theactual basis of the claim advanced but instead referred to the time limits for taking enforcementaction set down in s171B of the 1990 Act. The parties agreed that there was no building in thematerial sense that remains on the land so applying this test - what is known as the "4 year rule" -was erroneous. Even if reliance had been placed on s171B, sub-section(3) would apply to a use ofland, rather than a building, for residential purposes where the time limit stated is 10 years.With regard to the legal framework on the issue of abandonment, the mere cessation of a use isnot development, but if a building or land "remains unused for a considerable time, in suchcircumstances that a reasonable man might conclude that the previous use had been abandoned",then the concept of abandonment applies. The land may be left with a nil use.The evidence and the Statutory Declaration of Mr Wishart, who has been personally acquaintedwith the land in question and its historic use for many decades was considered as well as theplanning history. There is little that remains of the buildings and clearly no dwelling capable of habitation. Mr Wishartremoved the roofs in 1999 to prevent squatting and this led to the gradual decay and derelictionthereafter. The removal of the roofs was not undertaken in order to extinguish or remove theresidential use altogether and by August 1999 an outline planning permission had been obtained fora replacement dwelling.As to the second test, the length of time the dwellings have not been used is from 1999. On thethird test there is no indication of any intervening use that has supplanted or replaced the formerresidential use.The final test is the intentions of the owner. Mr Wishart set out in considerable detail his attempts toget planning permission for a replacement dwelling and this went back to the time that thebungalows first became unoccupied. They were not left to deteriorate and eventually collapse withthe exception of what remains before any attempt was made to get planning permission for an

KEY ISSUES

Planning Application Reference: WA/8/15/CLE

Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for existing

residential use of the land.

Appeal Decision: Allowed 15 February 2016


Application Decision: Refused Date: 09 April 2015



APPEAL DECISION

Date:


WA/8/15/CLE

alternative dwelling. It was considered by the Inspector that the owner had repeatedly attempted toobtain a permission that could be implemented without success as far as a detailed scheme wasconcerned. There are gaps of years between these attempts with some reasons given for why thatwas so. The Inspector considered it demonstrated a clear intention of the landowner to maintainthe residential use of the land and not let it lapse by virtue of abandonment.The Council argued that this intention was outweighed by the conclusions drawn on the other 3tests but the Inspector did not consider that this was necessarily so and was a matter of judgmentfor the decision taker. The Council claimed that the failure to implement the planning permissionmilitated against any intention to preserve the use. The Inspector considered this was weak as itappeared that the Council have never granted a full planning permission or approved a reservedmatters application and so it has been impossible for the owner to actually implement and build areplacement dwelling. The proximity to a listed building (The Glebe House) and the problemsrelating to access have encumbered the attempts to actually obtain a planning permission thatcould be implemented. It was not for want of trying on the part of the owner on a number ofoccasions.The appellant's agent referred to two appeal decisions where abandonment was not found eventhough little remained of the original dwellings. The Inspector appreciated that each case is factsensitive but the principle was relevant to this appeal. He considered that the intention of the ownersupported by documentation had been to maintain the residential use of the land and he wassatisfied that the use of the land has not been abandoned and remains the lawful use. Theseparate parcel of land to the east of the access drive appeared to still be in residential use asgarden land and this was claimed to be the historic use taking place when the bungalows wereoccupied. He therefore found that this too remained in lawful use for residential purposes.He concluded, on the evidence available, that the Council's refusal to grant a LDC in respect of theresidential use of the land was not well-founded and that the appeal should succeed.

Yes


The principal issue was whether the Council's decision to refuse the LDC application wasunreasonable having regard to the legal context for consideration of the application. The Council's reason for refusing the application referred to the "4 year rule" arguing that there hadbeen no continual residential use for that period of time prior to the submission of the application;this was assumed to mean in the sense of dwellings occupied for residential purposes during thatperiod. The Inspector considered this was not the basis of the application and agreed with theassertion for the appellant that the primary matter to consider was whether the previous residentialuse had been abandoned. In this respect the decision made no reference to abandonment whichwas the central consideration.He determined this was erroneous and not the basis on which the claim for lawfulness wasfounded. He considered, even if it was correct to apply the time limits that flow from s171B of the1990 Act, as amended, the application of the four year rule was incorrect since a ten year periodwould be relevant. This added to his finding that the approach of the Council was misconceived andfailed to properly apply the legislative provisions to the determination of the application.The Inspector concluded that the Council's view arrived at concerning abandonment did notconstitute unreasonable behaviour. This was a matter of judgment based on the facts. However,the conclusions reached included the repeated finding that because there was no dwelling on theland that could be occupied residentially the use claimed must have been abandoned. Neither thecase law referred to, nor the two appeal decisions cited by the appellant's agent in submissionslead to this conclusion. It was concluded that the lack of remaining habitable dwelling on land didnot mean that the former residential use has been abandoned. This added to the Inspector'sfindings that the Council misunderstood the legal framework and principles upon which theirdecision should have been founded.

COSTS AWARDED


WA/8/15/CLE

Overall, he concluded that the Council's handling and determination of the LDC application wasmisconceived and failed to correctly apply the legal principles that were pertinent. The actualwording of the reason for not issuing a LDC indicated that there was a failure to grasp the truenature of the application and the principles upon which it was being pursued. He therefore foundthat unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense had been demonstrated and that afull award of costs was justified.

Background Papers: WA/8/15/CLE


Telephone: 01903 737529


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 December 2015

by Mr N P Freeman BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI DMS



Appeal Ref: APP/C3810/X/15/3035706 Church Farm Bungalows site, Binsted Lane, Binsted, West Sussex, BN18 0LN

The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as

amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 against a refusal to grant a

certificate of lawful use or development (LDC).

The appeal is made by Binsted Farms Ltd against the decision of Arun District Council.

The application Ref. WA/8/15/CLE, dated 12 February 2015, was refused by notice

dated 9 April 2015.

The application was made under section 191(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990 as amended.

The use for which a LDC is sought is the residential use of the land.

Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed and a LDC is issued in the

terms set out below in the Formal Decision.

Application for costs

1. An application for costs was made by Binsted Farms Ltd against Arun District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Reasons

2. In terms of claims to lawfulness the onus of proof is open the appellant and the level of proof is the balance of probability. It is also an accepted legal principle

that if the Council have no evidence of their own, or from others, to contradict or otherwise make the appellant’s version of events less than probable that

lawfulness should be presumed provided the appellant’s evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to demonstrate this is the case on the

balance of probability.

3. The basic assertion made on behalf of the appellant company is that although only vestigial remains of the former semi-detached dwellings still exist on the

land (in essence the slabs, the footings up to damp-proof course and a pair of chimneys) that the residential use has not been abandoned. To support this

claim reliance is placed on the recognised legal tests for the consideration of the issue of abandonment flowing from established court authority.

4. The Council do not accept this but the core of their arguments opposing the

issuing of an LDC are rooted in a different legal test, that is whether the land has been in continuous residential use for 4 years prior to the submission of

the application. This is clearly evident from their report on this application and the wording of the decision notice. The appellant argues that this is a flawed analysis as no case has been made on this basis. It is asserted that the


Appeal Decision: APP/C3810/X/15/3035706

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2

Council have failed to consider the actual arguments put forward which relate

solely to the claim that the residential use has not been abandoned even though there has been no residential occupation of dwellings on the land for

many years (since 1999). I agree that the Council have not considered the actual basis of the claim advanced but instead have referred to the time limits for taking enforcement action set down in s171B of the 1990 Act, as amended,

which are not relied upon. Moreover even if this was the appropriate test for lawfulness they have mistakenly applied s171B(2) which concerns “…the

change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse…”. The parties are in agreement that there is no building in the material sense that remains on the land so applying this test – what is known as the “4 year rule” - is

erroneous. Even if reliance had been placed on s171B, sub-section(3) would apply to a use of land, rather than a building, for residential purposes where

the time limit stated is 10 years.

5. Leaving this aside, I turn to consider the arguments that are put forward to support the claim that the residential use of the land has not been abandoned.

The land in question to which the appeal relates is in two parts. The larger part is roughly triangular in shape and is bounded by Binsted Lane to the south and

west and the garden and driveway to The Glebe House to the north and east respectively. This is the principal area and the slabs of the former dwellings, which I understand were a pair of bungalows, occupy this land. The smaller

part is a rectangular plot to the east of the drive to The Glebe House which is currently mainly grassed over with a timber animal hutch in the middle. It is

claimed that this land formed part of the garden to the former bungalows and has latterly been let and used as such by the occupiers of The Glebe House for the keeping of chickens and their enjoyment.

6. The legal framework on the issue of abandonment is as follows. The mere cessation of a use is not development, but if a building or land “remains unused

for a considerable time, in such circumstances that a reasonable man might conclude that the previous use had been abandoned”, (per Lord Denning, in Hartley v MHLG [1970] 1QB 413) then the concept of abandonment applies. It

involves a cessation of use in such a way, and for such a time, as to give the impression to a reasonable onlooker, (applying an objective rather than a

subjective test), that it was not to be resumed, (Nicholls v SSE and Bristol CC [1981] JPL 890, J.363). The land may be left with a nil use.

7. In Trustees of Castell-y-Mynach Estate v Taff-Ely BC, [1985] JPL 40, the Court

suggested four criteria for abandonment; the period of non-use, the physical condition of the land or building, whether there had been any other use, and

the owner’s intentions as to whether to suspend the use or to cease it permanently. In Hughes v SSETR [2000] 80 P&CR 397, the Court of Appeal

held that the test of the owner’s intentions should be objective and not subjective, on the authority of Hartley and Castell-y-Mynach. In the case of Bramall v SSCLG [2011] JPL 1373 Wyn Williams J affirmed the four criteria of

abandonment approved by the Court of Appeal in the Hughes case and concluded that the weight to attach to each of the pillars is a matter of

planning judgment for the decision taker.

8. Turning to the evidence, I have had regard to the Statutory Declaration of Mr L Wishart who has been a director of Binsted Farms Ltd (the landowner) since 31

December 1991 and has been personally acquainted with the land in question and its historic use for many decades. He explains that the two bungalows




were of wooden construction. By 1998 both tenants and occupiers were in

poor health, one being 95 years of age, and struggling to live independently in such poor quality accommodation which was said to be “falling into a state of

disrepair where they have become uninhabitable”. Consequently, a planning application was made on 10 July 1998 to redevelop the site for a single detached dwelling. The covering letter explains that the prime reason for not

submitting proposals earlier was that the bungalows were still tenanted and one tenant had been given an undertaking by the landowner that he could

reside there as long as he wished. It is also pointed out that the Council’s Environmental Health Department was considering serving a Deferred Action Notice which would declare the dwellings unfit for human habitation and specify

the works necessary to make the premises fit for re-occupation.

9. After that date it is indicated that the roofs of both bungalows were removed to

avoid the possibility of squatters occupying the buildings. It is assumed by this stage that the tenants had moved out or been relocated. A further planning application (outline – WA/44/99) was made dated 7 June 1999 for a single

dwelling and the formation of a new access. Permission was granted subject to conditions on 6 August 1999. A subsequent reserved matters application

(WA/76/03) was refused on 23 October 2003 on the grounds of the adverse affect on the setting of the neighbouring listed building – The Glebe House – and the visual amenities of the locality. The matter was next explored in July

2009 when discussions took place concerning a scheme for a replacement dwelling with consideration being given to creating a separate means of access

to The Glebe House (plans showing alternative routes supplied). The scheme was said to be rejected once more on the basis of being too large, having an adverse effect on The Glebe House. It is not clear from the documentation that

this scheme was put forward as an application but Mr Wishart asserts that he considered appealing the decision but as it coincided with the economic

downturn and his wife’s illness he did not want to commit funds at that stage.

10. Moving on to 2012 an application (WA/68/12) was made by the owners of The Glebe House to improve the access onto Binsted Lane. This is said to have

been refused in March 2013. However, Mr Wishart refers to meetings that took place later that year to explore the access issue and the scope for a

replacement dwelling. He provides a copy of a letter from the agent at that time (Guilfoyle) dated 9 October 2013 which describes progress as “good” and contains statements that a Mr Cleveland, the planning officer involved “believes

he can support the new access arrangements” and that “a full planning application for residential development would be viewed positively subject to

the scale and mass of the dwelling/s and that it had a similar footprint to the previous dwellings”. It appears that no planning application was actually made

after that date.

11. As regards the tests which flow from court authority I will deal with each in turn. As to the physical condition of the building(s) there is little that remains

other than what is itemised in paragraph 3 above and clearly no dwelling capable of habitation. It is not clear how long it has taken for the former

buildings to deteriorate to what is left today but Mr Wishart has explained why the roofs were removed in 1999 to prevent squatting and I would anticipate that this led to the gradual decay and dereliction thereafter. It should be noted

however that the removal of the roofs was not undertaken in order to extinguish or remove the residential use altogether and that by August 1999 an

outline planning permission had been obtained for a replacement dwelling.




12. As to the second test, the length of time the dwellings have not been used is

from 1999. On the third test there is no indication of any intervening use that has supplanted or replaced the former residential use.

13. The final test is the intentions of the owner. Mr Wishart has set out in considerable detail his attempts to get planning permission for a replacement dwelling and this goes back to the time that the bungalows first became

unoccupied. They were not left to deteriorate and eventually collapse with the exception of what remains before any attempt was made to get planning

permission for an alternative dwelling. From what is before me as so described by Mr Wishart, with supporting documentation, he has repeatedly attempted to obtain a permission that can be implemented without success as far as a

detailed scheme is concerned. There are gaps of years between these attempts with some reasons given for why that was so. Looking at this

evidence objectively, as required, I consider it demonstrates a clear intention of the landowner to maintain the residential use of the land and not let it lapse by virtue of abandonment.

14. The Council argue that this intention is outweighed by the conclusions drawn on the other 3 tests but I do not consider that this is necessarily so and as

stated in Hughes it is a matter of judgment for the decision taker. The Council also claim that the failure to implement the planning permission militates against any intention to preserve the use. This point is weak at best as it is

appears that the Council have never granted a full planning permission or approved a reserved matters application and so it has been impossible for the

owner to actually implement and build a replacement dwelling. It is also evident that the proximity to a listed building (The Glebe House) and the problems relating to access have encumbered the attempts to actually obtain a

planning permission that could be implemented. From what I have read it was not for want of trying on the part of the owner on a number of occasions.

15. The appellant’s agent has also referred to two appeal decisions where abandonment was not found even though little remained of the original dwellings. The case in Warrington concerned a dwelling that was substantially

demolished in September 2004 following arson attacks, vandalism and concern over the presence of asbestos in the building. At that time a planning

permission had been obtained for a replacement dwelling but a subsequent application for a larger dwelling was refused in 2006. In 2007 the Inspector found that the appellant clearly had no intention of abandoning the residential

use of the site and that the circumstances in which demolition occurred were entirely understandable.

16. The other case concerned a bungalow in East Hertfordshire which was fire damaged in 1986 and was effectively demolished with only the concrete base

remaining by 2003. Notwithstanding this situation, the Inspector decided that there had always been the clear intention of the owners to erect a replacement dwelling and that the residential use rights had not been abandoned. These

two cases emphasise the important point that even though the dwellings may have effectively been demolished down to slab level and not used for

residential purposes for a number of years it does not mean that this use has been abandoned. I appreciate that each case is fact sensitive but this principle is relevant to the case in question.




17. Drawing these points together, I consider that the intention of the owner

supported by documentation has been to maintain the residential use of the land. I am satisfied, applying the relevant legal tests in an objective manner

that this use of the land has not been abandoned and remains the lawful use. From what is before me, unchallenged by the Council, the separate parcel of land to the east of the access drive appears to still be in residential use as

garden land and this is claimed to be the historic use taking place when the bungalows were occupied. I therefore find that this too remains in lawful use

for residential purposes.

18. For the reasons given above I conclude, on the evidence available, that the Council’s refusal to grant a LDC in respect of the residential use of the land was

not well-founded and that the appeal should succeed. I will exercise the powers transferred to me under section 195(2) of the 1990 Act as amended.

Formal Decision

19. The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use or development describing the extent of the existing use which is considered to

be lawful.

N P Freeman

INSPECTOR



Lawful Development Certificate TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: SECTION 191 (as amended by Section 10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991)

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND)

ORDER 2010: ARTICLE 35

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that on 12 February 2015 the use described in the First Schedule hereto in respect of the land specified in the Second Schedule hereto

and edged in red on the Plan A attached to this certificate, was lawful within the meaning of section 191(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for the following reason:

The land was occupied by a pair of bungalows and the residential use has not been

abandoned or supplanted by another lawful use.

Signed:

N P Freeman

Mr N P Freeman

Inspector

Date: 15 February 2016

Reference: APP/C3810/X/15/3035706

First Schedule:

The residential use of the land Second Schedule:

Land at Church Farm Bungalows site, Binsted Lane, Binsted, West Sussex, BN18 0LN




NOTES:

This certificate is issued solely for the purpose of Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

It certifies that the use described in the First Schedule taking place on the land specified in the Second Schedule was lawful, on the certified date and, thus, was not liable to enforcement action, under section 172 of the 1990 Act, on that date.

This certificate applies only to the extent of the use described in the First Schedule and to the land specified in the Second Schedule and identified on Plan A. Any use

which is materially different from that described, or which relates to any other land, may result in a breach of planning control which is liable to enforcement action by the local planning authority.



Plan A This is the plan referred to in the Lawful Development Certificate dated: 15 February 2016

by N P Freeman BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI DMS

Land at: Church Farm Bungalows site, Binsted Lane, Binsted, West Sussex,

BN18 0LN

Reference: APP/C3810/X/15/3035706



Costs Decision Site visit made on 8 December 2015

by Mr N P Freeman BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI DMS



Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/C3810/X/15/3035706 Church Farm Bungalows site, Binsted Lane, West Sussex, BN18 0LN

The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 195,

322 and Schedule 6 and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).

The application is made by Binsted Farms Ltd for a full award of costs against Arun

District Council.

The appeal was against the refusal of a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC)

for the residential use of the land.

Decision

1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.

Reasons

2. I have considered the application in the light of the advice contained in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on such matters. This advises

that irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused another party to incur or waste expense unnecessarily.

Submissions for the appellant

3. The Council have completely misunderstood the legal basis of the LDC

application and wrongly considered this on the basis that it was for a change of use of a building to a dwellinghouse and whether this had taken place for the requisite period of 4 years to claim lawfulness. The decision was predicated on

the erroneous belief that there needed be actual evidence of the presence of a habitable building throughout that four year period. This misguided approach,

which was based on the advice of the Council’s legal department, amounts to unreasonable behaviour which has led to the appellant incurring unnecessary expense in having to pursue the matter to appeal.

4. The original application was supported by legal submissions and examples of similar cases where it was held that residential use had not been abandoned

despite the fact that no habitable dwelling remained on the land in question. The Council’s assertions indicate that they still adopt the mistaken position in law which appears to be unlikely to change should a further application be

made. Whilst the central issue of abandonment was considered by the Council the conclusions drawn are in error because they are tainted by the association

with the “four year rule” and their misguided assertion that the absence of a dwelling means that the use has been abandoned. In these circumstances a full award of costs is justified.


Costs Decision: APP/C3810/X/15/3035706


Council’s response

5. There is no case for a costs award as the Council’s approach was correct and based on the applicant’s case. The application was made for a C3 use, that is

an existing dwelling, and also referred to residential land in connection with the dwellings formerly on the site. If there is no dwelling on the site it is not possible to make a case for the lawfulness of the existing use as sought. The

Council considered all aspects of the application including abandonment and the relevant case law was produced by the Council not the appellant. In

reaching their decision the Council were fully cognisant of the right approach in law and applied this correctly. For these reasons the application is resisted.

Inspector’s conclusions

6. The principal issue to consider is whether the Council’s decision to refuse the LDC application was unreasonable having regard to the legal context for

consideration of the application. The application form and supporting submissions, which included a detailed statement from the agent and a Statutory Declaration from the appellant, made it clear that the claim being

made was for the residential use of the land in connection with the dwellings formerly on the site. The claim was that although there were now only

vestigial remains of the 2 former dwellings the residential use had not been abandoned.

7. The Council’s reason for refusing the application refers what is known as the “4

year rule” arguing that there has been no continual residential use for that period of time prior to the submission of the application; I take this to mean in

the sense of dwellings occupied for residential purposes during that period. This was quite plainly not the basis of the application and I agree with the assertion for the appellant that the primary matter to consider was whether the

previous residential use had been abandoned. In this respect the decision makes no reference whatsoever to abandonment which is the central

consideration.

8. As stated in paragraph 4 of my Appeal Decision the approach adopted by the Council is erroneous and not the basis on which the claim for lawfulness was

founded. Moreover, even if it was correct to apply the time limits that flow from s171B of the 1990 Act, as amended, the application of the four year rule

was incorrect as there has been no change of use of a building to use as a single dwellinghouse [s171B(2)]. Any other use of land would fall to be considered under s171B(3) where a ten year period would be relevant. This

adds to my finding that the approach of the Council was misconceived and failed to properly apply the legislative provisions to the determination of the

application.

9. As to the matter of abandonment it is evident from reading the officer’s report

and the advice of the Council’s Solicitor contained therein that this was considered before a decision was reached and that the leading court authorities on this subject were taken into account. The fact that the Council reached a

different conclusion to the one I have arrived at concerning abandonment does not mean that they acted unreasonably. This was a matter of judgment based

on the facts. However, the conclusions reached include the repeated finding that because there was no dwelling on the land that could be occupied residentially the use claimed must have been abandoned. Neither the case law

referred to nor the two appeal decisions cited by the appellant’s agent in


Costs Decision: APP/C3810/X/15/3035706


submissions lead to this conclusion. Indeed it is apparent that it is possible,

having regard to all the accepted tests of relevance to the question of abandonment, that the lack of remaining habitable dwelling on land does not

mean that the former residential use has been abandoned. This finding adds to my conclusion that the Council misunderstood the legal framework and principles upon which their decision should have been founded.

10. Overall, for these combined reasons, I conclude that the Council’s handling and determination of the LDC application was misconceived and failed to correctly

apply the legal principles that were pertinent. The actual wording of the reason for not issuing a LDC indicates that there was a failure to grasp the true nature of the application and the principles upon which it was being pursued. I

therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described in Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), has been

demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.

Costs Order

11. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act

1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Arun

District Council shall pay to Binsted Farms Ltd, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision.

12. The applicant is now invited to submit to Arun District Council, to whom a copy

of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. In the event that the parties cannot agree on the

amount, a copy of the guidance note on how to apply for a detailed assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office is enclosed.

N P Freeman

INSPECTOR


AGENDA ITEM NO 11 .

ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 30 MARCH 2016 Recommendation Paper Subject : DEVELOPER VIABILITY APPRAISALS Report by : ANDY ELDER Report date: 11th March 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council receives viability appraisals from applicants and developers in support of their planning applications. The appraisals generally set out the financial rationale for why an application is unable to meet the Council’s planning obligations for affordable housing, but they are often presented as confidential items and not to be disclosed. In future to provide greater transparency to the public the Council will publish developer viability appraisals, either in full or part, if they fail to meet the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy requirements.

RECOMMENDATION Members are requested to note that that with immediate effect the Council will publish developer viability appraisals in full if they fail to meet the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy requirements. Only in exceptional circumstances will this not be applied and the reasons for doing so will be set out on the Council’s website.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Development viability is an increasingly important aspect in the process of determining planning applications. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that viability is an important consideration when local authorities negotiate planning obligations and affordable housing. The Guidance acknowledges that there is no single approach for assessing viability and that there are a range of methodologies available. It advocates for greater understanding of


viability through evidence based judgement (informed by relevant available facts), collaboration (with transparency of evidence wherever possible) and consistency.

1.2 The Council recognises the importance of public participation and the availability of viability information in the planning process. This enables members of the public to ascertain whether viability evidence is reasonable and robust, whilst helping to maintain confidence in the planning system and the accountability of those undertaking the assessments. This is particularly relevant in circumstances where it is argued that the Council’s affordable housing target or other policy requirements cannot be met due to financial viability. Public scrutiny strengthens public confidence in evidence used to influence the outcome of the planning process. An open book approach will enhance the transparency of the planning process and could increase public support for proposed development which fails to provide a policy compliant level of affordable housing.

1.3 The Council foresees that there would be very few exceptions and only if there is a convincing case, that disclosure of an element of viability assessment would cause harm to the public interest to an extent that is not outweighed by the benefits of disclosure. If an applicant believes this to apply to an element of their viability assessment and wishes to make a case for confidentiality they should provide a full justification. The Council will consider this carefully, having regard to the ‘adverse effect’ and overriding ‘public interest’ tests in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), decisions of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the First Tier Tribunal, as well as the specific circumstances of the case.

2.0 MAIN REPORT 2.1 It is typical for applicants to seek to place confidentiality restrictions on

viability information. This normally takes the form of requesting that the Council does not disclose information to a third party and seeking an exemption from disclosure under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the basis that this would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial information which protects a legitimate economic interest.

2.2 The issue of a lack of transparency within the viability assessment process

has been raised in a number of recent reports, including the House of Commons DCLG Select Committee 2014 review of the Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework. The review identified that more needs to be done to prevent unsustainable development, and that greater consistency and more transparency are needed to overcome issues with the viability process.


2.3 Confidentiality and transparency have also been considered in a number of recent (ICO) and First Tier Tribunal decisions, following requests to release the information under the EIR 2004. The EIR set out a presumption in favour of disclosure. Tests for an exemption to disclosure relate to the extent to which this would produce an ‘adverse effect’ and an overriding test relating to how the public interest would best be served. In these cases the ICO and First Tier Tribunal concluded either that there was insufficient evidence to show that disclosure would cause an adverse effect, such as harm to a commercial interest, or where harm would be caused, the public interest in disclosure outweighed non-disclosure. In January 2015, the First Tier Tribunal ruled that in the case of the Greenwich Peninsula site all of the viability information was central to assessing the application should be disclosed.

2.4 Information relevant to both plan making and the planning application process

is publically available. The benefits of transparency are set out in first recital to European Directive 2003/4, which the EIR (2004) are intended to implement.

‘Increased public awareness to environmental information and the

dissemination of such information contribute to a greater awareness of environmental matters, a free exchange of views, more effective participation by the public in environmental decision making and eventually, to a better environment’.

2.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also places a requirement

on Local Planning Authorities to be mindful of viability consideration when determining planning applications.

The NPPF (2012) (paragraph 173) states: ‘Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable’

2.6 For these reasons the Council considers that information submitted as a part of, and in support of a viability assessment should be treated transparently and be available for wider public scrutiny. In submitting information, applicants should do so in the knowledge that this would be made publically


available alongside other application documents, apart from in exceptional circumstances.

2.7 The Council will publish developer viability appraisal reports which are

submitted at the validation stage. In cases where an affordable housing offer changes during the application process, we will require a revised viability appraisal which will also be published prior to determination. Viability appraisals will therefore be published, in full prior to determination for all non-policy compliant schemes, unless agreed otherwise by the Director of Planning Services and Economic Regeneration

Background Papers: None Contact: Andy Elder – Housing Strategy and Enabling Manager ext 37714


AGENDA ITEM NO:12

ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 30 MARCH 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Decision Paper Subject: Arun Horticulture Sector: Local Development Order - Statutory Consultation. Report by: Karl Roberts Report date: 25 January 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Council has embraced the use of Local Development Orders (LDO), in respect of land at Butlins and is progressing this potential for Enterprise Bognor Regis, householder extensions and the horticulture sector. This proposal is to create an LDO that will focus on areas already used extensively by the horticultural industry within the Arun Local Plan area (Arun District Council administrative area excluding land within the boundary of the South Downs National Park). This value of the horticulture sector to the local economy is recognised and supported in the Arun Local Plan (2011 – 2031) and the Council’s Economic Strategy to 2026. The Council agreed to the preparation of a Local Development Order for the Horticulture Sector in 2015. Funding for this project was secured with support from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Reading Agricultural Consultants have prepared a Horticulture - Draft Local Development Order 2016 for the District Council (Appendix 1 to this report). LDOs are recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as a means of relaxing planning controls in appropriate areas, to promote economic, social or environmental gains, such as boosting enterprise. The scope of the LDO has been worked up to ensure an appropriate balance between risk and control mechanisms. The LDO aims to cover those cases where the Council almost always approves an application having gone through the full planning application processes. The LDO will be implemented for a period of 10 years from the date of its

adoption. Regular monitoring of the progress of development within the areas identified in the LDO will inform the case for review.

In preparing the draft LDO the consultants have engaged with a range of statutory

agencies, business, landowners and developers that may be affected by the LDO.


The result of this informal consultation has informed the draft LDO attached.

Subject to approval by this Committee and Full Council the draft LDO will be published for statutory consultation with the aim of it being “made” in 2016.

RECOMMENDATIONS – 1) To agree to carry out a statutory consultation from 7 April 2016, for a period of six

weeks, regarding the introduction of a Arun Horticulture - Local Development Order.

2) The Director of Planning & Economic Regeneration be given delegated authority to make any minor changes to the consultation documents, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning & Infrastructure

3) To report back to Development Control Committee and Full Council on the

response to this consultation exercise and to make recommendations as to the next steps.

1.0 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS

1.1 In recent years the Government has promoted the use of LDOs to remove the need to apply for planning permission in certain areas and in certain circumstances to reflect local conditions. A LDO can provide greater certainty for businesses and homeowners and potentially reduce costs for the Council. The following provides more information in response to the key questions that arise and sets out how an LDO will focus on areas already used extensively by the horticultural industry within the Arun Local Plan area might be introduced and will benefit the industry 1.2 The report is supported by several appendices:

• Appendix 1: Arun Horticulture – Draft Local Development Order 2016

• Appendix 2: Procedure for Making Local Development Orders

• Appendix 3: List of organisations and agencies to be consulted on the draft LDO

• Appendix 4: Equalities Impact Assessment

1.3 Local Development Orders (LDOs) were introduced with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and allow local planning authorities to remove the need for planning permission for certain specified forms of development. The Planning Act 2008 removes the requirement that LDOs must implement policies set out in adopted local development documents. The role and process of an LDO in extending permitted development rights in a Local Planning Authority area is set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (March 2014).


1.4 LDOs are recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as a means of relaxing planning controls in appropriate areas, to promote economic, social or environmental gains, such as boosting enterprise (paragraph 199). 1.5 The procedures for making a Local Development Order are set out in sections 61A to 61D and Schedule 4A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 38 and 41 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order (DMPO) 2015 (outlined in Appendix 2 to this report). 1.6 Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order (DMPO) 2015 outlines, in paragraph (1), that if a local planning authority proposes to make a LDO they shall first prepare: (a) A draft of the Order; and (b) A statement of their reasons for making the Order. 1.7 Article 38, paragraph (2), of the DMPO states that the statement of reasons

shall contain:

(a) A description of the development which the order would permit; and (b) A plan or statement identifying the land to which the order would relate. 1.8 The Arun Horticulture – Draft Local Development Order 2016, that meets

these requirements, is set out in Appendix 1 to this report.

1.9 The Arun Horticultural LDO has regard to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the European Directive 2014/52/EU. Insofar as the LDO relates to agricultural development, the Order does not permit any Schedule 2 development. This is inclusive of the requirements of Schedule 2, 1 (a): “Projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi‐natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes; the area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectare.” All applications for the development of greenfield land within the LDO areas are to be screened in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 3. Development proposed in the LDO areas subject to EIA would be subject to the standard planning application procedure What Does An LDO Do? 1.11 Under national planning legislation certain works (e.g. small household extensions) can be undertaken without having to come to the Council for planning permission. This is known as “permitted development”. Technically, planning permission is automatically granted for works falling within the specified limits by the national legislation. 1.12 A LDO effectively increases the range of works that can be built without having to make a specific application to the Council for planning permission.


The LDO itself grants planning permission automatically for any works that comply with its requirements. 1.13 This means that rather than having to make an application to have the planning merits of the case considered, what the applicant would be required to do under the LDO arrangements is to provide details to allow the Council to confirm that the works legitimately fell within the terms of the Order. 1.14 It is proposed that this requirement is met through the submission of a Pre- Development Notification from the applicant to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) (shown at Appendix E in the Draft LDO). The procedure is subject to a timetable of 28 days from the Council’s acknowledgement of receipt of the pre‐development form within which period the Council will write to the applicant or the nominated agent to confirm that either: (i) The proposed development is permitted by the LDO subject to the approval of the relevant conditions. (ii) The Council is unable to determine whether the proposed development is permitted under the terms of the LDO and further information is required to confirm compliance. (iii) The proposed development is not compliant with the LDO and is therefore not permitted under the terms of the LDO. 1.15 Should the Council not respond in writing within the stated time period, the proposed development may proceed at the applicant’s risk, subject to the commencement of development requirements being met. 1.16 Notwithstanding the prior notification process, it is important that the Council is aware that development is proceeding within the LDO area and in accordance with the terms of the LDO. Consequently, notice of commencement of a development will be submitted to the Council by means of a prescribed form at least 10 days before development starts. The form includes a declaration by the applicant that all the relevant conditions of the LDO are complied with or have been discharged. A copy of the prescribed Development Commencement Notice is included at Appendix F to the LDO. 1.17 Retrospective applications for development permitted under this LDO will not be considered by the Local Planning Authority, and will be subject to the standard planning application and enforcement procedures.

1.18 It is proposed that a fee, of £200.00, will be charged by the Council to carry out this assessment with a response made to the applicant within 28 days of a valid form being received and acknowledged. This fee level has been determined taking account of benchmark data from PAS and other LPAs, experience elsewhere and analysis of current costs in ADC for similar administrative processes. 1.19 If the scheme falls within the limits specified in the LDO and the associated procedures have been complied with, then it is granted planning permission by the Order without having to make a formal application to the Council. There


would be no consultation by the Council with neighbours or the Parish Council and no opportunity for Members to become involved in the case. Whether we like what is proposed or not or whether the neighbours or the Parish object, they do not get considered under the LDO and there is no scope for Member involvement. In essence, it becomes an administrative matter of checking factual compliance with the LDO. 1.20 If the proposals are permitted by the LDO then development may proceed without further reference to the LPA. However, prior to commencement of development any relevant planning conditions, as set out in the LDO, will also need to be discharged (shown at Appendix C of the draft LDO). Local Development Orders only deal with land use planning matters, and do not remove the need to comply with other relevant legislation and regulations, such as Building Regulations.

1.21 If the proposals are not permitted by the LDO then applicants still have the option of submitting a formal planning application for their proposals in the usual way. The LDO does not prevent alternative schemes coming forward as regular planning applications.

What Are The Benefits Of Moving To An LDO for Horticulture in Arun?

1.22 The “statement of reasons” set out in Section 2 Arun Horticulture Sector: Local Development Order identifies the main benefits. They can be summarised as:

a) To help facilitate redevelopment and investment in those areas where the horticulture sector concentrated in the Arun Local Planning Area though an accelerated, simplified and more cost effective planning process;

b) To build upon the positive planning framework provided by the Arun Local Plan (2003) and emerging policy as set out in Policy HOR DM1 of the Arun Local Plan (Publication Version 2014).

c) Currently, within the District, there is a range of individual horticultural circumstances which give rise to differing planning requirements dependent up the size of holdings and nature of particular development requirements. One of the purposes of the LDO is to reduce or remove this differential element in planning circumstances and provide horticultural businesses within the defined LDO area with a greater degree of certainty as to the scale and nature of future developments and investments which the Council perceives as appropriate.

1.23 The LPA only deals with a relatively small number of planning applications for Horticulture Uses. However the length of time to determine them can be between 26 and 52 weeks.

1.24 The processes for an application for planning permission include validating the application, publicity, consultations with the Town/Parish Council and in most cases technical consultations, site visits, professional assessment, reports being written and in some cases, the application being considered by Development Control Committee. Inevitably all this takes weeks and costs both the Council and the applicant money. Until the decision notice is issued, the applicant has no certainty about the outcome or the timescale


1.25 With an LDO, the planning application process would entail applicants showing compliance with the LDO .The Council acting as local planning authority can then decide, within a specified time frame, whether or not the proposals are permitted by the LDO.

1.26 This should reduce the time the Council has to spend on the application and reduces other operating costs for both the Council and consultees. The Authority would lose the planning application fee, but under the arrangements the Council are proposing a levy is charged to cover costs, where the applicant makes use of the Pre-Development Notification process. 1.27 In the event that the Pre-Development Notification process determines that a normal planning application is required it is proposed that fee received to validate compliance against the LDO be transferred to the required planning application (provided the applicant proceeds with an application). This will ensure that the applicant does not have to pay twice for the same proposal. What Would The LDO Apply To? 1.28 The LDO would apply in to 12 specific areas in the LPA each defined by a “red line” boundary. Appendix A of the draft LDO shows the individual sites in detail and they are described in Appendix B to the draft LDO. 1.29 The permitted development to be allowed by the draft LDO and the development parameters are detailed in Section 5 of the draft LDO. 1.30 The permitted development shall comprise works to :

a) Renew, replace or extend existing areas of glasshouses or polytunnels; b) Upgrade areas of polytunnels to glasshouses; c) Renew, replace or extend existing packhouse and distribution buildings d) Construct water storage reservoirs; and/or e) Provide engineered operational services or access routes (including

parking areas) and plant/structures external to any proposed glasshouse, polytunnel or packhouse where these are essential to the proper functioning of the glasshouse, polytunnel, or packhouse and/or comply with development parameters or conditions set out in the Order.

1.31 Development proposals for permitted uses will be able to proceed without a planning application, subject to compliance with these parameters, the design guide and the discharge of relevant planning conditions listed in the Order. A key element of the development parameters (shown at Tables 1-5 in the draft Order) is to ensure both flexibility for horticulture businesses while aiming to ensure that the permitted development fits into the local landscape, environmental impacts are mitigated and, where necessary, local amenity is maintained.

1.32 A design guide is included in the draft LDO (shown at Appendix D to the draft LDO). The purpose of the design guide is to ensure that a satisfactory


standard of development is achieved within the proposed LDO areas. The design guide sets out flexible design guidelines for development permitted by the LDO. Its purpose is not intended to fix the ‘design’ of development but to establish an overarching design context for the form and layout of acceptable development.

1.33 Any scheme that exceeds or fails to meet the requirements of the LDO would need planning permission through the normal route. This does not mean it will not be granted, but does allow a full assessment to be made, together with the necessary publicity and consultation. 1.34 Any enforcement complaints about development built under the terms of the LDO will have to be investigated in the normal manner. There may be some increase in the number of enforcement complaints as the normal planning mechanisms for people to be aware of the development will not apply. 1.35 The LDO will be implemented for a period of 10 years from the date of

adoption, but will be reviewed before this date to determine whether an extension to the timescale should be considered, whether the terms should revised, or whether it should be allowed to lapse. Regular monitoring of the progress of development within the LDO area will inform these reviews. 1.36 The LDO includes a framework for monitoring progress. The key measures are: The amount of permitted development and completions for horticulture development in the LDO, net job retention/generation and type of land uses permitted or completed by floorspace. This is will enable the measurement of the LDO ambitions against outcomes and help inform any reviews. What Happens Next? 1.37 The next step is for the Council to agree the draft LDO and action a statutory consultation process, for a period of not less than 28 days. It is proposed to have a six week consultation period as a 28 day consultation period would fall close to an election. Any representations received within the consultation period shall be taken into account by the LPA in deciding what modifications should be made to the draft LDO or whether such Order should be adopted. 2.0 OPTIONS

2.1 At this stage the Council can decide to proceed or not with this initiative.

3.0 IMPLICATIONS

3.1 These have been set out above. 4.0 REASON FOR THE DECISION

4.1 To enable the Council to support the economic development of the District in line with the Arun Local Plan and Economic Strategy; to offer a faster and


more certain outcome to customers and also create the potential opportunity for a cost reduction for the Service.

Background Papers:

None

Contact:

Karl Roberts Director of Planning Services and Economic Regeneration Ext. 37760


Appendix 1: Arun Horticulture – Draft Local Development Order 2016.

Appendix 2: Procedure for Making Local Development Orders

Appendix 3: List of organisations and agencies to be consulted on the draft LDO

Appendix 4: Equalities Impact Assessment


APPENDIX 1


Horticulture

Draft Local Development Order

Statutory Consultation ‐ February 2016


Arun Dis

Co

Intr1

Sta2

Ove3

Per4

Aru5

App

App

App

App

App

App

strict Counci

ontents

roduction an

tement of R

erview of the

rmitted Deve

un Horticultu

LDO Area ..

General Pe

Planning co

Complianc

Complianc

Pre‐develo

Developme

Environme

Monitoring

pendix A: M

pendix B: De

pendix C: Co

pendix D: LD

pendix E: Pre

pendix F: No

l

nd purpose o

easons ........

e site opport

elopment ....

ural Develop

....................

ermitted Dev

onditions an

e with the LD

e with other

opment notif

ent commen

ental Impact

g and review

aps 1 to 12 S

escription of

onditions and

DO Design Gu

e‐Developme

otice of Inten

of this docum

....................

tunities and

....................

ment Local D

....................

velopment O

d informativ

DO Design G

r legislation ..

fication ........

ncement not

Assessment

w ...................

Showing LDO

LDO Areas

d Informative

uide

ent Notificat

ntion to Start

D

2

ment ............

....................

constraints .

....................

Developmen

....................

Order ............

ves ...............

Guide ............

....................

....................

ice ...............

...................

....................

O Areas

es

tion Form

t Developme

Draft Local D

....................

....................

....................

....................

t Order ........

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

ent Form

Development

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

t Order ‐ Hor

03 Febru

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

rticulture

ary 2016

............. 1

............. 2

............. 4

............. 5

............. 7

............. 7

........... 13

........... 13

........... 14

........... 14

........... 14

........... 15

........... 15

........... 16


Foreword to Statutory Consultation

This is Arun District Council’s ‘draft for consultation’ of the proposed Horticultural Development

Local Development Order. Consultation is a statutory requirement in accordance with the Town and

Country Planning Act, Part 3 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management

Procedure (England) Order 2015, Part 8.

Consultees are invited to comment on the statement of reasons for preparing the Order and the

content of the draft LDO.

Subject to the outcome of this consultation on this draft LDO, the Council will consider whether to

resolve to confirm it and use it for development management purposes.


Arun Dis

Intr1

1.1 Arun

for se

1.2 The L

Plann

(Engl

consu

1.3 Local

Act 2

certa

LDOs

proce

set o

1.4 LDOs

plann

as bo

1.5 Artic

Orde

LDO

(

(i

1.6 Artic

(i

(ii

1.7 This d

A ma

Appe

1.8 The L

revie

consi

strict Counci

oduction

District Cou

everal sites w

LDO has bee

ning Act, Par

land) Order 2

ultation in ac

l Developme

2004 and allo

ain specified

s must imple

ess of an LDO

ut in the Pla

s are recogni

ning controls

oosting enter

le 38 of the T

er (DMPO) 20

it shall first p

(i) a draft

ii) a statem

le 38 paragra

) a descri

) a plan o

document co

ap identifying

endix A.

LDO will be i

ewed before

idered, whet

l

and purp

uncil (ADC) (t

within the Di

n prepared b

rt 3 and the T

2015, Part 8.

ccordance w

ent Orders (L

ow local plan

forms of dev

ment all pol

O in extendin

nning Practi

sed in the N

s in appropri

rprise (parag

Town and Co

015 paragrap

prepare:

of the order

ment of their

aph (2) of th

iption of the

or statement

ontains the s

g the area of

mplemented

this date to

ther the term

ose of thi

he Local Plan

istrict, referr

by Arun Distr

Town and Co

. Preparation

with the legis

LDOs) were in

nning author

velopment. T

icies set out

ng permitted

ce Guidance

ational Plann

ate areas to

graph 199).

ountry Plann

ph 1 outlines

; and

r reasons for

e DMPO stat

developmen

t identifying

statement of

f land to whi

d for a period

determine w

ms should be

D

1

s docume

nning Autho

red to in this

rict Council i

ountry Plann

n of the Orde

lation and be

ntroduced w

ities to remo

The Planning

in adopted l

d developme

e (March 201

ning Policy F

promote ec

ning (Develop

s how if a loc

r making the

tes that the

nt which the

the land to w

f reasons for

ch the Order

d of ten year

whether an e

e revised, or

Draft Local D

ent

rity) is adopt

document a

n accordanc

ing (Develop

er has includ

est practice.

with the Plann

ove the need

g Act 2008 re

local develop

ent rights in a

14).

Framework (N

onomic, soc

pment Mana

cal planning a

e order.

statement o

e order woul

which the or

r making the

r relates (the

rs from the d

extension to

whether it s

Development

ting a Local D

as ‘the LDO’.

e with the To

pment Mana

ed formal an

ning and Com

d for planning

emoves the r

pment docum

a Local Plann

NPPF) as a m

ial or environ

agement Pro

authority pro

f reasons sh

d permit; an

der would re

LDO and the

e LDO area) i

date of adopt

the timescal

hould be allo

t Order ‐ Hor

03 Febru

Developmen

own and Co

agement Proc

nd statutory

mpulsory Pu

g permission

requirement

ments. The r

ning Authorit

means of rela

nmental gain

ocedure) (Eng

oposes to m

all contain:

nd

elate

e scope of th

is included in

tion, but wil

le should be

owed to laps

rticulture

ary 2016

nt Order

untry

cedure)

rchase

n for

t that

role and

ty area is

axing

ns, such

gland)

ake a

he LDO.

n

l be

se.


Arun Dis

Stat2

2.1 Horti

numb

glass

distri

2.2 The C

secto

deve

issue

costs

and e

locat

2.3 The C

issue

2.4 The L

conce

upgra

of th

facilit

more

empl

2.5 The A

strate

busin

oppo

horti

requ

2.6 A pla

local

Arun

will b

glass

deve

These

lands

(nois

relev

that

2.7 Addit

Plann

secto

strict Counci

tement of

iculture is a k

ber of localit

houses and

ibution and w

Council’s Eco

ors which are

lopment and

es in relation

s. In respond

external dev

tions.

Council is com

es through th

LDO is aimed

entrated. Th

aded infrastr

e Sector in t

tate redevel

e cost‐effecti

loyment pro

Arun Local P

egic land use

ness environ

ortunity, and

culture is a s

irements and

anning frame

plan, which

Local Plan (

be taken forw

house, polyt

lopment sub

e ensure tha

scape or neig

e and lightin

vant horticult

permitted de

tional to the

ning (Genera

or, and thus

l

f Reasons

key employm

ties. Horticul

polytunnels,

water manag

onomic Strat

e particularly

d job creatio

to economie

ding to these

elopment, m

mmitted to a

he policies in

d at existing a

hese are perc

ructure and

he face of ex

opment and

ive planning

spects.

lan (Publicat

e policy fram

ment which

also conditi

significant co

d aspirations

ework for ho

expands on

2003). For th

ward in its cu

tunnel and a

bject to its co

at horticultur

ghbouring ur

ng impacts) f

tural develop

evelopment

above polic

al Permitted

horticulture

ment sector i

tural activiti

, open field p

gement facil

egy to 2026

y strong in th

n. While the

es of scale, t

e issues, the

mainly reside

assisting the

its developm

and new hor

ceived as the

technology i

xternal land

investment

process, wit

tion Version)

mework for th

enables inve

ons in which

omponent of

s.

rticultural in

the existing

he purposes

urrent or a si

ssociated pa

ompliance w

ral developm

rban environ

or neighbou

pment propo

within it wil

y framework

Developmen

already enjo

D

2

in the Arun D

ies include p

production, a

ities.

identifies th

he local econ

e sector has s

the quality of

Sector has e

ential, pressu

Horticulture

ment plan an

rticultural en

e areas wher

is most need

use pressure

in these are

th a view to s

) (2011‐2013

he District. T

estment in id

h businesses

f the District

nvestment is

framework

of this state

imilar scope

ackhouse dev

with a range o

ment does no

nment, or int

ring resident

osals outside

l be of a less

k are the pro

nt) (England)

oys some rel

Draft Local D

District and i

rotected cro

and ancillary

e Horticultu

nomy with go

significant po

f existing inf

experienced s

ures on some

e Sector to re

nd the propo

nterprises in

re the need f

ded, and whe

es. Conseque

eas through a

safeguarding

3) contains th

The Local Pla

dentified gro

can flourish

’s economy,

set out in Po

(notably Pol

ment, it is as

and format.

velopment a

of siting, des

ot adversely

troduce high

tial propertie

e the LDO are

ser quality.

ovisions of Pa

) Order 2015

ief from full

Development

s particularly

opping associ

y produce pa

re Sector as

ood opportu

otential for g

rastructure,

some locatio

e traditional

espond effec

osed LDO.

areas where

or investmen

ere there has

ently, the Co

an accelerate

g and promo

he emerging

n seeks to cr

owth location

. It recognise

and has imp

olicy HOR DM

icy DEV3) of

ssumed that

This policy a

nd is permis

ign and oper

affect the ch

way safety o

es. These pro

ea, but there

art 6 of the T

5, whereby th

planning con

t Order ‐ Hor

03 Febru

y concentrat

iated with

cking and

one of four

nities for eco

growth, it fac

and product

onal rational

horticultura

ctively to the

e the Sector

nt in new an

s been some

ouncil wishes

ed, simplified

oting econom

spatial strat

reate a posit

ns and areas

es that comm

portant inves

M1 of the em

f the current

t Policy HOR

applies to ne

ssive of such

rational crite

haracter of th

or nuisance i

ovisions app

e is no expec

Town and Co

he agricultur

ntrol by virtu

rticulture

ary 2016

ted in a

key

onomic

ces

tion

isation,

l

ese

is

nd/or

e erosion

s to

d and

mic and

tegy and

ive

of

mercial

stment

merging

adopted

DM1

ew

eria.

he

ssues

ly to

ctation

ountry

ral

ue of


Draft Local Development Order ‐ Horticulture

Arun District Council 3 03 February 2016

permitted development rights attributed to some agricultural development in particular

circumstances. A distinction is drawn between agricultural units of excess of 5ha in size and those

between 0.4ha and 5ha. In the former circumstances, new buildings and extensions and

alterations to existing buildings are permitted, subject to some qualifications in respect of size,

design and use, while only extension and alteration of existing buildings is permitted on the

smaller units. In both cases the prior approval of the local planning authority may be required in

relation to the siting, design and external appearance of buildings. However, the planning process

is simpler and quicker that that associated with a full planning application.

2.8 Currently, within the District, there is a range of individual horticultural circumstances which give

rise to differing planning requirements dependent up the size of holdings and nature of particular

development requirements. One of the purposes of the LDO is reduce or remove this differential

element in planning circumstances and provide horticultural businesses within the defined LDO

area with a greater degree of certainty as to the scale and nature of future developments and

investments which the Council perceives as appropriate. Consequently, the LDO seeks to bring to

small horticultural units the benefits of the GPDO currently available to the larger units, and to

extend some of the qualifying criteria for permitted development in the GPDO to reflect the

particular characteristics of the Horticultural Sector, especially in relation to protected cropping.

The approach will also enable a review of the significant disparities in the current cost of meeting

planning requirements.

2.9 The LDO will specify the scale and nature of developments which will be permitted within the

defined area. Development proposals on sites inside the LDO area which fall outside the

specification, and development proposals outside the LDO area will remain subject to existing

national permitted development rights and/or the development management approach of Policy

HOR DM1. For such development proposals there is, however, no lessening of the Council’s

commitment to encourage and support the prospects of the Horticultural Sector, merely a

specific scrutiny of individual proposals.

2.10 The LDO is not a planning approach that seeks to preclude horticultural development in those

parts of the District outside the defined areas. It merely seeks to assist those producers operating

in the existing concentrations of activity by reducing the number of existing layers of planning

process for particular forms of development. Consultation with producers has, however,

identified a high level of concern as to the potential adverse consequences of having land inside

and outside the LDO area in relation to the pattern of land occupancy (owned and rented), the

long term aspirations of landowners, and land value and market effects.

2.11 It is important to emphasise, therefore, that for existing producers and potential new producers

with interest in land outside the LDO area the planning framework will be unchanged from that

pertaining at the present time. For those within the LDO area, landowners will be free to make

the same decisions in respect of their own investments and those proposed by tenants as at

present. The LDO only seeks to facilitate those decisions where these seek new horticultural

development.


Arun Dis

Ove3

3.1 Horti

the p

crops

field‐

coast

inten

Easte

3.2 With

mode

of th

Distr

pote

alter

sites

3.3 By ea

Coun

tradit

neigh

3.4 The v

as a s

and e

plann

recre

Horti

contr

3.5 The m

const

emer

the L

3.6 The A

chan

deve

indic

lands

3.7 The A

resou

objec

furth

deve

strict Counci

erview of t

icultural acti

protected en

s. The intens

‐based opera

tal belt, part

nsive horticu

ergate and W

in the intens

ern high tech

e latter have

ict Council w

ntial for the

native to dec

elsewhere w

asing and cla

ncil hopes to

tional locatio

hbouring com

villages on w

strategic pla

enhanced de

ning for the w

eational gree

iculture Sect

ribution to th

meeting of th

traints. Thes

rging Neighb

LDO area and

Arun Landsca

ge, deriving

lopment. Th

ating that de

scape charac

Arun Local P

urces of the

ctive. Conseq

her developm

lopment ele

l

the site o

vity in Arun

vironments

sive forms of

ations are ca

ly outside Ar

ltural units, w

Westergate, a

sive units the

h production

e been the so

wishes to con

developmen

cline and th

within the Di

arifying the p

encourage t

ons, and to i

mmunities.

which the ma

nning locatio

evelopment w

whole area a

en infrastruct

tor has an op

his framewo

hese objectiv

se are addre

bourhood De

d the develop

ape Study rig

an assessme

e coastal pla

evelopment

cter.

lan has a stra

District and

quently the o

ment to a lim

ments in the

pportunit

District is es

of glasshous

f activity are

rried out on

run District. T

which is pred

and existing

ere is a wide

n units to sm

ource of pres

ntrol. Conseq

nt of an enha

e continued

strict or bey

planning requ

the Horticult

nvest in the

in protected

on for which

with a ‘Gard

and the reten

ture as a con

pportunity th

rk.

ves is subjec

ssed in the d

evelopment P

pment param

gorously con

ent of the ca

ain was gene

would be lik

ategic object

contains dev

overarching

ited range o

e countryside

D

4

ties and co

sentially of t

ses or polytu

mainly conc

farmland to

The LDO prim

dominantly i

key operatio

e range of en

mall units with

ssure for red

quently, the

anced and re

relocation o

ond.

uirements fa

tural Sector t

future of the

d crop produ

the emergin

en City’ etho

ntion and de

ntext for the

hrough its inv

ct to some ne

development

Plans. The co

meters for pe

nsidered the

pacity of ind

erally assesse

kely to have a

tive to conse

velopment m

planning app

of activities, a

e.

Draft Local D

onstraints

two types; in

nnels, and e

centrated in o

o the north o

marily addre

in and aroun

onal location

terprise circ

h old and/or

development

Council iden

enewed Hort

of the more p

aced by prod

to consolidat

e sector in w

ction is cent

ng developm

os. This will

evelopment o

separate co

vestment de

ecessary env

t plan and its

onstraints ha

ermitted dev

value of land

dividual lands

ed has having

a detrimenta

erve the coun

management

proach to th

and to conta

Development

s

ntensive culti

xtensive field

or adjacent t

of the built‐u

esses the con

nd the village

s for the fiel

umstances ra

rundown in

t for housing

tifies these a

ticultural Sec

progressive p

ucers with th

te and renew

ways which be

red are ident

ment plan see

entail a degr

of a high qua

mmunities w

cisions to ma

vironmental a

s emerging s

ave informed

velopments w

dscapes and

scapes to acc

g a low/med

al and signific

ntryside and

policies to s

e countrysid

in isolated a

t Order ‐ Hor

03 Febru

ivation of cro

d production

to settlemen

p area along

ncentration o

es of Barnham

ld producers

anging from

frastructure

g; a pressure

areas as hav

ctor, as an

producers to

he LDO area

w itself in the

enefit both i

tified by the

eks to promo

ree of maste

ality visual an

within it. The

ake a positiv

and planning

successor an

d the definit

within it.

their sensiti

commodate

dium capacity

cant effect o

d landscape

support that

de is to restri

and sporadic

rticulture

ary 2016

ops in

n of

nts, while

g the

of

m,

.

large

. Some

the

ing the

o new

s, the

e

it and its

Council

ote new

r

nd

e

ve

g

d the

ion of

ivity to

y

on

ct


Arun Dis

3.8 It is a

accom

agric

3.9 A fur

of are

ident

deve

does

3.10 With

satisf

Gree

chan

illust

conse

flood

3.11 In thi

alrea

seeki

that t

coun

holdi

Perm4

4.1 In the

is on

regen

of ac

repla

scale

supp

deve

deve

stand

4.2 A ser

Deve

comp

they

4.3 The p

tried

exten

contr

strict Counci

accepted wit

mmodated.

ultural propo

rther key ele

eas as Green

tities of part

lopment is s

not prejudic

in the settle

factorily are

n Gaps, wer

ge. Neverthe

rate concern

ervation of lo

ding issues.

is context th

ady establish

ing to simplif

this achieved

tryside and s

ings.

mitted De

e light of pre

developmen

neration and

tivities on th

acement, ren

e extensions

ort plant and

lopments ar

lopment pro

d‐alone solar

ries of develo

elopment pro

pliance with,

are in accord

parameters f

and tested c

nsion and alt

rolled by crit

l

thin the plan

However, th

osals.

ment of the

n Gaps, whic

icular settlem

strictly limite

ce its purpos

ment setting

greater, and

e identified i

eless, at the

ns relating to

ocally impor

e LDO conce

ed and in th

fy the planni

d in a manne

settlements

evelopme

eceding cons

nts within th

d modernisat

he proposed

newal or upg

to these pro

d buildings, n

re external p

oposals, inclu

r arrays and

opment para

oposals will b

, and the disc

dance with t

for the perm

criteria for p

teration of a

teria which:

ning framew

he constraint

Local Plan st

h are intend

ments and p

d to that wh

se.

g the opport

d some adjoi

in the Arun L

detailed leve

o the improv

rtant open sp

erns itself on

e immediate

ing process f

er which miti

and enhance

nt

sideration of

e core areas

tion and invo

developmen

grading of ex

otected envir

notably pack

lant and eng

uding, but no

wind turbine

ameters and

be able to pr

charge of, re

the developm

mitted develo

ermitted dev

gricultural b

D

5

work that the

ts referred to

trategy for th

ed to be pro

reclude thei

hich must ne

unities for d

ning areas o

Landscape St

el of plannin

vement of the

paces and vie

nly with locat

e area surrou

for new inve

igates any ex

es the opera

the opportu

s of existing h

olve little or

nt sites. Perm

isting areas o

ronments, an

khouse facilit

gineering wo

ot restricted

es.

permitted u

roceed witho

elevant plann

ment parame

opment with

velopment c

uildings on u

Draft Local D

e operationa

o above appl

he countrysi

otected in ord

r coalescenc

cessarily be

evelopment

f countryside

tudy as havin

ng, the emerg

e quality of n

ews, and to t

tions where a

unding some

stment in th

xisting detrim

ational and v

unities and co

horticultural

only modest

mitted develo

of glasshous

nd the provis

ties. Exclude

rks not direc

to: energy f

uses are inclu

out a plannin

ning conditio

eters.

in the LDO a

covered by th

units of less t

Development

l needs of ag

y to the cons

de is the def

der to retain

e. Within the

located with

to be accom

e, with the e

ng a higher c

ging Neighbo

new develop

the alleviatio

agricultural d

of those loc

e Horticultu

mental effect

isual charact

onstraints, th

activities wh

t changes in

opments the

es and polyt

sion of appro

d from the p

ctly associate

facilities (ana

uded in the L

ng application

ons listed in t

rea have bee

he GPDO. In

than 5ha in s

t Order ‐ Hor

03 Febru

griculture ha

sideration of

finition of a n

n the separat

ese areas fu

hin a gap and

mmodated

exception of

capacity to a

ourhood Plan

pments, to th

on of traffic a

developmen

cations. Whi

ral Sector, it

ts on the

teristics of e

he focus of t

hich facilitat

the existing

erefore inclu

tunnels and s

opriately sca

permitted

ed with hort

aerobic diges

LDO (Tables 1

n, subject to

the Order, w

en derived fr

relation to t

size, develop

rticulture

ary 2016

ve to be

f

number

te

rther

d which

the

ccept

ns

he

and

nt is

ile

t intends

xisting

the LDO

e

impacts

de the

small‐

led

icultural

sters,

1 to 6).

o

where

rom the

the

pment is




(i) preclude an increase in building height;

(ii) limit development to a maximum increase in cubic content to 10%;

(iii) limit development to a siting within 30m of existing buildings;

(iv) limit development to a maximum footprint of 465m2;

(v) preclude development within 5m of the unit boundary.

4.4 These criteria of scale, proportionality and proximity are, in principle, a reasonable basis on which

to approach the development permitted within the LDO area on units of whatever size. Existing

permitted development rights are not removed by the LDO, but the benefits are clarified and

extended in their application and intended to enable the progress of more comprehensive and

integrated developments.

4.5 The main issues in relation to the application of the GPDO criteria to the Horticultural Sector,

particularly in respect of glasshouse development, are those of height and area, in the larger

production units especially, investment in new glass (whether replacement or extension)

invariably requires increases in the height of structures and developments that exceed the 465m2

footprint Permitted Development threshold. The development parameters for the LDO therefore

extend the existing GPDO approach to accommodate these specific issues. They do so by setting

maximum height and area thresholds for the permitted developments, which are tailored to the

parcels identified within the LDO. By these means the LDO seeks to ensure that new investment

is of a scale and nature relevant to existing circumstances, and provides scope for the

accommodation of the development within the landscape and residential contexts of individual

sites.

4.6 Permitted development is generally primarily concerned with built structures, rather than plant

and engineering operations. However, some built development will necessarily require

associated plant and/or engineering works to enable it to function effectively. Where this is

demonstrably the case, it will be incorporated within the scope of the permitted development.

4.7 Where plant is contained within new or altered built structures permitted by the LDO, including

glasshouses and polytunnels, the dimensional parameters for those structures will apply. Insofar

as plant and engineering operations are required to support new development and are not

included within the built footprint, or exceed the dimensional parameters for permitted

developments, the general siting and design guidance in the LDO is relevant. Where such

operations are not included within a comprehensive proposal, the normal provisions of the GPDO

will apply.


Arun Dis

Aru5

LDO

5.1 The A

only

Perm

5.2 The d

(

(i

(ii

(iv

(v

Deve

5.3 Only

term

subje

appli

5.4 The L

horti

differ

to be

show

LDO,

5.5 Table

strict Counci

n Horticu

Area

Arun Horticu

within the b

mitted Develo

development

(i) renew,

ii) upgrade

ii) renew,

v) constru

v) provide

plant/st

these a

packho

Order.

elopment Pa

developmen

s of the LDO

ect to norma

cation to be

LDO areas co

cultural use.

rent land use

e applied wit

wing LDOs are

existing are

es 1‐6 below

l

ltural Dev

ultural Develo

oundaries id

opment

ts permitted

replace or e

e areas of po

replace or e

uct water sto

e engineered

tructures ex

are essentia

use and/or t

arameters

nt proposals

O. Proposals w

al planning co

made to the

omprise eithe

. Three of th

es will be pe

hin the LDO

e provided in

as of protect

w set out whic

velopmen

opment Loca

dentified on t

d by the Orde

xtend existin

olytunnels to

xtend existin

rage reservo

d operationa

ternal to an

al to the p

to comply w

that comply

which are no

ontrols and w

e local plann

er single or m

he LDO areas

rmitted or e

area accord

n Appendix A

ted cropping

ch developm

D

7

t Local De

al Developm

the LDO area

er shall comp

ng areas of g

o glasshouse

ng packhous

oirs; and/or

l surfaces or

y proposed

proper func

with developm

y with the re

ot in accorda

will require t

ning authority

multiple parc

s have been z

xcluded, and

ing to partic

A. The zonin

g and adjace

ment parame

Draft Local D

evelopme

ent Order (t

a plans (App

prise works t

glasshouses o

s;

e and distrib

r access rout

glasshouse,

ctioning of

ment param

levant param

ance with the

the appropri

y.

cels with exis

zoned. Zone

d to enable s

ular characte

ng relates pri

nt land uses

eters apply to

Development

nt Order

he LDO) perm

endix A).

to:

or polytunne

bution buildin

tes (includin

polytunnel

the glassho

eters or con

meters are pe

e defined par

ate prior not

sting or rece

es are used t

specific deve

eristics or co

marily to the

.

o each of the

t Order ‐ Hor

03 Febru

mits develop

els;

ngs;

ng parking ar

or packhous

ouse, polytu

ndition set o

ermitted und

rameters wi

tification or

ently‐abando

to indicate w

elopment par

onstraints. Pl

e size of the

e LDO areas.

rticulture

ary 2016

pment

reas) and

se where

unnel or

ut in the

der the

ll be

planning

oned

where

rameters

lans

relevant




Table 1 General Development Parameters

Development parameter Exceptions Reasons

1. LDO area Development is only permitted within the LDO boundaries as defined by Plans 1 – 12 (Appendix A), and where it is in accordance with the development parameters

None To comply with the provisions of the LDO following statutory consultation and approved by the local planning authority

2. General provisions

Development is only permitted where it is reasonably necessary for the purposes of Horticulture with the operational unit and is designed for those purposes

None To ensure the integrity of the developments permitted.

3. Maximum area

No single development will exceed the LDO area subject to other development parameters

None To minimise visual and amenity impact and respect the landscape setting

4. Siting No single development will take place in excess of 30m from existing buildings or structures


5. Building scale

Building heights (including glasshouses, polytunnels and plant) must not exceed those heights stated in the parameter plans applicable to a particular Zone


6. Ancillary plant and engineering works

Standalone ancillary plant and engineering works not integrated with proposals for eligible buildings/structures are not permitted under the LDO


7. Highway access

No part of the development will obstruct access to or from the public highway, or obscure the sight lines of any road junction or access/egress to the highway

None To ensure satisfactory highway access

8. Highway access

The formation of new accesses to the public highway is not permitted unless subject to separate authorisation

None To ensure satisfactory highway access

9. Surface water

All permitted development will include provision(s) for the capture, re‐use and/or attenuation of rainwater runoff

None To minimise the risk of flooding both on and off site





10. Residential and general amenity

No part of the development will be permitted within 5m of a public right of way

The prescription on right of way is waived where the right of way is already shared with operational activity within the unit

To minimise the risk of nuisance and loss of amenity to residents

11. Landscape No part of the development will be permitted within 15m of existing hedge or tree planting on the unit boundary, or where landscape planting is required.

The prescription in respect of the 15m offset will be subject to modification in circumstances whereby following the submission of an appropriate tree survey it can be demonstrated that the development element proposed poses no hazard to existing or proposed root zones

To minimise visual and ecological impact




Table 2 Glasshouse/Polytunnel Parameters ‐ Zone A


1. LDO area Development is only permitted within the limits of Zone A of the LDO areas plans 1 to 12, Appendix A) and where it is in accordance with the development parameters


2. Development Permitted

Development is permitted where there is replacement or alteration to existing glasshouses or polytunnels (within the existing built footprint), or new development less than 30m from existing buildings or structures within the same LDO parcel


3. Building scale

Building heights must not exceed 8.0m

The building height may be exceeded up to a maximum of 5m in relation to chimneys/ flues and aerials associated with the permitted development

To minimise visual and amenity impact and respect the landscape setting

Table 3 Glasshouse/Polytunnel Parameters ‐ Zone B


1. LDO area Development is only permitted within the limits of Zone B of the LDO areas (plans 1, 2 and 12, Appendix A) and where it is in accordance with the development parameters


2. Permitted development

Development is permitted where there is replacement or alteration to existing glasshouses or polytunnels (within the existing built footprint), or new development less than 30m from existing buildings or structures within the same LDO parcel






3. Building scale


The building height may be exceeded up to a maximum of 5m in relation to chimneys/flues and aerials associated with the permitted development

To minimise visual and amenity impact and respect the landscape setting

Table 4 Packhouse and Ancillary Buildings Parameters – Zones A and B


1. LDO area Development is permitted within zones A and B of the LDO boundary as defined on Plans 1 to 12 (Appendix A), and where it is in accordance with the development parameters



Development is permitted where there is replacement or alteration to existing packhouses or ancillary buildings within the existing built footprint, or new development less than 30m from existing buildings or structures within the same LDO parcel


3. Maximum area

No single development will exceed 2,000m2 floor space

None To minimise visual and amenity impact and respect the landscape setting. To limit the size of any new operation in order to minimise highway impacts

4. Building scale






Table 5 Water Storage Structures ‐ Zones A and B


1. LDO area Development is permitted within zones A and B of the LDO boundary as defined on Plans 1 to 12 (Appendix A), and where it is in accordance with the development parameters


2. Maximum area

Water storage reservoirs must have an open water area of less than 3,600m2 and a total area of ground works of less than 1ha

None To ensure that development falls outside the scope of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011

3. Reservoir height

Bank top of water storage reservoirs should not be more than 2m above surrounding ground level

None To minimise visual and amenity impact and respect the landscape setting. To ensure that proposed structure falls outside the requirements of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010

4. Reservoir design

Earth banked structures should have a bank top of no less than 2m and an external slope of no less than 1 in 2

None To allow access to bank‐top and reduce visual impact

Table 6 External Plant and Other Engineering Operations ‐ Zones A and B



External plant and engineering operations will only be permitted where they are ancillary to, and directly related to development permitted by this LDO (glasshouses, polytunnels, pack houses and reservoirs)

None To ensure that all development allowed by this LDO is directly related to horticulture





2. Maximum area (engineering operations)

No ancillary engineering operation shall exceed 1ha

None To minimise visual impact and respect the landscape setting. To prevent large‐scale commercial development in the countryside

3. Maximum area (external plant)

No single development will exceed 50m2


4. Scale of external plant

Plant must not exceed 5m above the height of adjacent buildings


General Permitted Development Order

5.6 The LDO does not alter, restrict or vary in any way, permitted development rights under the

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 or any successor in

legislation or order such as would apply to any developments not specified as permitted by the

LDO.

Planning conditions and informatives

5.7 Where appropriate, development permitted by the LDO will be subject to the planning conditions

set out in Appendix C.

5.8 Where details are required by condition an application for approval of details reserved by

condition must be made to the local planning authority. Not all conditions will be relevant to

every development proposal. The applicant is expected to ensure that all relevant conditions are

complied with and, where required, provide sufficient information to enable the local planning

authority to approve the details reserved by conditions. Early consultation with the local planning

authority is strongly recommended to confirm which conditions will apply to a particular

development.

5.9 The local planning authority will endeavour to determine applications for approval of the details

reserved by conditions within 21 days of receipt of a complete and valid application.




Compliance with the LDO Design Guide

5.10 All development proposed under the provisions of the LDO must demonstrate compliance with

the advice contained in the Design Guide (Appendix D). This will ensure that there is consistency

in the quality of design and use of materials in developments, which is important in the

realisation of the environmental enhancement sought for village groupings, and the continued

conservation of the visual appearance and character of the open countryside.

Compliance with other legislation

5.11 The LDO permits development that complies with the development parameters and uses set out

in the LDO. The LDO does not remove the need for compliance with all other relevant legislation

or statutory procedures.

Pre‐development notification

5.12 The purpose of the LDO is to encourage investment in the Horticultural Sector by creating a

faster, simpler and more certain planning process. The certainty is provided by the in‐principle

acceptance of the permitted development prescribed in the Order.

5.13 The in‐principle acceptance of the permitted development is subject to proposals being well

designed and implemented. The information in the LDO and the Design Guidance provides

developers with the necessary awareness of the parameters and standards to be met to ensure

compliance.

5.14 To ensure that there is compliance, the LDO will be administered by a prior notification process

which builds on that already included in the GPDO for certain agricultural developments, but is

less onerous than the requirements of a formal planning application. The function of the prior

notification process is be to ensure that development undertaken within the LDO area is

permitted by the Order, and to provide a framework for developers to provide the Council with

the minimum of details relating to conditions specified in the Order which are relevant to the

particular development.

5.15 Where there is uncertainty as to which conditions might apply to a particular development,

developers are encouraged to seek the advice of the Council before proceeding with the prior

notification process.

5.16 The prior notification process requires the submission of a prescribed pre‐development form and

plans and the payment to Arun District Council of a fee of £200.00.

5.17 With the completed pre‐development notification form, the following plans or drawings must be

submitted:

(i) site location plan (scale 1:1250 or 1:2500 – clearly identifying the boundary of the

development site with a red line;

(ii) site plan or block plan (scale 1:500 or 1:200) – identifying all proposed

buildings/structures and external essential plant or engineering works;

(iii) existing and proposed elevations (scale 1:50 or 1:100); and




(iv) other drawings necessary to describe compliance with development parameters or

conditions.

5.18 Dependent upon the particular nature and location of the proposed development, the form may

need to be supported by additional written material, plans and or drawings to demonstrate

compliance with, or enable discharge of, prescribed conditions.

5.19 A copy of the prescribed Pre‐Development Notification Form is included at Appendix E

5.20 Upon receipt of the pre‐development form and the requisite fee, the Council will provide a

written acknowledgement of its receipt, confirmation that it is deemed valid and confirmation of

a target date for the issuing of a formal response.

5.21 The procedure is subject to a timetable of 28 days from the Council’s acknowledgement of

receipt of the pre‐development form within which period the Council will write to the applicant

or the nominated agent to confirm that either:

(i) The proposed development is permitted by the LDO subject to the approval of the

relevant conditions.

(ii) The Council is unable to determine whether the proposed development is permitted

under the terms of the LDO and further information is required to confirm compliance.

(iii) The proposed development is not compliant with the LDO and is therefore not

permitted under the terms of the LDO.

5.22 Should the Council not respond in writing within the stated time period, the proposed

development may proceed at the applicant’s risk, subject to the commencement of development

requirements being met.

Development commencement notice

5.23 Notwithstanding the prior notification process, it is important that the Council is aware that

development is proceeding within the LDO area and in accordance with the terms of the LDO.

Consequently, notice of commencement of a development will be submitted to the Council by

means of a prescribed form at least 10 days before development starts. The form includes a

declaration by the applicant that all the relevant conditions of the LDO are complied with or have

been discharged.

5.24 A copy of the prescribed Development Commencement Notice is included at Appendix F.

5.25 Retrospective applications for development permitted under this LDO will not be considered by

the Local Planning Authority, and will be subject to the standard planning application and

enforcement procedures.

Environmental Impact Assessment

5.26 The Arun Horticultural LDO has regard to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the European Directive 2014/52/EU.

Insofar as the LDO relates to agricultural development, the Order does not permit any Schedule 2

development. This is inclusive of the requirements of Schedule 2, 1 (a): “Projects for the use of

uncultivated land or semi‐natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes; the area of the




development exceeds 0.5 hectare.” All applications for the development of greenfield land within

the LDO areas are to be screened in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 3.

5.27 Development proposed in the LDO areas subject to EIA would be subject to the standard planning

application procedure.

Monitoring and review

5.28 The provisions of the Order will last for a period of ten years from the date of adoption.

5.29 The Council reserves the right to review, revoke or amend the Order at any time under the

provisions of Section 61A (6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Following a review of

the LDO, a period of at least six months will be given before any amendments or revocation of all

or part of the LDO come into effect.


Appendix A: Maps 1 to 12 Showing LDO Areas














Appendix B: Description of LDO Areas


Appendix B – Description of LDO Areas

LDO Area Reference LDO Area Description

LDO1: Land off Lake Lane, Barnham

This LDO extends to 97.8ha split into two parcels of land, of which the majority is currently in horticultural use. Much of the site is site is developed with glasshouses and ancillary structures and is located between Barnham, Walberton and Yapton.

The northern parcel extends to 71.7ha and comprises a mixture of age and style of number of various styles of protected cropping and open growing areas, separated by areas of apparently unused open land, trees and scrub. Broadly, the site is bounded by open countryside to the north and west, and by the B2132, Yapton Lane to the east. The southern boundary is made up of Lake Lane, arable fields and the residential part of Park Road. The site has numerous accesses onto both Lake Lane and Yapton Lane.

The southern parcel extends to 26.1ha and comprises almost exclusively horticultural glasshouses and an irrigation reservoir. It is broadly bounded on its northern side by Lake Lane, on its southern side by a railway line and on its western side by an area of existing glass, which has been set aside for a housing development. There is one access, which is onto Lake Lane.

Land within LDO1 has been zoned to ensure that new glasshouses and buildings do not have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of nearby dwellings, such as those along Park Road and Lake Lane, and public areas such as highways. The eastern and southern edge of the northern parcel (Zone A) and the entire southern parcel zoned for glasshouses up to a maximum 8.0m in height. Glasshouses up to 9.5m in height are permitted in Zone B which is located in the interior and on the north edge of the northern parcel.

LDO2: Land off Pagham Road (South)

LDO2 extends to 11.6ha and is located to the east of Pagham Road, approximately 0.5km north of Nyetimber in the wider Bognor Regis urban area. The land currently has a number of uses including a packing facility, an anaerobic digester and land in arable production. There are a number of farm track accesses into the site from the north, south and west. The main highway access to the site is to the east onto Pagham Road.

The wider local landscape is dominated by large scale arable fields on the open low lying coastal plain to the north of Bognor Regis. To the west of the site is the Pagham Rife watercourse, with Pagham Harbour further to the south‐west.

The LDO is bounded on its northern and southern sides by open arable land, on the east by Pagham Road and on the west by an irrigation reservoir and the Pagham Rife flood plain. All of the land within the LDO is within the Bognor Regis to Chichester ‘Gaps Between Settlements’ area.

This LDO has been zoned to reduce the visual impact of new buildings on residents of the dwellings on the corner of Sefter Road and Pagham Road, and users of the highway. Glasshouses up to 8.0m are allowed in Zone A which runs along the eastern edge of the site. Glasshouses up to 9.5m are allowed in Zone B which extends to the remaining land within the LDO.

388

Arun District C

ouncil DEVELO

PMEN

T CO

NTR

OL-30/03/2016



LDO3: Land off Pagham Road (North)

LDO3 extends to 23.2ha and is located approximately 1.5km south‐east of Runcton on the edge of the Arun DC Local Authority boundary. The LDO comprises land used for glasshouses, water storage, packing and storage facilities and a field in agricultural production. The site has a single access to the west onto Pagham Road.

Although the use of land the immediately bounding the site is arable, the land use to the north in the neighbouring Chichester DC area is dominated by protected horticultural production. There are four dwellings along the southern edge of the site. All of the land within the LDO is within the Bognor Regis to Chichester ‘Gaps Between Settlements’ area.

LDO4: Land at Woodgate

LDO4 comprises two parcels of land to the south and west of Woodgate, with a combined area of 8.4ha. Of these, only one appears to be an ongoing horticultural enterprise. Land use within the parcels comprises glasshouses in varying conditions, reservoirs, ancillary structures and some open land. Two of the sites access onto Westergate Street, with the third access onto Hook Lane.

The sites are characterised by the urban area of Woodgate to the east and open agricultural land in arable production to the west.

LDO5: Land off Yapton Road

LDO6 comprises two parcels either side of Yapton Road. The western parcel extends to 7.6ha an includes a number of undefined small units and an area of polytunnels. The eastern parcel extends to 3.7ha and appears to be an ongoing horticultural enterprise with glasshouses, outdoor beds and an irrigation reservoir.

Land immediately surrounding the LDO parcels is predominantly is within typical urban fringe uses, split between small paddocks, areas of permanent grassland and scrub. To the south and east of the LDO area are fields in arable use.

LDO6: Land off Barnham Lane

Comprises a 2.4ha parcel to the east of Barnham Lane between the villages of Barnham and Walberton. Other than glasshouses the parcel comprises pasture, some of which is used for grazing horses. The site has a single access onto Barnham Lane.

In terms of the surrounding area, the parcel has Choller Farm and caravan site directly to the north, with the surrounding agricultural land in pastoral production. Small areas of woodland are located to the north‐east and east of the LDO.

389

Arun District C

ouncil DEVELO

PMEN

T CO

NTR

OL-30/03/2016



LDO7: Land off Eastergate Lane

Four separate parcels make up this LDO area, with three to the south of Eastergate Lane and one to the north, with a combined area of 11.8ha. All of these parcels are in horticultural production with the majority of the area already under glass and poly‐tunnels, with the exception of the far eastern parcel which also includes a large area of pasture. All of the sites have access onto Eastergate Lane.

The surrounding area is characterised by land in equestrian use and isolated groups of housing to the north of Eastergate Lane, and by pasture and small blocks of woodland to the south.

LDO8: Land at Binsted This LDO area comprises a single horticultural unit extending to 4.2ha of glass, polytunnels, open bedding areas and a small area of grassland. The site has a single access onto Binsted Lane.

The LDO area is located to the east of Walberton on the edge of the South Downs National Park, with the land being used for arable agriculture in the area immediately adjacent, giving way to the large area of woodland at Binsted Wood to the north and east.

LDO9: Land off Sack Lane, Shripney

This LDO area is a single horticultural unit extending to 2.4ha located 1.2km north of Bognor Regis, to the east of the A29. It comprises glasshouses, ancillary structures and an area of grassland to the south. The site has a single access onto Sack Lane to the north.

It is a relatively isolated site on the coastal plain, surrounded by large arable fields.

LDO10: Land at Hangleton

This LDO area comprises three parcels of land with a combined area of 5.6ha, north of the A259 Littlehampton Road, and north of Ferring. The sites are highly constrained, with glasshouses filling almost the whole of the site, the current operations having expanded to the extent of their land ownership. Both sites access onto Hangleton Lane and on to the A259.

Land uses in the immediate area include various sales and industrial uses, with equestrian, field scale horticulture and arable uses beyond.

LDO11: The Vinery The LDO area at the Vinery currently has conditional planning permission for the construction of a horticultural distribution warehouse, covered storage, trade counter and associated offices. The LDO area extends the land to which the planning permission relates across the Public Right of Way to encompass the whole the field to the south of the industrial units. The total area of the LDO is 0.8ha.

Directly north of the LDO is the A27, with the South Downs National Park beyond. To the south is a large area of open arable land.

390

Arun District C

ouncil DEVELO

PMEN

T CO

NTR

OL-30/03/2016



LDO12: Land at Norton The LDO area at Norton comprises two parcels with a combined area of 3.3ha. The eastern parcel appears to be no longer in horticultural production, and includes areas of glasshouses, hardstandings and some small ancillary buildings. The western parcel has a small area of polytunnels and outdoor beds.

The site is bounded by land in equestrian use to the north and south and the B2233 to the east. To the west is an area of pasture with the large area of glasshouses at the former Tangmere Airfield beyond.

Total area of land within LDO areas: 183ha

391

Arun District C

ouncil DEVELO

PMEN

T CO

NTR

OL-30/03/2016

Appendix C: Conditions and Informatives



Conditions (To be used where relevant to the proposed development)

Condition Reasons

General Conditions

1. Time limit The development hereby permitted shall be completed before the expiration of three years of the submission of a Development Commencement Notice

In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development, and to accord with economic objective of the LDO

2. Redundant structures

Any glasshouse structure(s) and/or polytunnel(s) and/or packhouse(s) deemed redundant for horticultural/agricultural purposes on the development site are to be removed along with any waste or contaminated materials

In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development in accordance with Policy HOR DM1 of the Arun District Local Plan

Environmental Conditions

3. Protection of existing trees and hedgerows

No development shall begin until an appropriate scheme of protection of trees and hedgerows (in accordance with BS 5837 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction– Recommendations (2012)) potentially affected by the proposed development has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The measures should: i) sufficiently protect major existing tree groups, and identified significant trees to ensure that they survive development activity without their long term life expectancy being compromised. ii) be in accordance with the broad principles of tree protection set out in BS 5837. This must calculate and show for major tree groups and significant Trees to be retained Root Protection Areas on a Tree Protection Plan and describe protective measures to be implemented during development operations. iii) ensure that major tree groups, significant trees and vegetation shall be retained and protected in a manner to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) before the development commences for the duration of the development and shall not be damaged, destroyed, uprooted, felled, lopped or topped during that period without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. iv) where any major tree groups or

In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development in accordance with Policies ENV SP1, ENV DM3, ENV DM4, LAN DM1, and HOR DM1 of the Arun District Local Plan.



significant trees are removed without such consent or dying or being seriously damaged or becoming seriously diseased during the period, those trees shall be replaced in the following planting season with trees of such size and species as set out in the LDO design guide and may be agreed with the LPA. INF 5: European Protected Species Licences INF 6: Breeding and Nesting Birds

4. Landscape mitigation

No development shall begin until a detailed landscape scheme has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the LDO Design Guide. The landscaping scheme, as agreed, will be implemented during the next planting season following completion of the development. Thereafter, the landscaped areas shall be maintained for a period of five years. Any trees or shrubs which die or become seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally planted.

In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development in accordance with Policies ENV SP1, ENV DM4, ENV DM5, QE SP1, LAN DM1 and HOR DM1 of the Arun District Local Plan

5. Ecological Protection and Enhancement ( including protected species)

No development, including preparatory works, shall begin until an ecological enhancement scheme has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All approved details shall then be implemented in full and in accordance with the agreed timings and details. INF 5: European Protected Species Licences INF 6: Breeding and Nesting Birds

In the interests of biodiversity, amenity and of the environment of the development in accordance with Policies ENV SP1, ENV DM3, ENV DM4, ENV DM5 and HOR DM1 of the Arun District Local Plan

6. Noise No development shall begin until a scheme to mitigate the impact of noise upon neighbouring properties has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The operational sound limits from site activities and mechanical and electrical plant shall be equivalent to a “low impact” at the closest existing sensitive receptors based on the guidance contained within BS 4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound.

In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development in accordance with Policies QE DM2, QE SP1 and HOR DM1 of the Arun District Local Plan.

7. Lighting No development shall begin until a lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of amenity, landscape and protected species in accordance with



Thereafter, all lighting shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details before development is brought into use. External lighting in association with this development shall comply with the Institution of Lighting Engineers Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light (GNO1:2011), and to take account of guidance issued by the Bat Conservation Trust.

Policies QE DM2, QE SP1, ENV DM5 and HOR DM1 of the Arun District Local Plan.

8. Archaeology No development shall take place until a scheme of archaeological investigation (including a programme of archaeological evaluation, targeted excavation, recording any finds and publishing the results) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the nominated archaeological advisor to the local planning authority.

To enable a proper archaeological investigation of the site and the identification and recording of any items of archaeological importance in accordance with Policies HER DM6 of the Arun District Local Plan.

9. Sustainable drainage

No development shall take place until a scheme for surface water drainage for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall: i) Be carried out in accordance with the LDO Design Guide ii) Specify the range of measures used to manage surface water run off including Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) systems iii) Ensure safe access and egress from and to the site iv) Set out pollution prevention measures including the measures used to reduce the potential for pollutants reaching ground, surface water bodies or the surface water drainage system v) Include how the scheme shall be maintained and managed The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to proposals being first brought into use INF 2: Oil/Chemical Storage Tanks INF 3: Trade Effluent

To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site in accordance with Policies W DM2, W DM3, ECC SP1 and HOR DM1 of the Arun District Local Plan

10. Land Contamination

No development shall take place until the following phased Contaminated Land Risk Assessment has been a competent person in accordance with Defra and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the

To ensure that any ground, water and associated gas contamination is identified and all necessary remediation works are carried out in the



Management of Contaminated Land, CLR 11’: All works to comply with each phase of the Contaminated Land Risk Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development INF 4: Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land

interest of the safety of the development and the environment, and to ensure the site is suitable for the proposed use accordance with Policy QE DM4 of the Arun District Local Plan.

11. Contamination found on site during development

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the Local Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved. INF 4: Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land

To ensure that any ground, water and associated gas contamination is identified and all necessary remediation works are carried out in the interest of the safety of the development and the environment, and to ensure the site is suitable for the proposed use accordance with Policy QE DM4 of the Arun District Local Plan.

12. Dust and fumes

No development shall take place until a scheme for the treatment of any dust or fumes has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the development being first brought into use. All equipment installed as part of the approved scheme shall thereafter be operated and maintained in accordance with that approval and retained for so long as the use continues.

In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development in accordance with Policies QE DM3 and QE SP1 of the Arun District Local Plan.

13. Materials No development shall begin until samples of the materials to be used (in accordance with the LDO design guide) have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the local landscape and achieving good design in accordance with Policies D SP1, D DM1 and LAN DM1 of the Arun District Local Plan.

14. Construction Method Statement. (including demolition method and removal)

No development, of more than 1,000m2 gross floor space or with a plot area of more than one hectare, shall take place, including any works or demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the

In the interests of protecting the amenity of local residents and businesses.



construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i) vehicle parking facilities for construction workers, other site operatives and visitors; ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding; v) wheel washing facilities; vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction work; viii) noise impact and control (taking account of BS 5228: 2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites); ix) installation and maintenance of security hoarding/fencing. x) hours of operation: demolition and construction works shall not take place outside 08.00 hours to 18.30 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 hours to 13.30 hours on Saturday. There will be no construction on Sundays or Bank Holidays unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority; xi) a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). INF 1: Construction Traffic Management Plan.(CTMP) INF 7: Public Rights of Way INF 8: West Sussex Car Parking Standards

Highway Conditions

15. Highways No development shall begin until a scheme has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority demonstrating that adequate parking and turning capacity for vehicles arising from the permitted development is already available or that provision is incorporated in the proposed development. INF 8: West Sussex Car Parking Standards

In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development in accordance with Policies T SP1 and HOR DM1 of the Arun District Local Plan.



Informatives

INF 1 Construction Traffic Management Plan.(CTMP)

Contact: WSCC. Tel: 01243 642105. Email: [email protected] Website:

www.westsussex.gov.uk/roads‐and‐travel/information‐for‐developers/ The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters:

i) the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during Enabling Works,

ii) the method of access and routing of vehicles during Enabling Works, signed appropriately to the necessary standards/requirements.

iii) the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors,

iv) the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste,

v) the storage of plant and materials used during the Enabling Works,

vi) the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of the Enabling Works upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), Details of and approval of any road closures needed during construction.

vii) Details of appropriate signing, to accord with the necessary standards/requirements, for pedestrians during construction works, including any footpath diversions.

viii) Traffic management needed during construction

ix) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt,

x) details of lighting and security,

xi) hoarding / scaffolding if required.

xii) to inspect and maintain all signing, barriers etc.

xiii) Contact details of the Project Manager and Site Supervisor responsible for on‐site works to be provided.

xiv) to use certificated banksmen for guiding vehicles/unloading etc.

xv) no unnecessary parking of site related vehicles (worker transport etc.) in the vicinity, details of where these will be parked and occupiers transported to/from site to be submitted for consideration and approval. Areas to be shown on a plan not less than 1:500.

xvi) Layout of site structures, roads, site storage, compounds, pedestrian routes etc.

xvii) Before work commencement to undertake a highway condition survey and agreement with a representative of the WSCC Highways: contact 01243 642105. Final correspondence is required to be submitted.

xviii) Local residents and businesses being kept informed of significant deliveries and liaised with through the project. A contact address is to be provided to which all issues should be directed in the first instance. A record will be kept of these issues and their subsequent resolution.

xix) Any temporary access arrangements to be agreed with and approved by WSCC

xx) Details of times for construction traffic and delivery vehicles, which must be outside network peak and school peak hours.



Note ‐ This list is not exhaustive but is intended to provide the kind of contents, expected of a CTMP

INF 2 Oil/Chemical Storage Tanks: Any above ground oil or chemical storage tanks should be sited on an impervious base and surrounded by a liquid tight bund wall. The bunded area should be capable of containing 110% of the volume of the tank(s), and all fill pipes and sight gauges should be enclosed within its curtilage. No drainage outlet should be provided, and the vent pipe should be directed downwards into the bund.

INF 3 Trade Effluent: The Water Industry Act 1991 states that any liquid produced wholly or part from any trade or business activity carried out on trade or business premises qualifies as trade effluent and therefore requires consent from Southern Water. Trade effluent controls apply only to those discharges made to the foul sewer. No discharge of trade effluent should be made to the surface water sewer, this includes vehicle washes. It is the responsibility of landowners and businesses to ensure drains on their site are identified correctly and any trade effluent discharge is not directed to the foul sewer. Any surface water drains on a site receiving contaminated surface water should be directed to a foul sewer and trade effluent consent applied for and obtained.

INF 4 Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land, CLR 11’

1. Phase 1 – a desk study and site walk over to identify all potential contaminative uses on site and to inform a preliminary assessment. If potential contamination is identified then Phase 2 shall be undertaken.

2. Phase 2 – a comprehensive intrusive investigation to identify the type, nature and extent of contamination present, the risks to users/occupiers of the development, and to inform the required remediation scheme. If significant contamination is found then Phase 3 shall be undertaken.

3. Phase 3 – the production of a Remediation Report to ensure the site is rendered suitable for its proposed use. The Remediation Report shall include works to be carried out and a programme of such works, and shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No development shall be used or occupied until all remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the approved Remediation Report. Following implementation of the remediation works, a Validation Report detailing all of the measures carried out to ensure compliance with the Remediation Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

INF 5 European Protected Species Licences: Attention is drawn to the need to have regard to the requirements of the UK and European legislation related to the protection of certain wild plants and animals. Approval under that legislation will be required and a licence may be necessary if protected species are affected by development. If protected species are discovered, to proceed with the development without seeking advice from Natural England could result in prosecution. For more information: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/natural‐england

INF 6 Breeding and Nesting Birds: Legal Protection: Section 1(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 ( as amended) , makes it an offence to kill, injure or take any wild bird, and to intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while the nest is in use or being built. It is also an offence to take or destroy any wild bird eggs. Bird Species listed under Schedule 1 of the Act receive extra protection. The Act states that it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed in Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at or near a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the



dependent young of such a bird. Potential nesting sites: It should be assumed that birds will be nesting in trees, scrub, reeds or substantial ditch‐side vegetation during the core breeding season, unless a survey had shown this not to be the case. In addition, some species are ground nesting. Particular attention should be paid to any building demolition works as this is where some birds preferentially choose to nest.

Site Clearance works/demolition/construction: To avoid impact to nesting birds and ensure development is undertaken in accordance with provisions set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 ( as amended) any vegetation or site clearance works undertaken during the bird nesting season ( 1st March – 1st September) should only be undertaken once a breeding survey carried out during the nesting season by a suitably qualified person such as a professional ecologist has confirmed the absence of nesting birds and any Schedule 1 bird as set out by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 ( as amended). For more information: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/natural‐england, and EBR LDO Habitat and Ecological Reports. Summary of evidence, mitigation and conditions required.

INF 7 Public Rights of Way: No phase of development shall temporarily or permanently obstruct or alter any part of a public right of way (PRoW). The process for diverting a PRoW whether on a temporary or permanent basis follows a separate application process and advice from West Sussex County Council should be sought beforehand. For more information: https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/land‐waste‐and‐housing/public‐paths‐and thecountryside/public‐rights‐of‐way/

INF 8 West Sussex Car Parking Standards: Information on the Parking Standards to meet the discharge of condition 5 is set out in “Revised County Parking Standards and Transport Contributions Methodology, Supplementary Planning Guidance adopted by West Sussex County Council November 2003. http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/cs/mis/041103ht2b.pdf


Appendix D: LDO Design Guide


Horticulture

Draft Local Development Order – Design Guide

Statutory Consultation ‐ February 2016


Arun Dis

Intr1

Purp

1.1 Arun

wellb

need

and d

and t

1.2 The C

stand

older

Coun

chan

the lo

1.3 With

Desp

accep

requ

etc.).

Appr

1.4 The f

agric

conte

matt

plann

furth

LDO t

objec

1.5 The g

forwa

effec

Howe

so it

deve

purp

accep

1.6 Appli

plann

can q

strict Counci

oduction

pose

’s natural en

being of the

d to be accom

developers w

the individua

Council acce

dards relatin

r buildings an

ncil wishes to

ging demand

ocalities in w

in horticultu

pite this, the

ptable and c

ire relevant

.

roach

following gui

ultural deve

ext. The guid

ers relevant

ning control

her or impose

to provide th

ctives of the

guidance is n

ard complian

ctiveness of t

ever, in the m

is assimilate

lopment par

oses of agric

ptable.

icants are str

ning authorit

quickly be de

l

nvironment a

resident pop

mmodated w

will be to ens

al characters

pts that with

g for examp

nd structure

o encourage

ds, but requi

which it is pro

ure there is in

necessary de

ompliant wit

expertise fro

idance addre

lopment, ref

dance is prim

to the plann

or permitted

e greater req

he necessary

Order.

not prescript

nt and accep

the horticult

majority of c

d into the lo

rameter of th

culture withi

rongly recom

ty to ensure

etermined w

Ho

and landscap

pulation and

with the Distr

sure that imp

of the Distri

hin the Horti

le to environ

s need repla

modernisati

ires that the

oposed.

ncreasing sta

egree of atte

th the object

om suitable p

esses some o

flecting natio

marily concer

ning consider

d developme

quirements t

y context for

ive and is int

ptable propo

ural function

circumstance

ocal environm

he LDO that

n the operat

mmended to

that all of th

hether a dev

orticulture Dr

1

pe make sign

to the Distri

rict in coming

pacts on the

ict’s towns a

cultural Sect

nmental perf

acing with ge

ion and adap

new develo

andardisatio

ention to det

tives of the A

professionals

of the princip

onal standar

rned with sit

ration of agr

ent rights. To

than is alread

r the complia

tended to pr

sals. Nothin

ns which ind

es the permit

ment withou

all developm

tional unit an

undertake p

he required i

velopment fa

raft Local De

nificant contr

ict’s econom

g years, and

countryside

and villages p

tor changing

formance an

enerally large

ptation in the

pment be se

n of design a

tail to rende

Arun Horticu

s (e.g. lightin

ples which ar

ds and guida

ing and desig

ricultural dev

o this extent

dy the case;

ance of prop

rovide a flexi

ng in the guid

ividual deve

tted develop

t disproport

ment that is r

nd is designe

pre‐applicati

nformation

alls under th

velopment O

ributions to t

my. Substant

the challeng

and environ

preserved.

production

d food hygie

er buildings a

e Horticultur

ensitive to th

and use of m

r developme

ultural LDO w

ng, noise, floo

re applicable

ance, and spe

gn issues, wh

velopment, b

the guidanc

guidance is i

osed develop

ble basis for

dance seeks t

lopments are

pment can be

ionate cost.

reasonably n

ed for those p

on consultat

is submitted

e scope of th

Order – Desi

03 Febru

the life and

ial developm

ge for the Co

nment are m

methods an

ene mean th

and structure

ral Sector to

he characteri

materials in b

ent environm

will, on occas

oding, tree s

e generally to

ecifically in t

hich are alre

be it subject

ce does not g

included wit

pment with

r developers

to comprom

e intended t

e sited and d

It is a primar

necessary for

purposes is

tions with th

d to ensure th

he LDO.

gn Guide

ary 2016

ment will

ouncil

minimised

d

at many

es. The

meet

stics of

uildings.

mentally

sions

surveys

o

the local

ady

to full

go

hin the

the

to bring

mise the

o serve.

designed

ry

r the

e local

hat it


Arun Dis

1.7 Unles

LDO

conta

1.8 The D

descr

Sitin2

2.1 The s

horti

essen

new

appli

strict Counci

ss it is alread

is not exemp

acted on 019

Draft LDO co

riptions of th

ng and Lay

siting of deve

cultural deve

ntial for the

developmen

es to all of th

on boun

must be

establis

to safeg

existing

BS5837

Recomm

where a

tree sur

bounda

where a

within 5

hardsta

on user

mitigati

in the a

refuse a

building

packho

possible

should

the layo

of traffi

l

dy exempted

pt from Build

903 737756 o

omprises 12 a

hese areas ar

yout

elopment in

elopment wi

efficient ope

nt does not h

he LDOs is p

ndaries whe

e located a m

shment of a s

guard root p

g trees or hed

7:2012 Trees

mendations;

an establishe

rvey, no new

ary;

a Public Righ

5m of its alig

andings and u

rs of the Righ

ion plan;

absence of an

and storage

gs or soft lan

uses and loa

e, within the

be submitte

out of new d

ic into and o

Ho

d under the B

ding Control,

or by emailin

areas, within

re described

and layout o

ill be accepta

eration of the

have an adve

rovided belo

re no existin

minimum of 1

suitable scre

rotection are

dgerows wit

in relation to

ed and suitab

w developme

ht of Way pas

gnment as sh

underground

ht of Way ma

ny establishe

areas shall b

ndscaping;

ading areas s

e physical con

d with an ap

evelopment

ut of the site

orticulture Dr

2

Building Regu

, and the Aru

ng bldg.con@

n which there

in the LDO.

of the propo

able. Proper

e horticultur

erse impact o

ow:

ng screening

10m from th

eening belt;

eas, no deve

hout the sub

o design, dem

ble screening

ent shall be lo

sses through

hown on the

d services). A

ay would hav

ed vegetative

be screened f

hould be loc

nstraints of t

ppropriate no

t within the L

e to ensure c

raft Local De

ulations, dev

un DC Buildin

@arun.gov.u

e 25 separat

sed LDOs is c

r arrangeme

ral enterprise

on its setting

exists, all ne

he edge of th

elopment sha

bmission of a

molition and

g belt exists,

ocated withi

h an LDO, the

definitive m

Any develop

ve to be acco

e screening,

from viewpo

cated as far f

the LDO. All

oise assessm

LDO areas sh

continuing hi

velopment O

velopment ca

ng Control Se

k regarding n

e parcels of

critical in ens

nt of buildin

e, but also to

g. Further lay

w buildings

he LDO bound

all take place

a tree survey

d construction

and subject

n 5m of the

ere must be

ap (with the

ment which

ompanied by

service yard

oints outside

from sensitiv

submissions

ment; and

hould mainta

ighway safet

Order – Desi

03 Febru

arried out un

ervice should

necessary ap

land. Plans

suring that

gs is not onl

o ensure that

yout guidanc

and glasshou

dary to allow

e within 15m

y in accordan

n –

t to the resul

edge of the

no developm

e exception o

may have a

y a suitable

ds, staff car p

the LDO are

ve receptors

s for packho

ain the efficie

ty.

gn Guide

ary 2016

nder an

d be

pprovals.

and

y

t the

ce which

uses

w for the

m of any

nce with

lts of the

LDO

ment

of tracks,

n impact

parks,

eas by

as

uses

ent flow


Arun Dis

Buil3

Glas

3.1 Glass

and d

3.2 Glass

techn

inten

to 5.8

3.3 Altho

follow

Pack

3.4 These

requ

areas

of bu

strict Counci

lding Desi

shouses

shouses prov

disease. The

shouse desig

nology which

nsified produ

8m in 2009,

ough the pro

wing restrict

building

2, and a

the max

glassho

permitt

anti‐ref

where n

assessm

opportu

and sim

k houses an

e types of bu

irements of t

s, it is not ap

uilding. Gene

building

excludin

the des

in order

the nat

conside

any fen

opportu

energy

l

gn

vide a protec

structures e

gn continuall

h they house

uction. Glassh

to 6‐7m tod

oposed LDOs

tions apply to

gs shall not e

a maximum o

ximum eaves

ouses may be

ted materials

flective glass

necessary, m

ment submitt

unities for in

milar technolo

nd storage b

uildings are n

the building

ppropriate to

eral guidance

gs shall not e

ng chimneys

ign of the bu

r to avoid ad

ure and use

ered in relati

estration of

unities for lo

generation;

Ho

cted environ

enable growe

y evolves; de

e. Increased a

houses eave

ay.

are intende

o new areas

exceed a max

of 8.0m in a

s height of b

e single or m

s shall be alu

should be c

measures to m

ted; and

stalling low‐

ogies should

buildings

normally util

. Given the v

o impose an a

e on the desi

exceed 2m a

s, masts and

uildings shou

dverse impac

of the buildi

on to the ba

the building

w and zero c

orticulture Dr

3

ment that al

ers to produc

evelopments

automation

s heights hav

d to retain a

of glass:

ximum heigh

ll other case

buildings will

ultiple span;

uminium and

onsidered;

mitigate ligh

‐carbon tech

d be consider

litarian in de

variety of us

architectura

gn of these b

bove the hei

aerials, up to

uld be simple

cts on the wi

ings. The ap

ckground an

gs should be

carbon techn

raft Local De

llows contro

ce sustainab

s include inc

and environ

ve increased

and intensify

ht of 9.5m w

es;

be 7.5m;

;

d glass;

t pollution sh

nology such

red

sign, with th

es of the diff

l style or des

buildings is p

ight of existi

o a maximum

e and approp

der landscap

pearance of

nd building c

appropriate

nologies sho

velopment O

l over climat

ly, high‐valu

reases in gla

mental cont

d from 2m in

horticultura

ithin Zone B

hall installed

as LED lighti

heir size and

ferent buildi

sign on propo

provided belo

ng adjacent

m of 9.5m in

priate to thei

pe, materials

new buildin

ontext;

for the prop

uld be sough

Order – Desi

03 Febru

tic conditions

e crops.

sshouse size

trol has led to

the 1940s, t

al production

of LDO area

d and a light

ing, thermal

form reflect

ings within th

osals for the

ow:

structures,

all cases;

ir proposed

s used should

ngs should be

posed use;

ht, including

gn Guide

ary 2016

s, pests

e and the

o

to 4.5m

n the

as 1 and

impact

screens

ing the

he LDO

ese types

use;

d reflect

e

on‐site


Arun Dis

Wat4

4.1 Horti

atten

well a

shap

unde

4.2 In ter

Drain

surfa

areas

not p

strict Counci

opportu

demons

the use

ter Storag

icultural wat

nuation of su

as providing

e of the rese

erused areas

Reservo

bank‐to

ground

earth b

than 1 i

earth b

the area

all grou

a suitab

used;

the des

undulat

excess s

reservo

native l

any wat

provide

rms of the w

nage System

aces within p

s must be ins

proposed. A

SuDS m

surface

taking i

design s

develop

l

unities that l

strated; and

of green an

ge Reservo

ter storage re

urface water

a secure wa

ervoirs is nor

often being

oirs must hav

op of water s

level;

anked struct

in 2;

anked struct

a of works, i

undworks);

ble clay or da

ign should c

ting liner sur

soil must be

oir;

andscaping a

ter storage a

ed.

wider water e

s (SuDS) mus

proposed dev

stalled wher

ll surface wa

must be used

s to the equ

nto account

should be co

pment, in ord

Ho

ow carbon c

d brown roo

oirs and O

eservoirs oft

arising from

ater supply fo

rmally dictate

utilised. Ot

ve an interna

storage reser

tures should

tures should

ncluding sur

ark‐coloured

onsider ledg

rface for wild

used approp

and existing

areas should

environment

st be installe

velopments.

e reasonably

ater flood att

to restrict th

ivalent green

the effects o

ost‐effective

der to reduc

orticulture Dr

4

construction

of systems sh

Overall Wa

ten have a co

m glasshouse

or the irrigat

ed by surrou

her design d

al bank top a

rvoirs should

have an inte

have a bank

rrounding gro

plastic mem

ges around th

dlife refuges;

priately, idea

vegetation s

be appropri

t and flood at

ed to reduce

Water harv

y practicable

tenuation sh

he peak flow

nfield runoff

of climate ch

to operate a

e the risk of

raft Local De

methods ha

hould be con

ater Mana

ombined use

roofs and ot

tion of crops

unding land u

etails which

area of less t

d not be mor

ernal and ext

k‐top no less

ound works

mbrane (buty

he margins o

;

ally within th

should be ut

iately fenced

ttenuation, a

surface wat

vesting from

e, with clear

all comply w

w run‐off rate

f rate for the

hange;

and maintain

failure of th

velopment O

ve been exp

sidered.

agement

e, in providin

ther imperm

. In terms of

use, with diff

should be co

han 3,600m2

re than 2m a

ternal bank g

than 2m wid

must be less

yl/polypropy

of the reservo

he banks of t

ilised; and

d, with suitab

appropriate

er run‐off fro

water run‐of

reasoning pr

with the follo

e from new im

1 in 100 yea

n over the co

e drainage fu

Order – Desi

03 Febru

plored should

ng both flood

meable surfac

f their design

ficult corners

onsidered in

2;

bove surrou

gradient no g

de;

s than 1ha (in

ylene) should

oirs and prov

he proposed

ble floatation

Sustainable

om all imper

ff from new

rovided whe

owing:

mpermeable

ar rainfall ev

onstruction li

unction;

gn Guide

ary 2016

d be

d

cing, as

n, the

s and

nclude:

nding

greater

ncluding

d be

viding an

d

n aids

rmeable

roof

re it is

e

ent,

ife of the


Arun Dis

4.3 Surfa

Acce5

5.1 The L

new

appli

5.2 Servi

work

work

Land6

6.1 Due t

surro

grow

pack

outd

mitig

Only

a pro

mana

for th

and t

6.2 Prop

strict Counci

design o

over the

culverti

to do so

should

where p

hardsta

ace water run

ess

LDO does no

or improved

cation.

ce areas and

kers and spac

kers coming t

dscape

to their size

ounding land

wing season c

houses can

oor operatio

gate these im

areas of lan

oposed deve

agement sch

he proposed

the relevant

osed plantin

existing

incorpo

manage

any rem

proposa

scheme

surveys

any pla

gain an

existing

l

of the draina

e design life

ing and cross

o. Where ne

be kept to a

practicable s

anding areas

n‐off from po

ot include new

d access is as

d associated

ce for movem

to work on fo

and appeara

dscape and v

can introduce

also significa

onal areas. A

mpacts to an

dscaping wh

lopment will

hemes. Appr

developmen

LDO zonal co

ng should tak

g mature tree

orated into a

ement plans

moval of exis

als supporte

e. Loss of eco

s to be provid

nting should

d provide wi

g hedgerows

Ho

age system s

of the devel

sing waterco

ew culverts a

minimum; a

swales and in

and roadwa

otentially co

w, or alterat

sociated wit

hard‐standin

ment of serv

oot or by bic

ance, glassho

isual recepto

e other visib

antly affect lo

A suitable lan

acceptable l

hich would si

l be required

ropriate land

nt has been

ontrols).

ke the follow

e belts and h

ny soft lands

should be su

ting trees an

d by a suitab

ologically im

ded;

d be naturalis

ildlife corrido

and bounda

orticulture Dr

5

shall account

lopment, wh

ourses should

and crossings

and

nfiltration tre

ays in order t

ontaminated

tions to exist

th a proposa

ngs shall be s

vice and othe

cycle.

ouses have t

ors. In addit

ble impacts.

ocal landsca

ndscaping sc

level, helping

gnificantly m

d for new/en

dscaping sho

chosen (in li

wing into con

hedgerows s

scaping prop

ubmitted an

nd hedges w

ble tree surv

mportant hab

stic and inclu

ors;

aries should

raft Local De

t for the likel

here it is reas

d be avoided

s are propose

enches shou

to reduce rel

areas should

ing, access t

l it will be th

sized to prov

er vehicles. F

he potential

ion, the use

Other hortic

pe due to th

heme togeth

g to achieve

mitigate the v

nhanced land

uld only be c

ne with gene

sideration:

hould be ret

posals. Wher

d approved;

ill need to be

ey and plant

bitats may als

ude scrub pla

be reinforce

velopment O

y changes in

sonably prac

d where reas

ed their num

ld be constru

iance on pip

d be appropr

o the public

e subject of

vide adequat

Facilities sha

to significan

of artificial l

cultural deve

eir size and a

her with goo

a well‐assim

visual and la

dscape planti

considered a

eral LDO dev

ained, with e

re appropria

e adequately

ting compens

so require su

anting to ma

d;

Order – Desi

03 Febru

n impermeab

cticable to do

sonably pract

mber and len

ucted alongs

ped systems.

riately conta

highway. W

a full planni

te parking fo

ll be provide

ntly impact o

ighting to ex

elopment suc

artificial ligh

od design can

milated devel

ndscape imp

ing or landsc

after a suitab

velopment g

existing vege

ate, landscap

y justified, w

sation/mitig

uitable ecolo

aximise biodi

gn Guide

ary 2016

ble area

o so;

ticable

gth

side

ained.

Where

ng

or

ed for

on the

xtend the

ch as

hting of

n

opment.

pacts of

cape

ble site

uidance

etation

pe

with

ation

gical

versity


Horticulture Draft Local Development Order – Design Guide


hard landscaping should only be proposed where suitably justified, with new forms

designed, as far reasonably practicable, to appear natural. Hard landscaping areas

should be combined with planting to maximise screening potential; and

proposals for external and large scale internal lighting should be accompanied by a

lighting scheme, which should consider practicable solutions to mitigating the impacts

of lighting, including: hooded luminaires, downward facing glass and light

sensors/timers etc.

6.3 Species to be included in all proposed landscaping schemes shall be drawn from the following

lists:

Specimen Trees and Woodland:

6.4 Trees should be selected on the basis of location, function and space limitations.

Acer campestre Field maple

Betula pubescens Hairy Birch

Carpinus betulus Hornbeam

Malus sylvestris Crab Apple

Prunus avium Bird Cherry, Gean

Quercus robur European Oak

Salix viminalis Osier

Tilia cordata Small‐Leaved Lime

Hedgerows and Scrub Areas

6.5 Planting in new hedgerows and scrub areas should comprise a mixture of the following species,

all being native to the site and/or this part of Sussex:

Acer campestre Field Maple

Alnus glutinosa Alder

Cornus sanguinea Dogwood

Corylus avellana Hazel

Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn

Ilex aquifolium Holly

Lonicera periclymenum Honeysuckle

Prunus spinosa Blackthorn

Rosa canina Dog Rose

Salix caprea Goat Willow

Salix cinerea Grey Willow


Appendix E: Pre‐Development Notification Form


Arun Dis

Intr1

1.1 The e

intro

the L

empl

1.2 The h

fram

prop

deve

speci

by th

1.3 Whe

LDO,

fee w

respo

1.4 Set o

strict Counci

oduction.

encompassin

duction of a

LDO will crea

loyment, com

horticultural

ework which

osals. Inform

lopers and in

ifications wh

he Local Plan

re developer

then, an ad

will be charge

onse within 2

out below are

A summ

The pre

l

.

ng objective

more certai

te an engagi

mmercial pro

developmen

h identifies a

mation has be

nvestment p

hich must be

ning Author

rs seek reass

ministrative

ed by the Co

28 days of a

e:

mary of the r

e‐developme

of the LDO is

n planning p

ing atmosph

osperity and

nt LDO and D

a wide range

een provided

platforms are

adhered to,

ity.

surance from

process, usi

uncil to carry

valid form b

equirements

ent notificatio

Appe

s to stimulat

process. It is

ere for priva

business ex

Design Code

of acceptab

d in the LDO

e aware in ad

for a confirm

m the Counci

ng a pre‐dev

y out this ap

being receive

s.

on form.

endix E – Pre

te economic

anticipated t

ate investme

pansion.

will create a

le and well‐d

and Design

dvance of the

mation of co

l that propos

velopment n

ppraisal and a

ed and ackno

e‐Developme

developmen

that the cert

nt as well as

a permitted d

designed dev

Code to ens

e parameter

ompliance ce

sals are in co

otification fo

applicants w

owledged.

ent Notificat

nt through th

tainty provid

s facilitate

developmen

velopment

ure that bot

rs and bench

ertificate to b

onformity wi

orm, is availa

will receive a

ion Form

he

ded by

t

h

mark

be issued

th the

able. A


Arun Dis

Sum2

The

2.1 To co

deve

2.2 The p

notif

2.3 This f

to un

(2015

2.4 In ass

or no

writin

found

appro

Coun

orde

2.5 Pleas

way r

LDO

to co

oblig

2.6 An el

www

Prop

2.7 Toge

pre‐d

strict Counci

mmary of R

purpose of

onfirm that d

lopers must

pre‐developm

ication form

form must b

ndertake dev

5).

sessing this f

ot the propos

ng to confirm

d not to be c

oved throug

ntry Planning

r.

se note that

removes or r

and other re

onsider the v

gations concu

lectronic ver

w.arun.gov.u

posed plans

ther with th

development

Site loc

a red lin

Site Pla

Other p

applicat

Design

Existing

includin

Existing

includin

l

Requirem

f this form.

development

give prior no

ment notifica

and submis

e completed

velopment pe

form and the

sed develop

m complianc

compliant wi

h the statuto

g (General Pe

the Council’

restricts the

elevant legisl

alue of seek

urrently with

rsion of this f

k

s

is completed

t notification

ation plan (s

ne.

n or Block Pl

plans and dra

tion. (Examp

Guide.

g and Propos

ng buildings w

g and Propos

ng buildings w

ments.

t proposals a

otification to

ation proces

sion of the n

d in full to no

ermitted und

e informatio

ment is perm

e with the LD

ith the LDO,

ory planning

ermitted Dev

s confirmatio

requiremen

ation, includ

ing to meet t

h the pre‐dev

form can be

d form, the f

ns:

scale 1:1250

lan (scale 1:5

awings or inf

ple: tree surv

sed elevation

with written

sed Floor pla

with written

Appe

are permitte

o the Local P

ss requires th

necessary inf

otify Arun Dis

der the term

n provided h

mitted by the

DO. In the ev

developmen

g application

velopment) O

on that deve

t to comply

ding Building

the discharg

velopment n

downloaded

following pla

or 1:2500) –

500 or 1:200

formation ne

vey, noise ass

ns (scale 1:50

n dimensions

ns (scale 1:5

n dimensions

endix E – Pre

d under the

lanning Auth

he completio

formation (lis

strict Counci

ms of the Hor

herewith, the

e LDO. The C

vent that the

nt will not be

process or u

Order 2015 o

elopment is p

with the plan

g Regulation

ge of conditio

otification o

d from the co

ns or drawin

– clearly iden

0) – for all pro

ecessary to d

sessment, ne

0 or 1:100 or

s.

50 or 1:100 o

s.

e‐Developme

provisions o

hority.

on of the Pre

sted on the f

l (the counci

ticultural De

e Council wil

ouncil will fo

e proposed d

e permitted u

under the ter

or any succes

permitted un

nning condit

consent. Dev

ons and othe

f compliance

ouncil’s webs

ngs must be s

ntifying the d

oposals inclu

describe the s

ewt survey, b

r 1:200) – for

r 1:200) – fo

ent Notificat

of the LDO,

e‐developme

form).

il) of your in

evelopment

l determine

ormally resp

development

unless other

rms of the To

ssor legislati

nder the LDO

tions set out

velopers ma

er regulatory

e procedure

site:

submitted w

development

uding buildin

subject of th

bat survey –

r all proposa

or all proposa

ion Form

nt

tention

LDO

whether

ond in

t in

wise

own and

on or

O in no

in the

y wish

y

.

with all

t site by

ngs.

he

see

ls

als


Appendix E – Pre‐Development Notification Form

Arun District Council

Existing and proposed stet finished floor and site levels (scale 1:50 or 1:100) with

written dimensions.

Parking provision plan (drawn at a scale of 1:500 or 1:200), where necessary.

2.8 All measurements must be gross internal area (GIA) measured in square metres.

Fee

2.9 A fee is payable to Arun District Council or its successor in title for all pre‐development

notifications, including revised notifications. The fee will be set at £200.00 for each LDO pre‐

development notification of compliance application.

The Council’s response

2.10 On receipt of the duly made pre‐development notification form and the requisite fee, the Council

will acknowledge the notification in writing, and confirm that it is deemed valid and confirm the

target date for issuing a formal response.

2.11 Within 28 days, the Council will write to the applicant or the nominated agent to confirm that

either:

The proposed development is permitted by the LDO subject to the approval of the

relevant conditions.

Further information is required to confirm compliance with the LDO.

The proposed development is not compliant with the LDO and is therefore not

permitted under the terms of the LDO.

The Local Planning Authority has not determined that the proposed development is

permitted or not permitted under the terms of the LDO.

2.12 Should the Council not respond in writing within the stated time period, the proposed

development may proceed at the applicants risk subject to the commencement of development

requirements being met.

Commencement of development

2.13 Please note that before the commencement of development, it is the responsibility of the

applicant to ensure that all relevant conditions of the LDO are complied with, and discharged of,

and that a Development Commencement Notice is submitted to the Council 10 working days

before the development starts.



Arun District Council

Contact addresses

2.14 This form and the required information must be sent in electronic format (CD or email) to the

council at the followings address:

Arun District Council Arun Civic Centre Maltravers Road Littlehampton West Sussex BN17 5LF Tel: (01903) 737 500 Fax: (01903) 723 936 DX: 57406 Littlehampton Email: [email protected]

All information must be submitted electronically in PDF format File size must not exceed [10MB]



Arun District Council Page 1 of 9

Horticultural Development: Local Development Order (LDO) 2016 Pre‐development notification for confirmation of compliance Application Form

1. Applicant Name, Address and Contact Details

Name of Contact

Company Name

Address:

Town:

Postcode:

Landline:

Mobile:

E‐mail address:

2. Agent Name, Address and Contact Details

Name of Contact

Company Name

Address:

Town:

Postcode:

Landline:

Mobile:

E‐mail address:

3. Site Address and Postcode (if different from applicant details)

House No:

Suffix: House Name:

Street Address:

Town / City:

County:

Postcode:

Description of location or grid reference (must be completed if postcode is not known):

Easting:

Northing:




4. Description of the Proposal

5. Summary of compliance with the Arun LDO and Design Guide

6. Total Site Area

Please state the site area in hectares (ha)

7. Existing Floor Space and Jobs (if applicable)

Use Class / Type of Use (if applicable)

Total existing gross external floor space in square metres (if applicable)

Existing employees (if applicable)

Glasshouse

Packhouse

B8 Storage

Reservoir

Other (please specify)

Total




8. Proposed Floor Space and Jobs

Use Class / Type of Use (if applicable)

Total proposed gross external floor space in square metres (if applicable)

Proposed employees (if applicable)

Glasshouse

Packhouse

B8 Storage

Reservoir

Other (please specify)

Total

Note – Applicants are advised to check the Horticultural Development LDO 2015 to confirm the uses permitted within the application area.

9. Industrial or Commercial Processes and Machinery

Please describe the activities and process which would be carried out on the site and the end products including plant, ventilation or air conditioning. Please include the type of machinery which may be installed on site:




10. Vehicle, Pedestrian Access, Road and Rights of Way

Is a new or altered pedestrian access proposed to or from an existing public highway?

Yes No

Are any new roads to be provided within the site to which the public will have access?

Yes No

Are there any existing public rights of way within or adjacent to the site? Yes No

Do the proposals require any diversion/enhancement of an existing right of way?

Yes No

If you answered Yes to any of the above questions, please show details on your plans/drawings and state the reference of the plan(s)/drawing(s) in Question 13.

11. Vehicle Parking

Please provide the proposed number of on‐site parking space:

Type of Vehicle Total Spaces Proposed

Cars

Disabled spaces

Vans / Light goods vehicles

Heavy goods vehicles

Cycle spaces

Motorcycles

Note – Parking standards for the LDO area are set out in Revised County Parking Standards and Transport Contributions Methodology, Supplementary Planning Guidance adopted by West Sussex County Council November 2003. (http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/cs/mis/041103ht2b.pdf)




12. Relevant Supporting Information and Plans Tick

All of the following supporting information and plans must be submitted with this application form at the required scale:

a. Site location plan (scale 1:1250 or 1:2500) – clearly identifying the

development site by a red line and includes other land owned by the

Applicant in blue.

b. Site Plan or Block Plan (scale 1:500 or 1:200) – for all proposals

including buildings

c. Other plans and drawings or information necessary to describe the

subject of the application.

d. Existing and Proposed elevations (scale1:50 or 1:100 or 1:200) for all

proposals including buildings with written dimensions.

e. Existing and Proposed Floor Plans (scale1:50 or 1:100 or 1:200) for all

proposals including buildings with written dimensions.

f. Existing and proposed site sections and finished door and site levels

(scale 1:50 or 1:100) with written dimensions.

g. Parking provision plan (drawn at a scale of 1:500 or 1:200), where

necessary

13. Details or proposed vehicle and non‐vehicle access (with reference to drawings)




14. Details of the proposed development, with reference to the LDO Design

Guidance (please note, refer to relevant drawing numbers where appropriate).

Roof Materials

Wall Materials

Window and Door Materials

Hard and Soft Landscaping Materials

15. Estimated date that the development will commence.




16. Landowners Consent

The landowners consent must have been sought prior to submitting a scheme. Please provide details below:

Name of Owner

Address:

Date Notice Served to Owner:

Signed – Applicant: Signed – Agent: Date (DD/MM/YYYY)




17. Agricultural Land Declaration

You must complete either A or B.

A – None of the land to which the application relates is, or is part of, an agricultural holding.

Signed – Applicant Signed – Agent Date (DD/MM/YYYY)

B – I have/the Applicant has given the requisite notice to every person other than myself/the Applicant who, on the day 21 days before the date of this application, was a tenant of an agricultural holding on all or part of the land to which this application relates, as listed below:

Name of Tenant: Address: Date Notice Served:

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

Signed – Applicant Signed – Agent Date (DD/MM/YYYY)




18. Declaration

The applicant hereby gives notice to Arun District Council of the proposal to develop land within the Horticultural Development LDO area in accordance with the submitted details. The applicant confirms that, if it is confirmed by the council to be permitted development, the development will proceed in accordance with the submitted details, and only following approval of all details reserved by condition. The applicant confirms that a Commencement of Development Notice will be sent to the council prior to the approved works starting. The applicant understands that the council must be notified of any material variation from the submitted details, which may require a re‐assessment of compliance with the LDO.

Signed – Applicant: Signed – Agent: Date (DD/MM/YYYY)


Appendix F: Notice of Intention to Start Development Form


Not1

1.1 Prior

must

start

coun

1.2 Notic

ArunArunMaltLittleWesBN17 Tel: (Fax: DX: 5 Ema

ice of inte

r to commen

t be given to

ing date. Prio

cil in monito

ce is given by

n District Con Civic Centtravers Roadehampton t Sussex 7 5LF

(01903) 737(01903) 7257406 Little

il: planning@

ention to

cing intende

Arun Distric

or notificatio

oring develop

y completing

ouncil re d

7 500 3 936 ehampton

@arun.gov

App

start deve

ed developm

ct Council (th

on of the inte

pment activi

g this form an

.uk

pendix F – No

elopment

ment which is

he council) w

ention to sta

ty within the

nd submittin

otice of Inten

s permitted b

within 5 work

art developm

e LDO area.

ng it to the co

ntion to Star

by the LDO, n

king days of t

ment is requir

ouncil at the

rt Developme

notice in writ

the proposed

red to assist

e following ad

ent Form

ting

d

the

ddress:


Appendix F – Notice of Intention to Start Development Form


Notice of intention to start development

1. LDO reference (a)

2. Site Address

3. Applicant

4. Description of development (b)

5. If the development will be erected in phases, please provide details below

6. Contact details of lead contractor/site manager

Address:

Telephone: Email:

7. Proposed date works will start on

site (DD/MM/YYYY) (c)


Appendix F – Notice of Intention to Start Development Form


8. Declaration

The applicant hereby gives confirmation of the intention to start the permitted development and confirms that all relevant LDO pre‐commencement requirements and planning conditions have been approved by the council. Site works will not commence until 10 working days from the date of this notification. (d)

Signed Applicant Signed Agent

Date: (DD/MM/YYYY) Date: (DD/MM/YYYY)

Notes:

a. This is the pre‐development notification reference provided by the council in

response to when an application has been made.

b. Please use the description of development provided on the pre‐development

notification form where an application has been made.

c. This date must be a minimum of 10 working days post‐submission of this form.

d. Supporting evidence must be submitted on request if the pre‐development

notification procedure has not been followed.


Appendix 2:

Procedure for Making Local Development Orders (“LDOs”)

Introduction The legislation governing the making of Local Development Orders is set out in sections 61A to 61D and Schedule 4 A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4A states that an LDO must be prepared in accordance with such procedure as is prescribed by a development order. The procedure for LDOs is set out in article 34 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010. The Localism Act 2011 made it easier for Local Planning Authorities (“LPAs”) to make LDOs as it removed the requirement for LDOs to achieve policies in adopted local development documents. Procedure The steps that need to be taken are as follows:- 1. Prepare draft order and a statement of reasons for making the order. The statement must contain a description of the development which the order would permit and a plan or statement identifying the land to which the order would relate.

2. The LPA must then consult any of the persons set out in article 34(3) whose interests they consider would be affected by the order. They must also consult any person whom they would have been required to consult on an application for planning permission for the development proposed to be permitted by the order. In carrying out the consultation the LPA shall:- (a) send a copy of the draft order and statement of reasons to the consultees; (b) specify a consultation period of not less than 28 days; and (c) take account of all representations received by them during the consultation period specified. 3. During the consultation period the LPA must:- (1) make a copy of the draft order and statement of reasons available for inspection at:- (a) their principal office during normal working hours; and (b) such other places within their area as they consider appropriate. (2) publish on their website:- (a) the draft order and statement of reasons; (b) a statement that those documents are available for inspection and the places where and times when they can be inspected; and


(c) the date for the receipt of representations on the draft order which shall be not less than 28 days after the date of first publication on the website. (3) give notice by local advertisement of the matters referred to in (2) above. 4. Where the draft order would grant planning permission for development specified in the order, the LPA must:- (1) display in at least one place on or near to the site to which the order relates a notice in the form or substantially in the form specified in Schedule 7 and the notice shall be displayed for a period of not less than 28 days; and (2) serve a copy of that notice on every person whom the LPA knows to be the owner or tenant of any part of the site whose name and address is known to the LPA. The notice must give a period of not less than 28 days from when it is first displayed or served for representations to be received. 5. Any representations received within the timescales referred to above as a result of the aforementioned consultation, publicity and service shall be taken into account by the LPA in deciding what modifications should be made to the draft order or whether such order should be adopted.

6. The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 simplified the Local Development Order process by removing the requirement for the local planning authority to submit the order to the Secretary of State before adoption for consideration of whether to intervene. This was replaced by a requirement to notify the Secretary of State, via the National Planning Casework Unit at [email protected], as soon as practicable after adoption. The Act also removed the requirement for Local Development Orders to be reported on as part of Authorities’ Monitoring Reports.


Appendix 3:

List of organisations and agencies to be consulted on the draft LDO

The consultees include those that the LPA is obliged to consult as a statutory requirement, as defined by the regulations, and local consultees where the LDO sites are located, such as parish councils, neighbourhood planning groups, landowners and businesses.

Coast to Capital (C2C) LEP

Coastal West Sussex Partnership

Environment Agency

Highways England

Historic England

Homes and Community Agencies

Landowners & Developers

Marine Management Organisation

Natural England

Neighbourhood Planning Groups

Neighbouring LPAs

Network Rail

NHS Coastal West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group

Parish Councils

Sussex Biodiversity Partnership

Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner

Sussex Wildlife Trust

Utility Companies

West Sussex County Council

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service

West Sussex Growers Group

Those businesses and landowners in Arun subject to information consultation in 2015


Appendix 4: Equalities Impact Assessment

Equalities Impact Assessment

Arun Horticulture

Draft Local Development Order

Public authorities have a duty to assess and disclose the expected impact of policies, plans, strategies and functions on race, disability and gender. An Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) examines a proposed or existing policy, plan, strategy or project to identify what effect its implementation may have on different groups in the community. An EIA can anticipate and recommend ways to avoid any discriminatory or negative consequences for a particular group, on the grounds of: 1. Race 2. Gender Reassignment 3. Disability 4. Religion or Belief Partnership 5. Sexual Orientation 6. Age 7. Sex 8. Pregnancy or Maternity Status 9. Marriage or Civil An EIA also enables demonstration of the potential benefits for equality target groups arising from a proposed policy or project. Scope This project is to implement a Local Development Order (LDO). A LDO grants planning permission for specific types of development that are set out in the Order Schedule, providing they conform to meet the requirements of the related accompanying Design Code and planning conditions. This EIA considers its effect on customers who currently apply for planning permission; i.e the process. Project Title Arun Horticulture - Draft Local Development

Order 1.1 Date January 2016 1.2 Project Manager Karl Roberts

1.3 Project Function No 1.4 Policy Yes 1.5 Procedure Yes 1.6 Background

The LDO is being developed to help facilitate

redevelopment and investment in those areas

where the horticulture sector is concentrated

in the Arun Local Planning Area though an

accelerated, simplified and more cost effective


planning process;

It aims to simplify processes and remove straight forward and low impact planning applications that comply with the LDO being undertaken through the full planning application process. It will reduce the time, level of work (applicant and officer) and simplify the process for certain types of land use that can normally take 8 to 13 weeks to resolve through a 28 day pre-development notification form and a 10 day commencement notice certification process A fee of £200 is proposed to be charged for the optional pre-development notification form process.

1.7 Process This process follows the Equality and Diversity guidance for Equality Impact Assessments and is being drafted at the outset of proposed statutory consultation on the LDO proposals.

2.0 Consultation Internal consultation will include CMT and

relevant service managers. Information will be examined only in relation to the implementation of an LDO. External consultation will take place as part of the LDO process itself, which will eventually require clearance through Council.

3.0 Groups/Characteristics Impacts identified 3.1 Race Understanding of detail process where

English is not the first language.

3.2 Gender reassignment None identified 3.3 Disability Deaf or hard of

hearing None envisaged should be addressed by normal Customer Care Standards

3.4 Visual impairment None envisaged should be addressed by normal Customer Care Standards

3.5 Speech impairment None envisaged should be addressed by normal Customer Care Standards

3.6 Learning difficulties May not be able to understand the complexity of the process, however that is no different to present process and is dealt with under current Customer Care Standards

3.8 Mental Illness May not be able to understand the complexity of the process, however that is no different to present process and is dealt with under current Customer Care Standards


3.9 Religion and beliefs We do not see that there are any impacts on

this protected characteristic.

3.10 Sexual Orientation We do not see that there are any impacts on this protected characteristic.

3.11 Age We do not see that there are any impacts on this protected characteristic.

3.12 Sex We do not see that there are any impacts on this protected characteristic.

3.13 Pregnancy or Maternity Status

We do not see that there are any impacts on this protected characteristic.

3.14 Marriage or Civil Partnership

We do not see that there are any impacts on this protected characteristic.


Date post:	01-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times