JOHN WARDHead of Finance and Governance Services

Contact: Graham Thrussell (Senior Member Services Officer) 01243 534653gthrussell@chichester.gov.uk

East Pallant House1 East PallantChichesterWest SussexPO19 1TYTel: 01243 785166www.chichester.gov.uk

A meeting of Planning Committee will be held in The Assembly Room The Council House Chichester City Council North Street Chichester on Wednesday 27 April 2016 at 09:30

MEMBERS: Mr R Hayes (Chairman), Mrs C Purnell (Vice-Chairman), Mr G Barrett, Mr M Cullen, Mrs J Duncton, Mr M Dunn, Mr J F Elliott, Mr M Hall, Mr L Hixson, Mrs J Kilby, Mr G McAra, Mr S Oakley, Mr R Plowman, Mrs J Tassell and Mrs P Tull

AGENDA

ALTERNATIVE VENUE FOR THIS MEETING

Note On this occasion the Planning Committee meeting will not be held at the usual venue of East Pallant House but instead at Chichester City Council’s Assembly Room on the first floor of the Council House in North Street Chichester. The reason for the change of venue is that the committee rooms at East Pallant House are currently unavailable for meetings due to the forthcoming police and crime commissioner election.

1 Chairman's Announcements Any apologies for absence which have been received will be noted at this stage.

The Planning Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any items in the schedule of planning application (agenda items 6 to 20) which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

2 Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday 30 March 2016 will be circulated as a separate document subsequent to the despatch of this agenda.

3 Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 24 b).

4 Declarations of Interests (pages 1 to 2)

For details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish

Public Document Pack

councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies, please refer to pages 1 to 2 of this agenda.

Such interests are hereby disclosed by each member in respect of agenda items in the schedule of planning applications where the Council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular item or application.

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are to be made by members of the Planning Committee in respect of matters on the agenda or this meeting.

There are sometimes also declarations by members that they will not participate in the discussion of and decision on a particular item for various reasons eg predetermination or bias.

5 Masterplan for the West of Chichester Strategic Development Location (pages 3 to 22)

The Planning Committee will consider the attached agenda report and a recommendation that it endorses the broad approach to the development of the West of Chichester strategic development location as set out within the Framework Plan Phase 1 and 2 and Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement (March 2016).

PLANNING APPLICATIONS - AGENDA ITEMS 6 TO 20 INCLUSIVE

A table showing how planning applications are referenced appears in section 4 of the notes at the end of these agenda front sheets.

6 WH/15/03524/OUTEIA - Land North of Stane Street Madgwick Lane Westhampnett West Sussex (pages 23 to 77)

Residential development comprising up to 300 residential dwellings, including an element of affordable housing, with vehicular access from Stane Street and Madgwick Lane, associated landscaping, a community facility, open space and children's play space, surface water attenuation and ancillary works.

7 LX/15/02012/OUT - Loxwood Nurseries Guildford Road Loxwood Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0SA (pages 78 to 100)

Outline application for proposed residential development comprising 43 dwellings, 2 no retail units, access roads, landscaping and village green.

8 BI/15/03851/FUL - Unit 4 Premier Business Park Birdham Road Appledram West Sussex PO20 7BU (pages 101 to 113)

Change of use of existing marine retail/storage/light industrial unit to new destination retail unit incorporation new showfront, entrance and side fire escape.

9 BO/16/00397/DOM - Glebe House Walton Lane Bosham Chichester West Sussex PO18 8QB (pages 114 to 121)

Domestic garage and garden store.

10 CC/16/00212/DOM - 12 Sherborne Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 3AA (pages 122 to 128)

Single storey, flat roof extension to rear. Conversion of existing garage to habitable space with garage door changed to new entrance door with external canopy. New dropped kerb to allow for two access points into driveway.

11 CH/15/03838/FUL - Plot A Pond Farm Newells Lane West Ashling Chichester West Sussex PO18 8DD (pages 129 to 136)

Removal of condition 2 of planning permission CH/10/04417/COU and APP/L3815/A/11/ 2153950.

12 CH/15/03840/FUL - Plot A Pond Farm Newells Lane West Ashling West Sussex PO18 8DF (pages 137 to 143)

Proposed detached utility building.

13 D/15/03176/FUL - The Blacksmiths Selsey Road Donnington West Sussex PO20 7PR (pages 144 to 152)

Change of use of land to the siting of 6 no holiday lodges, associated parking and new access from existing car park.

14 EWB/16/00311/FUL - 22 Seafield Close East Wittering West Sussex PO20 8DP (pages 153 to 159)

Conversion of 1 no single storey detached dwelling to form 2 no 2 storey semi-detached dwellings, including demolition of existing garage and outbuildings.

15 FU/15/03023/FUL - Field West of Beachlands Nursery Newells Lane West Ashling West Sussex (pages 160 to 172)

Change of use of land to a single pitch site including utility building for settled gypsy accommodation.

16 LX/15/03625/FUL - Mallards Farm Guildford Road Loxwood West Sussex RH14 0QW (pages 173 to 179)

Replacement dwelling.

17 O/15/03720/OUT - Land on the North Side of Shopwyke Road Shopwyke West Sussex (pages 180 to 195)

Additional 85 dwellings on land with outline approval for 500 dwellings under reference O/11/05283/OUT.

18 WE/16/00150/FUL - Sawmills Farm Monks Hill Westbourne West Sussex PO10 8QL (pages 196 to 206)

Closure of existing agricultural access and creation of new agricultural access onto Emsworth Common Road.

19 WW/15/03446/FUL - Leander Roman Landing West Wittering West Sussex PO20 8AL (pages 207 to 218)

Erection of dwelling-house (amendments to 99/00351/OUT and 02/00341/REM).

20 SDNP/16/00787/HOUS - Brook Cottages Mill Pond Lane West Ashling West Sussex PO18 8DY (pages 219 to 227)

Dormer window to west elevation roof slope (amendment to previously approved dormer window).

21 DCLG Technical Consultation on Proposed Starter Home Regulations (pages 228 to 258)

The Planning Committee is asked to consider the agenda report and its appendix (which were before the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel on Thursday 14 April 2016), to note the contents of the Department for Communities and Local Government Technical Consultation on Proposed Starter Homes Regulations and to endorse the response.

22 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions (pages 259 to 285)

The Planning Committee will consider the quarterly schedule for the period up to 31 March 2016 which updates the position with regard to planning enforcement matters.

23 Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters (pages 286 to 304)

The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements.

24 Late Items

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the chairman at the start of this meeting (agenda item 3) as follows:

a) Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection

b) Items which the chairman has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting.

25 Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no restricted items for consideration by the Planning Committee at this meeting.

NOTES

1. The press and public may be excluded from the meeting during any item of business whenever it is likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in section 100I of and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

2. The press and public may view the agenda papers on Chichester District Council’s website at Chichester District Council - Minutes, agendas and reports unless these are exempt items.

3. Subject to the provisions allowing the exclusion of the press and public, the photographing, filming or recording of this meeting from the public seating area is permitted. To assist with the management of the meeting, anyone wishing to do this is asked to inform the chairman of the meeting of his or her intentions before the meeting starts. The use of mobile devices for access to social media is permitted but these should be switched to silent for the duration of the meeting. Those undertaking such activities must do so discreetly and not disrupt the meeting, for example by oral commentary, excessive noise, distracting movement or flash photography. Filming of children, vulnerable adults or members of the audience who object should be avoided. [Standing Order 11.3 in the Constitution of Chichester District Council]

4. How applications are referenced:

a) First 2 Digits = Parishb) Next 2 Digits = Yearc) Next 5 Digits = Application Numberd) Final Letters = Application Type

Application Type

ADV Advert Application AGR Agricultural Application (following PNO)

CMA County Matter Application (eg Minerals)CAC Conservation Area Consent COU Change of UseCPO Consultation with County Planning (REG3)DEM Demolition ApplicationDOM Domestic Application (Householder)ELD Existing Lawful DevelopmentFUL Full ApplicationGVT Government Department ApplicationHSC Hazardous Substance ConsentLBC Listed Building ConsentOHL Overhead Electricity LineOUT Outline Application PLD Proposed Lawful DevelopmentPNO Prior Notification (Agr, Dem, Tel)REG3 District Application – Reg 3REG4 District Application – Reg 4

Committee report changes appear in bold text.Application Status

ALLOW Appeal AllowedAPP Appeal in ProgressAPPRET Invalid Application ReturnedAPPWDN Appeal WithdrawnBCO Building Work CompleteBST Building Work StartedCLOSED Case ClosedCRTACT Court Action AgreedCRTDEC Hearing Decision MadeCSS Called in by Secretary of StateDEC DecidedDECDET Decline to determineDEFCH Defer – ChairmanDISMIS Appeal DismissedHOLD Application Clock StoppedINV Application Invalid on ReceiptLEG Defer – Legal AgreementLIC Licence Issued

REM Approval of Reserved MattersREN Renewal (of Temporary Permission)TCA Tree in Conservation AreaTEL Telecommunication Application (After PNO)TPA Works to tree subject of a TPOCONACC AccessesCONADV AdvertsCONAGR AgriculturalCONBC Breach of ConditionsCONCD CoastalCONCMA County mattersCONCOM Commercial/Industrial/BusinessCONDWE Unauthorised dwellingsCONENG Engineering operationsCONHDG HedgerowsCONHH HouseholdersCONLB Listed BuildingsCONMHC Mobile homes / caravansCONREC Recreation / sportsCONSH Stables / horsesCONT TreesCONTEM Temporary uses – markets/shooting/motorbikesCONTRV TravellersCONWST Wasteland

NFA No Further ActionNODEC No DecisionNONDET Never to be determinedNOOBJ No ObjectionNOTICE Notice IssuedNOTPRO Not to Prepare a Tree Preservation OrderOBJ ObjectionPCNENF PCN Served, Enforcement PendingPCO Pending ConsiderationPD Permitted DevelopmentPDE Pending DecisionPER Application PermittedPLNREC DC Application SubmittedPPNR Planning Permission Required S64PPNREQ Planning Permission Not RequiredREC Application ReceivedREF Application RefusedREVOKE Permission RevokedS32 Section 32 NoticeSPLIT Split DecisionSTPSRV Stop Notice ServedSTPWTH Stop Notice WithdrawnVAL Valid Application ReceivedWDN Application WithdrawnYESTPO Prepare a Tree Preservation Order

Chichester District Council

Planning Committee

Wednesday 27 April 2016

Declarations of Interests

Details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies are set out in the attached agenda report The interests therein are disclosed by each member in respect of planning applications or other items in the agenda which require a decision where the council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular planning application or item Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests, prejudicial interests or predetermination or bias are to be made by members of the Planning Committee or other members who are present in respect of matters on the agenda or this meeting

Personal Interests - Membership of Parish Councils

The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of the parish councils stated below in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where their respective parish councils have been consulted:

Mr J F Elliott – Singleton Parish Council (SE)

Mr R J Hayes - Southbourne Parish Council (SB)

Mrs J L Kilby – Chichester City Council (CCC)

Mr G V McAra - Midhurst Town Council (MI)

Mr S J Oakley – Tangmere Parish Council (TG)

Mr R E Plowman – Chichester City Council (CC)

Mrs L C Purnell – Selsey Town Council (SY)

Personal Interests - Membership of West Sussex County Council

The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of West Sussex County Council in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where that local authority has been consulted:

Page 1

Agenda Item 4

Mrs J E Duncton - West Sussex County Council Member for the Petworth Division

Mr G V McAra - West Sussex County Council Member for the Midhurst Division

Mr S J Oakley - West Sussex County Council Member for the Chichester East Division

Personal Interests - Chichester District Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies

The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest as Chichester District Council appointees to the outside organisations or as members of the public bodies below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where such organisations or bodies have been consulted:

Mr G A F Barrett - Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Mr T M E Dunn – South Downs National Park Authority

Mr L Hixson – Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Mr R Plowman – Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Personal Interests – Chichester City Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies

The following member of the Planning Committee declares a personal interest as a Chichester City Council appointees to the outside organisations stated below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where that organisation has been consulted:

NONE

Page 2

Chichester District Council

Planning Committee

Wednesday 27 April 2016

Masterplan for the West of Chichester

Strategic Development Location

1. Contacts

Report Author: Jo Bell - Development Manager (Majors and Business) Telephone: 01243 534899 E-mail: jbell@chichester.gov.uk

2. Recommendation

2.1. That the Planning Committee endorses the broad approach to

development of the West of Chichester strategic development location as set out within the Framework Plan Phase 1 and 2 and Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement (March 2016).

3. Introduction and Policy Background 3.1. The key polices which relate to the masterplanning of the West of Chichester

Strategic Development Location (SDL) are:

Local Plan Policy 7 – Masterplanning Strategic Development

Local Plan Policy 15 - West of Chichester Strategic Development Location

West of Chichester Concept Statement

3.2. Policy 7 of the adopted Local Plan requires the strategic development locations identified in the Local Plan to be planned though a comprehensive masterplanning process. In broad terms, the masterplans should describe and map the overall vision and concept for each of the proposed strategic development locations. They should also set out the intended implementation and phasing of development.

3.3. Policy 15 of the Local Plan identifies the West of Chichester SDL. The SDL is directly adjacent to the western edge of the Chichester City settlement boundary and is around 2km from the city centre. The site is bounded by Centurion Way to the east, the railway line to the south and Old Broyle Road to the north. Policy 15 requires development proposals to have particular regard to a number of site specific requirements. Taking account of these development requirements, policy 15 identifies the West of Chichester SDL for mixed development comprising 1,600 homes, 6 hectares of employment land, a neighbourhood centre / community hub and open space and green infrastructure, including a Country Park. It is envisaged that the site will be delivered in two phases, the initial phase focused to the north of the site and the second phase extending southwards.

Page 3

Agenda Item 5

3.4. A document titled ‘Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement (March 2016)’ has been submitted with the outline application 14/04301/OUT which includes a masterplan (Framework Plan Phase 1 and 2 - drawing number LL-225-P-201) as well as an indicative phasing plan, transport highway works and mitigation note and indicative sports pavilion plans. The masterplan and Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement, which have been amended through the course of the application, demonstrate how the whole SDL could be developed.

4. Consultation 4.1. The masterplans and explanatory document were submitted as part of planning

application 14/04301/OUT and therefore the consultation on the masterplans took place as part of the consultation on the application. Below are relevant extracts from the consultation responses provided in relation to application 14/04301/OUT which specifically relate to the masterplans.

4.2. Fishbourne Parish Council

The current application is only for phase 1 of the project but is accompanied by a masterplan which shows that only when both phases have been completed will the on-site sewerage treatment works cease to use the access route from Clay Lane. It would seem not to be unrealistic to estimate temporary use as being a period of at least 10 years. Clay Lane is a country lane. It cannot accommodate construction traffic. It is not fit for its increasing use as a rat-run by drivers anxious to avoid the dangers and delays of Fishbourne roundabout. We have raised with West Sussex Highways the importance of a holistic approach to extra development traffic. The use of Clay Lane for access would not be feasible and the increased risk factor to those who live in and/or drive along Clay Lane would mean it could not be described as sustainable development unless the developers were able to offer substantial mitigation measures.

4.3. Chichester Harbour Conservancy

This is a very large development where the potential for increased recreational disturbance to Chichester Harbour SPA is great, due to the number of dwellings proposed and the proximity and ease of access to the Harbour footpaths. The application proposes a country park and large areas of green links around and through the proposed development to provide new and existing residents with large areas of recreational space and to alleviate potential increased recreational pressures. The illustrative masterplans show a number of new footpaths and cycleways which would easily link into the AONB and the Harbour. There would also be easy access to the Harbour shoreline from an existing footpath across the southern part of the site. It is very important that there are alternative links to footpaths away from the Harbour. The current illustrative masterplans do not appear to show links to alternative walking routes outside the site which lead away from the Harbour. Additional mitigation should be secured to minimise impacts. The open space provided within the development should be designed to ensure maximum attractiveness including links to open countryside to help reduce recreational pressure on Chichester Harbour.

Page 4

More information is required about where treated sewerage would be discharged into Chichester Harbour and the location of surface water drainage features. The development must not connect to Chichester Wastewater Treatment Works.

4.4. Environment Agency

Objection maintained. Risks to surface and ground water from the proposed foul drainage option have not been fully assessed.

4.5. Southern Water

The Environment Agency should be consulted directly regarding the use of a private wastewater treatment works drainage which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. Southern Water would look to the connection of the proposed development to the Tangmere Wastewater Treatment Works when capacity is available (planned for 2019).

4.6. Highways England

The revised masterplan and associated documents do not alter our position of no objection on the basis that the Council will be requiring the applicant via a S106 agreement to enter into a Section 278 agreement with Highways England for A27 mitigation in accordance with the SPD.

4.7. Natural England

On the matter of recreational disturbance, no objections raised subject to the provision of SANGS and contribution to the Solent Mitigation Protect. We are supportive of the broad principles of management of the SANGS as described.

4.8. Historic England

The development does seem likely to cause some harm to the heritage significance of the Broyle earthwork scheduled monument. However, we note that action has been taken to avoid some harm by restricting the extent of development to an area south of the B2178 and provision made to enhance the monument and woodland setting through improved management. The area is intended to become a country park, which we welcome. However we think that the change of open land to the south-west of the B2178 is likely to cause some harm to the heritage significance by substantially altering the open rural character of its setting and thereby making it more difficult to appreciate the purpose of the entrenchments in enclosing and subdividing rural land, though we do not consider the harm to be substantial.

4.9. Sport England

Sport England considers that the proposal conflicts with paragraph 70 of the NPPF and Objective 3 of Sport England’s objectives as an integrated approach

Page 5

has not been taken to the provision of sports facilities. Sport England objects to the proposal. Sport England recommends the diversion of Centurion Way along the edge of the playing fields. The built sports facilities require 690square metres (not including storage or changing accommodation) within one hall as opposed to 280sqm (phase 1) or 400sqm (phase 2).

4.10. NHS

We estimate that 1,000sqm is needed for the medical centre not the 530sqm discussed, rising to 1,070sqm including a pharmacy. The community facility and medical centre could be designed together to better use the space.

4.11. South Downs National Park Authority

Without a comprehensive assessment of how the overall site may be developed, the impacts on the SDNP cannot be fully assessed. The indicative masterplan provides some indication. The proposals for phase 1 show the primary highway access from a new roundabout junction with the B2178. Although a future phase may include highway access onto or in the vicinity of Cathedral Way to the south, The SDNPA has some concern this will lead to a higher proportion of traffic travelling through the National Park. The SDNPA is concerned about recreational pressure within parts of the SDNP to the north of the site. Provision of access to a car park off Broyle Road is welcomed in principle, as this will encourage access to a future country park in the fields east of Brandy Hole Copse and the Centurion Way beyond. A safe crossing would be required. It is important in distant views that this edge of town site does not visually compete with the city centre. It is important to maintain a feeling of openness from the elevated sections of Centurion Way. The SDNPA has concerns about the urbanising influence of the new roundabout junction. The impact of views of the site on the experience of those travelling into the SDNP is also raised as a concern. The development should seek to optimise areas for habitat creativity with carefully planned retention of existing hedgerows and trees of importance as well as the introduction of new features including sustainable drainage features and areas of wildflower rich meadows. These latter features can be provided in part of the Southern Country Park, as indicated on the illustrative masterplan. The proposed enhanced recreational opportunities accord in principle with the second purpose of a national park. Increased visitor numbers could cause pressures upon the SDNP. Opportunities should be sought for enhanced walking and cycling links to the wider area of the SDNP from the development and existing housing to alleviate these pressures. There should be good links to the Centurion Way from the new housing. Additional adequate link routes should be created in the area. The application and CDC Concept Statement focus on

Page 6

links with Chichester City; improved access from the west should also be considered.

4.12. WSCC Flood Risk Management

The areas adjacent to existing watercourses are shown to be at high risk of surface water flooding. Development of properties in these areas should not be encouraged or accepted. Existing ordinary watercourses crossing the site should remain and be incorporated into the development plan.

4.13. WSCC Education and Early Years

The primary requirement for the entire 1600 home development is for a 2 form entry (2FE). Phase 1 will require the completion of one form entry plus the core facilities (hall, staff, kitchen, dining) for the full 2FE provision. Early years is to be integrated into the same site. Their requirement is for 2.5 classrooms total on site. The primary education requirement is for 1.93ha land as a minimum, plus 0.1ha for early years, giving a total land requirement of 2.03ha.

4.14. WSCC Public Rights of Way

Public footpaths 2930 and 3015 are directly affected by the proposals but both seem to be accommodated within the development on their legal lines so there would be no objection from PROW. It would be really advantageous to upgrade the existing public footpaths to public bridleways and to dedicate new bridleways to improve all-round access for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. It would also be good to see new links created to improve access for residents and locals to areas outside the development and to the area proposed as a Country Park to the north east. Additional links to the north would improve off-road access via West Stock or Lavant to the South Downs National Park. Links onto Centurion Way would be advantageous from the Country Park and development itself.

4.15. CDC Archaeology Officer A strategy is required for the preservation of the designated and non-designated heritage assets (including the historic field pattern) that are present as landscape features and a statement of how it is intended that the impact on unknown archaeology that might be present will be mitigated. The latter should include a strategy for evaluation in order to identify deposits of significance that might be present, together with suitable proposals to enable their proper conservation (i.e. through sympathetic foundation design, full excavation and recording and/or preservation in-situ).

4.16. CDC Environmental Health Officer We welcome all measures to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport.

4.17. CDC Drainage Engineer

Soakage should be investigated as a priority across the site and infiltration used where possible. Where infiltration is not possible, restricted discharge to

Page 7

watercourses may be acceptable. Watercourses should be retained and protected with a 3m easement.

4.18. CDC Environmental Strategy Officer

Hedgerows and woodland should be retained and any gaps which need to be created within the tree lines and hedgerows should be kept to a minimum. The retention of the ancient woodland and a 15m – 50m buffer being used to protect this area is supported. We are pleased to see the retention of the chalk stream onsite and the use of green corridors around the stream to ensure it remains undisturbed and can still be utilised by wildlife for foraging and commuting. The impact of the proposed wastewater treatment on the site’s ecology and hydrology needs to be fully assessed, including in the event of pump failure.

4.19. CDC Conservation and Design Manager

The layout presented in effect serves to suggest how the amount of development proposed can be accommodated on site in layout and density terms. It takes forward the developer’s masterplan derived from the second option that emerged from the stakeholder workshop that became the preferred option following public consultation. The approach mainly in the form of perimeter blocks is a well established, tried and tested form of development and is supported. The layout presented is very much in line with the masterplan. Key points from the workshop that should be shown to have informed the development include development being integrated with the city, a neighbourhood with a community hub, employment integrated into the layout and ecological corridors.

4.20. CDC Historic Buildings Adviser

The primary access to the site is proposed just north of Whitehouse Farm, generally along the historic farm track, introduced via a large roundabout. There is some concern in respect of the impacts of the roundabout type of access in proximity to the Whitehouse Farm and its agricultural context which is likely to be harmful to the setting of the listed building and adjacent cottages forming part of the historic farm group. Accepting that other considerations might preclude relocation or an alternative form of junction, it will be important how this is detailed so as to mitigate harm as far as is possible. The more detailed ‘Phase 1 Development Area’ which forms a parameter plan also raises some potential concerns in respect of the development abutting the farmhouse site, though it is appreciated that this is a reserved matter. Whilst a ‘buffer’ has been incorporated (outside of the development site) the wider setting of the heritage asset requires more than just screening. Any form of development here is likely to have an impact on the setting of Whitehouse Farm. Ideally, this area adjacent to the buffer could either have a different use, such as a pseudo-agricultural use (for example allotments), or there should be a stronger buffer zone to soften the potential impacts.

Page 8

Taking account of the Cathedral views, the ‘secondary street’ following the sight-line to the Cathedral to the south-east should be designed to encourage vistas terminating in the Cathedral, not just for motorists on the road itself, but in conjunction with the public square. From a pedestrian point of view, this public space should really benefit from the amenity of the Cathedral Spire, such that the core of the development connects and identifies with Chichester and it’s Cathedral. In this way, the potential for pedestrian views from the public square should be carefully considered in respect of the three-story mixed uses on the south side of the square. Particular attention should be given to high-level form and massing of the on the south-east side of the square to enable views from this public ‘urban’ space, possibly connected with pedestrian links to surrounding infrastructure, so that visual connections with the Cathedral spire can be realised.

4.21. CDC Economic Development

The Local Plan has allocated 6ha of B1 employment land to this site, in order for the sustainable economic growth of the district. We welcome the provision of 6ha within the masterplan. We understand that current highway constraints will restrict the use to 10% office and 90% light industrial. The B1 use provided at this site will make a good location for the provision of high value jobs. Increasing the volume of high value jobs will create a more economically sustainable district and is the key to the Economic Strategy. We would prefer more flexibility to enable an increase in the percentage of office space, if market opportunities are presented, within any accessibility issues. Chichester District Council is working with West Sussex County Council on their place plan for Chichester’s Growth, which includes improvements to the road networks to the north of the city centre, to allow easier access to the West of Chichester development.

4.22. CDC Community Facilities

Given the phased development, we would be looking for community space of 1,350 sq. metres for 1600 dwellings. For phase 1 we would expect to see community space of around 625 sq. metres with the scope for this to be enhanced or complemented at a later date. While there maybe demonstrable merit in incorporating the physical requirements of other community services (i.e. Health or Police) within a single building (economies of scale, shared caretaking etc.) this should not be to the detriment of the space available for generic community use. It would be useful to understand what parking capacity is planned for in the Local Centre against the likely use – the colocation of school, medical centre, retail and employment is going to produce some significant peaks. Car traffic is a major issue close to any school – while the site is proposed to be “walkable” traffic management will be an issue at the Local Centre at start and finish of school day, and I wouldn’t want this to be to the detriment of access to community facilities.

4.23. CDC Sport and Leisure Manager

In terms of the masterplan I am happy with the proposed outdoor and indoor facilities identified. The pitches positioned together in one area with joint parking

Page 9

and usage of the changing facilities is sensible, creating a hub for outdoor sport. The indoor facilities in the community centre will offer lots of local opportunities for sport, leisure and community activities. There is a definite need for football pitches of various sizes and a 3G artificial grass pitch would provide year round use. Cricket facilities are also in demand. In terms of phasing, the phase 1 dwellings result in a need for 3.075ha sports pitches. I have estimated the plans show circa 2.7ha. A football pitch provided on the primary school site may address this shortfall.

4.24. CDC Parks and Green Spaces Manager

The scale and strategic nature of the site means consideration will need to be given to the relevance of SPG requirements in this context. I support the expansion of the local nature reserve and protection of a wildlife corridor to the west of Centurion Way.

4.25. Sustrans

The Centurion Way is National Cycle Network Regional Route 88. This traffic free shared use path forms an essential sustainable transport link for visitors and the local population. The proposed development must allow for the continued use of the route throughout, with no severance caused by the proposals. New development must have provision for sustainable transport with links to the Centurion Way.

4.26. South Downs Society

The site is within an area of high quality landscape which forms the approach to the National Park from the historic city of Chichester. The proposed access road from a roundabout on the B2178 Old Broyle Road will introduce an alien element in the pleasant countryside route between the city and the National Park. All phase 1 traffic is proposed to use this route rather than a future southerly link provided in phase 2 to the A27 at the Fishbourne Roundabout. All traffic will have to pass through Chichester or the country lanes and roads within the National Park. This will have a detrimental impact on the tranquillity of the National Park.

4.27. Chichester Society

The masterplan must be revised to create a southern access route from the start of phase 1 so that construction traffic can be directed from Cathedral Way roundabout direct to the new development. Heavy traffic must avoid the Sherborne Road/Westgate junction and Bishop Luffa pupils and Orchard Street, where there are already heightened levels of air pollution.

4.28. 72 Third Party Objections raised in relation to the masterplan, phasing plan and Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement

Access and highways

Detrimental effect of traffic on local roads including Westgate, Sherborne Road, Old Broyle Road and St Paul’s Road

Page 10

B2178 Hunters Race and Salthill Road junctions not included in the proposed highway measures and contributions

Insufficient space for parking on site, will generate more overspill parking

Clear safe cycle routes required as part of mitigation of all junctions and routes, insufficient consideration given to cycling

Applicants have not demonstrated clearly that the local road network can be adapted to cope with the significant increase in traffic (including construction traffic) that the development will generate

Significant re-routing of traffic into already overloaded junctions

Proposed mitigation and improvements will not be sufficient to address transport impacts

High volumes of traffic and pollution expected

One entrance/exit is inadequate for the scale of development

Southern access road should be prioritised for the start of phase 1 not delayed until phase 2

Phase 2 access will bring increased traffic, noise and pollution to Bishop Luffa School

Southern access should link directly into the Cathedral Way roundabout not Westgate or Sherborne Road to reduce congestion

Use of Clay Lane access, temporary or permanent

Provision of employment in the later phases will result in high levels of commuter traffic from the majority of dwellings

Reliance on car use should be expected regardless of suggested alternatives

Impact of additional traffic on Westgate Conservation Area and its listed buildings

A27 issues unresolved

Public transport inadequate

Development not sustainable in transport terms

Insufficient assessment of air quality

Air quality impacts on existing residential areas

Wastewater

High degree of uncertainty over on site treatment or drainage to Tangmere WwTw

Long-term reliability of on-site plant questioned, insufficient information available about function and management

On site treatment will bring unnecessary risk to the public

Need for lorries to remove sewerage, impact on Clay Lane and use of temporary or permanent access

Drainage

Development will increase risk of flooding particularly to the south of the site

Long-term maintenance of retained ditches and watercourses to be secured

River Lavant should be retained on natural course

Surface water to be directed away from Parklands, water storage proposals will increase flood risk there

Alternative means of dealing with surface water and flooding must be considered

Page 11

Ecology

Wildlife corridor and areas to be protected

Dual use for wildlife and as a footpath will create conflict

Deeper green buffer should be used alongside Centurion Way

Country parks not sufficient to mitigate ecological and landscape harm

Country parks to be properly managed

HGV movements will affect the biodiversity value of the site, particularly the country parks

Wildlife corridor to be provided adjacent to Centurion Way

Landscape and visual impacts

Views from Centurion Way destroyed, allotments and a country park are a poor substitute for wildlife and fields

Lost opportunity for Centurion Way enhancements and promotion as a green trail

Car park for the northern country park is out of character and will urbanise the rural area

Urbanisation of B2178 through provision of roundabout and associated infrastructure including lighting and signage

Roundabout will encroach into the northern country park

Inadequate green infrastructure provision

Loss of trees

Cycle routes/footpaths

Centurion Way to be protected

Centurion Way should not be truncated or run through the middle of school premises

Newlands Lane should be upgraded

Community/education/sport/medical facilities and employment

Important to ensure the facilities are delivered in full to meet increased needs

Housing

Mix to include more smaller, particularly 1 bed dwellings, to be more affordable and to reduce trip generation

Design principles

Development density, urban sprawl, effect on historic city

Impact of primary access road and development on 2 New Cottages with insufficient buffer, inconsistent with approach to buffer other existing dwellings

Phasing/delivery

Many facilities linked to 500th dwelling, too late as impacts will take place much earlier than the provisions are in place

Cycle infrastructure to be delivered at an early stage to encourage use

Limited employment opportunities to support the new community, reliance on commuting

Full road system to be constructed prior to any housing

Page 12

4.29. 8 Third Party Support in relation to the masterplan, phasing plan and Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement

Development will provide jobs and support businesses

Support the provision of useful amenities including shops, doctor

Bishop Luffa School will continue to operate and develop should both phases of the West of Chichester site proceed

The school is committed to opening up its facilities (playing fields) to the public and will explore its options in terms of establishing a relationship with the proposed primary school

Support no development north of the B2178 and inclusion of this land into the Brandy Hole Copse Local Nature Reserve or designation as Local Green Space

5. Assessment of Masterplan Requirements

5.1. Policy 7 sets out the Council’s broad approach to masterplanning. It requires

the development of the strategic locations to be planned through a comprehensive masterplanning process of the site together with the details of infrastructure delivery and to include an indicative phasing and implementation plan. It states that masterplans will be expected to achieve the requirements of a number of listed criteria (proportionate to the scale of development). Many of these criteria are reflected in the site specific requirements set out in Policy 15 of the Local Plan or deal with matters of detail to be considered as part of any future planning application. Paragraphs 5.2 – 5.4 below consider how the West of Chichester SDL masterplan complies with the general principles of masterplanning. The detailed criteria listed in policy 7 are also assessed together with the site specific requirements of Policy 15, at paragraphs 5.5 – 5.30 below.

5.2. Policy 7 requires the masterplan to include an indicative development layout and

a phasing and implementation plan. A masterplan (Framework Plan Phase 1 and 2) has been submitted with application 14/04301/OUT which illustrates the specific locations of the different land uses proposed across the whole of the SDL, including the residential, neighbourhood centre (including the primary school, community facilities, health, employment and mixed use and public square) and employment land together with the access points, internal roads, footpaths and cycleways, open space including country parks, children’s play areas, allotments and formal and informal open space, sports pitches, foul sewage treatment works and electricity sub-station.

5.3. The indicative phasing plan provides an indication of how the SDL will be

delivered. The supporting text to Policy 15 of the Local Plan envisages that the site will be delivered in two phases, which is reflected in the current outline planning application which is seeking permission for phase 1 of the mixed use development. The illustrative phasing plan divides the SDL into 6 sub-phases (A-F) although the Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement notes that the parcels identified are likely to be delivered in tandem rather than being exclusively sequentially delivered. The phasing plan shows the following:

A – The northern access from Old Broyle Road, the southern country park,

foul sewage treatment works, landscape buffers on northern and

Page 13

western boundaries to the north of Newlands Lane and a residential parcel of land (up to 278 units) west of Whitehouse Farm.

B – Neighbourhood centre, the western half of the area for sports

pitches/changing facilities and a residential parcel of land (up to 229 units) to the north of residential parcel A.

C - A residential parcel of land (up to 290 units) to the south of residential

parcel A. D – The southern access linking to Westgate, the northern country park

and provision for a car park adjacent to Old Broyle Lane, landscape buffers on the southern and western site boundaries (to the south of Newlands Lane), ecological areas in the southern half of the site and a residential parcel of land (up to 327 units) north of the neighbourhood centre.

E - The eastern half of the area for sports pitches/changing facilities,

approximately half of the employment land in the southern part of the site and a residential parcel of land (up to 205 units) to the west of the neighbourhood centre.

F – The second half of the employment land in the southern part of the site

and a residential parcel of land (up to 274 units) between residential parcel E and the employment land.

5.4. Specific details of the infrastructure implementation plan are outlined in section 3

of the Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement, the details and delivery of which will be secured through the section 106 agreement required as part of the grant of any outline planning permission. A summary is given in the Appendix. Policy 15 masterplanning requirements

5.5. In addition to the general requirements for masterplanning of the site (as set out

above), Policy 15 of the Local Plan sets out further specific site specific requirements for masterplanning the West of Chichester SDL. The masterplan is assessed against these requirements below.

Quantity of development and range of uses

5.6. Policy 15 requires that the West of Chichester SDL allocates a mixed use

development comprising:

1,600 homes (of which 1,250 homes should be delivered during the Plan period)

6 hectares of employment land (suitable for B1 business use)

A neighbourhood centre / community hub, incorporating local shops, a community centre, small offices and a primary school; and

Open space and green infrastructure, including a Country Park.

5.7. The indicative development layout or masterplan is shown on the Framework Plan Phase 1 and 2 (drawing number LL-225-P-201). This outlines the different land uses proposed across the whole of the SDL (residential, employment and

Page 14

neighbourhood centre), together with the roads, pedestrian/cycle accesses, open space and drainage infrastructure proposed across the SDL.

5.8. The masterplan shows the residential development located in the central and

northern parts of the site, north of Newlands Lane. A neighbourhood centre is shown approximately in the centre of the residential development and comprises a primary school, community facilities, medical facilities, mixed use / employment, a public square. A children’s play area is located immediately to the west of the neighbourhood centre. Provision is made for employment land in the south-western part of the site, south of Newlands Lane. It is anticipated that 10% of all the employment floorspace will be delivered as use class B1a (which is offices) and 90% will be use class B1c (which is light industrial).

5.9. The masterplan also illustrates how the main land uses work together with the

infrastructure requirements, in particular the roads, open space provision and drainage. The masterplan shows two accesses into the site, one from Old Broyle Road to the north and one to the south of the site linking to Westgate, with a north-south spine road linking Old Broyle Road with Westgate. A hierarchy of streets is shown through the residential and employment areas. An emergency access is shown at the northern end of the site, connecting to Old Broyle Road. A network of existing and proposed footpaths and cycle paths are illustrated on the masterplan, showing strong connectivity through the site and into the surrounding residential areas. A circular footpath is shown around and through the site which also connects the two country parks.

5.10. In terms of open space provision, the masterplan shows two country parks, one at the far northern end of the site on the northern side of Old Broyle Road and adjacent to Brandy Hole Copse and one at the south-eastern part of the site to the south of Newlands Lane and immediately adjacent to the west of the Centurion Way. The southern country park is also shown to include surface water attenuation features for the site. Landscape buffers are located adjacent to the northern and western boundaries of the site as well as a number of ecological corridors running through the site, incorporating the vast majority of the existing field boundaries and existing trees and hedgerows on the site. Four separate parcels of land are identified for allotments. The sports provision incorporating playing pitches, changing facilities and parking is located at the far southern end of the site, to the north of the southern access road and immediately to the east of Bishop Luffa School. Centurion Way is identified to be re-routed subject to the final layout of the sports pitches. An area of land in the far south-western corner of the site, adjacent to the employment land, is identified for a foul sewage treatment works if required. Integration with the city

5.11. The masterplan demonstrates how the proposals will ensure an efficient use of

the land whilst balancing the need to reflect the landscape character and heritage of the area.

5.12. The masterplan clearly demonstrates consideration of the urban / rural transition, with a significant landscape buffer shown on the northern and western edges, which will filter views and soften the impacts of the development, which in itself will be read against the backdrop of development in Chichester city. On

Page 15

the eastern boundary, the masterplan has shown careful consideration of how the SDL will integrate with Centurion Way, a permitted footpath/cycleway, which abuts the eastern boundary of the SDL. At sections along its route Centurion Way is at grade, elevated or in a cutting. The masterplan reflects this by proposing the southern country park, allotments and sports pitches adjacent to its elevated and at-grade sections with the residential development adjacent to the area where Centurion Way dips into the cutting, further to the north.

5.13. Although the detailed housing layout would primarily be for consideration at the Reserved Matters stage, the Masterplan illustrates that the development has been designed with a traditional perimeter block structure, creating active street frontages. The mixed use neighbourhood centre is located towards the centre of the residential development, ensuring that it will be within easy reach for residents. The masterplan demonstrates that the development parcels could be designed with vehicular, cycle and pedestrian links that enhance the permeability of the site and to provide a number of options for connecting the site with its surroundings. The road layout shows a hierarchy of streets, with a traditional perimeter block structure rather than a series of cul-de-sacs, which further improves permeability. The residential layout and the internal road layout has enabled the retention of the existing field boundaries comprising trees, hedgerows and some ditches/watercourses and has established a network of green spaces. This increase permeability whilst also retaining existing landscape features helping to ensure its integration into the existing landscape.

5.14. To enhance the sense of place, the incorporation of broad ‘character areas’

within the proposals will help to provide the development with a distinct character related to the existing settlement patterns. The arrangement of spaces plus changes in density and form of development will create variation in the scheme. This should reflect the local character and distinctiveness of Chichester city. Within the local centre, the community, medical, mixed uses and employment and the primary school have been designed around the public square to further create a sense of place.

5.15. In terms of density, the Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement outlines

that the densities across the site vary from between 20 dwellings per hectare to a maximum of 55 dwellings per hectare with an average density across the site being 34.5dph. The higher density areas are proposed around the neighbourhood centre and the primary street through the centre of the development where buildings in this location will be up to 3 storeys in height (max 11m to ridge). Beyond the neighbourhood centre and the central residential areas, densities reduce gradually with the lowest densities (20 dph) located in the residential areas on the edges of the site. In the main, heights outside the neighbourhood centre and the primary street are 2 stories (max. 8m to ridge).

Effect on important views of the Cathedral

5.16. The masterplan has been designed to protect long views to Chichester

Cathedral. The main Cathedral views (Spire and lower areas) are from the central, northern part of the SDL on the higher ground, approximately in the location of the neighbourhood centre. The internal road network, particularly the tertiary lane which runs NW – SE through the neighbourhood centre, together

Page 16

with opportunity for a varied built form in the neighbourhood centre, will ensure that key views of Chichester Cathedral are retained and enhanced. Views of the Cathedral spire are also available from a number of areas within the SDL, including from within the residential area to the east of the neighbourhood centre and from the north-west corners of both Country Parks. The masterplan takes opportunities to increase public views of the Cathedral spire. Brandy Hole Copse

5.17. The masterplan proposes that the land to the north of Old Broyle Road will be

designated as a country park and therefore kept free from built development. The use of this land as a country park will protect the setting of Brandy Hole Copse Local Nature Reserve. A management and maintenance plan for the country park will be required to be secured through the S106 agreement associated with the phase 2 planning application.

Heritage Assets

5.18. With respect to heritage, there are no listed buildings or conservation areas

within the SDL itself. There are two listed buildings in close proximity to the SDL (White House Farm to the north east and Salthill Lodge to the far west). Appropriate buffers have been incorporated within the masterplan, around Salthill Lodge in the south and White House Farm in the north to ensure that the built development is located an appropriate distance away and the impact of the setting of these listed buildings is minimised. The Chichester Entrenchments Scheduled Monument is located to the north of the B2178 (Old Broyle Road). The masterplan proposes no built development to the north of Old Broyle Road, identifying this area as the location for the northern country park. On this basis, an appropriate setting for the Entrenchments is maintained. The masterplan therefore demonstrates that the level of built development proposed can be satisfactorily accommodated, ensuring that the proposal would have no significant adverse impact on the setting of White House Farm, Salthill Lodge or the Chichester Entrenchments.

Transport and public transport

5.19. The masterplan sets out the two vehicular accesses into the site, the northern

access from Old Broyle Road and a new road access to the south of the site linking to Westgate, as well as an emergency access at the northern end of the site, connecting to Old Broyle Road. Within the SDL the masterplan illustrates a network of streets with a clear street hierarchy comprising primary streets, secondary streets, tertiary lanes and mews lanes. The main street through the site is provided by way of a north-south spine road linking from Old Broyle Road to Westgate.

5.20. The masterplan also illustrates a number of new dedicated footpaths which run

around and through the site. These will connect with existing footpaths on the site as well as with adjacent routes. A new cycle path is proposed to follow the route of the main spine road, connecting into the two vehicular access points. The masterplan also maximises opportunities for improved connectivity by providing cycle and pedestrian routes that link from the site to Chichester city, using Westgate as a corridor for cycle journeys into the city centre.

Page 17

Improvements will be required to Westgate and the roundabouts at each end to facilitate cycle journeys, through traffic calming and alteration to the layout of the junctions. The masterplan also shows several pedestrian/cycle connections to the existing Centurion Way, which runs adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. Centurion Way then connects northwards into the South Downs National Park and southwards towards Fishbourne, via the pedestrian/cycle railway bridge. Links to Fishbourne will be also be improved through a new cycle link to Clay Lane.

5.21. In addition to new site accesses to the north and south as identified on the Masterplan, a number of improvements to the local highway network, including enhancement to pedestrian and cycle connectivity, are also proposed to mitigate the off-site traffic impacts. These comprise monitoring and a potential right hand turn lane at Sherborne/St Paul’s junction, improvement of Sherborne/Westgate mini roundabout, traffic calming along Sherborne Road, traffic calming along Westgate, improvement to Westgate/A286 roundabout, a signed northern cycle route, a contribution towards a cycle enhancement scheme for St Pauls Road and a contribution towards Brandy Hole Lane improvements. These are technical matters about which discussion between the main parties is ongoing. It is envisaged that more detailed information will be provided when the outline planning application is reported to the Committee in due course. In addition, the developer will provide a contribution to Highways England in line with the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD for junction improvements on the A27. Finally to enhance connectivity to the City centre, the development proposals include the provision of a new bus service. Stagecoach has confirmed it is willing to serve the site and an appropriate financial contribution will be made to deliver this. Biodiversity and Ecology

5.22. The masterplan incorporates a wide green buffer around the northern and western site boundaries which will maintain north-south connectivity for wildlife. This buffer will also provide an ecological route from the northern country park and Brandy Hole Copse Local Nature Reserve around the site boundary to the south.

5.23. The masterplan includes two Country Parks, one to be delivered at the beginning of each phase of development. These country parks, together with the network of green spaces through the site incorporating and linked by footpaths, will provide recreational space for the development. These areas will also provide some mitigation in the form of SANGS for any potential recreational disturbance of Chichester Harbour. A financial contribution will also be sought towards to the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project.

5.24. The masterplan shows an area to the south of the spine road, adjacent to the railway, which will be set aside for the reptile translocation. The development layout also preserves the vast majority of the field boundaries, ditch network and chalk stream all of which have a high biodiversity value. Furthermore the road network has been designed to minimise disturbance to and loss of trees and field boundaries. The masterplan as a whole provides opportunities for biodiversity mitigation and enhancement, particularly within the two country parks and retained field boundaries.

Page 18

Landscape impact

5.25. The masterplan demonstrates how the proposals will ensure an efficient use of

the land whilst balancing the need to reflect the landscape character of the area and the setting of the city. This is achieved by providing deep landscape buffers around the site, particularly along the northern and western boundaries. The southern part of the site is buffered by the location of the buffer to the south of the spine road and the sports pitches and to the north of the road. Furthermore in areas where the Centurion Way is at grade or elevated the country parks, allotments and sports pitches will provide a more rural setting. The retention of the existing field boundaries will help the development integrate into the landscape and will provide pockets of green space with views through as a break from the built form. The Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement states that where development is near to ancient woodland a minimum buffer of 15m has been incorporated. Waste water infrastructure

5.26. With regard to wastewater infrastructure, the masterplan shows an on-site foul

sewage treatment works incorporating a 40 metre buffer zone. The suitability of this facility is currently being considered and is the subject of a separate application for a permit to the Environment Agency. This permit would be required before the plant could be operated. As an alternative Southern Water has confirmed that the major capacity improvements at Tangmere WwTW and associated pipework to the site will be completed by December 2017. On this basis the housing development on the SDL, which the applicants estimate will be available for first occupation in Spring 2018 at the earliest, should be able to connect to Tangmere WwTW.

Phasing and delivery

5.27. As set out in paragraphs 5.2 – 5.4 above, the ‘Masterplanning and Infrastructure

Statement (March 2016)’ confirms that it is proposed to deliver the Strategic Development in two phases, which will be phased in 6 sub-phases. The details of the delivery of the infrastructure will be secured by way of a S106 Agreement with any outline planning permission. However the ‘Masterplanning and Infrastructure Statement’ sets out the following general parameters.

5.28. The masterplan illustrates provision of a neighbourhood centre towards the centre of the residential development, which comprises a new community facility, medical facility, primary school with early years provision and retail and employment floor space. The new community facility with parking is anticipated to be delivered in two phases, the first to be completed prior to occupation of the 500th dwelling and the second phase to be completed prior to occupation of the 1000th dwelling. The medical facility, likely to be in the form of a GP Surgery, is proposed to be delivered as serviced land prior to the occupation of the 500th dwelling. The primary school will be delivered in two phases with the first phase comprising provision for a one-form intake per year and the second phase comprising the second form intake per year. As part of the first phase of delivery, the core of the school will also be provided to the standard for a two-form a year intake. Delivery will either be by the developer prior to occupation of

Page 19

the 500th dwelling for the first phase or the site will be handed over to WSCC at an earlier point for delivery by WSCC. Retail within the neighbourhood centre will be delivered prior to occupation of the 325th dwelling. The masterplan allocates 6 hectares of land for employment use, with some located within the neighbourhood centre as referred to above, but with the majority to be delivered at the south-western end of the site, creating an employment cluster area and to enable the southern access, closest to the A27 to be the primary access point. Timing of the delivery of the employment provision and its form of delivery is still under discussion.

5.29. The masterplan demonstrates delivery of the necessary new formal and informal open spaces. This open space includes informal green space, landscape buffers, provision for equipped children’s play areas and allotments. In terms of the delivery of the formal playing pitch provision, the location of the playing pitches is shown on the masterplan at the southern end of the site and is proposed to be delivered in two phases, the first phase being ready for use prior to occupation of the 325th dwelling and the second phase to be ready for use prior to occupation of the 950th dwelling. Regarding the two country parks, the southern country park will be delivered prior to occupation of 1st dwelling and the northern country park will be delivered prior to occupation of 751st dwelling.

5.30. A summary of the infrastructure requirements and triggers are set out in the

Appendix. Details of the highway schemes and contributions proposed for the local highway network are listed at paragraph 5.21 above. The phasing demonstrates that the neighbourhood centre and country park will be delivered at an early stage of the development.

6. Conclusion

6.1. The applicants’ Masterplan, Phasing Plan and Masterplanning and Infrastructure

Statement describe and illustrate the overall vision and concept for the West of Chichester strategic development location and demonstrate how the criteria outlined in policies 7 and 15 of the Local Plan can be addressed. On this basis the committee is recommended to endorse the broad approach to development of the SDL.

7. Background Papers

7.1. Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 7.2. Planning Concept Statement for West of Chichester

8. Appendix

Phase 1 Phase 2

Affordable Housing 30% to be phases with open market housing

30% to be phases with open market housing

Community Building Community building of 650sqm - prior to occupation of the 500th dwelling

Community building expanded to 1,350sqm - prior to occupation of 1000th dwelling

Page 20

Primary School with early years provision

Completed school (1FE with 2FE core) completed prior to occupation of the 500th dwelling or serviced land to be provided earlier for WSCC to build out.

Completed school (expanded to 2FE) WSCC to advice on timescale for delivery.

GP Surgery Serviced land to be provided prior to occupation of the 500th dwelling.

N/A

Local Centre – retail Marketing prior to 100th dwelling and units to shell to be provided prior to occupation of 325th dwelling.

N/A

Local Centre – employment

Marketing prior to 100th dwelling. Timing and form of delivery is still under discussion.

N/A

Employment Land N/A Marketing prior to 751st dwelling. Timing and form of delivery is still under discussion.

Country Parks Southern country park – prior to occupation of 1st dwelling.

Northern country park and car park – prior to occupation of the 751th dwelling

Playing Pitches 3.8ha, access road, parking and changing facilities – prior to occupation of 325th dwelling.

Remaining pitches and expanded changing facilities and parking - prior to occupation of 950th dwelling. School provision still under discussion.

Children’s play areas Prior to occupation of 300th dwelling.

Prior to occupation of the 950th dwelling.

Allotments Prior to occupation of 500th dwelling.

Prior to occupation of 1,050th dwelling.

Sewerage Infrastructure Prior to 1st occupation. Delivery in advance of occupations on that phase.

Surface Water drainage Delivery in advance of occupations on that phase.

Delivery in advance of occupations on that phase.

Page 21

Recreational Disturbance SPA

Financial contribution to be delivered in phases prior to commencement of that phase of development (details still being discussed with Natural England). Timescales for delivery of on-site SANGS within landscape buffers is still being discussed with Natural England.

Financial contribution to be delivered in phases prior to commencement of that phase of development (details still being discussed with Natural England).

Page 22

Parish: Westhampnett

Ward: Lavant

WH/15/03524/OUTEIA

Proposal Residential development comprising up to 300 residential dwellings,

including an element of affordable housing, with vehicular access from Stane Street and Madgwick Lane, associated landscaping, a community facility, open space and children's play space, surface water attenuation and ancillary works.

Site Land North Of Stane Street Madgwick Lane Westhampnett West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 487830 (N) 106239

Applicant Commercial Estates Group And The Site Landowners (DC Heaver) RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral 1.1 This application has been materially amended since the Committee resolution to ‘defer for Section 106 then Permit’ at the Planning Committee meeting on 3 February 2016. A further resolution of the Committee is sought.

Page 23

Agenda Item 6

2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site forms phase 1 of the Westhampnett/North East Chichester Strategic Development Location. For full details please refer to paragraphs 2.1 to 2.7 of the original report, attached at Appendix 1. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 Outline planning permission (vehicular access only) is sought for up to 300 dwellings including an element of affordable housing, with vehicular access from Stane Street and Madgwick Lane, associated landscaping, a community facility, open space and children's play space, surface water attenuation and ancillary works. 3.2 Members endorsed the officer recommendation to defer for S106 then permit on 3 February 2016, but this did not include approval of three parameter plans. These parameter plans were submitted with the Environmental Statement to demonstrate the development would not have significant environmental effects. As explained in the original report (Appendix 1) and the subsequent Statement of Case for the non-determination appeal on the previous application for the same development (14/01159/OUTEIA), officers considered that the general broad approach to development shown on the original parameter plans was acceptable. However, the plans included a level of detail that officers considered was beyond the scope of the outline application, the detail was in various respects unacceptable and would prejudice future consideration of a reserved matters application. 3.3 Subsequent to the committee determination on 3 February 2016 and completion of the Statement of Case for the non-determination appeal, revised parameter plans were submitted for formal consideration on 4 April. The base plan for the three parameter plans has been updated to reduce the level of detail shown, and the key clearly identifies that the features on the plan, including the extent of the SuDs and landscaping remain "to be agreed". Parameter plan 01: Land use, access and movement 3.4 The revised internal road layout and hierarchy is listed as "indicative" with the pedestrian and cycle paths within the site identified as in "approximate" positions. Two pedestrian/cycle links between the site and Madgwick Lane/Stane Street have been removed. Four of the five pedestrian/cycle links shown on this plan directly relate to existing footpaths or bridleways, the fifth will link across to the sports provision (15/03884/FUL). A circular route is indicated around the site for pedestrians and cyclists, and the indicative internal road hierarchy is shown. Parameter plan 02: Density 3.5 This plan shows a ‘broad brush’ approach to density distribution across the site, using four density zones. The lowest density of 15-25dph is proposed along the eastern boundary and on the plateau to the north of the site. This rises through the centre of the site to 20-30dph then 25-35dph. The highest density development (30-40dph) is indicated in the south west part of the site and along Stane Street. A supplementary plan (Density Analysis) identifies the area of each zone and the estimated numbers of dwellings. This plan also confirms that the density ranges indicated would result in a minimum of 235 dwellings and a maximum of 331 dwellings.

Page 24

Parameter plan 03: Building Heights 3.6 The plan illustrates predominantly 2 storey development with up to 2.5/3 storey buildings in key locations around the site including broadly through the centre of the site and fronting Stane Street and the green. 1.5 storey development is proposed for the community facility. 3.7 An updated Illustrative Open Space and Green Infrastructure plan and an Illustrative Density plan have also been provided for illustrative purposes. The Supplementary Environmental Statement and updated Non-Technical Summary confirm that the findings of the Environmental Statement (October 2015) submitted with the application remain relevant in the context of the changes to the parameter plans. 4.0 History 4.1 For the relevant planning history, Members are advised to turn to section 4 of Appendix 1. 5.0 Constraints 5.1 For the relevant site constraints, Members are advised to turn to section 5 of Appendix 1. 6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 None received to date. Any comments received will be reported on the Agenda Update Sheet. 7.0 Planning Policy 7.1 For a full list of relevant policies, guidance and supplementary documents, Members are advised to turn to paragraphs 7.1 to 7.7 of Appendix 1. 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues for this assessment are:

The merits of the parameter plans

Proposed amendments to conditions

The updated position on the S106 heads of terms Parameter plans 8.2 The three revised parameter plans follow the broad approach shown on the original plans and SDL masterplan, whilst offering much greater flexibility to enable the finer detail of the development to be thoroughly assessed at reserved matters stage. For example, the internal road layout has been removed from the buildings heights and density plans and identified as indicative only on the land use and movement parameter plan and the location of the equipped play area has been removed from the parameter plans to enable this to be considered as part of a future Reserved Matters application. 8.3 The main area of change has been the south east corner of the site, in response to concerns about the effect of development on the setting of St Peter's Church (Grade II*) and the relationship of the community area to the green. The green has been enlarged and relocated so that it directly relates to St Peter’s Church and forms part of its setting.

Page 25

Additional planted areas are proposed to the rear of the green and extending down to Stane Street, with the pedestrian footpath/cycleway located to lead pedestrians to the green from Stane Street. The built form is now further from the church and softened by a belt of additional planting, which will enable the setting of the grade II* church to be retained. The community centre has been relocated directly north of and adjacent to the green, which will allow for improved integration of uses. 8.4 Other amendments comprise an increase in the depth of the landscape buffer onto Madgwick Lane, opposite Old Place Farm, to allow for any replacement planting necessary as a result of that lost through the provision of the visibility splays, and the foot/cycle links have been rationalised to relate to existing and proposed routes. The areas of different heights and densities have been made more fluid to allow for full consideration at Reserved Matters stage. Finally the highway boundary has been marked on the parameter plans and the highway land has been excluded from the open space calculations for the purposes of establishing compliance with the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD. The updated Illustrative Open Space and Green Infrastructure plan (submitted as illustrative) confirms that the landscaping and open space areas shown on the parameter plans, as amended, comply with the requirements of the SPD. 8.5 As a result of the changes, officers consider the parameter plans now show a range of reasonable options for the development of this site and sufficient flexibility to enable a full and proper evaluation of detail at reserved matters stage. The Environmental Statement addendum and updated Non-Technical summary confirm the amendments do not affect the wider environmental significance or impacts of this development. Officers also consider the general approach to development shown on the revised parameter plans remains in accordance with the overarching principles of the masterplan and phasing plan, which were endorsed by Committee on 3 February 2016 to broadly inform and guide the development of the Strategic Development Location. 8.6 Legal advice obtained by your officers identifies that the building heights plan (parameter plan 3) does contain "environmental information" as defined by the EIA regulations and if acceptable on merit to the Council, should be listed as an approved plan by condition. The land use and density plans (parameter plans 1 and 2) however do not contain "environmental information" and are not legally required to be approved for EIA purposes. Nevertheless, as a result of the revisions to the revised parameter plans as summarised above, officers have concluded the content of these plans are acceptable in development management terms and recommend these plans are listed as approved plans by condition. The content of these plans will then inform the detail of development at reserved matters stage. Counsel advice to your officers supports this approach. Conditions 8.7 In addition to listing the three parameter plans in condition 3 as advised above, the suggested conditions have been updated to allow any future developer the flexibility to deliver the development in a number of phases or as one. If constructed in phases the conditions have been drafted to ensure that the necessary infrastructure requirements as well as the appropriate affordable housing provision will be delivered with each phase. The full site-wide development details, including in relation to drainage, sewerage, and the design strategy, will remain subject of approval prior to commencement of any phase. This affects conditions 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13-15, 17-19 and 24-26.

Page 26

Section 106 Agreement 8.8 The applicant has agreed that the delivery of affordable housing is to be secured through a S106 agreement. However the finer details of the tenure and management can in these circumstances be appropriately secured by a future S106 agreement which is finalised at the reserved matters stage. The S106 agreement accompanying this application will therefore specify the requirement to deliver 30% affordable housing on site, and will include a clause to require a further S106 agreement to be entered into at reserved matters stage to confirm the details of the affordable housing provision. 8.9 Following further discussions with WSCC Highways, the bus shelter contribution has been updated to require the delivery of bus stops with real-time information instead of bus shelters, with the required sum reduced from £20,000 to £5,000. These stops will be managed and maintained by WSCC. 8.10 The proposed development will be subject to CIL, in accordance with the Council's Charging Schedule. The levy is £120 per square metre for net internal residential floorspace to the South of the National Park. Conclusion 8.11 Officers are satisfied with the revised parameter plans and other amendments set out above to the conditions and S106 agreement, and consider the development complies with relevant Development Plan policies and national guidance. It is considered that there will be no material changes to the environmental impacts of the scheme in EIA terms as a result of the amendments to the parameter plans; these have been previously assessed and found acceptable. Officers therefore recommend the application in its revised form is deferred for completion of the S106 agreement then permitted. Human Rights 8.12 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT 1 V99627 - Time Limit - Outline 2 V99628 - Time Limit - Reserved Matters 3 V99613 - Approved Plans 4 V99615 - Foul Drainage - on and off site works 5 V99614 - Foul Drainage - Tangmere 6 V99616 - Surface Water Drainage 7 V99617 - Construction Management - Highways 8 V99633 - Hours of Construction 9 V99622 - Timetable Vehicular/Pedestrian Access 10 V99618 - Construction Management – Environmental Health 11 V99619 - Construction Mangement - Ecology 12 V99620 - Archaeology 13 V99623 - Temporary Construction Access 14 V99624 - Utilities 15 V99625 - Site Levels and Sections

Page 27

16 U01023 - Design Strategy 17 U01024 - Materials and Finishes 18 V99626 - SUDS Management 19 V99630 - External Lighting 20 V99631 - Sustainable construction 21 V99632 - Contaminated Land 22 V99756 - Noise 23 V99643 - Visibility Splays 24 V99642 - Car Parking Space 25 V99641 - Cycle Parking 26 V99640 - Access Road INFORMATIVES 1 W45F - Application Approved Following Revisions 2 W02F - S.106 Agreement 3 V99636 - S278 Agreement 4 V99637 - S38 Agreement 5 V99638 - Southern Water 6 V99639 - Nesting Birds 7 V99757 - EIA For further information on this application please contact Joanna Bell on 01243 534899.

Page 28

Parish: Westhampnett

Ward: Lavant

WH/15/03524/OUTEIA

Proposal Residential development comprising up to 300 residential dwellings,

including an element of affordable housing, with vehicular access from Stane Street and Madgwick Lane, associated landscaping, a community facility, open space and children's play space, surface water attenuation and ancillary works.

Site Land North Of Stane Street Madgwick Lane Westhampnett West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 487830 (N) 106239

Applicant Commercial Estates Group And The Site Landowners (DC Heaver) A (15/03524/OUTEIA): RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

B (14/01159/OUTEIA): TO ONLY CONTEST THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT SEEKS FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE PARAMETER PLANS, SEEKS THE REMOVAL OF THE HEDGEROW ALONG MADGWICK LANE OR A FAILURE TO SECURE THE NECESSARY SECTION 106 REQUIREMENTS BUT TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE HEAD OF PLANNING TO RESOLVE OR WITHDRAW ISSUES AS APPROPRIATE HAVING TAKEN ADDITIONAL ADVICE

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

Page 29

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is located between Stane Street and Madgwick Lane and forms the south-eastern part of the Westhampnett/North East Chichester Strategic Development Location (SDL) as identified under policy 17 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014 - 2029 (Local Plan). The SDL comprises 109 has although the majority of this falls within part of the flood plain of the River Lavant. The application site is identified in the Council’s approved Concept Statement for Westhampnett/North-East Chichester and the SDL masterplan for residential development and community facilities. 2.2 The application site is roughly triangular in shape and is currently used as an arable field. It has an area of approximately 13.66 hectares. The site slopes down from the north to the south/south-west with the surrounding area generally flat in context. The northern corner of the site, adjacent to Madgwick Lane, forms a plateau and is relatively flat but elevated in nature with views towards the South Downs National Park and specifically the Trundle and Goodwood Race Course. At the southern boundary of the site, along Stane Street, the land within the site is between grade and half a metre higher than the road level. 2.3 The site is bounded by Madgwick Lane to the north and north-west, Stane Street to the south and paddocks and St Peter's Church to the east. The north-western boundary of the site with Madgwick Lane is defined predominantly by a hedgerow with a line of mature trees on the western side. There are various gaps in the hedge including for a field gate on the northern boundary. To the east, the site is bounded by a hedgerow with paddocks beyond. The remnants of the historic village of Westhampnett arranged around the Grade II* listed St Peter's Church, the historic Grayle House/The Close (former vicarage) and Westhampnett House, a residential care home (previously called Church Farm) are located to the south-east of the application site. The southern boundary adjacent to Stane Street comprises a continuous, dense and substantial hedgerow, beyond which on the southern side of Stane Street are a number of business units including Jewsons, the Council's depot, the entrance to the Household Waste Recycling Centre and the Gypsy transit site. 2.4 The south-western corner of the application site is adjacent to the settlement boundary for Chichester. The grade II listed Westhampnett Mill House, listed cottages (33 and 34 Madgwick Lane) and the Sadlers residential cul-de-sac are located on the western side of Madgwick Lane opposite the south-western corner of the site. The courtyard development of Old Place Farm, including the grade II listed farmhouse, is located further along Madgwick Lane. The River Lavant passes through the fields to the north-west of the application site. 2.5 To the north and west of the application site is agricultural land which also forms part of the SDL. Further north is Goodwood Motor Circuit and Aerodrome. Approximately 1.6km to the north of the application site is the boundary of the South Downs National Park, which includes The Trundle (St Roche's Hill) and Chalkpit Lane and the Valdoe Sites of Nature Conservation Interest. 2.6 The application site falls within the 5.6km buffer for the Chichester Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA). The site is not subject to any additional statutory nature designations. The site is predominantly in Flood Zone 1, with a small area to the west/south-west within Flood Zone 2. The site is not located within a conservation area. There are six Grade II

Page 30

listed buildings or structures in the immediate vicinity of the site and the Grade II* St Peter's Church building. 2.7 The SDL is approximately 2.5km from the centre of Chichester, adjacent to the A285 (Stane Street) which provides direct road links to the city. The nearest railway station is in Chichester city approximately 3km from the site. There are existing bus stops with a regular service on Madgwick Lane and Stane Street, which would be within 300m west or 500m east of the proposed site accesses. St Richard's Hospital and Chichester University are located around 1.4km and 1.7km of the site and the Portfield and Barnfield Retail Parks including Sainsbury's supermarket are within 1km of the site. Westhampnett village, located to the south-east of the application site, provides a small range of local facilities including a church and primary school. Rolls Royce operates from a large site to the east of the application site. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 This application is for a development of up to 300 dwellings (including affordable dwellings), vehicular access, landscaping, a community facility, open space and children's play space, surface water attenuation and ancillary works. The application is submitted in outline form, with all matters apart from access reserved for consideration as part of a later application. 3.1a This application is a re-submission of 14/01159/OUTEIA which is currently the subject of a non-determination appeal. As explained in more detail in paragraph 8.2 of the report (page 32), the applications are very similar, with the only amendments affecting the Illustrative Open Space and Green Infrastructure plan. In addition to considering the details of 15/03524/OUTEIA on its merits, members are also asked to consider what the recommendation on the earlier application 14/01159/OUTEIA would have been, and in the event of a recommendation to refuse, the grounds on which the Council will contest the appeal. The advice from officers is set out in recommendation B above. Environmental Statement and other documents and plans accompanying the application 3.2 The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (dated October 2015) which sets out the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposals for the residential development. This covers matters of landscape and visual impact, water, transportation, noise, air quality, socio-economics, ecology and nature conservation, heritage, ground conditions and contamination and cumulative effects. In addition a suite of documents including a Habitat Regulations Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment, Transport Assessment, assessment of effects on Goodwood Aerodrome, Policy 7 (masterplan) compliance document, Design Review Panel report and Statement of Community Involvement have also been submitted. 3.3 As well as the application site boundary (shown in red) and the other land in control of the applicant (shown in blue), a set of three parameter plans (Land Use/Access and Movement, Density Plan and Building Heights Plan) have been prepared which establish an envelope within which the future detailed proposals will be brought forward. The parameter plans are intended to be flexible enough to allow the detailed design to be reserved for subsequent approval, whilst defining the key principles of the development in enough detail to allow the likely significant effects on the environment to be assessed. These parameter plans have been used by the applicant to inform the Environmental Statement's content and conclusions and identify an option for the development of the site. In addition to the parameter plans a suite of illustrative plans have also been submitted providing further

Page 31

details to demonstrate how the site could be developed. These include an illustrative framework plan, illustrative proving layout and illustrative open space and green infrastructure. 3.4 The parameter plans and illustrative documentation are designed to demonstrate a potential method of developing the site, to enable the Local Planning Authority to have assurance that the site can be developed at the density of development proposed, taking access from the proposed location, whilst ensuring that there would be no adverse or unacceptable impact on those matters material to the consideration of the application, including impacts on the local and wider environment as set out in the Environmental Impact Regulations. However, as the quantum of development and the access arrangements are the only matters for formal consideration at this stage, the submission of the additional documentation demonstrating potential layout, scale, density, landscaping etc. should not fetter a full and proper assessment of these matters at the future reserved matters stage. Therefore, whilst the parameter plans and illustrative documentation are a material consideration at this stage it is not proposed that they are formally approved as part of the current outline planning application, which seeks approval for the number of dwellings and access only. 3.5 Additional documents provided during the assessment include a sketch plan showing indicative areas of open space and green infrastructure, a level 2 foul capacity check report from Southern Water (dated July 2015), a Highways technical note (Dec 2015), estimated parking figures based on an indicative mix of 294 dwellings, updated air quality assessment (Nov 2015), additional information about the dual use of the southern part of the site for surface water management and open space and an updated illustrative housing mix table. Housing 3.6 The development proposes a range of types and sizes of units, including 30% affordable housing. The illustrative proving plan shows 294 dwellings. Although the application seeks permission for up to 300 dwellings, the mix and layout are not subject to detailed consideration at this stage. Officers consider that the illustrative proving layout provides enough flexibility to accommodate the full 300 dwellings, especially as the illustrative mix currently includes too many larger dwellings. In relation to affordable housing, the 30% policy requirement for the full 300 homes would result in 90 affordable and 210 market dwellings. The applicant has identified that the affordable dwellings will be pepper potted throughout the site and be externally indistinguishable from the market units in form and appearance. Although the appearance of the dwellings is a reserved matter for future determination the Design and Access Statement suggests a traditional design approach, detailing and a palette of materials based on a selection of local examples. Suggested materials comprise locally sourced bricks, some weatherboarding and render and predominantly plain roof tiles with some slate. Community Facility 3.7 The parameter plans identify 0.25ha of land for a community facility, which is sufficient for a new community hall (428sqm) together with car parking provision to meet WSCC standards. This is anticipated to comprise 15-20 car parking spaces. 3.8 It has not, however, been confirmed by the Parish Council that this site is the preferred location for the new community facility within Westhampnett and it is noted that the outline approval for the Maudlin Nurseries site includes such a facility. On this basis, the Section 106 Agreement proposes that the Council, in consultation with Westhampnett Parish

Page 32

Council, shall elect whether the owner shall provide the community hall on site or pay a financial contribution towards provision of a community hall on the Maudlin Nurseries site, ensuring that the Parish Council and the Council retain the option to decide the most appropriate location for the new community hall. Access 3.9 Two points of vehicular access are proposed, one from Stane Street towards the eastern end of the southern site boundary and one from Madgwick Lane approximately in the centre of the western site boundary. The Stane Street access will be engineered with pedestrian footpaths linking into the existing footpaths on Stane Street. The Madgwick Lane entrance has been amended during the course of the application removing the pedestrian footpaths from consideration at this time. 3.10 The Land Use Access and Movement parameter plan also includes a number of pedestrian/cycle access points which link the site to the existing pedestrian and cycle routes in the surrounding area, however the applicant has confirmed the detailed matters to be considered under "access" exclude pedestrian/cycle access and solely relates to the position and geometry of the two vehicular access points. 3.11 The S106 Agreement requires a number of site specific highway improvements including the provision of a length of footway along the northern side of Stane Street to connect from the site to the existing footway east of St Peter's Church, pedestrian access to the playing pitches and green infrastructure to the north of Madgwick Lane, a Travel Plan and a financial contribution towards new bus stops and passenger infrastructure on Stane Street and a Traffic Regulation Order to enable the speed limit along Madgwick Lane to be reduced to 40mph. Car parking provision 3.12 Using the illustrative housing mix for 294 dwellings, the applicant has advised that 724 car parking spaces will be required on site, comprising 650 allocated spaces and the remaining 74 being unallocated resident and visitor spaces. This amount of parking has been calculated in accordance with WSCC's Parking Demand Tool and works on the basis of 1 space for each 1 bed flat, 2 spaces for 2 and 3 bed properties and 3 spaces for 4 or 5 bed dwellings. This results in an average of 2.46 car parking spaces per dwelling. The illustrative proving layout shows the parking predominantly on-plot with some provision within parking courts and the applicant confirms that a suitable level of parking provision can be provided on the site. At reserved matters stage sufficient parking spaces will need to be accommodated within the layout. Open space and Landscaping 3.13 The illustrative open space and green infrastructure plan shows three main areas of open space:

The central green, located in the south-eastern part of the site, which would be fronted by residential dwellings and the community hall.

A landscape ride (between 12- 22m wide approx. and 365m long) is proposed along the north and north-western boundary, adjacent to Madgwick Lane to provide an area of landscape transition between the application site and the rural area to the north of Madgwick Lane.

Page 33

An area of open space and a play area (including an equipped play area) together with SuDS and perimeter planting in the western / south-western corner of the site. The equipped play area is shown within flood zone 1 and the natural area of open space and the SuDS are located within flood zone 2. The SuDS and perimeter planting continues along the southern boundary, adjacent to Stane Street culminating in a small area of open space adjacent to the community facility and the pedestrian access to Westhampnett village.

3.14 In accordance with the masterplan, the S106 Agreement also requires the provision of a publicly accessible green infrastructure route, between Madgwick Lane and the playing pitch, comprising a footpath and cycle path. Outline application 15/03884/OUT for the playing fields and green infrastructure for phase 1 accompanies this application on the agenda. 3.15 In terms of landscaping, the illustrative open space and green infrastructure plan has been amended through the course of the application to retain the existing hedgerow on the northern, western and southern boundaries, excluding that required to be removed to achieve visibility splays. In these areas there is scope for replacement planting behind the splays. A belt of woodland planting is proposed along the eastern boundary. On the southern boundary the existing hedge, adjacent to Stane Street, is to be retained with the proposed SuDS incorporated into the landscaped buffer. Perimeter planting is proposed to the rear of the open space, play area and SuDS in the south-west corner of the site. Tree planting is proposed on the southern part of Madgwick Lane together with the retention of the existing hedgerow. As referred to above, to the north of the vehicular access from Madgwick Lane, a landscaped ride is proposed incorporating the retained hedgerow and additional tree planting. Internally the primary roads running north and west from the central green are shown as wider streets with formal tree and hedge planting. 4.0 History 14/01159/OUTEIA PCO Residential development

comprising up to 300 residential dwellings, including an element of affordable housing, with vehicular access from Stane Street and Madgwick Lane, associated landscaping, a community facility, open space and children's play space, surface water attenuation and ancillary works.

15/00079/NONDET INPROG Residential development

comprising up to 300 residential dwellings, including an element of affordable housing, with vehicular access from Stane Street and Madgwick Lane, associated landscaping, a community facility,

Page 34

open space and children's play space, surface water attenuation and ancillary works.

15/03884/OUT PCO Outline application for the provision

of playing fields with associating changing facility, access, parking and linear greenspace. Access from Madgwick Lane.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area YES

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park

NO

EA Flood Zone

- Flood Zone 2 YES (part)

- Flood Zone 3 NO

Historic Parks and Gardens

NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Westhampnett Parish Council The application was validated 12.10.15. The Parish Clerk was notified by letter dated 28 October 2015. The notification states that the statutory consultation period starts from the date of the weekly list the date of which is not given. Tangmere Wastewater Treatment Works are scheduled for completion by 31 December 2017. Drawing 5753 / P001B: Framework Plan. 1. Proposed removal of existing boundary hedgerows. Objection to the proposed removal of existing boundary hedgerows, trees and planting from the western end of Stane Street, continuing alongside the roundabout and for the entire length of the site bounding Madgwick Lane up to Stocks Lane. Westhampnett Parish is a rural community and wishes to retain its existing rural character, removal of the existing indigenous hedgerow would destroy the rural character and have an adverse effect on wildlife habitat, especially birds. The Parish Council considers that the existing hedgerows should be retained and enhanced with English native planting. 2. The width of the western end of the proposed new ride along Madgwick Lane

Page 35

This should be extended to the central green area adjacent to the roundabout, so that it is the same as that for the eastern end, in order to provide a buffer for the existing dwellings on the northern side of Madgwick Lane. 3. Position of equipped play area. Objection to the proposed position of the equipped play area at the western end of the site. Westhampnett Parish Council:

a. considers the proposed location too remote from the northern part of the site b. is concerned about Health and Safety issues as the location is close to a major traffic

intersection and proposed water park; further exacerbated by the proposed removal of an existing, protective boundary hedgerow. The Parish Council considers that this facility should be located in the centre of the site.

4. The Central Green Area. Objection to the proposed position. Westhampnett Parish Council considers that this should be centrally located together with the equipped play area. 5. Community Facility. Westhampnett Parish Council considers that if this is included, it should be located together with the equipped play area and central green area however, the need for such of a facility is currently unidentified. A community hall is going to be built on another site which is centrally located between Westhampnett and Maudlin. It is questionable as to the need and viability for two such facilities within the Parish 6. Pedestrian Access between the Site and Stane Street. Objection. The number of proposed access points into the development is excessive. There is no pavement on the northern side of Stane Street, thus pedestrians and cyclists would be forced to cross this very busy road. Two access points, one at the east end and one at the west end would be sufficient. The eastern end would require a central reservation for safety reasons. 7. Foot/cycle path alongside Madgwick Lane. Objection. No provision has been made within the site for a foot/cycle path close to the boundary with Madgwick Lane, to link the proposed crossing of the lane at the eastern end (opposite the entrance to Stocks Lane) with the roundabout at the western end. The Parish Council considers that such a provision should be made for the following reasons:-In the interests of safety. Currently there is no footpath; the lane is increasingly used by both pedestrians and cyclists, pedestrians are at risk and cyclists cause problems for motor traffic with potential risk to both. During special events at Goodwood, there are a lot of pedestrians in the lane. Creation of a pedestrian/cycle link would provide access to the South Downs national park. Drawing 5753 / P002B: Density Plan. Areas coloured Very Pale Blue and Pale Blue. It is noted that the proposed density and number of units for these areas are:-Very Pale Blue: Density 15 - 25 Number of units 19. Pale Blue: Density 20 - 30 Number of units 29.The Parish Council has no comments to make on these proposals. The remaining development, areas coloured Mid-Blue and Dark Blue. Objection to the proposed allocated mid and dark blue areas. The Parish Council considers that this should be a mixed development; dispersed and integrated to avoid adverse social grouping impacts.

Page 36

This would allow the central green area and equipped play area to be joined in the middle of the site and would free up the existing position for the play area to become a nature walk. Drawing 5753 / P003B: Building heights. The Parish Council has the following objections to the proposals:

1. During consultations with the applicant's agents, representatives of the Parish Council were assured that there would not be any 3 storey development. Drawing 5753 / P003B indicates to the contrary. Westhampnett Parish Council objects to any 3 storey development on this site.

2. The area coloured mid-green adjacent to the southern end of the west boundary indicates development up to 1.5 storeys, conflicts with proposals on drawings 5753/001B and 002B which indicate this area for a Community Facility.

3. Proposed disposition of building heights. The Parish Council considers that this should be a mixed development which is dispersed and integrated, to reflect a rural environment and avoid the perception of a walled fortified city. Sight lines to the South Downs and Cathedral should be preserved. On the current proposals they are not.

Drawings 5753 / SK 58 and SK 59: SDL Masterplan and SDL Phasing Plan The proposals for temporary vehicle access from Madgwick Lane and sports pitches; parking and changing facilities are contained within documents supporting the Outline Planning Application WH/15/03524/OUTEIA comments for which are attached to this document. At a time when there is so much uncertainty about solving the housing needs of the County, and Chichester District in particular, we are now being asked to consider a recommendation for the provision of "green spaces" for the enjoyment of the local community. We, Westhampnett Parish Council strongly oppose the so called green space application for the banks of the Lavant and the associated roadway. According to the Strategic Development Location Plan 5753/SK52, the area access route is identified as a pedestrian/cycle route, on Plan 5753/SK59 the route is identified as a Temporary Vehicular Access Route. CDC flyer identifies the route as Linear Green Space, clearly a confused contradiction of description. What do these terms mean and how can they all apply to the same infrastructure? Why is this intrusion on agricultural land needed when there are at least 5 sport facilities available to the residents of Chichester without encroaching on green agricultural land? In the absence of much more meaningful research and evidence showing irrefutable demand for the sports specified surely the existing facilities of Westgate Leisure, Oaklands Park, Chichester College, Chichester Academy and Goodwood Leisure Centre provide ample amenity for the Tennis Fraternity without this intrusion into a secluded remote area. The unnecessary development promotes an introduction of cars, associated roadways, parking, air pollution, light pollution, and noise pollution onto an agricultural area. Also an expansion of surface water run off onto an area already subjected to flooding and a green area clearly identified as being unsuitable for development. Do you not feel the intrusion of 300 extra houses is enough for this small village area, without attempting to flood it with imported cars and people under the illusion that this proposal is a green initiative. As a Parish which embraces the importance and continued success of the Goodwood Estate we already welcome nearly half a million visitors to "our patch" through the year is it justified to add yet more regular and sustained traffic into the neighbourhood. CDC proposal introduces an intrusive route for cars, cycles and pedestrians off Old Place Lane, two meters away from the windows of grade 2 listed cottages, causing a lack of privacy and

Page 37

security plus a reduction in the quality of life for existing residents. If the proposal is seen to be justified why is the existing agricultural roadway, leading to the development area, not being used or improved rather than waste money on creating a new road that only serves to destroy the quality of life for those living near it. If the need for additional sports facilities is that pressing there is a site available on the 300 house site identified as Community Facility Area that may accommodate the requirement in a far better location than a site subject to flooding and in the middle of a green agricultural area. This proposal is a chronic waste of CDC financial resources whilst paying lip service to a green policy that is defeated by its own proposals of increased pollution, both from cars, light, noise and flooding. There is no justification for this pointless waste of money and destruction of our already eroded countryside. In Conclusion. Westhampnett Parish Council strongly objects to the entire concept for the development. This should be a rural development and an extension to a village. It is not an urban housing estate nor is it an extension the Chichester City. None of the proposals reflect this; the concept is based on an Urban not a Rural development. How many times must the Parish Council have to say that Westhampnett is a rural community and wishes to remain so? All development should reflect this fundamental wish of the local community which should be listened to. To ignore this is contrary to National Government Policy. It is recognised that this is an Outline Application and that the information presented on the drawings is for informative purposes. However, if the Parish Council's comments are taken into consideration this will alter the layout and could have an effect on the final numbers. Therefore the Parish Council requests that this application is either withdrawn by the applicant or refused by the Chichester District Council 6.2 Chichester City Council No objection but:

i. would re-iterate the need to maintain a 400m buffer zone from the Goodwood Airfield boundary

ii. raise serious concerns about the cumulative impact of this and other developments on the east side of Chichester on the road system into the City

6.3 Environment Agency No objections. Pleased to see all built development will be located in Flood Zone 1 with only open space and attenuation features partly located in Flood Zone 2. We note the proposed approach to foul drainage is for the site to drain to Apuldram WwTW with the longer term intention of phasing some parts of the site to flow to Tangmere WwTW. Due to the scale of development we recommend that prior to determination you establish whether sufficient headroom is available. We would support long term proposals for this site to drain to Tangmere WwTW. Prior written consent of the EA is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8m of the top of the bank of the River Lavant. 6.4 Southern Water

Page 38

Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewerage disposal to service the proposed development. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers will be required. Connection to the public sewerage system should only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that there is adequate treatment and sewerage capacity available to serve the development. Occupation should not take place until the LPA and Southern Water are satisfied that adequate wastewater treatment facilities exist to effectively drain the development. The development will be dependent on the provision of infrastructure for adequate wastewater conveyance and treatment to meet strict environmental standards. Southern Water is progressing a significant investment scheme to upgrade the existing Tangmere WwTW in order to deliver additional capacity. The current delivery date of this scheme will be 2017. There are no public surface water sewers in the area to serve this development. Alternative means of draining surface water from this development are required, which should not involve disposal to a public foul sewer. The Council's technical staff should comment on the suitability of discharging surface water to a watercourse. No new soakaways, swales, ponds, watercourses or any other surface water conveying features should be located within 5m of a public gravity sewer, rising main or water main. Planting restrictions would also apply. The applicant will need to demonstrate long term maintenance of SuDS facilities can be ensured in perpetuity. Any sewer found during work shall be investigated with Southern Water before further works take place. 6.5 Highways England No objection on the basis that the Council will be collecting a contribution towards the highway mitigation works required by the Local Plan. 6.6 Historic England Historic England acknowledge the reduction in density at this site, but think that the issues raised in our letter of 9 May 2014 in response to application 14/01159/OUT still apply here. The open land proposed for development forms part of the setting for a number of designated heritage assets including the grade II* listed Parish Church of St Peter. The development would cause harm to this asset (and almost certainly to grade II assets) because of the erosion of the rural character which contributes to its significance and more broadly because of the appreciation of the medieval church in open views. Recent appeal decisions are relevant, particularly the Barnwell Manor decision. Harm should be weighed against public benefits in accordance with ss. 16, 62 of the 1990 Act and NPPF paragraphs 132-4 and 137. Comments from 14/01159/OUTEIA The scattering of listed and historic buildings surrounding the application site are remnants of an old agricultural and early industrial landscape. The Built Heritage Assessment identifies the development would be harmful (in some cases quite severely so) to the setting of designated heritage assets. Notwithstanding later development in the area, the grade II* listed Saxo-Norman parish church continues to be appreciated as a rural parish church in a remnant agricultural landscape. While we differ from the applicant on the degree of significance that the Church derives from its setting, I do conclude that the level of harm that

Page 39

would be caused is likely to be less than substantial so should be assessed under paragraph 134 of the NPPF. The LPA should assess the impacts to grade II listed assets which are in closer proximity to the application site, and consider the requirements of paragraph 137 of the NPPF and English Heritage guidance. We recommend the advice of the County Archaeologist is sought in relation to buried undesignated archaeology. 6.7 Sussex Police The Design and Access Statement has taken crime prevention measures into account in accordance with the NPPF. Outward facing dwellings will create good active frontages with streets and public areas being overlooked. Parking arrangements should leave streets free and unobstructed. Communal parking must be in view of active rooms. It is important that boundaries between public and private spaces are clearly defined. It is desirable for dwelling frontages to be open to view. Perimeter fencing and any gates, particularly for side and rear gardens should be robust. It is important to avoid windowless elevations and blank walls adjacent to public spaces to prevent anti social behaviour. The central green space is positioned well with very good surveillance from the surrounding dwellings. Planting should be kept low. The location of leisure areas including Local Areas of Play (LAP) and Local or Neighbourhood Equipped Areas of Play (LEAP/NEAPs) will require careful consideration, as will the detail of their layout and landscaping. Lighting throughout the development is an important consideration. 6.8 South Downs National Park Authority Our principal considerations relate to the lack of a comprehensive masterplan for the SDL in its entirety, including a strategy for green infrastructure provision and opportunities for improved recreational provision. The low degree of analysis of the potential landscape and artificial lighting impacts upon the South Downs National Park are also causes for concern. Landscape The contextual assessment seems very poor and the connections between the site and its setting weak. The lack of a comprehensive masterplan limits the ability of the individual sections of development to respond strategically to landscape. The overall impact could be greater than the sum of the parts. If all parts of the site push landscape to the edges, this is likely to result in an uninteresting suburban landscape of development islands with no design integrity for the wider scheme. Lighting The application is not accompanied by a lighting assessment, taking into account views from within the National Park (particularly from the Trundle). The SDNPA recommends that the District Council seeks details outlining the management of light pollution in order to protect dark night skies within the National Park. At this stage it is not clear what extent of harm there would be and the impact of this lighting could be easily reduced. Design The current application presents a layout for only 300 of the 500 dwellings allocated for the site and is therefore by nature not part of a 'comprehensive masterplan'. This piecemeal

Page 40

approach diminishes the integrity of the Local Plan policies, the compliance document's 'site wide masterplan' and assessments of impacts on the South Downs National Park. The area between the two land parcels is a floodplain which would mean that there is a likely potential risk of these two communities being separated by flood water and unusable playing pitches. SDNPA wish to stress the importance of the River Lavant corridor. A variety of green spaces should be integrated into the development to give good recreation opportunities for all. The green infrastructure plan should encapsulate the benefits of being in such close proximity to, and the character of, the National Park. The strategy does not appear to pull the natural environment through into the development site, but formalises a landscape within itself. Access and Recreation The principle of delivery of green links to the SDNP (LP policy 7 and 17) would support the second purpose of the National Park. The SDNPA is therefore encouraged to see that the revised "Site Wide Masterplan" (drawing nos. 5753/SK58 and 5753/SK59) indicates a new pedestrian/cycle route to be created alongside the River Lavant as far as the northern end of the SDL (albeit that it would link with footpaths and so would be of limited benefit as a cycleway). However, it is a pity that such a link is indicated as being provided as part of a second phase of development. Unfortunately the footpaths towards the SDNPA that the proposed pedestrian/cycleway would connect with also lead only to a dangerous section of Fordwater Road. If the playing pitches (15/03884/OUT) are to be permitted, it will be essential that these are linked by a legal agreement ensuring that the facilities are provided at an appropriate stage during the construction of the housing development. It would be preferable to ensure delivery of as much as possible of this as part of a first phase of development. It is questionable whether the road/track from the application site to the site of the proposed sports pitches can truly be described as a "linear green space". A development of the scale proposed should also allow sufficient on-site formal and informal recreational opportunities in order to reduce impacts on the National Park from the day-to day recreational needs of residents. Ecology Opportunities for improved habitat connectivity along the Lavant valley (a Biodiversity Opportunity Area) need to be identified and addressed as part of the application. Mineral Assets The site is within a Minerals Safeguarding Area for unconsolidated gravel. Unnecessary sterilisation of minerals resources should be avoided as it could result in pressure for extraction elsewhere on sites within or closer to the SDNP. Whilst it is accepted that the current application is at outline stage, the SDNPA is concerned that the level of detail provided is insufficient to ensure that the proposal will not cause harm to the purposes and special qualities of the national park and accordingly wishes to raise the above concerns until such a time as the requested details are available to assess. 6.9 WSCC Local Development Division The applicant agreed the scope of the Transport Assessment (TA) for the original application (resubmitted here) with the Local Highway Authority (LHA). The supplementary TA for this

Page 41

application focuses primarily on revised future year assessments in light of a later build out programme. Vehicular access The proposed access onto Stane Street is to be the primary access, with a secondary access onto Madgwick Lane. Both are priority give way junctions, designed in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Both junctions have been designed to reflect road speeds prior to a recent reduction on Stane Street from 40mph to 30mph and from 60 mph to 40 mph on Madgwick Lane. The visibility splays could be revisited to reflect current recorded road speeds. The LHA are content that both junctions would operate within capacity and not result in any notable queueing or delays on through traffic. Right turn lanes are not considered necessary due to the very low number of right turn movements and may increase the risk of unauthorised overtaking. The scheme has been revised to respond to the results of a Stage One Road Safety Audit and will result in acceptable vehicle junctions that are not anticipated to result in unacceptable highway safety or capacity issues. Pedestrian access The illustrative layout (SK02B) indicates a number of pedestrian access points, with four along Stane Street. This number could be rationalised and the access immediately west of the vehicular access removed. The footway on the northern side of Stane Street should be extended westwards within the public highway boundary to the westernmost Stane Street pedestrian access, removing the need for eastbound pedestrians to cross, including to access the Earl of March School. This should be secured through S106 obligation. The LHA are satisfied with the desire lines justifying the proposed crossings, although the more south westerly accesses along Madgwick Lane could be combined. The landscaping around these accesses needs to provide good visibility. There is conflicting information in relation to the proposed Madgwick Lane access with regard to the location and extent of footways. Trip generation and capacity The network capacity to accommodate the proposed development has previously been considered to include consented developments including Graylingwell, Shopwyke Lakes and Barnfield Drive Phase 1. A further assessment includes Barnfield Drive Phase 2 for the PM peak figures only due to the retail nature of that development. The build programme has also been altered from 2014-2019 to 2015-2021. However from the scenario presented, it is impossible to determine what impacts are arising as a consequence of the proposed residential development. Relevant junctions are the Madgwick Lane/ Stane Street roundabout, Westhampnett Road/Barnfield Drive roundabout (approved, not yet built), Westhampnett Road/Sainsbury/Portfield Way roundabout and the Westhampnett Road double mini-roundabouts. The presence of the future Barnfield Phase 2 link road may offer betterment. The assessments take into account all committed development and forecast all but the Westhampnett Road double mini roundabouts will continue working within theoretical capacity taking account of the proposed development. The Westhampnett Road double mini roundabouts are already operating above their theoretical capacity as is evidenced in the modelling. No acceptable solution has been presented to manage the additional capacity pressure generated by the proposed development.

Page 42

Accessibility The proposed 2km and 5km walk and cycle distances are in part based on archived guidance but are accepted as reasonable for this assessment. It is evident that there are a wide range of retail, employment and educational facilities within walking and cycling distance of the site. The development should secure improvements to local bus stops including a further westbound stop and contribute towards the Chichester to Tangmere cycle route as well as other measures detailed in policy 13 of the CLP through the S106 agreement. The revised framework travel plan should be implemented, and included in the S106. There is insufficient information on which to comment on layout at this outline stage. The site is conveniently located to the trunk road network. Mitigation would be required during construction. Further comments following receipt of additional technical note (14.12.15) No objection subject to conditions relating to vehicle and pedestrian access, visibility splays, temporary construction access, car parking spaces, cycle parking, construction of the internal roads, footways and casual parking areas, construction management plan and two informatives requiring the applicant to enter into a Section 278 Agreement to cover the off-site highway works and a Section 38 Agreement to cover the on-site highway works. Access The LHA have previously accepted the proposed vehicular accesses onto Stane Street and Madgwick Lane. No additional comments are required in respects of these. The drawings of the Madgwick Lane access have been revised to remove the pedestrian footways. Pedestrian accesses onto Stane Street could be reduced through a reserved matters application. A length of footway is also to be provided on the north side of Stane Street, to connect to the existing footway by St Peters Church. Details can be secured within the s106. Highway Capacity and Modelling. The modelling work has been revised to assess the impact of development using two different layouts; the existing double mini-roundabouts, and a potential improvement involving the conversion to priority junctions. The latter would represent a capacity improvement. The final form of improvement would be subject to further consultation and agreement by the County Local Committee. At the present time there is no committed improvement scheme. The inclusion of the proposed development would increase queues and delays on the majority of arms. However it is evident that traffic generated from the development is not the sole cause of these issues. This is best demonstrated by the results for the eastbound A285 arm of Westhampnett Road. This is the worst performing arm, with forecast delays of 638 seconds without development. With development delays increase by 37 seconds. The actual impact from the development is immaterial viewed against the base situation. Delays would increase by 48 seconds on the St James Road arm (from 157 seconds to 205 seconds) and 42 seconds on the Spitalfield Lane arm (53 seconds to 95 seconds). The National Planning Policy Framework states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. The development is required to contribute towards measures listed within Policy

Page 43

13 (Chichester City Transport Strategy) of the adopted Chichester DC Local Plan. The policy wording includes a requirement to explore potential options for reducing traffic congestion and safety at key junctions, which include the mini-roundabouts on Westhampnett Road. A contribution towards an improvement scheme would resolve the residual impact of the development as well as having a general betterment for all traffic. The development would also be required to implement a travel plan. This would assist in encouraging the use of alternative transport modes, and reducing the use of the private car, and therefore traffic congestion. In summary, taking account of the measures proposed (the contribution towards mitigation and the travel plan), it is not considered that this development would result in a severe residual cumulative impact. S106 Obligations/Off Site Improvements The development would need to contribute towards a number of measures listed within policies in the Chichester DC Local Plan, namely matters in policy 13. There are other specific contributions/obligations required. These are:

The provision of a length of footway in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the LHA along the northern side of Stane Street leading from the most easterly proposed pedestrian access into the development to connect to the existing footway east of St Peter's Church. This should be provided prior to first occupation.

A contribution of £20,000 towards new bus stops and passenger infrastructure (to include timetables and shelters) on Stane Street in the vicinity of the proposed development. This contribution would be held for a period of 10 years and used should additional passenger infrastructure be requested.

A contribution of £6,000 to fund and promote alterations to the Traffic Regulation Order to enable the speed limit along Madgwick Lane to be reduced to 40mph. It is recommended that this is paid upon commencement.

To implement a travel plan in accordance with the approved framework. The travel plan should be implemented upon first occupation.

Conclusion The LHA have reviewed the information submitted. It is not considered that this proposal would have any severe highway impacts. No highway objections would consequently be raised. 6.10 WSCC Flood Risk Management The site is identified to be at low risk from surface water flooding. Any existing surface water flow paths across the site should be maintained or appropriate mitigation strategies proposed. The proposed development is shown to be at high or moderate risk from groundwater flooding. This risk and appropriate mitigation should be considered in any future designs especially with regard to underground structures and utilities. Where the intention is to dispose of surface water by soakways or infiltration, these need to be shown to be suitable through detailed assessment. The LPA should consult the EA if groundwater contamination is considered a risk.

Page 44

There are no records of historic local flooding. Advice is offered on general SuDS principles including the need to use sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the site to inform a full surface water drainage strategy. Proper maintenance arrangements of SuDS systems will be expected. 6.11 CDC Environmental Health Officer (noise) The proposal is for housing within 400m of Goodwood Motor Circuit (GMC) and Goodwood Aerodrome (GA). However, having considered the outcome of noise monitoring carried out at the application site it indicates that the site would be dominated by road traffic noise arising from Madgwick Lane and Stane Street. Thus given the location of the site and its proximity to adjacent roads (Stane Street and Madgwick Lane), noise modelling is required at reserved matters stage to predict day (07:00 to 23:00) and night (23:00 to 07:00) LAeq noise levels from the roads across the development site. The model will need to be run for two scenarios: with the land without development and with the land in its proposed development. There may be a need to run a series of models for different options. This will be an essential consideration in the design and layout of the buildings giving both acceptable indoor noise levels and outdoors for the reasonable enjoyment of gardens. We do not wish to object to this application but consider that the prevailing acoustic environment ought to be taken into consideration and appropriate adaptation made to the development to protect the future occupiers should permission be granted. 6.12 CDC Senior Environmental Health Technician Air Quality The air quality assessment (AQA, ES Chapter G) has considered a number of receptors including the St Pancras AQMA. For completeness, the AQA should have also considered what impact the development is predicted to have on the other AQMA locations within Chichester, i.e. receptors within the Stockbridge roundabout and Orchard Street AQMAs. Air quality management during construction should be set out within a Development Management Plan, controlled by condition. Ground contamination As set out in Chapter K of the ES, no sources of potential ground contamination were identified at the site, however a watching brief should be kept for a site of this size, in case unexpected contamination is encountered. The mitigation measures set out in section K6.1 including pollution control measures included in the surface and storm water management designs, should be secured by condition. A construction and environmental management plan (CEMP) is required to control potentially contaminating activities. Measures should include suitable storage of contaminants, restrictions over discharge of water and emergency procedures.

Page 45

Further comments Further information provided by the applicant's Civil, Structural & Environmental Consultants on air quality impacts and assessment. We are satisfied with this response and do not require any further information on this matter. 6.13 CDC Housing Enabling Officer This is an important strategic housing site for the district. A full 30% quota of affordable housing is required in-line with the new local plan. The application is for up to 300 total units and details of the mixes are indicative only at this stage and based on 269 total. 30% of units will be affordable and should be split 70/30 affordable rent/intermediate housing as recommended by the current 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). Any fractions of a unit will be provided as a commuted sum, to be assessed at the time the final mix is known. Two-bedroom upper storey flats can be difficult to let and are unsuitable for young families and people with mobility issues. The majority of 2-bedroom affordable rented units should be houses and ground floor flats with private gardens. Some of the 4b units may be taken as large, 6 person 3 bedroomed of the same floor area as a 4 bedroom unit. Sizes should meet any the Department for Communities and Local Government nationally described space standards. 10% of the affordable rented units should be built to Lifetime Homes standards and a mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom units, with up to 50% adapted to full wheelchair standard if required.. The affordable housing should be pepper potted through the site in groups of no more than 10 and be externally indistinguishable from the market housing. Affordable units of different tenures must be phased throughout the development of the site and handed over to an approved body on completion. The SHMA concludes that the mix of market housing in Chichester district should be focused to a greater degree on smaller properties. Large numbers of 4+ bedroom houses, although attractive to wealthy incomers, do not meet the needs of many local residents, particularly younger economically active ones. The overall indicative market mix, based on the outline numbers (p14 of the Planning Statement) minus a SHMA compliant affordable mix provides too many 4 and 5 bedroom houses (40% rather than 15%) and too few smaller family 3 bedroom homes (26% rather than 50%). This is not acceptable. Further comments The table below responds to the amended mix set out on page 7 of the Nexus Planning letter of 18 December 2015. It still provides too many 4 and 5 bedroom houses (36% rather than 15%) and too few smaller family 3 bedroom homes (30% rather than 50%). This is not acceptable. It is appreciated that the mix and numbers are indicative only at this stage, but they depart very significantly from the SHMA. In order to be acceptable to Housing the large market houses numbers need to be in line with the SHMA.

Page 46

Affordable Housing 30% (88

no.) - approximate mix

Market Housing 70% (206 no.)

proposals after AH deducted

Total

indicative

proposed

mix

Rent 70% (62 no.) Intermediate

30% (26 no.)

Implied

proposed

market mix

% of

proposed

market

units

SHMA mix

% (& no.)

for market

units

1bf 24 10-15% 8 6 10 5%

35% (72) 2bf 31 30-35% 20 14 59 29%

2bh 62

3bh 91 35-40% 23 6 62 30% 50% (103)

4bh 56 15-20% 11 0 75 36% 15% (31)

5bh 30 0 0 0

Total 294 100% 62 26 206 100% 100%

6.14 CDC Archaeology Officer Archaeological evaluation of this site has demonstrated that it contains a series of features and deposits of archaeological interest whose significance merits proper recording prior to destruction. A full archaeological investigation in accordance with a pre-agreed specification can be reasonably secured by condition as recommended. 6.15 CDC Drainage Engineer Surface water drainage is to be dealt with by sustainable drainage systems or attenuated discharge into a watercourse. Infiltration SuDS systems should be prioritised before considering discharging to a watercourse. The infiltration structures should then be designed so that the base is higher than the recorded peak groundwater level, and should contain the 1 in 100 year storm event plus 30% and have a half drain time of 24 hours or less. The infiltration structures may be a combination of soakaways, swales, basins etc. The design should be informed by the groundwater monitoring and percolation test results provided in the drainage strategy. If ground conditions make infiltration difficult, it should still be investigated for the disposal of some surface water. Any surface water that cannot infiltrate to ground may be discharged to a watercourse at a rate restricted to the equivalent greenfield runoff rate for the site. If a basin or other attenuation feature is to be used, it should still have its base above recorded peak groundwater levels so that storage is not lost, or it should be designed with an impermeable liner that is weighted so as not to float. It is best to design attenuation structures above peak groundwater levels, and essential for infiltration structures. A maintenance plan and schedule will be required, detailing the responsible parties and the type and frequency of maintenance, including predicted costs. Various conditions are recommended.

Page 47

6.16 CDC Environmental Strategy Officer Original comments disregarded at the request of Environmental Strategy Officer. Revised comments Hedgerows - The hedgerows along Madgwick Lane and Stane Street are used by bats for foraging, commuting and provide a vital link for the green infrastructure within the wider landscape for many species. The hedgerow removal and thinning is unnecessary and will impact heavily on the green infrastructure of the site and wider landscape. It has been proven that these hedges have high levels of bat activity and thus bats would be severely impacted by the removal of the hedgerow. Object to the current plans. The plans should be amended to ensure all of the hedgerows on site are retained with a 5m buffer around them, excluding a small area for road access if necessary. The removal of the hedgerows on site will have a much wider impact than the proposed wildlife enhancements upon biodiversity and protected species. Reptiles - The field margins and hedgerow lines provide reptile potential. The hedgerow and buffer protection will protect the reptile habitat and should be fenced off during construction. The field should continue to the farmed and/or mowed monthly to ensure reptile habitat isn't created on site, or full reptile surveys will be required prior to development. Bats - The lighting scheme will need to take into account the presence of bats in the local area and minimise light disturbance and spillage. Any trees to be removed will need to be assessed for bats in advance, with surveys submitted pre-determination. Birds - Any works to vegetation are to take place outside the breeding season of 01 March to 01 October, or an ecologist would need to check the site within 24 hours of any works starting and recommendations followed. Badgers - Badgers use the site for foraging. The buffer strips should be retained for this purpose. Enhancements - There are very few enhancements proposed for the site, which due to the site size is unsuitable. Much higher levels of enhancements would be expected. The proposed woodland area is predominantly made up of a play area and drainage works and the other area of green space is completely isolated from the wider landscape. Expected biodiversity enhancements include wildlife/woodland area within the southern part of the site incorporating semi-improved grassland, woodland area, dead wood and a wildlife pond, native planting, hedgerow gaps filled, wildflower seeding, bat and bird boxes and badger foraging habitat. Recreational disturbance - The development will have an in-combination effect on the Solent Maritime SAC. Avoidance measures will need to be secured, in the form of a payment per dwelling of £174, payable on commencement to ensure avoidance measures funded by this money are in place prior to first occupation. Further comments Additional illustrative green infrastructure and open space plan received 18 Dec 15.

Page 48

Following review of the information we are satisfied that the hedgerows are being retained throughout the site. As part of the hedgerow retention we require that there is a buffer strip around the hedgerows (5m) and during construction fencing should be used to ensure this area is undisturbed. Any gaps should also be filled in using native hedge species to improve connectivity. Conditions should be used to ensure this. The lighting scheme for the site will need to take into consideration the presence of bats in the local area and the scheme should minimise potential impacts to any bats using the trees, hedgerows and buildings by avoiding unnecessary artificial light spill through the use of directional light sources and shielding. 6.17 CDC Waste Services Officer Site layout Attention should be paid to the size, weight and turning circle of District Council freighters. Freighters should not have to reverse excessive distances. All turning areas should be able to cater for the large freighters. All road surfaces should be constructed to take the weight of a 26 tonne vehicle. Parking restrictions may be required to prevent obstructions on the internal roads. Bin collection points should be outside the front of properties or just inside the boundary. Where driveways are shared, the collection should be at the driveway entrance. All communal bin storage areas should be of a sufficient size and design to enable each bin to be opened and taken out individually. Bin provision Individual properties will require one waste and one recycling bin of either 140ltrs or 240ltrs capacity each depending on dwelling size. Communal bins of 1100ltrs are available for groups of apartments. 6.18 CDC Conservation and Design Manager Historic Environment The Built Heritage Statement submitted with application refers to out of date policy, guidance and advice. The applicant's argument that buildings and settings are different and significant harm to an asset's setting does not amount to substantial harm is contrived and does not comply with Historic England tests. Grade II* Church - the statement acknowledges that the Site's development will have a high level of harm on the church's intermediate setting, in that the rural character of the asset's setting will be eradicated. However as the applicant argues that the primary heritage interest is its architectural and historic interest, the settings are of lesser importance. I consider this to be very unconventional reasoning particularly in relation to a church, which has significance on a number of different levels. There appears to be no assessment of the cumulative harm resulting from further harmful development. I therefore attach little weight to these arguments. I refer to recent High Court decisions that confirm considerable importance and weight should be accorded to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building. Design As advised throughout the preliminary stages and reflected in the Planning Concept Statement, the design of the layout should:

Page 49

respond to the landscape, using views, linked open spaces and green infrastructure to maintain a semblance of separation between the City and the Village of Westhampnett

respond to the different characteristics of the surrounding environment

use the specific context to create character areas linked to the different character of the areas adjoining the site

create open spaces to designed to frame and enhance important views, particularly towards the Trundle

enhance the setting of heritage assets, particularly the Grade II* Listed Church. The uniform and regimented layout will result in the scheme having the appearance of a separate suburban estate, alien to the diversity of character of the site's rural context. It turns its back on, rather than creates a natural extension to the existing village. The layout fails to recognise key aspects of the special character of the site and its surroundings. This approach is not in accordance with the 'core principles' of the Framework, the Planning Concept Statement or policy 33 of the Chichester Local Plan. Historic England have raised the issue of the setting of the church, this is due to the complete loss of its rural setting as a result of the development. The Design Review Panel concluded that the proposed development was sealed off from its surroundings and greater consideration needed to be given to integrating the development into its surroundings. The south-east corner of the development should be completely redesigned. The area of open space (with the pond feature) needs to be reconfigured into a more traditional village green with the community hall, shop/café and housing fronting onto it (not a car park) facing towards Stane Street. A new community hub which could include other non-residential uses to encourage social activity and interaction during the day. The development along Stane Street should relate to it rather than be concealed behind new tree planting. A proper landscape informed approach to the layout is required, with open space used to structure the layout and integrate the development into the landscape. It should be possible to increase densities in some areas, particularly adjacent to the city edge in a way that still respects character and allows for more open space/green infrastructure. Open space should be used to facilitate the transition from the historic village and the city centre and should respond to the existing topography. A more rural layout should be considered in the more ecologically and noise sensitive north east corner. The layout should reflect more of a village rather than estate character and draw on locally distinctive positive examples. Generally, whilst the layout may be credible in terms of indicating that the site could accommodate the 300 dwellings anticipated, a complete rethink of the layout is required if it is to be supported at this stage. The changes made so far amount to little more than tweaks and are not sufficient to even consider a further Design Review. Is there any scope to consider the application for what it is, i.e. just access arrangements, and remove the layout from consideration as there still seems to be little commitment from the developers, or the design team to engage with these fundamental design issues. 6.19 Design Review Panel The scheme is based on a good analysis of the locality and its surroundings and generally we support the proposed revisions to the planning application (14/01159/OUTEIA revised scheme re-submitted here). The indicative masterplan (Proving Layout) is credible and has some attractive features, but we feel the development as a whole will be sealed off from its

Page 50

surroundings. A softer edge to the development would help, particularly to the east. We recommend that the team looks beyond the red line of the application and anticipates how the development will integrate with its surroundings, including the long term possibility of the land south of Stane Street or to the north of the church should this be developed. We believe that even at this outline stage, more could be done to anchor the development to the surrounding environment, especially the village of Westhampnett. We agree that in the interests of placemaking it will be important to have a robust layout and to restrict the range of materials. We suggest however that the area could accommodate a mix of buildings, ranging from traditional to modern in appearance. We welcome the connection to Chichester through Graylingwell and see the appeal of the 'rural ride'. It would be instructive to work out the design from desire lines between the development and community facilities and transport connections. Visual connections from within the site to significant landmarks will help legibility and integration. Giving the Community Centre a more prominent position on the green would help to anchor old and new parts of the village. 6.20 Gatwick Airport Safeguarding The site lies outside the safeguarding zones for the airport. 6.21 South Downs Society The Society maintains its objection to the proposals. Development on this site, integrated neither with Chichester nor with Westhampnett would appear as an isolated 'blot on the landscape' and visible from the Trundle and Goodwood grandstand, both being major visitor attractions in the South Downs National Park and benefitting from the panorama across the coastal plain. This suburban development would also damage the setting of the national park as Madgwick Lane allows open views to the Trundle. The LPA has a duty to have regard to the designation of the national park and the need to conserve and enhance its setting. The character of this rural road would be damaged by the proposed vehicular entrance and traffic, on this road and local rural road network. The presence and setting of listed buildings also need careful consideration. Part of the site lies within a flood zone and implications of this will need to be taken on board. The proposal as it stands fails to meet the tests of sustainability as required under the NPPF and we urge refusal. 6.22 Goodwood Estate Insufficient information, as with 14/01159/OUTEIA, specifically absence of an indicative masterplan that demonstrates how the proposal will sit within the strategic allocation and assists in delivering that development objective. Parameter plans are inadequate for this purpose. Missing details of public open space and how it is to be secured, delivered and managed in the longer term. Accept the strategic allocation has been adopted but believe the development is in the wrong form and location, poorly planned and harmful to the future economic, social and environmental interests of the district, the historic setting and future of the Goodwood Estate and represents a significant threat to the future economic vitality of the area.

Page 51

The government message is clear. The proposal should provide an appropriate form of design and layout that provides a proper planning balance. This is an important rural area, gap between Chichester and Westhampnett, in close proximity to and highly visible from the SNDP. Appeal decisions support refusal of applications that cause landscape harm. Recent caselaw concludes the Council should give considerable importance and weight to the harm to heritage assets even if it is limited or less than substantial. There has been poor consultation engagement, and the development will have a significant cost to the community. It is noted that the appeal process and timetable, alongside a duplicate application serves to unduly influence the Council's decision. Development in this location is clearly unsustainable and will undoubtedly encourage car use. Alternative sites are available to meet the strategic need. Westhampnett are preparing a Neighbourhood Plan to allocate sites preferable to the local community without harm to heritage and economic assets. 300 dwellings remains an excessively high number on this important site; the scale and form is inappropriate in this location given the characteristics of the site and locality. Any development over 2 storeys is wholly inappropriate in this area and will create a suburban housing estate. The landscape structure does not adequately protect the landscape setting of the city, Westhampnett or Goodwood Estate, or the character of Madgwick Lane. The landscaped edge of the site should be properly designed with adequate width and planting to truly reflect an urban edge, not a hard suburban edge. Key views are ignored in the application. Any development in this locality must have a permeable relationship with Westhampnett village. Goodwood Estate is an international heritage asset, significant local business and employer. Inappropriate development affecting any part or setting of the Estate will jeopardise its long-term viability and sustainability. The proximity of the site to the motor circuit remains a concern, with a sizable new population close to the motor circuit that may complain of noise. The land to the north of the site is within the 400m buffer. The proposal provides no protection from noise for sensitive receptors. 6.23 The Chichester Society Object on the following grounds:

1. The development would not be integrated with Westhampnett village and would sit as an introverted outlier in a rural setting

2. The development would sit prominently on rising ground within the rural countryside and be visible from the SDNP, Trundle, Goodwood Grandstand and Seven Points car park, all of which enjoy extensive views across the coastal plain to the sea and harbour.

3. No housing requirement for Westhampnett in the LP. Westhampnett are preparing a Neighbourhood Plan and planning approval has been given for 100 dwellings at Maudlin Nursery.

4. The development would meet none of the three dimensions for sustainable development. It would adversely impact on the economy of the Goodwood Estate, fail to integrate with either Westhampnett or Chichester and would destroy the green setting of the cathedral city, Goodwood Estate and South Downs National Park

5. Residents would be highly reliant on the private car 6. Recommend the Council refuse the application and identify more suitable sites.

Page 52

6.24 171 Third Party Objections includes 144 signed pro-forma templates Landscape and heritage

Close important visual and green buffer between Chichester and Westhampnett, natural barrier

Development will result in urban sprawl, encroachment, coalescence

Oppose removal of boundary vegetation. Rural community wishes to retain existing rural character and wildlife habitat

Development does not enhance Westhampnett

Request extension of the Ride as a buffer

Views to the South Downs and Cathedral should be preserved

Harm to Old Vicarage and St Peter's Church Flood risk, drainage, sewerage

Existing sewerage disposal problems. Refuse until Tangmere WwTW upgraded

Flood risk to properties, high groundwater levels, existing flooding Infrastructure

Lack of strategic planning to improve infrastructure

Detrimental effect on local amenities and services

Scheme does not meet local needs Highways

Madgwick Lane access close to dangerous bend, previous accidents

Speeds higher than the signposted 30mph maximum

Increased traffic and congestion particularly at peak hours, in excess of existing levels with Rolls Royce and Goodwood

Excessive number of access points.

No pavement on the northern side of Stane Street, very busy road. Central reservation required to serve the eastern access point for safety reasons

No footpath along Madgwick Lane from Westhampnett Mill House. Provision should be made within the site for a foot/cycle path close to the Madgwick Lane boundary

Traffic access/egress should be limited to the Stane Street entrance only, with emergency vehicles only allowed to use the Madgwick Lane entrance.

Temporary vehicular access to playing pitches not acceptable Economic impacts

Detrimental effects on Rolls Royce and Goodwood, both strongly object

Detrimental effect on nearby stud through nuisance, harm to animal welfare, traffic Residential amenity

Loss of privacy for The Sadlers residents

Development appears to breach 400m exclusion zone for Goodwood Motor Circuit

Principle of the development, in such close proximity to the existing Household Waste Recycling Centre/Transfer Station and impact of complaints on business

Development need and alternatives

Existing approved and constructed housing in Westhampnett

Alternative land to north and west of city

Community facility to be built elsewhere

Page 53

Mixed development required to avoid adverse social grouping impacts and reflect a rural environment

Conflict with Local Plan policy

References back to comments made during the Local Plan process on the proposed allocation

Detail

Concern about building heights up to 3 storeys, high development density, out of character

Green area and play area should be centrally located, health and safety concerns Wildlife

Nesting site for skylarks, endangered species, swans, nesting birds, falcons/hawks, small vertebrates and invertebrates, deer

Animal welfare, various effects on the horses in the adjacent stud of close proximity to large residential development.

Playing fields

Afterthought, should be included in the main site if required

Increased pollution

Destruction of already eroded countryside

Detrimental to grade II listed cottages and local residents

Surface water flooding 6.25 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information As set out in paragraph 3.4 above. Additional information provided 1 February 2016.

Parameter plans: approval of the application without the parameter plans will be unlawful and commercially unacceptable and would necessitate the inquiry in July 2016. The committee report identifies the parameter plans are acceptable, so the position is unreasonable.

Section 106 agreement: agree to 30% affordable but not the specific details of tenure and mix. To be secured at reserved matters stage

Waste water: there is no reasonable basis to apply condition 4

Appeal scheme: the hedgerow along Madgwick Lane will be retained. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all made neighbourhood plans. There is no made neighbourhood plan for Westhampnett Parish at this time. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

Page 54

Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 7: Masterplanning Strategic Development Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 10: Chichester City Development Principles Policy 13: Chichester City Transport Strategy Policy 17: Westhampnett/North East Chichester Strategic Development Location Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 38: Local and Community Facilities Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 42: Flood Risk Policy 47: Heritage Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas Policy 52: Green Infrastructure Policy 54: Open Space, Sport and Recreation Annex A: Green Infrastructure National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs including 6-13 (sustainability principles) 17 (core planning principles), 32, 34- 39 (transport), 42 (communications infrastructure), 47-50, 52 (housing), 56-66 (design), 69-70, 73, 75 (healthy communities), 96, 99-101, 103 (climate change), 109, 113, 115, 118, 123-125 (natural environment), 128, 129, 131-135, 141 (historic environment), 159, 162, 165, 169-171, 173-177 (evidence base), Decision Taking, and Annex 1. 7.5 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by

Page 55

allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.6 The following Supplementary Planning Documents are material to the determination of this planning application: SDL Planning Concept Statement SPD Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living B3 - Environmental Resources C2 - Encourage healthy and active lifestyles for all C3 - A culturally enriched and empowered community D1 - Increasing housing supply D2 - Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods D3 - Housing fit for purpose D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs E1 - Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion E2 - There will be improved cycling networks and strong links to public transport to ensure that cycling is a viable alternative to using the car E3 - There will be a decrease in the numbers of road traffic collisions in the district E4 - People will have easier access to services at a local level 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i. Principle of housing development in this location ii. Capacity of the site to accommodate this level of development iii. Impact on the safety and function of the highway network iv. Foul drainage v. Surface water management vi. Landscape and visual impact vii. Heritage viii. Noise impact ix. Open space/green infrastructure x. Ecology xi. Socio-economic impacts xii. Other matters (Air Quality, Contamination and Communications infrastructure)

Page 56

Assessment 8.2 This application has been submitted following an appeal against non-determination of the original application 14/01159/OUTEIA. The original application sought planning permission for 350 dwellings, but during the course of its consideration the scheme was revised to provide up to 300 units, to reduce building heights and to include land designated for a community facility. The only difference between the appeal scheme and this application is that the illustrative open space and green infrastructure plan in relation to the appeal scheme shows the existing hedgerow along Madgwick Lane and the south-west corner to be removed whereas this application proposes its retention. Notwithstanding the above, this application should be considered on its individual planning merits. i. Principle of housing development in this location 8.3 The application site is located in the south-east corner of a larger parcel of land which is allocated as the Westhampnett/North East Chichester Strategic Development Location (SDL) in Policy 17 of the Local Plan. 8.4 Policy 17 allocates the SDL for mixed development, comprising 500 homes, community facilities, and open space and green infrastructure, including a linear greenspace with public access along the Lavant Valley. Policy 17 states that development will be masterplanned in accordance with Local Plan Policy 7 (Masterplanning Strategic Development), taking account of a number of site-specific requirements which are listed in the policy. These include the requirement that development will be directed towards the settlement of Westhampnett, to the south of Madgwick Lane (the area covered by this application), and to the eastern edge of Chichester, but away from the floodplain of the River Lavant. 8.5 The Council has adopted a Concept Statement for the Westhampnett/NE Chichester SDL which sets the parameters for the masterplanning work, setting out key objectives and planning considerations as recommended in the Council's approved Design Protocol. The Concept Statement for the SDL identifies the parcel of land, the subject of this application, as one of two areas for housing development. The Concept Statement anticipates that this site is to be developed for approximately 350 homes, including 30% affordable housing, possible new community facility, public open space including an equipped play/kickabout area, amenity open space, natural and semi-natural greenspace and possibly allotments, an integrated access and internal circulation network including cycle and pedestrian routes and routes to the surrounding foot and cycle path network, development that relates to the character of Westhampnett and contributions towards infrastructure. Revisions during previous application 14/01159/OUT reduced the overall number to 300. 8.6 As outlined above, a masterplan and phasing plan has been provided for the whole SDL. This demonstrates how the provision of 500 houses will be delivered across the two sites identified within the SDL for housing provision, with 300 houses proposed on this site and 200 houses provided on land to the east of Graylingwell. The masterplan demonstrates an indicative layout for both parcels of land with an indication of densities. The masterplan also outlines how the green infrastructure and playing pitch provision will be met and delivered. 8.7 The principle of housing on this site can therefore be supported, subject to compliance with the comprehensive masterplan document for the SDL and the site specific criteria outlined in policy 17, including that the scheme is well integrated with Westhampnett with good access to facilities; improved local community facilities; green links to the SDNP and Chichester city; designed with special regard to the landscape sensitivity of the site and to

Page 57

reduce the noise from Goodwood motor circuit and aerodrome, including new structural planting; comprehensive surface water drainage; new and improved pedestrian and cycle routes linking the site to Chichester city and the SDNP and mitigation measures for potential off-site traffic impacts. ii. Capacity of site to accommodate this level of development 8.8 As outlined above the masterplan sets out the broad parameters of how the development across the whole SDL will meet the provisions of the SDL allocation of 500 homes. The masterplan identifies 300 homes for the site, which is the subject of this outline application. 8.9 Although this application is in outline only, with access being the only matter for consideration at this stage, a set of three parameter plans (Land Use/Access and Movement, Density Plan and Building Heights Plan) and a detailed illustrative proving layout have been provided to demonstrate how the site could deliver up to 300 homes, of a range of types and sizes of units with 30% affordable housing, together with a community facility and supporting infrastructure. Housing 8.10 The illustrative proving layout shows an internal housing layout based on perimeter blocks. A hierarchy of streets is proposed, with the main primary and secondary routes linking into a network of tertiary streets and areas of shared surface. The main access road is shown to be 6.75m wide at the Stane Street entrance and 5.5m wide onto Madgwick Lane. The primary route through the site will be 5.5-6.75m wide, with additional circulation routes measuring approximately 5m wide. The illustrative proving layout shows the parking provision predominantly on-plot with some provision within parking courts. A pedestrian and cycle path is shown within the site providing a loop within the application site and new pedestrian/cycle access points, linking the site to the surrounding area, are identified along both the Stane Street and Madgwick Lane frontages. The design approach of the housing in perimeter blocks with a hierarchy of streets is an acceptable approach for the housing layout. 8.11 Although the housing mix will be defined at reserved matters stage, the illustrative proving layout together with the revised illustrative housing mix (combined affordable and market mix) has been provided for illustrative purposes at this stage. The indicative mix shown on the illustrative proving layout details a total of 294 dwellings. The housing officer, in her consultation response above, advises that the proposed mix contains too many 4 and 5 bedroom houses (40%) and too few smaller family 3 bedroom homes (26%) and is therefore not acceptable. The final housing mix would need to comply with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), which would be determined through consideration of future reserved matters applications. The illustrative housing mix, does however demonstrate that it would be possible to provide up to 300 homes (6 more than shown on the illustrative proving layout) at an appropriate mix of housing, where the mix is required to deliver a number of smaller units than shown on the illustrative proving layout. The distribution of the affordable housing, to ensure appropriate pepper potting, would be determined at reserved matters stage. 8.12 The Density parameters plan shows a range of densities across the site, ranging between 15-25dph identified along the eastern boundary, 20-30dph located on the elevated northern part of the site, 25-35dph through the central part of the site which slopes down towards the south and south-west and with the highest density levels (up to 30-40dph) located in the southern and south-western corners of the site. The approach regarding

Page 58

density is acceptable to officers as it will ensure that the development respects the landscape sensitivities of the site and will help establish the development within its surroundings. As proposed, the lowest densities are located adjacent to the more sensitive boundaries, being the area of urban/rural transition adjacent to Madgwick Lane and the elevated plateau at the northern end of the slope. Highest densities adjacent to Stane Street at the south-western end of the site would be read against the existing development along Stane Street and the taller buildings within the settlement boundary of Chichester including Westhampnett Mill House. 8.13 Although 'scale' is a reserved matter, the Building Heights parameter plan suggests a development of predominantly 2 storey dwellings. The Building Heights parameter plan shows the tallest buildings (up to 3 storeys or 11.5m) on part of the southern and western edge of the development, including flanking the Stane Street access and at a focal point towards the centre of the site, on the eastern side of the central green. In order to ensure that 3 storey development does not overdominate these locations, the parameter plan clarifies that the areas shown as 3 storeys on the plan would be limited to a small number of buildings that would provide local landmarks and variation on the street scene. Dwellings of up to 2.5 storeys (10.5m maximum) are proposed fronting the primary roads within the site and along the northern part of the Madgwick Lane frontage. The dwellings along the Madgwick Lane frontage would be set back behind the substantial landscaped ride and which would mitigate the impact on the rural area beyond. Again at reserved matters stage it would be appropriate to ensure that this frontage was limited to a small number of buildings to provide variety to the streetscape as well as protecting the impact on the urban/rural transition. Elsewhere within the site the dwellings will not exceed 2 storeys (9.5m maximum). In general terms, the approach outlined on the parameter plan with regard to the heights of the proposed dwellings reflects that proposed on the density parameter plans and again will ensure that the development respects the landscape sensitivities of the site and will help establish the development with its surroundings. 8.14 Although it is disappointing that the character areas are not well defined on the parameter plans and the illustrative proving layout, this detail will need to be provided with a future reserved matters application to ensure that the development is capable of successfully integrating with the character of Westhampnett village. Given the outline form of the current application, it is not considered that the absence of further details is a reason to object to the development. Community Facility 8.15 The application proposes a community facility, although the details are not specified at this stage. The parameter plans identify 0.25ha of land for this facility, which is intended to be sufficient land for a new community hall of 428sqm together with 15-20 car parking spaces. The final parking provision will be set in accordance with WSCC standards. The parameter plans show the location of the community facility in the south-eastern corner of the site. This location provides the opportunity for the community hall to front onto the central green, while at the same time being located close to the proposed pedestrian/cycle access which will ensure good accessibility into the village of Westhampnett. On the building heights parameter plan, the proposed community hall is identified as comprising 1.5 storey development (8m maximum), which together with the proposed boundary planting will help to protect the setting of the grade II* listed St Peter's Church. 8.16 As referred to in paragraph 3.8 above, the S106 Agreement provides Westhampnett Parish Council and the District Council with the option to decide the most appropriate location for the new community hall, either for delivery on this site or at the alternative

Page 59

location on the Maudlin Nurseries site in Westhampnett. In the event the facility is located on the Maudlin Nurseries site, the land shown on the parameters plans for a community facility would be subject to a future application for an alternative use or development. Open Space and landscaping 8.17 The illustrative open space and green infrastructure plan shows three main areas of open space. The central green is located in the south-eastern part of the site, fronted by residential dwellings and the community hall. A landscape ride (between 12- 22m wide approx. and 365m long) is shown along the north and north-western boundary, adjacent to Madgwick Lane, which provides an substantial area of planted landscaping (with new trees and retention of the existing hedgerow) acting as a transition area between the houses and the open rural area to the north of Madgwick Lane and would screen views to Goodwood and the SDNP. In the western / south-western corner of the site an area of open space and a play area (including an equipped play area) is proposed, together with SuDS and perimeter planting. Although this area is liable to flooding, the equipped play area is shown to be contained wholly within flood zone 1, while the natural area of open space and the SuDS are located within flood zone 2. The applicant has confirmed that the area of SuDS, comprising ponds and swales, will be integrated with the landscape design. The ponds and swales will have a mix of gradients, with some shallower than 1:3 and not very deep, which will give a more natural appearance and allow better use for open space. The applicant has confirmed that most of the time the ponds of water will be empty of water with a small depression or stream to carry normal storm flows. The SuDS and perimeter planting continues along the southern boundary, adjacent to Stane Street culminating in a small area of open space adjacent to the community facility and the pedestrian access to Westhampnett village. 8.18 In terms of other landscaping, a belt of woodland planting is also proposed along the eastern boundary. Internally the primary roads running north and west from the central green are shown as wider streets with formal tree and hedge planting. Finally during the course of the application the illustrative open space and green infrastructure plan has been amended to show the retention of the existing hedgerow on the northern, western and southern boundaries, excluding that required to be removed to achieve visibility splays. 8.19 Policy 54 of the Local Plan requires that new residential development should provide or contribute towards open space in accordance with the provision standards and methodology set out in the Chichester Open Space Study. The proposed open space standards are set out in the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD (subject to adoption by the Council at its meeting on 26 January 2016 and implemented in conjunction with CIL from 1 February 2016). Based on these open space standards, a development of this scale would require around 2.2 hectares of on-site green space, comprising a combination of play space, amenity open space, parks, sport and recreation grounds, allotments and natural green space. 8.20 The applicant's illustrative open space and green infrastructure plan includes provision for a central green area (0.308ha) and a play area (including equipped play space) of a total of 0.2ha, together with amenity open space and landscaping/buffering around the periphery of the site. The green space shown on the illustrative open space and green infrastructure plan shows a total area of 2.445ha compared to the required provision of 2.2ha. Although not necessarily located in the most suitable locations (particularly in terms of the central green and the equipped play area), the open space and green infrastructure plan demonstrates that it is possible to deliver the appropriate amount of open space and green infrastructure on the site. The precise locations will be determined as part of a reserved matters application.

Page 60

8.21 The illustrative proposals do not make provision for playing fields on site, however outline application 15/03884/OUT, which accompanies this application elsewhere on this agenda, proposes the provision of 2.8ha of playing pitches and recreational land for both phase 1 and phase 2 housing schemes alongside the River Lavant north of Madgwick Lane, on land within the SDL boundary. In accordance with the SDL masterplan and phasing plan, the S106 Agreement requires that one senior football pitch and associated changing facilities and car parking will be brought forward as part of this application. This provision would accord with the requirements of the Affordable Housing and Infrastructure SPD. 8.22 Bullet 3 of policy 17 of the Local Plan seeks provision for green links to the National Park and Chichester city, as well as exploration of opportunities for integrated green infrastructure in conjunction with other strategic sites to the east of the city. Further guiding principles on green infrastructure related to the site are also set out in Appendix A of the Local Plan. This indicates that development should enhance the Lavant Valley as a biodiversity opportunity area and seek to retain and enhance existing wildlife corridors along Madgwick Lane leading to the City and National Park. To meet this policy requirement and in accordance with the SDL masterplan, the S106 Agreement also requires the provision of a publicly accessible green infrastructure route, between Madgwick Lane and the playing pitch, comprising a footpath and cycle path alongside the River Lavant, through the SDL, which will provide a link towards the north of Chichester city. Outline application 15/03884/OUT for the playing fields and green infrastructure for phase 1 accompanies this application on the agenda. 8.23 In addition to the green infrastructure footpath/cycle link, the parameter plans propose a circular cycle/pedestrian route within the site, which includes a route through the landscape ride on the south side of Madgwick Lane, which would enhance access to the National Park via Stocks Lane and the proposed cycle/pedestrian access point at the northern end of the application site. 8.24 In conclusion the proposed parameter plans and illustrative proving layouts demonstrate that the proposal would provide an opportunity to deliver the required number of homes, community facilities and supporting infrastructure, including open space and landscaping, in a satisfactory manner which would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and protecting landscape sensitivities. The finer detailing of the scheme will be considered at reserved matters stage. iii. Impact on the safety and function of the highway network and site access details 8.25 The transport assessment within the ES considers the impact of up to 400 dwellings in this location, alongside the delivery of committed developments including Shopwyke Lakes (500 dwellings), Maudlin Nursery (100 dwellings), Graylingwell (750 dwellings), Portfield Football Club (90 dwellings) and Barnfield Drive (9,352sqm non-food and food retail and filling station) including the highway improvements associated with the above. The assessment considers the effects of traffic flows with regard to severance, driver delay, pedestrian delay, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation and accidents and safety. The assessment highlights that the existing highway network is already under pressure and the proposal would increase delays on roads in the immediate vicinity of the site by around 15%. The ES considers that these additional movements would, in the absence of any mitigation measures, result in minor adverse effects, and WSCC concurs with this conclusion. 8.26 Local Plan policy 13 requires applicants to explore potential options for reducing traffic congestion and safety at key junctions. The transport assessment, revised in response to

Page 61

WSCC advice, has explored a number of options to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety. These junction improvements include works to the St James/Spitalfield junctions, A27 Bognor Road, Oving Road and Portfield Roundabouts and are required to improve capacity and reduce delays more generally for the city. These works are not directly and solely related to the delivery of this development in isolation so will be funded through CIL. 8.27 The scheme's wider transport impacts, specifically on the trunk road network, were evaluated in detail during the preparation of the Local Plan. Within this application, Highways England has raised no objections to the development, subject to a financial contribution towards the A27 Chichester Bypass junction improvements. This would be secured by way of the S106 Agreement which would require the applicant to enter into a S278 agreement with Highways England. 8.28 The site is conveniently located to the trunk road network. Mitigation would be required during construction, which can be secured through the imposition of a detailed construction management plan condition as is standard for such developments. This will include temporary and permanent access arrangements, routing, timing and ensuring transport disturbance is minimised to the lowest practical level and properly managed. 8.29 The transport sustainability of the site was also explored in detail through the Local Plan preparation and adoption process. A review of distances and walking and cycling times to access local services and facilities is set out in the Transport Assessment, which concludes a broad range is accessible within a 30 minute walk or 10-15 minute cycle. The bus stops close to the site provide greater transport choice. Green travel connections will be improved through the application, including a contribution of £20,000 towards new bus stops and passenger infrastructure (to include timetables and shelters) on Stane Street in the vicinity of the proposed development which will be secured through the S106 Agreement. 8.30 In summary on this issue and with reference to NPPF paragraph 32, taking account of the site specific mitigation measures proposed (the footways and cycle links and the travel plan), it is considered that this development would not result in a severe residual cumulative impact. No technical objections have been raised by Highways England or WSCC. The development would need to contribute through CIL towards measures listed within policy 13 of the Local Plan. This would include improvements towards the Westhampnett Road mini-roundabouts and the Chichester to Tangmere cycle route. The development would also be required to implement a travel plan to encourage the use of alternative transport modes. The proposal therefore complies with the relevant criteria of policies 13, 17 and 39 of the Local Plan. Site access details 8.31 Vehicular access to the site from Madgwick Lane and vehicular and pedestrian access from Stane Street are the only matters for detailed consideration within this application. Full details of the internal roads, parking, turning, pedestrian and cycle links and routes will need to be submitted within a future reserved matters application. 8.32 The proposed access onto Stane Street is to be the primary access, with a secondary access onto Madgwick Lane. Both are priority give way junctions; WSCC is satisfied these have been designed in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Both junctions have been designed to reflect measured road speeds. This results in visibility splay requirements of 2.4m x 120m for Stane Street and 2.4m x 160m for Madgwick Lane. These splays are achievable at the site based on the road configuration, however the visibility splays will require the removal of existing boundary hedging. This will particularly

Page 62

affect the southbound splay of the Madgwick Lane entrance, where a setback distance of up to 5m from the carriageway edge is required to achieve sufficient visibility. Replacement hedging would be required here. Capacity for this is shown within the Sketch Plan - illustrative open space and green infrastructure and will be detailed through a reserved matters application. 8.33 The primary junction onto Stane Street is designed at 6.75m wide, with a 6m kerb radii and 10m corner radii resulting in a total road width as it joins the carriageway of Stane Street of some 23m. The secondary Madgwick Lane junction has a design width of 5.5m with a total road width as it joins the carriageway of some 20m. 8.34 The Stane Street entrance will be provided with a 2m footway each side of the vehicular access, with tactile paving at crossing points. The provision of a length of footway along the northern side of Stane Street, leading from the most easterly proposed pedestrian access into the development to connect to the existing footway east of St Peter's Church will also be required to be delivered prior to first occupation. 8.35 The additional pedestrian access points onto Stane Street and Madgwick Lane are indicative at this stage. Three links are shown onto Madgwick Lane, one opposite the public bridleway at the north of the site, one opposite Old Place Lane and the third close to The Sadlers access. Three are also shown onto Stane Street, with the easterly link in the south-east corner to connect to Westhampnett and two points towards the south-western corner to link to existing footways and cycleways close to the roundabout. Based on the masterplan, and notwithstanding the final number and location of pedestrian links, it is anticipated that pedestrian and cycle access can be achieved within the site boundary and safe routes will be delivered. These will connect the site to the existing foot and cycle ways, the green infrastructure link and playing pitches to the north. These details will be confirmed through the layout reserved matters application. All site specific highway safety requirements will be secured through S106 obligation in the event of approval. 8.36 The LHA are content that the detailed aspects of the scheme have been revised to respond to the results of a Stage One Road Safety Audit and will result in acceptable vehicle junctions that are not anticipated to result in unacceptable highway safety or capacity issues. The final details of the design will be secured through a S278 agreement with WSCC. 8.37 It is expected that the layout would be designed in accordance with WSCC Highway advice and adopted standards, including parking standards. There are elements of concern with the highways elements of the indicative outline plans at this stage as identified in consultation responses including from CDC's Conservation and Design Manager and WSCC Highways and these concerns that are shared by officers. It will be important that desire lines and points of connection are used to inform the final layout and a balance is struck between the number and location of pedestrian access points and maintaining a strong landscaped buffer. The delivery of the green infrastructure route to the north will also be important to encourage foot and cycle travel; this element of the scheme is discussed below. 8.38 In conclusion on this issue, WSCC has accepted the detail of the vehicular and pedestrian accesses that are subject to this application, for planning purposes. Final access and construction management details are capable of being sought, approved and implemented by condition and will be subject to technical consent. The indicative details pertaining to the site layout will be subject to further review through a reserved matters application. The proposal is considered therefore to comply with LP policies 17 and 39 and section 4 of the NPPF.

Page 63

iv. Foul drainage 8.39 Policy 17 requires that development will be dependent on the provision of infrastructure for adequate wastewater conveyance and treatment to meet strict environmental standards. The supporting text at paragraph 12.52 states that development will be reliant on additional wastewater capacity, which would be provided by a sewerage undertaker and that future capacity has been identified at Tangmere WwTW following its proposed expansion/upgrade in 2019. The development will be required to fund the necessary wastewater infrastructure linking the site to Tangmere WwTW. 8.40 Since adopting the Local Plan, the Council has received confirmation from Southern Water that the upgrade/expansion works at Tangmere WwTW, projected to have capacity for 3,000+ homes, is now expected to be completed by December 2017. There is no available headroom at Apuldram (Chichester) or Tangmere WwTWs to the development, prior to the proposed upgrade of Tangmere WwTW in 2017, beyond the committed schemes. 8.41 The applicant has provided the key planning requirements/milestones and associated timescales which would need to be reached before a start on site could be made. It is considered that this information is based on optimistic timescales and on this basis it is evident that there is no prospect of any housing occupations prior to the completion of the upgrading of the Tangmere WwTW in December 2017. Indeed this indicative timetable identifies that no completions/occupations would be achievable until 2018. If, however, there is an earlier start on site which could lead to occupation prior to December 2017, the Council is confident that there is a small amount of existing reserve capacity at Tangmere WwTW. This reserve capacity results from the Shopwyke Lakes permission which allows for all 500 dwellings to be occupied prior to the upgrade at Tangmere WwTW. Although the Shopwyke Lakes development has commenced, due to the significant infrastructure requirements and average build out rates, officers are confident that the full 500 dwellings will not be completed and occupied prior to the upgrade at Tangmere WwTW. Date Action Comment

February 2016 CDC resolution to grant outline permission Based on agreed Committee date March 2016 Section 106 signed and outline permission Assumes 1 month to finalise the issued Section 106 Agreement following resolution September 2016 Sale of the site to a housebuilder As you are aware CEG does not build houses. A period of 6 months is assumed from outline permission to sale of the site. October 2016 Submission of applications to discharge Assumes submission only one month

pre-commencement conditions on the after the completion of a sale outline permission

December 2016 Pre-commencement conditions on the Assumes 2 months from submission outline permission formally discharged of the application to CDC approval December 2016 Submission of Reserved Matters application Assumes only 3 months from sale of the site to reserved matters submission and assumes that preparation overlaps with applications to discharge pre commencement Conditions March 2017 Approval of Reserved Matters Assumes CDC approve 3 months

from submission

Page 64

May 2017 Submission of applications to discharge Assumes 2 months after approval of pre-commencement conditions on reserved matters reserved matters approval

July 2017 Pre-commencement conditions on Assumes 2 months from submission reserved matters approval formally discharged

August 2017 Start on site Assumes almost immediate start on site following discharge of relevant conditions Spring 2018 First completion / occupation Assumes approximately 7 months for

site preparation works, build, and first completion / occupation

8.42 Although the applicant's Planning Statement and Environmental Statement (ES) (Chapter D) confirms that the intended approach is for the development to drain to Tangmere WwTW, the ES and Planning Statement do state that an alternative option is that the development could utilise available capacity at Apuldram WwTW, following the recent installation of U/V filtering. However, this contradicts the Council's most recent Position Statement on Wastewater and Delivering Development (July 2014) which indicates that there is no spare capacity at Apuldram WwTW once Local Plan housing requirements and projected brownfield windfall sites are allowed for. On this basis, a condition is recommended preventing occupation of any dwelling prior to the capacity being available at Tangmere WwTW. 8.43 With regard to connection to Tangmere WwTW, the applicant is proposing to link to the existing pipe along Stane Street, subject to appropriate upgrading. A phase 2 capacity check has been undertaken (dated 3 July 2015) by Southern Water which demonstrates a potential engineering solution. This would comprise connecting into the network close to the south-east corner of the site. From west to east along the route, the following upgrades are then proposed:

- Upsize 210m of 150mm pipe to 375mm pipe - New 110m length of 375mm diameter pipe - Coach Road Westhampnett Wastewater Pumping Station (WPS) capacity

increase from 3l/s to 14 l/s - 69m of 150mm pipe upsized to 525mm south of the WPS - Existing pipework used along Stane Street between the Maudlin Nursery site and

Rolls Royce - New 300m length of 450mm diameter sewer between Rolls Royce and the

Strettington junction - Upsize existing 150mm diameter pipe to 450mm diameter near the Strettington

junction - Reduce Maudlin WPS from 22l/s to 15 l/s

8.44 Southern Water has raised no objection subject to a condition requiring that development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA in consultation with Southern Water and a condition requiring that occupation of the development will not be permitted until the LPA, in consultation with Southern Water, is satisfied that adequate wastewater treatment facilities exist to effectively drain the development. The development will be dependent on the provision of infrastructure for adequate wastewater conveyance and treatment to meet strict environmental standards. Southern Water is progressing a significant investment scheme to upgrade the existing

Page 65

Tangmere WwTW in order to deliver additional treatment capacity. The current delivery date of this scheme will be 2017. 8.45 With regard to the strategic sewer, Southern Water have confirmed that they are currently progressing their investigation of a strategic sewer but this investigation is not yet complete. This proposal does not, however, need to rely on the provision of the strategic sewer as the phase 2 capacity check demonstrates a potential engineering solution by way of linking to the existing pipe along Stane Street, subject to appropriate upgrading. 8.46 In conclusion on this issue, officers are satisfied that, with the appropriate conditions and timetabling, the foul sewerage capacity to serve the proposed development at Tangmere WwTW will be available and operational prior to it being required to serve the development. The appropriate checks for this stage of a proposal have been undertaken with Southern Water and an engineering solution provided as an option to enable the connection to be made and capacity provided in the network between the site and the WwTW. The proposal will not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere and is considered therefore to comply with Local Plan policies 17 and 9. v. Surface water management 8.47 The application site is predominantly in flood zone 1, however part of the site near the south-western boundary lies within flood zone 2. The land presently discharges storm water to the River Lavant to the west of the site. 8.48 The illustrative surface water drainage strategy in the FRA (ES Chapter D) confirms the site naturally falls from north to south and south-west. The SuDS features are therefore logically positioned along the southern boundary, with the main water detention area in the south-west corner. The final drainage design will be required to be informed by a full hydrological and hydrogeological assessment taking climate change into account. Infiltration methods must be prioritised and where infiltration is not possible, then discharge to a watercourse could be acceptable at no greater than greenfield levels. This is recommended to be covered by condition, as is the agreement of a detailed management and maintenance schedule. 8.49 The illustrative drainage plan shows the main basin could have an area of some 0.6ha, which would take up the majority of the green space and perimeter planting area. In contrast, the parameter plans suggest the SuDS features will be narrower and more linear in form. The final size will depend on the results of the monitoring and final design. Further information provided by the applicant on 18 December identified that this south-west corner could function as both SuDS and informal open space if the gradients of the basin are suitably shallow (i.e. 1:3), as in the example image in the FRA and water is not held in this location for an extended period. The lowest point of the basin therefore needs to be higher than the peak groundwater level. An additional SuDS pond is identified in the far south-east corner of the site, with a network of swales typically 0.5-1m deep connecting the two and forming a green buffer to Stane Street. 8.50 The assessment to date on the principles of surface water management has identified that all built development will be located in flood zone 1, with space available on site to enable SuDS methods to be used as a priority. The final detailed design will be expected to demonstrate there will be no risk of flooding either on site or in the surrounding area. The proposal complies with Local Plan policy 42 and section 11 of the NPPF in this regard.

Page 66

vi. Landscape and Visual Impact 8.51 Policy 17 (bullet 4) of the Local Plan requires that development should be designed with special regard to the sensitivity of the site (especially in terms of views towards and from the National Park). It also seeks major new structural planting to soften the impact of development on views from the north and around the Motor Circuit/Aerodrome. Local Plan policies 33, 47 and 48 and Appendix A also refer to landscape matters. National level policy context is provided in the NPPF and the English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010. The application is supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact assessment prepared by Tyler Grange (Chapter C of the ES). The parameter plans have also been subject to a Design Review Panel assessment. 8.52 Consultees including the South Downs National Park Authority and third parties have raised concerns over the lack of a comprehensive masterplan and an absence of sufficient information and analysis of landscape impact to enable a full assessment to be made. In terms of the masterplan, concerns are raised that the cumulative effects of the full allocation are likely to be greater than those caused by the individual parts. The application is supported by the SDL masterplan and SDL phasing plan. As the principle of the allocation and the wider landscape impacts of the development in broad terms have been assessed in through the Local Plan process, this assessment relates to the impacts anticipated from the application development itself, based on the parameter and illustrative plans. 8.53 The illustrative layout focuses all the built form away from the site boundaries, with the reliance on the periphery providing the landscaped setting, green buffer and SuDS features. It has been necessary to take this approach due to the quantum of development required on this site to deliver the SDL allocation, the need to provide a strong landscaped edge particularly against the surrounding agricultural land to the north and to provide space for SuDS infrastructure where the land is at its lowest level in the south-western corner of the site. Lines of formal and informal tree planting are also identified on the Illustrative Open Space and Green Infrastructure plan along the primary north/south and east/west routes through the site. 8.54 The illustrative plans include provision for tree planting around the edge of the site and lower density development towards the north and east of the site, to soften the urban edge and transition to countryside. The plans also propose to retain the existing hedgerow as well as strengthen the landscaping along the northern edge of the site, which is the most prominent. The Design Panel requested a softer edge to the countryside and supported the proposed landscaped ride. The ride, which runs from the north-east corner of the site along the Madgwick Lane frontage to the secondary vehicular access point, is the key feature of the northern part of the site. It will reduce the landscape and visual impacts of the development from the north, both in the immediate context opposite open agricultural land within the SDL allocation, and in wider views including from Goodwood Motor Circuit/Aerodrome and the South Downs National Park. The provision of this landscaped ride will be secured through the section 106 agreement, with the final details forming part of a reserved matters application. 8.55 The Building Heights Plan avoids locating taller buildings on the northernmost edge of the site, restricting dwellings to a maximum of 2 storeys here. It is also proposed to limit development to 2 storeys opposite Old Place Farm and 33-34 Madgwick Lane, with dwellings up to 2.5 storeys to the north and east of the site access onto Madgwick Lane. There are some reservations about this higher maximum opposite open agricultural land and close to historic farm buildings. It is however acknowledged that the additional 0.5 storeys relates to approximately 1m overall in building height and these properties will be set some

Page 67

20m back from Madgwick Lane behind the Ride. These indicative heights would allow for greater scope of design variety and character, more typical of a village. This part of the site would also be of a lower density than the central, south and south-western parts of the site, with greater separation created between the buildings. Furthermore, the built form will help the vehicular access to be better integrated into the streetscene and should assist in reducing road speeds and marking the transition from countryside to settlement edge. Form and massing, materials and detailed design will be subject to close review through a reserved matters application. In these circumstances the heights, densities and open space plans that show the proposal at outline stage are considered acceptable. 8.56 This development and the associated highway infrastructure including the Madgwick Lane vehicular access and the pedestrian access to the playing pitches and green infrastructure route will in part erode the rural character of Madgwick Lane. This is, however, weighed up against the need to provide safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the site and to connect the various elements of the wider strategic allocation. Built development between the vehicular access and Westhampnett Mill House will be sufficiently set back from the road to enable replacement and additional planting to be installed, outside the visibility splays, which will help to mitigate these landscape and visual effects. 8.57 The lower densities along the eastern boundary, with maximum building heights of 2 storeys, are intended to assist in mitigating the impact of the housing on adjacent equestrian land and views from the north. A further narrower belt of planting is shown in the Illustrative Open Space and Green Infrastructure plan along this eastern boundary, which will provide visual and biodiversity benefits and help to protect the amenities of the adjacent properties. 8.58 The more urban built form will be located towards the southern and south-western parts of the site, close to the industrial and service sites south of Stane Street, the Hotel and the roundabout. Here, the existing context and character is more semi-urban, with the land to the south and east of the site dominated by large business and service buildings and major road infrastructure. On balance therefore, it is considered that the focus of development of greater height (up to 3 storeys) and density (up to 40dph) in this area is acceptable in principle. 8.59 Policy 17 requires development to be well integrated with Westhampnett village and this is echoed in the Design Panel report and comments from the Conservation and Design Manager. The immediate relationship of the development to Stane Street will be dominated by the green buffer including swales and trees as well as the retention of the existing hedgerow along Stane Street. Densities and building heights will be reduced towards the far eastern end of the site, towards St Peter's Church. While in design terms it may be preferable to build directly onto the Stane Street frontage, as is the character of many villages, on this site the green edge is important both in terms of landscape character and for biodiversity. It is considered that the landscaped buffer with pedestrian access points will provide some softening with filtered views through to the development, but would not be a strong visual barrier that would isolate the development entirely from Stane Street. The Southern side of Stane Street is currently dominated by business uses, substantial walls and highway signage. The set back position of the dwellings and community facility behind this planting and SuDS area will help Stane Street to appear wider than if the development was positioned directly fronting the road and this will improve the attractiveness of this part of Stane Street for pedestrians. 8.60 It is therefore considered that on balance, the principles of the landscaping outlined on the parameter and illustrative plans comply with the requirements of Local Plan policy 17. From longer distances, including viewpoints within the South Downs National Park, it is

Page 68

considered that the development will be viewed in the context of the wider setting of Chichester city and Westhampnett village. The wider setting of the SDNP and of Chichester city will be affected to some degree, as would be expected by the delivery of a large housing allocation, however these impacts are considered not to be significant and are outweighed by the benefits of delivering 300 houses on the portion of the SDL allocated for housing through the Concept Statement. Setting development back from site boundaries and paying particular attention to landscape enhancement, building heights and densities, will assist in integrating this scheme into the natural and built environment and minimising its landscape and visual impacts on the immediate and wider setting of the site. Final details of all elements of the scheme, including lighting, will be reserved for careful assessment at a later stage. vii. Heritage 8.61 The application site forms part of the setting for a number of designated heritage assets, including the grade II* listed Parish Church of St Peter. The areas of particular heritage sensitivity are considered to be the south-east corner, adjacent to the church, and the Madgwick Lane frontage where there are Grade II listed former agricultural buildings, listed cottages and Westhampnett Mill House. The setting of these designated assets is considered integral to their heritage value, as is explained by Historic England and the Council's Conservation and Design Manager and therefore Local Plan policy 47 applies. 8.62 As identified above, the site has been allocated for housing and associated development as part of the SDL and in this context it is not possible to meet the SDL allocation objectives without using the south-east corner of this site and the Madgwick Lane frontage. It is therefore not possible to retain the settings of the listed buildings close to the site undisturbed. The assessment and consultations have identified these effects are likely to be less than substantial and consequently, the tests in NPPF paragraphs 132-134 and 137 apply. 8.63 Chapter J of the ES and the associated parameter plans recognise the sensitivity of the south east corner of the site and Madgwick Lane frontage by illustrating the lowest built densities and heights closest to the heritage assets. Development in the south east corner of the site is of most concern for Historic England as St Peter's Church is Grade II* listed. The environment of the churchyard is also important to its significance as a place of reflection and memorial. The proposed community centre, SuDS and a small area of open space are proposed close to the Church and the Grade II listed Grayle House/The Close. The clustering of community facilities in this part of the site is considered positive, with supporting open space in a location accessible to the village. The parameter plans also show the building heights in this part of the site will not exceed 1.5 storeys (no taller than 8m) and the existing planted belt along the eastern boundary will be retained and enhanced. The proposed dwellings to the north-west of the church will be low density (15-20dph) and a maximum of 2 storeys (9.5m max) in height. In the circumstances therefore, whilst the setting of the church would be best protected through no development, or perhaps a larger community recreation space, the proposed low density development including community facilities and some green space is considered on balance to be reasonable. As identified above, the final details that will be important to the degree of harm and mitigation, including building form and appearance, activity levels and environmental impacts including light and noise and landscaping will be assessed through a subsequent reserved matters application. 8.64 The development will also impact on the setting of the Grade II listed buildings to the north and north-east of the site, through the introduction of highway engineering and housing development on the southern side of the road. These buildings will retain their historic

Page 69

relationship to the agricultural land to the north, albeit across the relatively narrow proposed green infrastructure route (see 15/03884/OUT). The masterplan shows the remainder of the land will be retained for agricultural use. The development is sufficiently far from Graylingwell Hospital not to have a material effect; in any event, the hospital forms part of its own substantial development project that has a more immediate impact on its setting and significance than this more peripheral site. The landscape enhancements and detail of the built form will be assessed in detail at reserved matters stage, to ensure the most sympathetic scheme for this sensitive context. 8.65 The archaeological evaluation of this site (Chapter J of the ES) has demonstrated that the site contains a series of features and deposits of archaeological interest, including the remains of a Bronze Age enclosure and probable associated settlement and an Iron Age enclosure. The remains known to be present are considered to hold medium (regional) significance. Consequently, these features merit proper recording prior to destruction. A full archaeological investigation in accordance with a pre-agreed specification can be reasonably secured by condition as recommended by CDC's Archaeology Officer. 8.66 In conclusion on this issue, the impacts of the development in principle on heritage assets were assessed at allocation stage. The level of detail provided in this outline application suggests that harm to the settings and significance of Grade II and Grade II* heritage assets and undesignated archaeology will be less than substantial and outweighed by the public benefits. The details of building form, location, appearance and landscaping and the control of activities within these buildings and spaces will be subject to a further detailed application and will be required at that stage to demonstrate all reasonable efforts to reduce the impact on the setting of adjacent listed buildings and heritage assets. On this basis the proposal complies with the NPPF and policies 17 and 47 of the Local Plan. viii. Noise impact 8.67 Local Plan policy 17 (bullet 4) requires that any development should be designed to reduce the impact of noise associated with the Goodwood Motor Circuit /Aerodrome. The supporting text at paragraph 12.50 (bullet 1) indicates that housing development should not be within 400m of the boundary of Goodwood Airfield and Motor Circuit. It goes on to state that it may be possible for limited development to occur within 400m of the circuit, subject to any proposal demonstrating that there would be no adverse noise impact on the occupiers of the proposed housing development and no adverse impact on building design or development layout resulting from proposed noise mitigation measures. 8.68 The illustrative proving layout shows part of the proposed residential development within 400m of the boundary of Goodwood Airfield and Motor Circuit. The applicant justifies this with reference to the noise assessment prepared by Cole Jarman (ES Chapter F). Notwithstanding the proximity to Goodwood, the noise survey concludes that the predominant source of noise which impacts the site is traffic noise from Madgwick Lane and Stane Street. The EH officer concurs with these findings. There are also business uses along the southern side of Stane Street that generate noise. It is therefore important that development detail is informed by full assessments of existing noise and likely impacts. The EH officer recommends more detailed noise monitoring will be required to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application relating to layout, to ensure that noise impacts are mitigated acceptably through design measures and thereby ensure dwellings and gardens can be afforded satisfactory standards of amenity and acoustic protection from all sources of noise.

Page 70

8.69 In conclusion on this issue, the acoustic impacts of a residential development of approximately 300 dwellings on this site on the existing environment, nearby businesses and dwellings was assessed in principle as part of the Local Plan examination, prior to the development allocation. Notwithstanding the proximity to Goodwood and the small encroachment of the 400m buffer, the noise survey concludes that the predominant source of noise which impacts the site is traffic noise from Madgwick Lane and Stane Street. The impacts of the particular development detail will be reviewed through the reserved matters application(s) and it is expected that the development will be designed and delivered in accordance with acoustic recommendations. On this basis, the development will comply with Local Plan policy 17 and NPPF paragraph 124. Construction noise can be controlled by condition. ix. Open space/green infrastructure 8.70 An integral part of the masterplan for the SDL is the provision of green infrastructure, both within each residential development parcel and on land connecting the two where the playing pitches and linear accessible green space are to be provided. 8.71 Within the residential site which is the subject of this application, the parameter and illustrative plans show existing and proposed planting to all boundaries, the provision of a landscaped ride to the north-western boundary fronting onto Madgwick Lane, retention of the existing hedgerow on all boundaries with enhanced planting on the western boundary to the road, a dual use green space and SuDS catchment in the south-western corner of the site, enhanced planting to the Stane Street boundary and a small area of green space in the south-eastern corner. A central green is also proposed towards the south-eastern part of the site. Tree and hedge planting can be achieved along the primary routes through the site. Additional planting will be limited to small areas of development setting and domestic gardens. 8.72 As suggested on the illustrative Open Space and Green Infrastructure Plan, the total provision of open space, including equipped, formal and informal green and open space, is 2.445ha which is in excess of the policy requirement as set out in the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD which is in total 2.272ha. Officers acknowledge that the location of some areas of open space, particularly the central green and the equipped play area, may need further consideration alongside the layout details at reserved matters stage, however the quantum of space meets the requirements of the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD. 8.73 The proposed delivery of 300 dwellings generates a requirement for around 1ha of sport and recreation facilities. Here, this will be in the form of playing pitches, associated changing facilities and parking. The playing pitches are covered by a parallel application (15/03884/OUT) which falls to be determined alongside this application. Details are set out in the following report listed as the next agenda item. For the purposes of this assessment, it is summarised that the proposal relates to an area of land within the SDL allocation, in the westerly portion of the field north of Madgwick Lane and west of Old Place Farm that borders the existing Graylingwell development to the west and the River Lavant to the east. The pitches are proposed to be accessed via a track which runs from Old Place Lane, opposite this application site, and then adjacent to the river to the playing pitches. On the basis that the partner application provides the required space and facilities, follows the intentions of the associated SDL masterplan and SDL phasing plan and is provision and delivery is to be bound by the S106 agreement required for this application, the development complies with Local Plan Policy 54.

Page 71

x. Ecology 8.74 The application site is presently an arable field and as such its primary ecological value is in its hedgerows, boundary trees and the unmanaged buffer around the site boundaries. The eastern boundary is particularly important ecologically for its contribution to the bat foraging network as identified in Local Plan Appendix A. 8.75 The requirement to provide safe and suitable vehicular and pedestrian access to this site including sufficient visibility splays will result in the loss of some sections of the vegetative boundaries. However the boundary onto Madgwick Lane is ecologically important and the latest illustrative plan identifies that most of the hedging could be retained whilst achieving highway standards. Further areas of planting will enhance this boundary, particularly to the northern section which is shown to comprise a landscaped ride. 8.76 The majority of the southern and eastern boundaries can however be retained without compromising the development layout and indeed, the illustrative plans suggest the open space and SuDS features will be located along the southern boundary and in the south west corner to provide a buffer to the built development. Significant additional planting, primarily trees, are proposed to the site boundaries. 8.77 The retained and new boundaries and buffers will provide habitat for reptiles, bats, badgers and nesting birds. The use of planning conditions to protect these areas during works and suitable additional and replacement planting, ecological enhancements and an ecologically appropriate lighting scheme would need to be secured through any reserved matters application. On this basis, and considering on-site ecological impacts as a whole, the development is capable in this regard of complying with Local Plan policy 49 and Natural England's standing advice on protected species. 8.78 The site lies within the 5.6km buffer for the Chichester Harbour Special Protection Area. The development of up to 300 dwellings will have an in-combination effect on the Solent Maritime SAC. Avoidance measures will need to be adopted to ensure the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. In accordance with the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project (Phase III), the payment of £174 per dwelling is required at or before commencement to ensure the avoidance measures funded by this money are in place prior to first occupation and this will be secured through the Section 106 Agreement. Accordingly, the development complies with CLP policy 50. xi. Socio-economic impacts 8.79 Chapter H of the ES deals with the socio-economic impacts of the development, as do many consultees and third parties. In general terms, it is necessary to focus development on Chichester city and its immediate surroundings, as the city is the primary settlement in the plan area. The application site will provide upto 300 dwellings in a sustainable location for accessing goods, services and facilities, including employment and leisure functions. The development will make a significant contribution to meeting local and district housing need, including providing 30% affordable dwellings of various tenures integrated within the site. The construction of the development itself will also deliver a number of benefits, as set out in the ES. 8.80 Infrastructure capacity is a key consideration, including in relation to transport capacity and the effect of development on existing pressured local services. It is through the delivery of large schemes such as this that substantial infrastructure improvements can be justified and funded, which will, in the main, provide a betterment to the existing situation. The

Page 72

transport improvements as set out in section 8.86 below, secured through CIL and the Section 106 Agreements are a particular example of this. CIL and the bespoke S106 Agreement for this development are important tools to ensure developments are required to off-set harm and fund required infrastructure to support development and, as listed below, this development will be subject to a wide range of obligations. The site itself also provides for a community facility or, in the event the building is provided on an alternative site in Westhampnett, there will be a requirement for a commuted sum proportionate to the size of the development. For the full 300 dwellings, this would be £530,100. Either option will result in improved community provision to benefit the whole village community. The proposed Green Infrastructure links will connect the site and local residents to a wider range of recreational opportunities. Overall it is agreed there will be tangible benefits of delivering this scheme in socio-economic terms, which will assist in achieving the objectives of the Chichester Local Plan. xii. Other Matters Air Quality 8.81 As recognised in paragraphs 8.12-8.13 of the Local Plan (policy 8), air pollution has a wide ranging impact on human health and new development can have an adverse impact on air quality through increased transport movements and congestion. The application site is located such that traffic generated by the 300 new dwellings could have a cumulative impact on the highly sensitive Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in and around Chichester city. An assessment of the air quality impacts of the proposal is included within Chapter G of the ES. Further details were then provided during the application which are now considered satisfactory. On the basis that an air quality management plan will be implemented, details of which will be secured by condition, the development will not generate adverse air quality effects and would comply with Local Plan policy 8 and NPPF paragraph 124. Contamination 8.82 As set out in Chapter K of the ES, no sources of potential ground contamination were identified at the site. In the event that contamination sources may be found during construction, a watching brief can be secured through a condition. Likewise, pollution mitigation measures to protect land and groundwater contamination during construction and once the site is occupied can also be secured through suitably worded conditions in accordance with the recommendations of the Council's Senior Environmental Health Technician and Chapter K of the ES. Accordingly the development will comply with NPPF paragraphs 120-122. Communications infrastructure 8.83 The Local Plan recognises that high quality advanced communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth (paragraph 8.15) and advises that development should facilitate where possible the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems to ensure residential and business choice. These aspirations are included within LP policies 7, 8, 9, 33 and 39. The applicant has confirmed that broadband access will be provided to all households on occupation. The full details of this will be sought and approved by condition. Significant Conditions 8.84 The recommendation to permit this outline application includes conditions regarding full foul and surface water drainage and management details, construction management plan

Page 73

covering transport and environmental matters, archaeology investigations and reporting, ecological and vegetation protection, noise assessment and final access details. All detailed matters will then be dealt with by reserved matters application(s) which will be subject to additional conditions. S106 Agreement 8.85 The proposed development will be subject to CIL in accordance with the Council's Charging Schedule. 8.86 On this basis and in accordance with the Council's Infrastructure and Affordable Housing SPD, the following will be sought by way of the S106 agreement. 1. Phasing plan 2. Affordable housing - 30% affordable housing (up to 90 units) with the following mix and

tenure:

30% shared ownership with 10-20% x 1 bed, 60-80% x 2 bed and 10-20% x 3 bed

70% affordable rented with 10-15% x 1 bed, 30-35% x 2 bed, 35-40% x 3 bed and 15-20% x 4+ bed

3. Community Facilities - in consultation with Westhampnett Parish Council the Council shall elect whether the owner shall provide a the community hall on site or pay a financial contribution towards provision of the community hall on the Maudlin Nurseries site

Provision of a community hall (minimum 428sqm) and associated car parking spaces in accordance with WSCC requirements. Site size a minimum of 0.25ha, or

A financial contribution of £1,787 per dwelling ( £536,100 if full 300 delivered) towards the provision of a community hall on the Maudlin Nurseries site

4. Sports provision - provision of one senior football pitch and changing facilities in accordance with Sport England guidelines, 8 parking spaces and temporary vehicular access from Madgwick Lane (to be stopped up when the second football pitch is provided together with vehicular access from the north) - delivered and available for public use before occupation of the 200 dwelling and appropriately managed and maintained thereafter.

5. Landscaping and open space

Formal open space within the site and the landscaped ride to the north western boundary, comprising a minimum of 0.74ha for the landscaped ride and 0.9ha for the open space. On the illustrative open space and green infrastructure plan, this would include the areas identified as the proposed ride, the perimeter planting (but not the SuDS) and the central green area. To be delivered in accordance with the phasing plan.

Landscape buffers 6. Children's equipped play space - a minimum of 0.22 hectares of equipped and non-

equipped play area. On the illustrative open space and green infrastructure plan, this would include the areas identified as equipped play area and play area. To be delivered in accordance with the phasing plan.

7. Green infrastructure - provision of a publically accessible green infrastructure route, between Madgwick Lane and the playing pitch, comprising a footpath and cycle path adjacent to the River Lavant, with a minimum width of 3.7m and with a surface suitable for its use in a rural location be retained in perpetuity. Details of maintenance and management plan to be agreed. Delivery prior to occupation of 200th dwelling.

Page 74

8. Chichester Harbour SPA mitigation - financial contributions of £52,200 (£174 per dwelling) to be paid prior to commencement and provision of education packs on first occupation of each dwelling

9. A27 Contribution - prior to commencement of development to enter into a S278 Agreement with Highways England to secure a financial contribution of £1,166,667 (£3,889 per dwelling) towards the A27 Chichester Bypass junction improvements or any such figure as set out in the adopted SPD

10. Site specific highway improvements comprising:

The provision of a length of footway in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Council along the northern side of Stane Street leading from the most easterly proposed pedestrian access into the development to connect to the existing footway east of St Peter's Church. To be provided prior to first occupation.

A contribution of £20,000 towards new bus stops and passenger infrastructure (to include timetables and shelters) on Stane Street in the vicinity of the proposed development. To be paid upon commencement.

A contribution of £6,000 to fund and promote alterations to the Traffic Regulation Order to enable the speed limit along Madgwick Lane to be reduced to 40mph. To be paid upon commencement.

To implement a travel plan in accordance with the approved framework. The travel plan to be implemented upon first occupation.

The provision of safe pedestrian route across and along Madgwick Lane connecting the site with the green infrastructure and playing pitch.

Environmental Statement and Parameter Plans 8.87 The site has been allocated for residential development within the Chichester District Local Plan, which itself has been found sound. The applicant has further demonstrated, through the submission of an Environmental Statement and associated parameter plans, that the site is capable of accommodating the quantum of development (300 dwellings and community facility) and the proposed access whilst complying with the Environmental Impact Regulations. It is concluded that subject to further assessment through the necessary reserved matters that the principle of developing this site in the manner proposed (number of dwellings and point of access) would have no significant environmental impacts. 8.88 Approval of the submitted parameter plans at this stage would effectively fix the layout of the proposed development without full consideration of the details. This may well result in a development which is inappropriate in terms of its finer grain detailing, including its impact on the setting of adjacent listed buildings, and would lack integration with its surroundings. Approval of the parameter plans would also, for example, prevent the opportunity to increase densities in some areas, particularly along the eastern boundary, in a way that could still reflect character and landscape sensitivities. By not approving the parameter plans, it would enable flexibility at the reserved matters stage to use open space to structure the layout and integrate the development into the landscape. It would also provide the opportunity to relocate the central green and the equipped play area and deliver any additional landscaping required to compensate for that removed for visibility splays along Madgwick Lane. Conclusion 8.89 The principle of a housing development on this site has been established, through the allocation of the SDL in the Local Plan and the specific requirements of policy 17. Policy 17 of the Local Plan requires that the SDL is allocated for a mixed development comprising 500

Page 75

homes, community facilities and open space and green infrastructure. In relation to the application site, policy 17 of the Local Plan specifically requires that the development of the SDL is directed towards the settlement of Westhampnett to the south of Madgwick Lane. 8.90 The parameter plans and illustrative information demonstrate that it is possible to deliver the quantum of development proposed in the outline application, that being up to 300 homes (subject to satisfactory details provided through reserved matters applications), a community facility and associated access, parking, open space and landscaping in a manner which would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and not have an adverse impact on the setting of adjacent heritage assets or the adversely impact on the wider landscape sensitivities. 8.91 WSCC has confirmed that, subject to the S106 agreement, recommended conditions and technical consents, the access arrangements are acceptable and there will be no severe transport impacts. 8.92 Based on the above it is considered the proposal complies with to development plan policies and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.93 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION

A (15/03524/OUTEIA): DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

1 U99627 - Time Limit – Outline 2 U99628 - Time Limit - Reserved Matters 3 U99613 - Approved Plans 4 U99614 - Foul Drainage - Tangmere 5 U99615 - Foul Drainage - on and off site works 6 U99616 - Surface Water Drainage 7 U99617 - Construction Management - highways 8 U99618 - Construction Management – Environmental Health 9 U99633 - Hours of Construction 10 U99619 - Construction Management - Ecology 11 U99621 - Tree protection 12 U99620 - Archaeology 13 U99622 - Timetable for vehicular/pedestrian access 14 U99623 - Temporary Construction Access 15 U99624 - Utilities 16 U99625 - Site levels and sections 17 U99626 - SUDS Management 18 U99630 - External Lighting 19 U99631 - Sustainable construction 20 U99632 - Contaminated Land 21 U99756 - Noise 22 U99643 - Visibility Splays 23 U99642 - Car Parking Space

Page 76

24 U99641 - Cycle Parking 25 U99640- Access Road INFORMATIVES 26 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions 27 W02F S.106 Agreement 28 U99636 - S278 Agreement 29 U99637 - S38 Agreement 30 U99638 - Southern Water 31 U99639 – Wildlife including Nesting Birds 32 U99757 - EIA B (14/01159/OUTEIA): TO ONLY CONTEST THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT SEEKS FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE PARAMETER PLANS, SEEKS THE REMOVAL OF THE HEDGEROW ALONG MADGWICK LANE OR A FAILURE TO SECURE THE NECESSARY SECTION 106 REQUIREMENTS BUT TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE HEAD OF PLANNING TO RESOLVE OR WITHDRAW ISSUES AS APPROPRIATE HAVING TAKEN ADDITIONAL ADVICE

For further information on this application please contact Joanna Bell on 01243 534899.

Page 77

Parish: Loxwood

Ward: Plaistow

LX/15/02012/OUT

Proposal Outline application for proposed residential development comprising 43

dwellings, 2no. retail units, access roads, landscaping and village green.

Site Loxwood Nurseries Guildford Road Loxwood Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0SA

Map Ref (E) 503721 (N) 131726

Applicant Landlinx RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

Page 78

Agenda Item 7

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral The Parish Council supports the application, but in doing so raise a number of matters they wish to be carefully considered. In particular, the capacity of the foul drainage network and traffic calming measures. 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The 2.1ha greenfield site is the former Loxwood Conifer Nursery, located on the western side of Guildford Road (B2133), Loxwood. The site is located within the village and the Settlement Boundary as set out in the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan (2014-2029), and is identified as an allocated site for a minimum of 43 dwellings. 2.2 The application site currently comprises extensive trees, shrubs and vegetation, with a number of empty glasshouses located towards the western boundary, beyond which is Loxwood House and open countryside. There is a public right of way (PROW 795/2) that runs parallel with the southern boundary of the application site. To the south of the site, are residential properties, including the residential development of Hall Hurst Close. To the east, on the opposite side of Guildford Road, are a number of detached properties and to the north is an individual dwelling, Loxwood House, set in its own grounds, beyond which is open countryside. 2.3 The site is situated on a gradient which slopes steeply downwards to the north and there are two vehicular access points into the site from Guildford Road, one of which currently serves Loxwood House to the west. The site is within Flood Zone 1. The site is located in close proximity to local amenities and services, including the village post office, store and shops. The village is also served by a primary school, doctor's surgery, village hall and public house. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 This outline application seeks approval for the principle of development for 43 dwellings, 30% of which would be affordable, with access to the site. Appearance, scale, landscaping and layout are reserved for future consideration. Notwithstanding those matters reserved, the outline application has been considered in a high level of detail following consultee responses and comments from third parties, with an illustrative layout showing details of the proposed building types, parking and area of public open space. 3.2 The application proposes 43 dwellings, of which 13 would be affordable and 30 would be market units. The affordable mix is as follows with a 70:30% tenure split between affordable rented and shared ownership: 2 x 1 bed 4 x 2 bed 5 x 3 bed 2 x 4 bed Total - 13

Page 79

The proposed market mix is as follows: 10 x 2 bed 15 x 3 bed 3 x 4 bed 2 x 5 bed Total - 30 3.3 The development proposed is at a density of approximately 20.5 dph, with the built form arranged around a village green fronting onto the Guildford Road on the eastern edge of the site, in a perimeter block layout. The proposed scheme incorporates two retail units with public parking located towards the front of the site in the southeast corner. 3.4 Two points of vehicular access are proposed into the site from Guildford Road (B2133).Vehicular access is to be retained to the rear of the site for Loxwood House. A total of 120 parking spaces are proposed as mixture of allocated and unallocated parking, retail parking (14) and visitor spaces (9). 3.5 Illustrative details have been provided for some of the proposed dwellings with supporting studies referring to local examples and settlement pattern. These are indicative with approval of details to be secured through a future Reserved Matters application in the event that outline permission is granted. The indicative scale of buildings is shown as 1-2 storeys. The applicant has provided additional information on a number of matters, including surface and foul water drainage, revisions to the illustrative layout, vehicular access arrangements into the site and traffic calming measures. This has resulted in the removal of a roundabout on Guildford Road as originally submitted and replacement with two double sided vehicle activated signs. 4.0 History None 5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area NO

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order YES

South Downs National Park NO

EA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

Page 80

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Loxwood Parish Council Support, subject to the following: They would like to see an alteration of the public carpark provision, which is currently within the 'village green' area at the front of the development. They would rather see an arrangement of parking equally distributed around the edge of the green. These spaces must be designated public parking to avoid residents' use of them. The Parish Council would like to see Units 1-4 setback further from the road and screened from the road as they currently do not fit with the vernacular of the adjacent or opposite properties. In addition, the pavement running along the B2133 from the south should be extended to the Northern boundary of the site. Neighbourhood Plan (NP) policy compliance: The application complies with policies 1,2,5 (a) and (b) but a viability study must be undertaken in accordance with policy 5B to determine possible take up of retail units. Policy 9 housing density. LPC to discuss with the applicant. Compliance is required with the following NP policies: 7 (street lighting), 8 (foul water), 9, 10 (vernacular), 14 (economy and business), 15 (telecommunications), 16 (traffic calming), 17 (environment) and 18 (flood risk). Within the S106 Agreement, the working hours should be restricted to Monday to Friday 8am-6pm and Saturdays 8am to 1pm. There should be no working on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Wheel washing facilities must be available on site and also required in the S106 Agreement. With regard to the affordable housing, the Parish Council will seek to negotiate a local lettings policy with the applicant, Chichester District Council and the allocated affordable housing provided in accordance with appendix B of the CDC housing allocation scheme (refer paragraph 17.7 of the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan). Further comment following revised details Comment Policy 8 Foul Water - For the reasons outlined in paragraphs 18.8.2 to 18.8.4 of the NP, the sewer system along Spy Lane suffers inundation of surface water into the sewer, resulting in sewerage back-up and leakage from inspection chamber covers into houses and gardens of residents of Spy Lane. Inundation also occurs in the main sewer that runs from Alford, through Alford Arms to Loxwood. This has been flagged up to Thames Water and Southern at Flood Forum meetings. Southern Water is well aware and has commissioned a sewer 'Infiltration Study' from Alfold Clappers Meadow pumping station to Loxwood Pumping Station at the Onslow Arms. The results are awaited. With inundation and sewerage problems well documented, LPC surprised that applicant can connect to the main sewer at North Hall. This will add a further 43 properties discharging to a fragile sewer system running down Spy Lane. System may have capacity in dry weather conditions, but during wet weather, it will increase sewerage deposited in residents' gardens and homes.

Page 81

Please ensure the above matter is brought to the attention of the applicant. Developer of Farm Close opted for on-site sewer treatment plant to mitigate Loxwood sewerage treatment problems. Policy 18 Flood Risk - Developing site will require the removal of mature conifers and change surface water drainage capacity and, if not carefully managed, will result in water draining onto the B2133. The surface water drainage strategy should be looked at again taking above issues into account. Similar problems have been encountered with the affordable homes development in Nicolsfield. Policy 16 Traffic Calming - LPC supports the revised plans, but requests further mitigation with respect to traffic calming: the feasibility of a mini roundabout is looked at again at the northern site access; the feasibility of a pedestrian crossing at the southern access be looked at to allow for safe crossing for children on their walk to school; the feasibility of a footpath to North Hall from the site. LP policy 16 and 5 commits the applicant, the LPC and CDC to accept a mutually acceptable traffic calming plan. 6.2 Southern Water Services (summarised) Currently, inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul and surface water sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system and existing properties and land may be subject to greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. The planning form makes reference to drainage using SUDs. Under current guidance and legislation, SUDs rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. The applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of SUDs facilities. Southern Water can provide a water supply to the site. Southern Water requires a formal application for connection and on-site mains to be made by the applicant or developer. The Council's Building Control Staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the development. Further comment following revised details Southern Water cannot accommodate the needs of the application without the development providing additional local infrastructure. Section 98 of the Water Industry Act provides a legal mechanism through which the appropriate infrastructure can be requested by the developer to accommodate the above proposal. Should the Planning Authority be minded to approve the application, please condition details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage. The report provided to the developer is an indicative hydraulic solution which would ensure that there is no additional detriment to the existing sewerage network i.e. no increase in flooding. This particular solution acts as a balancing tank which holds the flows within the proposed 900mm pipe work with a flow throttle restricting flows downstream. This scheme still requires further site investigations and engineering works to confirm if the solution is viable in the proposed location of the works. It should be noted that the flow generated by 43 properties would only be in the region of 1.99 l/s peak flows (4000 l/s per unit per day) and the solution provided would not resolve any existing flooding issues within the area, just

Page 82

ensure no additional detriment to the existing network. Although, in some cases such works have provided a slight betterment. The developer will be required to progress the necessary off site works to service the proposed development before any connections are made to the public sewerage system. Southern Water would consider the development premature until such time until a drainage strategy detailing the proposed means of foul and surface water disposal and a implementation timetable, has been submitted to and approved in writing by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. The development should be carried out in accordance with an approved scheme and timetable. 6.3 Sussex Police (summarised) Development has outward facing dwellings creating good active frontage with the streets and public areas being overlooked, resulting in elimination of vulnerable rear garden pathways, but resulting in rear parking courts. Parking is in curtilage, garage and rear parking courts and on street bays, leaving street layout free and unobstructed. Communal courts must be within view of an active room. Boundary between public and private spaces must be clearly indicated. Walls, fences and hedges will need to be kept low. Perimeter fencing must be a minimum height of 1.8 metres. Public open space on northeastern side of development does have surveillance from surrounding dwellings. Foliage to be kept low to maintain surveillance, ground planting to be no higher than 1 metre and tree canopies no lower than 2 metres. To prevent illegal parking on village green, recommend small ditch or bund to protect and assist keeping road layout clear. Retail units are to have glazed external doors and ground floor easily accessible windows to conform to LPS 1175SR2. Consideration to be given to an alarm system. Further comment following revised details Amended site plan shows retail units with parking spaces to rear. The layout defines the retail area within its own footprint and provides good clear lines of observation across the carpark. Consideration to be given to displaying signage within the retail carpark to discourage rogue parking. Rear parking courts have been removed and there is no evidence of rear garden pathways. Design and layout should leave the street free and unobstructed. Communal parking must be within view of an active room. Boundaries between public space and private areas are to be clearly indicated. Dwelling frontages should be open to view and walls/fences kept low (max height of 1 metre). Measures such as a small ditch or bund could be introduced on the village green to deter illegal vehicles from parking and a form of vehicle mitigation considered to deter vehicles driving on village green footpath and through the tree lined pedestrian walkway. 6.4 WSCC - Highways (summarised) No highway objection, subject to conditions.

Page 83

Access Access is to be approved with the outline application; plans need to show both proposed access points and include geometries and suitable visibility splays based on 85th percentile wet weather recorded vehicle speeds. Vertical alignment of the carriageway may restrict visibility emerging from proposed access points, as well as forward visibility for vehicles on B2133. Visibility to be demonstrated in vertical and horizontal directions. Design Audit is required for mini roundabout. Principle is unlikely to be acceptable when assessed against TD 54/07. This states that mini roundabouts must not be used at direct accesses or where forecast traffic flow is below 500 vehicles per day, or as a speed reduction feature in isolation. No consideration is given to non-motorised users; particular concern given public right of way across proposed access. Junction design needs to take into consideration existing accesses to properties on opposite side Guildford Road, as well as bus stops. Vehicle tracking is required (cars, refuse vehicles and deliveries associated with retail units) and a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and Designer's Response. Consideration to be given to improving pedestrian access (e.g. currently no footway on western side of Guildford Road; therefore LHA would expect to see a pedestrian crossing to assist future site residents). Trip Generation Residential trip rates presented are lower than expected for such a location, particularly given limited facilities within walking/cycling distance. These should be revisited to ensure appropriate parameters have been applied. Worst case approach taken in terms of trip generation of retail units; it is accepted that a portion of trips generated will be within the site. The LHA is content with convenience store trip rates. WSCC TA Guidance states that any junctions that experience an increase of greater than 30 vehicles per hr should be subject to capacity assessment. In practice, this extends to both site accesses, and will be useful to determine effectiveness of the mini roundabout. Accessibility Limited range of facilities and services within village. Those present are within a reasonable walking distance. Footways are discontinuous on western side of B2133. Cycling is unlikely to be used for anything but leisure given distance to centres/nature of routes. Bus stops are outside the site, but services are limited. Nearest train station is 10km southeast (Billingshurst). Access by private car only practical option available and likely to be a high dependency on use of private cars to carry out majority of trips. Notwithstanding this, site is within LNP and suitable to enabling growth of village. Internal layout is indicative. Arrangement of segregated footways and carriageways is acceptable. Tracking for refuse vehicles is required for reserved matters to demonstrate suitability of internal access roads. Parking for plots 29-32; 5-7 shown as a rear courtyard. Residents are likely to park at the front for convenience. Parking is to be considered in detail at reserved matters stage.

Page 84

Further comment following revised details A Revised Transport Statement and Stage One Road Safety Audit, and Designers Response are provided. The majority of outstanding matters have been resolved to the satisfaction of the LHA. There remain outstanding matters in respect of Designer's Response to the RSA and pedestrian improvements. Two access points were shown on the B2133 Guildford Road in the form of mini-roundabouts, but for design and road safety reasons, the LHA did not accept the principle. The revised junction proposes two points of vehicular access shown as priority junctions. Given the scale of development and trip generation, the principle is appropriate. Stopping distances of 84 metres are achievable to north and south at both accesses from a 2.4 metre set back and are based upon the recorded wet weather 85th percentile vehicle speeds and accord with Manual for Streets 2. Vertical alignment of the B2133 was raised as a concern by LHA, given that this may restrict visibility for emerging vehicles. It is apparent from the access drawing that the vertical alignment will not restrict visibility for emerging vehicles. The LHA has requested that improvements to pedestrian routes to the development site are considered in respect of the provision of crossing points of the B2133. Discussions have taken place regarding the possibility of additional footway and crossing provisions in light of the additional dwellings, and the increase in footfall from the retail units. The revised TS does not make reference to this or to the outcome of discussions. The TS provides a revised vehicle trip generation. The LHA does not consider the potential impacts on the surrounding highway network from the additional vehicle movements to be severe. The accessibility of the site remains fundamentally unchanged, and the LHA's comments in this respect remain unchanged. The internal road layout has been revised and remains indicative and reviewed as part of a reserved matters application. There remain outstanding matters in respect of problems raised within the Stage 1 RSA and pedestrian improvements (in particular crossing provision across the B2133) that need to be addressed. A Designer's Response has now been provided. In summary, the Stage One RSA and Designers Response are considered acceptable. The pedestrian assessment crossing makes use of the WSCC modified PV2 calculation. Based on the assessment undertaken, it is apparent that the criteria for a signalised crossing would not be met. The Stage 1 RSA did not identify any problems relating to pedestrians crossing the carriageway. There would be no justification to require any alternate form of pedestrian crossing provision other than dropped crossing points proposed. Footpath 795/2 runs through the site. No clear reference has been made to the existing alignment of the footpath on the drawings or how the proposed development will impact on the Public Right of Way. The impact of the development upon the footpath must be considered and drawings showing the footpath in the context of the development must be submitted and agreed with WSCC's public right of way team.

Page 85

6.5 WSCC Flood Risk Management From mapping and historic records, site is not at risk from surface water, ordinary watercourse, or groundwater flooding. Surface water drainage strategy (attenuation and discharge) appears to meet requirements of NPPF, PPG and associated guidance documents. Seek further clarity on surface water drainage strategy. Unclear whether final strategy will be discharged via network of ponds and attenuation system, or consist of cellular storage systems. Also unclear if attenuation will outfall to Southern Water system along Guildford Road or existing ditch on western site boundary. If approved, detail to be secured by planning. Further comment following revised details The new surface water drainage approach (permeable paving system) meets the requirements of the NPPF, and associated documents. Development should not commence until the finalised detailed surface water drainage designs for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA, and details of the maintenance and management of the SUDs system is set out in a site specific manual, to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. 6.6 WSCC Infrastructure Contributions will be sought to offset the burden imposed by the development on local infrastructure, which will be dependent on local housing mix and parking provision: Education - Primary £109,848 Education - Secondary £118,222 Education - Sixth Form £27,695 Libraries £11,667 Waste No contribution required Fire and Rescue £1058 No. Hydrants TBC TAD £101,460 [Officer comment - this is now incorporated within CIL] 6.7 CDC - Planning Policy (summarised) Policy 5 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2026 allocates a minimum of 60 dwellings to the Parish of Loxwood and criteria 2 of Policy 6 (Neighbourhood Plans) requires that Neighbourhood Plans set out how they will promote sustainable development at the same level of above that which would be delivered through the Local Plan. Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan was made at Council on 14th July 2015 and forms part of the Statutory Development Plan for Loxwood. Decisions need to be made in accordance with the Loxwood Neighbourhood Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policy 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan allocates land at Loxwood Nursery for a mixed residential development comprising a minimum of 43 dwellings located towards the front of the site, taking into consideration densities in accordance with policy 9 of the Plan. Proportion and tenure mix of affordable housing to be in line with the applicable Chichester District Council requirements and allocations policies. Space should be reserved for a small retail development and small business premises should they prove viable. Policy also considers community benefits such as a small retail development, car parking for shoppers, village green, small business premises and designs to incorporate traffic calming.

Page 86

Policy 9 states that new development should be in character with the local surrounding area respect the semi-rural nature of the parish and designed to give an impression of spaciousness with uniform houses and plots being avoided. In light of the inclusion of the site in the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan and it contributing towards the parish housing number set out in the Chichester Local Plan, there is no policy objection to this proposal. 6.8 CDC - Environmental Health Officer Given the former use of the land as a commercial nursery, there is considered to be potential for land contamination to be present at the site. Condition N21G should be applied in order that the land quality can be adequately investigated. If any of the existing structures at the site are constructed of asbestos containing materials, there will need to be handled and disposed of in accordance with the Asbestos Regulations. 6.9 CDC - Housing Enabling Manager Support. Application is a mixed use development with a net increase of 43 residential units and is policy compliant. Table below represents the development mix in relation to SHMA recommendations: Policy 34 requires 30% on site affordable housing on developments with a net increase of 11+ units. The proposed scheme is required to deliver 12.9 (12 on site and 0.9 as a commuted sum). Housing delivery team supports provision of 13 units on site in lieu of commuted sum. Proposed affordable rented/intermediate split is in line with paragraph 18.5.7 of the Neighbourhood Plan: 70% affordable rent (9-10 units) and 30% social rented (3-4 units). Housing Team confirms that the proposed housing mix will meet local need and is acceptable. Proposed internal floor areas are above HQI minimum standards and pepper potting of affordable units is acceptable. Proposed market housing mix is in line with SHMA recommendations. Welcome the delivery of 2 bed bungalows to encourage downsizing, freeing up larger homes in the area. Further comment following revised details No objection. Following plan amendments, confirm that the proposed mix is acceptable and the pepper potting of the affordable units is also acceptable. All previous comments stand. 6.10 CDC - Drainage Engineer (summarised) Site is in Flood Zone 1 (low risk). Surface water: Object. Not satisfied that the site can be adequately drained. Present proposal is to drain through an attenuated system with restricted discharge, with storage provided for the 1 in 100 yr event + 30%. Proposal is unacceptable as any discharge (if required) should be into a local watercourse. There is a watercourse on the western boundary. Not satisfied that the location of the storage [beneath the village green] will allow for a gravity discharge to the watercourse. Please confirm. Watercourse on western boundary must be retained as an open system and ensure a minimum 3 metre buffer from top of the bank is retained for future maintenance.

Page 87

Further comment following revised details, including a permeable paving system and gravity discharge to watercourse on western boundary A permeable paving system is preferable to having the tanked storage at the top end of the site. It must be demonstrated that the storage is achievable for the site runoff during a 1 in 100 year storm plus 30%, accounting for the slope of the site and any services that may be required in the road. The storage must be unaffected by groundwater. Please condition the detailed drainage design and maintenance schedule for the surface water drainage system. 6.11 CDC - Tree Officer (summarised) Tree stock has been left (not purchased) in rows with mix of mainly evergreen trees/shrubbery - Cypress, Cedar and possibly odd deciduous species of trees. Frontage is infested with bramble and some of the boundary vegetation could be retained based on Eco Urban Arboricultural Review. Good opportunity for applicant to assess trees and consider if good quality trees could be transplanted within the village green or around the site within a landscaping scheme (possible reserved matters). Important that the front boundary treatment (adjacent to Guildford Road) be appropriately hedged and or tree'd (native planting for example, Hawthorn, Field Maple, Hazel and Holly) with a number of suitable trees planted within or adjacent to the hedging. 6.12 CDC - Environmental Strategy Bats - Following submission of Bat Survey (July 2015) mitigation proposed is suitable. A licenced ecologist should be present and a condition used to ensure this takes place. A Natural England Protected Species Licence will be required for the works and should be obtained prior to works taking place. Lighting scheme should consider bats and minimise potential impacts by avoiding unnecessary light spill. Reptiles - Small population of reptiles found on the site. Mitigation is proposed within Reptile Survey 2015. Require that reptile fencing is installed around the site once vegetation is cleared to ensure reptiles cannot move back to the construction zone. Once amended, report can be conditioned. No work can commence until reptile translocation has taken place. Birds - Works to trees or vegetation clearance should take place outside of the bird breeding season between 1 March - 1 October. Works within this time will require an ecologist to check the site. Badgers - A 20 metre buffer should be put around the active badger sett (located on the eastern boundary) and no works should take place within this area, and fencing should be used to ensure this area remains undisturbed. However, due to disturbance, if any works need to be undertaken within 30 metres of the sett, a licence from Natural England would be required for this disturbance. If it is not possible for the buffer to be put in place, mitigation would be required and a Licence from Natural England would be required to remove the sett. Further comment following revised details Following the update to the reptile mitigation strategy, to the mitigation strategy may be conditioned.

Page 88

6.13 CDC – Conservation and Design Manager - Opportunity to introduce replacement mature trees along frontage as community

benefit - Two accesses are welcome - Question roundabout for scale of development - urban feature in a rural village - Layout could improve pedestrian environment including existing footpaths by siting

buildings fronting onto them and additional pedestrian links - Development contributes to sustainability by introducing facilities within the village - Affordable housing should be pepper potted and tenure blind. Family accommodation

should be located adjacent to public open space - Variety of building sizes, footprints and configurations. The development is not too

uniform. Some units are less successful such as the rendered 4 bed detached houses. Brickwork better reflects the character of the area. Designs of the 3 bed semis could be improved adjusting the location of the bays and limiting them to two storeys or revisiting design of the roof bays

- Southeast corner could benefit from improvement to Black Hall. Retail units could be relocated closer to Guildford Road alongside Black Hall, with parking relocated to the rear of buildings.

- Relationship to Loxwood House is unsatisfactory. Development crowds around it and would benefit in being reviewed

- Proper street access to Loxwood House is welcome, but scope to improve layout with perimeter blocks, rather than cul-de-sacs

- Development is legible and easy to navigate - Provision for more tertiary streets for pedestrian/cycle priority in the layout - Variety of parking provision. Parking well overlooked. Public parking could be re-

located to the rear of the retail units avoiding large areas of hard landscaping negatively impacting on the rural character of Guildford Road. Parking eating into village green should be avoided, as harmful to village character.

- Green could function better as a triangular space, tapering towards southern end - Reasonable hierarchy of spaces and most houses have well defined front garden

boundaries, apart from units 34-39 (affordable) with no front gardens and end on parking resulting in poor outlook. Open space around the back of the retail units appears poorly configured

- Concern at access for waste storage and storage is too small for cycle parking - Need assurance that footprints shown will provide sufficient floor area to meet

minimum floorspace standards Further comment following revised details - Arrangement in relation to 'The Avenue' is better. Units 37, 38 and 39 should have

active frontages. - Units 12 and 13 give an urban character on the rural edge (NW corner of site).

Recommend proper front gardens and reduced parking. - In line with previous comments. Consideration should be given to replacing lost oak

trees along the village green to enhance the rural character of the Guildford Road 6.14 CDC - Waste Services Officer Each dwelling will require1 x waste and 1 x recycled bin (240 ltr) Flats will require individual bins or communal bin storage (1100 or 660 ltr) 1 x waste and 1 x recycled bin.

Page 89

Communal bins should be located so that refuse freighters can manoeuvre adjacent to it Attention to be paid to the size, weight and turning circle of freighters and bin collection points should be outside front of properties or at the entrance to shared driveways 6.15 CDC - Community Facilities £79,000 towards North Hall, Loxwood Village Hall Required works include an increase parking capacity, improve vehicular access, enlargement of men's toilets and extension to storage facility. [Officer comment - this is now incorporated within CIL]. 6.16 CDC Public Art £19,007 for the commissioning, installation and maintenance of public art. [Officer comment - this is now incorporated within CIL]. 6.17 13 Third Party Objections - Soundproofing needed for properties opposite (from light and noise pollution, and

vehicles entering/existing the site) - Tree screen / landscape bund needed at front of site - Safety impact with cars exiting onto Guildford Road - Traffic calming needed on Guildford Road - Do not want a late night shop - Lighting associated with mini roundabout will create light pollution - Public footpath between Norton Cottage and Linden House will cross roundabout and

be unsafe for pedestrians - Traffic generation does not warrant a roundabout and is out of character with village

setting - Has access to houses opposite site been considered? - No objection to parking for retail units, or lay-bys, but object to parking in village green

and request its deletion - Public parking will affect rural appearance and outlook for properties opposite - Development will change character of site from rural to semi-urban with associated

light and noise pollution - Scale and density high and out of character with this part of the village - Surface water drainage is a problem in the area - Details needed on trees to be retained and planting around village green - Retail units close to boundary will create light and noise pollution - Object to crossing at north or south site entrance - will disturb natural flow of traffic

through village and out of keeping - Site is rural - should be designed to minimise light pollution - Request that retailer is appropriate to village location and opening hours restricted. - Scrap retail units and invest money in village centre - Roundabout dangerous; slip road better - Footpath needed on west side of B2133 - Question ownership of common land and roadways - Where will commercial vehicles park? 6.18 To support the application, the agent has provided the following suite of documents:

Page 90

Planning Statement (including Affordable Housing), Design and Access Statement, Desktop Biodiversity Report, Ecological Appraisal, Loxwood Ecology Bat Survey, Loxwood Ecology Reptile Survey (Rev A), Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, Transport Assessment and Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, Statement of Community Involvement, Arboricultural Implications Assessment. During the course of the application, further information has been provided regarding foul and surface water drainage, highways and access, along with amendments to the illustrative layout. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester District Local Plan: 2014-2029, which was adopted by Full Council on 14th July. The Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan was made on 14th July 2015 and forms part of the Development Plan against which applications must be considered. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies: 2014-2029 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 25: Development in the North of the Plan area Policy 29: Settlement Hubs and Village Centres Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 42: Flood Risk and Water Management Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 52: Green Infrastructure Policy 54: Open Space, Sport and Recreation Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan: 2013 - 2029 Policy 1: Housing Allocation Policy Policy 2: Settlement Boundary Policy Policy 3: Site Assessments and Allocation of Sites Policy Policy 5: Land at Nursery Site SHLAA No. LX0855 Policy 8: Infrastructure - Foul Water Policy Policy 9: Built Environment - Housing Density Policy Policy 10: Built Environment - Vernacular Policy Policy 14: Economy and Business Policy 15: Telecommunications and Connectivity Policy 16: Traffic Calming and Speed through the Parish Policy 17: Environmental Characteristics

Page 91

National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Consideration should be given to paragraphs 6-13 (Presumption in Favour), 16 (Community Engagement), 17 (Core Planning Principles), 32, 34-39 (Sustainable Transport), 47 (Housing), 56-61 (Design), 69-70 and 73 (Healthy Communities), 116-118 (Natural Environment), 162 (Infrastructure), 183-185 (Neighbourhood Planning), 196-198 (Determining Planning Applications). 7.4 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.5 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is material to the determination of this planning application: Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 7.6 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living D1 - Increasing housing supply D2 - Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods D3 - Housing fit for purpose D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs E1 - Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion E2 - There will be improved cycling networks and strong links to public transport to ensure that cycling is a viable alternative to using the car E4 - People will have easier access to services at a local level

Page 92

8.0 Planning Comments Assessment 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: - Principle of development and policy position - Housing Mix and Tenure - Highway Access and Safety - Flood Risk and Drainage - Residential Amenity - Ecology - Other Matters Principle of development and policy position 8.2 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester District Local Plan: 2014-2029, which was formally adopted by Full Council on 14th July 2015. Loxwood is defined as a 'Service Village' in Policy 2 of the Adopted Local Plan, i.e. a settlement where there is a reasonable range of basic facilities to meet everyday needs, or villages that provide fewer of these facilities but have reasonable access to them in nearby settlements, and where some small scale housing growth is acceptable consistent with indicative housing numbers. It goes on to state that these will be allocated by Neighbourhood Plans or via the Council's Site Allocation development plan document, which is currently in preparation following the adoption of the Local Plan. Policy 5 of the Chichester Local Plan (Parish Housing Sites 2012-2029) identifies a minimum of 60 dwellings in the Parish of Loxwood over the plan period. 8.3 The Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan was made at Full Council on 14th July 2015 and forms part of the Development Plan. Policy 5 of the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan allocates land at Loxwood Nurseries for a mixed residential development consisting of a minimum of 43 dwellings, taking into consideration densities in accordance with policy 9 of the Neighbourhood Plan. The policy specifies that the proportion and tenure mix of affordable housing is to be in line with Chichester District Council requirements and allocations policy. Space is to be reserved for a small retail unit and small office units should they prove viable. The policy adds that community benefits are to be provided; this includes car parking for shoppers, a village green, and designs to incorporate traffic calming. 8.4 The illustrative site layout demonstrates that the site can adequately accommodate 43 dwellings at a density of 20.5 dwellings per ha together with the appropriate amount of public open space provision (minimum of 800 sq metres). The provision of, maintenance and management of the village green, and the provision of the retail units will be secured by way of a S106 Legal Agreement with the applicant. 8.5 Following revisions to the illustrative housing layout, officers are satisfied that the proposed development will provide a legible and permeable layout and attractive street scene, with good natural surveillance of public spaces, and a variety of building sizes, footprints and configurations. The village green, at the front of the site, will act as a visual and landscape buffer in the streetscene and provide separation between properties directly opposite the application site and those fronting onto Guildford Road. The retail unit will be prominently sited towards the front of the site in the southeast corner, so as to be easily accessible for residents, with adequate parking provision at the rear. Parking for the residential units is provided either on curtilage or in small, overlooked parking courts.

Page 93

Nine visitor parking spaces are now provided and are re-distributed around the village green to address the earlier concerns of the Parish Council, with 14 parking spaces provided to the rear of the retail units. 8.6 The detailed design of the road layout will be a matter for consideration at the reserved matters stage, but the illustrative layout has confirmed that the width of the internal road can be satisfactorily achieved. The width of the primary internal access road is 5.5 metres and the secondary roads range from 4-5 metres. The road layout also incorporates a tree lined pedestrian boulevard running through the centre of the site. The applicant has indicated that the road layout is not proposed to be formally adopted and low level lighting is to be incorporated in the final design of the scheme, details of which will form part of a future reserved matters application. Illustrative elevations are provided for the dwellings, which indicate the use of traditional, clay based Sussex materials, incorporating brickwork, tile hanging and red/brown brickwork. The detailed appearance will form part of a future reserved matters application and will be subject to further detailed scrutiny to address policies 9 and 10 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 8.7 The proposed scheme does not provide commercial office space, as required by policy 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan. The applicant has submitted a viability statement to address the lack of office accommodation and uptake of retail units. This states that there is greater demand for retail units in the Loxwood area, rather than small office space, with flexibility of the retail space being important. The application therefore provides for up to 300 sq metres of retail space with flexibility to sub-divide the retail unit, or for it be provided for a single occupant. The initial public consultation undertaken by the applicant has indicated interest from a number of local retailers and, as summarised in paragraph 8.4 above, the delivery of the retail unit would be secured through a S106 Legal Agreement. In respect of the delivery of traffic calming measures along the Guildford Road (B2133) this is discussed in paragraph 8.14-15 below. 8.8 In light of the inclusion of the site in the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan and it contributing towards the Parish allocation as identified in Policy 5 of the Adopted Chichester District Local Plan: 2014-2029, the development is acceptable in principle. Housing Mix and Tenure 8.9 The indicative housing mix proposed with the scheme comprises 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom dwellings and flats, and includes a mix of detached, semi-detached and mid terraced houses, with a bungalow. 8.10 In line with policy 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan and policy 34 of the Adopted Chichester District Local Plan, there is a requirement to provide 30% on site affordable housing, and this requirement is met with the provision of 13 affordable units. Although the scheme is required to provide 12.9 units (12 on site and 0.9 as a commuted sum) 13 units are proposed on site in lieu of the commuted sum. This approach is supported by the Rural Housing Enabler. Of the 13 units, a 70:30% split between affordable rented (10) and intermediate housing (3) is proposed in line with the SHMA requirements. Based on the indicative illustrative layout, the pepper potting of the affordable units is considered acceptable. The affordable units and the mix will be secured through the S106 Agreement. In respect of the 30 market units, the proposed mix reflects the requirements of the SHMA. The delivery of a 2 bedroom bungalow is also welcome, as this will assist in local residents downsizing.

Page 94

Highway Access and Safety 8.11 The scheme, as amended, proposes two points of vehicular access onto Guildford Road (B2133) to serve the development as priority junctions. The accesses will provide satisfactory visibility splays, and are of an appropriate width and represent a safe and suitable means of access to serve the development. The Highway Authority is satisfied that the vertical alignment of the B2133 will not restrict visibility for emerging vehicles. The internal road layout is a matter for consideration at reserved matters stage; but, the illustrative layout demonstrates that the arrangement for segregated footways and carriageways is acceptable, and swept path analysis has been provided to demonstrate that larger vehicles can manoeuvre within the site. 8.12 In respect of trip generation, the Highway Authority accepts that the proposal will generate additional vehicle movement on the highway network, but given the scale of development proposed with the application, this may be accommodated within the operating capacity of the highway and would not materially impact on the operation of the network. The applicant has submitted a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and Designer's Response. This has been reviewed by the Highway Authority and, subject to the imposition of a number of conditions, is acceptable. 8.13 Policy 16 of the Neighbourhood Plan requires the traffic calming measures along the B2133 to be progressively introduced during the Plan period by means of developer contributions. The comments of the Parish Council are noted in terms of the provision of a mini-roundabout; however, the Highway Authority's position in respect of a mini-roundabout at either the northern or southern site vehicular entrance as a traffic calming measure is unchanged. The principle of such an arrangement being fundamentally unacceptable in highway safety terms, because of vehicle speeds but also the low number of turning movements into the development. The Highway Authority states that mini roundabouts must not be used at direct access points where traffic flows are below 500 vehicles per day on any arm, and should not be used as a speed reduction feature in isolation. 8.14 One of the objectives of NP policy 16 is to provide traffic calming measures that introduce a safer environment for pedestrians and road users, including a decrease in the speed of traffic in the village along the B2133. The site is in close proximity to a limited range of services and facilities in the village within walking distance of the site. The footway is discontinuous on the western side of the B2133 and the applicant has therefore considered improvements to pedestrian routes to the site and to North Hall (the village hall in Loxwood) in light of the additional dwellings and increase in footfall. 8.15 The applicant has considered a number of scenarios, including a pedestrian refuge on the B2133, a formal signalised crossing and an extension of the public footpath to North Hall. The provision of a pedestrian footway along the western kerb line between the site boundary and North Hall cannot be achieved, as there is insufficient highway land to achieve a footway of useable width all the way to North Hall. The applicant has also investigated a number of mechanisms which seek a safe pedestrian crossing from the development site to the western side of Guildford Road. The width of Guildford Road varies in the region of 6-6.5m and is not sufficient to accommodate a pedestrian refuge (minimum 1.2m) plus two x 3 metre wide traffic lanes (7.2 metres width in total). The applicant has reviewed the form of pedestrian access points to determine whether there would be demand to justify a formal controlled (signalised) crossing. The assessment demonstrates that a signalised crossing would not meet the assessment criteria, as vehicle speeds are too high along the B2133. The submitted Stage One Road Safety Audit did not identify any problems relating to pedestrians crossing the carriageway. The applicant therefore proposes the provision of dropped kerb

Page 95

crossing points in the vicinity of each access junction and this would be secured via the s278 Agreement. 8.16 In order to meet the Parish Council's objectives for traffic calming, and to comply with policy 16 of the Neighbourhood Plan, the applicant has committed to the provision of a double sided vehicle activated sign (to the cost of £15,000) on the Guildford Road (B2133) in the immediate vicinity of the site frontage. This would be secured via the S106 Agreement with the details of the signage and final position of the sign to be determined by the s278 Agreement. In addition, the development will be subject to Community Infrastructure Levy, in accordance with the Council's Charging Schedule, of which the Parish Council would receive 25% of the capital receipt. It will be at the discretion of the Parish Council to spend the CIL payment on identified projects within the Parish, which may include further traffic calming measures along the Guildford Road (B2133). Flood Risk and Drainage 8.17 The applicant has provided a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, to comply with policy 18 of the Neighbourhood Plan and policy 42 of the Adopted Chichester District Local Plan. The site is located in Flood Zone 1, which is at low risk of flooding. WSCC LLFA comments that from mapping and historic records, the site is not at risk from surface water, ordinary watercourse, or groundwater flooding. 8.18 In terms of surface water drainage, as the site is currently a green field, the run-off rate for the development can be no greater than existing. The surface water drainage strategy has been amended during the course of the application to take account of the comments of the CDC Drainage Engineer and proposes the use of areas of permeable paving, with road surfaces incorporating permeable surfaces and a restricted discharge to an outfall point to a drainage ditch on the western site boundary. The outfall will be restricted to existing run-off rates and the area beneath the internal road will be used as attenuation during periods of high rainfall. Full details of surface water drainage and maintenance, to include winter groundwater monitoring, will be secured by planning condition. 8.19 In respect of foul water drainage, policy 8 of the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan states that any new connection to the Loxwood Primary Sewer network will not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient capacity in the network and the connection will not increase the risk of back-up flooding. Foul water drainage is proposed to be via mains drainage. A stage 2 capacity assessment has been undertaken by the applicant and this identifies sufficient capacity in the network and at Loxwood Waste Water Treatment Works to cater for foul flows, subject to infrastructure upgrades. This will comprise an upsizing of two sections of existing pipework along Guildford Road (of 97 and 54 metres long) from 150mm to 900mm diameter and a new manhole. The applicant has investigated the feasibility of on-site septic tank arrangements to address the comments of the Parish Council, but this is not achievable, owing to the prohibitive costs associated with it and the proximity of a foul sewer directly outside of the site. The final details of foul water drainage would be secured by planning condition and a separate Legal Agreement through the Water Industry Act between the applicant and Southern Water.

Page 96

Residential Amenity 8.20 The closest residential properties to the site, other than those directly opposite the site fronting Guildford Road, are Loxwood House, to the rear (west) of the site, Black Hall, to the south, and Hawthorn Cottage, to the north. The final layout and dwelling details, including elevations, is not a matter for consideration during the course of this application, rather it is a matter for consideration at reserved matters stage. 8.21 Hawthorn Cottage is located approximately 23 metres from the northern site boundary within a spacious plot containing mature vegetation. The illustrative layout shows proposed dwellings as either side or rear facing, sited approximately 3-13 metres from the northern boundary (plots 1-6). Given the mature screening and the separation distance, the impact in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy would be minimal. The indicative site layout indicates that a separation distance of approximately 25 metres would be retained between Loxwood House and plots 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 at the rear of the site, which is an acceptable distance. 8.22 The revised illustrative layout relocates the retail units towards the Guildford Road and associated parking is located to the rear of the retail units. The greater set back, combined with the single storey of the retail unit, improves the relationship to Black Hall to the south of the site. Officers are satisfied that the site would allow for a layout which would not compromise the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings to an unacceptable degree. As summarised above, the final details concerning lighting and landscaping are a matter to be addressed as part of Reserved Matters application, and the hours of use and deliveries associated with the retail unit(s) will be controlled by planning condition (as part of the forthcoming Reserved Matters) when the final fixed location for the retail unit is approved. Ecology 8.23 The site is currently a redundant nursery and contains dis-used buildings, glass houses and trees across the site. The applicant has undertaken a Desk Top Biodiversity Report and Phase 1 Habitat Survey, to comply with Local Plan policies 48 and 49. The site is identified as potential habitat for bats, a small population of reptiles and an active badger sett on the eastern boundary. Mitigation measures are proposed within these reports. 8.24 There is an active bat roost within one of the disused nursery buildings on the site (building 1). The building is proposed to be removed as part of the wider redevelopment of the site; therefore mitigation measures proposed include the installation of six replacement bat roosts away from the area of construction works within mature trees surrounding the site, and the incorporation of bat bricks/boxes into the development. A Natural England Protected Species Licence will be required prior to works taking place for bats. 8.25 In relation to reptiles, a low population of slow worms has been identified in an area of rough grassland and scattered scrub in the northeast corner of the site and in central areas. The mitigation measures will involve vegetation clearance to allow slow worms to disperse to surrounding habitat beyond the site, and the erection of temporary reptile proof fencing to prevent them from returning to the site. 8.26 In respect of the outlying badger set on the eastern site boundary, the CDC Ecologist advises that a 20 metre buffer is to be installed around the sett during the construction phase / ground works, to ensure there is no disturbance to the sett. The buffer may be conditioned and removed after the construction phase. If any works are to be undertaken within 30 metres of the sett and the buffer cannot be put in place, mitigation measures and a licence

Page 97

from Natural England would be required for this disturbance and closure of the sett if necessary. Other Matters 8.27 Environmental Health officers have requested that conditions are applied to deal with any residual contamination of the site associated with its former use as a nursery. 8.28 There is a Group Tree Preservation Order located at the front (eastern edge) of the site, in the location of the village green (TPO 83/00653/TPO G1). An Arboricultural Assessment has been submitted with the application, as the site contains blocks of young, mixed species non-native conifers, flanked on the southern and northern boundaries by linear groups of Leyland Cypress planting, identified as Category C trees. Young nursery stock conifers are to be removed, with better individual trees to be retained within the village green and conifer planting retained on the side boundaries, albeit at a reduced height. The Tree Officer notes that there is an opportunity for good quality trees to be transplanted and for frontage planting / landscape buffer around the village green and fronting the Guildford Road, with suitable trees to be planted within or adjacent to hedging. The detailed landscaping is not a matter for consideration during the course of the application, rather it is a consideration at the Reserved Matters stage, but the illustrative site layout plan shows that there is adequate space around and fronting the village green and elsewhere within the site for a comprehensive landscaping scheme to be secured. Infrastructure Requirements 8.29 The Community Infrastructure Levy was adopted by the Council on 26th January 2016 and implemented on 1st February 2016. The proposed development will be subject to CIL, in accordance with the Council's Charging Schedule. The levy is £200 per sq metre for net internal residential floorspace to the north of the National Park and £125 per sq metres for net internal retail floorspace (wholly or mainly convenience). Based on the indicative net floor area, the developer will be liable to pay a sum of £625,000; however, the final sum will be calculated at the Reserved Matters stage. 8.30 In accordance with the Council's Infrastructure and Affordable Housing SPD, the following will be sought by way of a S106 Agreement.

13 units of affordable housing on site in perpetuity;

Provision of a minimum of 800 sq metres of public open space (village green) and management and maintenance plan for the village green;

Provision of a double sided vehicle activated sign as a traffic calming measure on the Guildford Road (B2133) details of which are to be secured by a S278 Agreement;

Delivery of 2 retail units (total of 300 sq metres) to include details of a marketing strategy and associated parking for the retail units.

Significant Conditions 8.31 As recommended by consultees and discussed above, specific conditions are recommended to address the following matters of detail amongst others, to enable the scheme to be acceptable in full:

Construction Management - including temporary access, hours of work, contamination prevention, containing all activities within the site boundaries

Page 98

Drainage - full details of all on and off site foul drainage works including a timetable for implementation

Drainage - full scheme for surface water drainage

Access construction, including visibility splays and construction details, with relevant road safety audits, as advised by WSCC

Adherence to all ecological mitigation proposals/plans

A full material/finish schedule with samples

Contamination - mitigation and remediation strategy Conclusion 8.32 The application proposes housing development on a site which is allocated for residential development in the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan and is therefore acceptable in principle. The proposed scheme will deliver much needed housing, including 30% affordable housing, which will be made available for people on the Council's housing register who have a local connection to Loxwood. The scheme will deliver wider community benefits, including retail unit(s), a village green and vehicle activated sign as a traffic calming measure on the Guildford Road (B2133). Whilst there is some local concern and objection to the redevelopment of the site, officers are recommending approval on the basis that the site is sustainably located; is cited in a made Neighbourhood Plan; has no highway safety objection; and is acceptable in terms of drainage and flood risk. The revised illustrative layout demonstrates that the site can adequately accommodate 43 dwellings with an appropriate mix of market and affordable units. It is considered that the proposal complies with development plan policies and, based on the above, the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.33 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT 1 A03F Time Limit - Outline 2 A04F Time Limit - Reserved Matters 3 V96172 - Approved Plans 4 U00586 - Materials / finishes 5 J17G Construction Method Statement 6 V99524 - Construction Hours 7 N21G Contaminated Land 8 V99525 - Surface water drainage 9 V99585 - Management and maintenance of SUDs 10 V99526 - Foul water drainage 11 V99527 - Site Sections and Levels 12 V99528 - Lighting Scheme 13 V99531 - Screen walls/ Fencing 14 V99532 - Reptile Mitigation 15 V99533 - Badger Survey 16 V99535 - Bat Mitigation 17 V99544 - Bat Boxes

Page 99

18 V99546 - Refuse / cycling storage 19 U00571 - Bus Stop 20 U00572 - Visibility 21 U00573 - Car Parking 22 U00574 - Cycle Parking 23 U00575 - Access Road 24 U00576 - Utilities and Service Infrastructure 25 U00570 - Access 26 U00577 - Sustainable Design 27 U00587 - Pavement 28 K18G Tree Protection INFORMATIVES 1 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions 2 U00578 - S278 3 V99548 - S106 4 V99550 - Breeding Birds 5 U00588 - PROW 795/2 6 W35G Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 For further information on this application please contact Katherine Rawlins on (01243) 534542.

Page 100

Parish: Birdham

Ward: West Wittering

BI/15/03851/FUL

Proposal Change of use of existing marine retail/storage/light industrial unit to new

destination retail unit incorporation new showfront, entrance and side fire escape.

Site Unit 4 Premier Business Park Birdham Road Appledram West Sussex PO20 7BU

Map Ref (E) 483079 (N) 100354

Applicant High Seats Ltd RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

Page 101

Agenda Item 8

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Red Card: Cllr Hamilton Important information/opinion to raise in debate: "Having consulted my fellow ward councillor, I am not happy that this application be refused again by the officers as the applicants have apparently fulfilled criteria for permission. Please can they be able to address the committee" 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is located on the north-west side of the A286 Chichester Road approximately 3 miles to the south of Chichester and 1 mile north of Birdham. The Premier Business Park occupies a relatively remote rural location that is also within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site is located 300m north east of the revised settlement boundary in the emerging Birdham Neighbourhood Plan. 2.2 The application site was originally part of a soft drinks factory prior to its subdivision in 2004 into a number of smaller business units (BI/03/02203/FUL). The use of what is now Unit 4 was restricted to purposes within B1(c) - light industrial or Class B8 storage and distribution. A later permission issued in 2007 (LPA Ref: BI/14/04272/FUL), allowed the use of the front part of this unit "for the display and sale of water related leisure products with ancillary offices and store." 2.3 The application building consists of a steel portal framed building positioned at the northern end of a terrace of 4 similar units. The building is constructed with white clad elevations beneath a profiled steel ridged roof. The site consists of the "front half" (i.e. with a footprint of 20m x 12m) of the existing unit. The rear portion of the unit would be retained for use as a marine workshop. 2.4 Access to the Premier Business Park is via a centrally positioned vehicular entrance from the A286. Immediately on entering the site is a parking court which extends to the west and east. The existing parking on site serves the motor home retail units (Units 1 and 2) and Lansdale Marine which will continue to operate out of the rear of Unit 4 as part of this application proposal. 2.5 The business park is bounded to its south-west (i.e. its road frontage) by a timber post and rail fence with hedge. The sites other boundaries (i.e. south-west, north-west and north-east) are defined by more substantial hedge/tree screens. Beyond the business park's boundaries to the west and south is open countryside. To the north west of the site is an unauthorised gypsy and traveller site which is subject to ongoing investigation by planning enforcement . Directly to the east of the site is Birdham Farm, with open fields beyond. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 This application proposes a change of use of the front portion of Unit 4 (237sqm net floor area) from a restricted "water related leisure products" showroom use to a retail unit/showroom described as a "destination retail unit" for the sale of specialised mobility equipment and furniture. The interior of the building would be subdivided with a number of new partitions providing 'service desk' areas as well as storage space and an accessible w.c.

Page 102

3.2 It is also proposed to undertake a number of external changes. The development would involve the replacement of the existing roller shutter door on the building's south-east elevation with new showroom window and entrance doors. Additionally, a fire escape door in the building's north-east elevation would be closed up with another being formed just to the north. 3.3 No parking spaces for the proposed use are provided within the application boundary. A parking plan has been provided which indicates the increased provision of parking on the Premier Business Park site generally, including along the eastern boundary where boat parking currently exists. 3.4 The rear portion of the building (205.84sqm net floor area) is to be retained by Lansdale Marine as a marine workshop. 3.5 The proposed business would be operated 7 days a week, 09:00- 17:00 on Monday to Saturday, and 10:00 - 16:00 on Sundays. 4.0 History 03/00836/COU REF Change of use from vacant

engineering works to indoor kart track.

03/01689/COU REF Change of use from vacant

engineering works to indoor kart track.

03/02203/FUL PER Subdivision and refurbishment of

existing factory into 3 no. separate units for B1(c). Use of 2 no. units for B1/B8 purposes. 1 no. unit for the sale, display and maintenance of motor homes.

07/03950/COU PER Change of use to part sale and

display of water related leisure products and part use as workshops for the servicing, fitting out and storage of marine related products.

15/01749/FUL REF Change of use of existing marine

retail/storage/light industrial unit to new destination retail unit incorporating new shopfront, entrance and side fire escape.

07/02832/FUL PER Replacement office

accommodation.

Page 103

08/01359/COU PER Change of use of existing office building to classic car showroom.

10/00821/FUL PER Variation of condition No 9 of

planning permission BI/03/02203/FUL. Use of 4 no. existing car parking spaces for the display of dinghies in connection with yacht chandlers.

10/04039/EXT PER Application to extend the

implementation period of existing Planning Permission BI/07/02832/FUL. Replacement office accommodation.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Countryside YES

AONB YES

EA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens

NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council Birdham Parish raises No Objection to this application. 6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy Subject to the red line identifying the application site being amended to exclude the retained marine workshop floor space in the back half of the unit, to raise no objection to the application, subject to the imposition of a planning condition restricting the sales and display of goods to items of furniture only and no other use within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). Members were concerned that an unrestricted A1 use could change over time and have a far greater demand for car parking and trip generation, the latter considered harmful to the AONB and also likely to generate a greater number of movements on and off the site, interrupting the free flow of traffic. 6.3 WSCC Highways This proposal has been considered by means of a desktop study, using the information and plans submitted with this application, in conjunction with other available WSCC map information. A site visit can be arranged on request.

Page 104

West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location in relation to a similar application under planning application reference BI/15/01749/FUL. While no in principle objection was raised to the proposal the LHA sought the following additional information to ensure that assumptions made when considering the application were correct. 1. Details of the business especially the web based nature of the business 2. Expected no of daily trips to the site to include staff and customers 3. The number of deliveries expected per weed and where they will load/ unload It should be noted that BI/15/01749/FUL was refused by the LPA citing the proposed parking provision as one of the reasons for refusal. In principle the latest application is similar to that previously proposed, seeking the change of use of an existing marine retail/storage/light industrial unit (256sqm) to a new destination retail until incorporation new shopfront, entrance and side fire escape at unit 4, Premier Business Park, Birdham Park, Birdham Road Appuldram. 8 car parking spaces will be provided to serve the unit, two spaces of which will be suitable for disabled access. I am mindful that BI/15/01749/FUL was refused by the LPA citing the parking provision as one of the reason for refusal. I note that WSCC previously raised no objection to the proposed parking provision within a consultation response dated 30/06/2015. I am also mindful that circa 190sqm of B1 Light Industrial use is to be retained to the rear of the application site in the form of a marine workshop which will typically be staffed by 1 or 2 engineers and a receptionist. Using the latest WSCC car parking standard the retained B1 use would require a maximum 7/8 car parking spaces. The application documents suggest that 4 car parking spaces are available to serve the remaining B1 use. I would be minded to conclude this quantity of provision would be acceptable for the anticipated number of staff expected to be working at the site. These spaces have however not been demonstrated on the plans provided and the LPA would be advised to be satisfied this provision is acceptable prior to determining the application. After the inspection of the latest documents provided I would be minded to conclude that the service and delivery requirements of the retail use would be similar in highways terms to that of the existing use of the site. Therefore the LHA would not consider that the proposal would result in a 'severe' impact on the operation of the highway network, therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 32), and there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal. If the LPA are minded to grant planning consent a condition securing the parking facility in perpetuity would be advised. 6.4 One Third Party Objection In summary the following comment was made:

The current occupier has reverted back to storing boats and paraphernalia in the dedicated parking area immediately adjacent to the northern boundary.

From the business activity on the site, the occupier of unit 5 will simply pack more boats into a further restricted area. This will inevitably lead to increased business activity alongside the northern boundary.

Much of the remainder of section 5 sets out arguments for removing the current occupier to Chichester Marina. The agent suggests the current occupant will be removing stored water craft (for which they receive storage rental) from the site to Chichester Marina (where they would have to pay storage rental) would somehow be more economically viable. The agents also assert the current occupier will remove much of its marine servicing operations to the Marina from the current site. Again this will require the payment of rent on premises, presumably at a much

Page 105

higher level. If this is so, then the argument that there is no viable market for marine related business in this planning area is clearly a self-defeating one put forward in support of this application

In terms of the marine industry locally, as I understand matters the last owners of Chichester Marina (Black Rock) were content to invest £3.5 million there and indications are it was money well invested.

Unit 3 being is occupied and has been for the whole of the relevant period.

The agent puts forward representation regarding the proposed occupier. They are asserting that an older population exists south of Chichester. The whole Chichester area has a demographic skewed towards the elderly, it is not correct to assert they all somehow live in the manhood peninsula.

The agents also cite the bespoke nature of the furniture. And add that they have stores located in Southampton (22 miles) and Hove (28 miles). My experience is that most people are happy to drive to a specific location, particularly in pursuit of a bespoke item. 22 miles is certainly not far to travel in a car.

As at todays date there are 2 spaces left clear for motor vehicles but these seem permanently taken up by Lansdales spare vehicles.

6.5 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information The application was accompanied by the following supporting information:

Design and Access Statement

Sequential Test

Marketing information. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all made neighbourhood plans. At this current time there is no adopted made neighbourhood plan for Birdham Parish, however the plan is at an advanced stage and therefore the policies of the Neighbourhood Development Plan hold significant weight. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 26: Existing Employment Sites Policy 27: Chichester Centre Retail Policy Policy 28: Edge and Out of Centre Sites - Chichester Policy Policy 29: Settlement Hubs and Village Centres Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Policy 44: Development around the Coast Policy 45: Development in the Countryside

Page 106

Policy 46: Alterations, Change of Use and/or Re-use of Existing Buildings in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Birdham Neighbourhood Plan : Policy 6: Biodiversity Policy 9: Traffic Impact Policy 10: Footpaths and Cycle Paths Policy 13: Settlement Boundary Policy 15: Rural Area Policy Policy 22: Development for Business Use Policy 23: Retention of Businesses National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), 14, 24 and 30. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.5 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: A1 - A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow A3 - Vibrant and sustainable City and market towns, with a good range of business and retail types 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i. The principle of change of use to retail (A1) ii. The marketing of the unit iii. Sustainability and location of the site iv. Access and parking provision.

Page 107

Assessment i. The principle of change of use to retail (A1) 8.2 The building is currently in business use as a boat sales and workshop (B1- B8 retail/light industrial/ storage), with the sales element having recently re-located to Chichester Marina. The permission for Premier Business Park was granted in 2003 and secures by condition the use linked to the 'showroom for the display and sale of water related leisure products with ancillary offices and store'. This application seeks a move away from water related leisure products to use the retail showroom for specialised furniture for the elderly. The rear of the unit will be retained in marine use, with a division installed to allow the proposed retail use to operate independently of the marine use at the rear of the unit. 8.3 As the current use is a business use, Policy 26 of the Local Plan is relevant, which states that changes of use will be granted for existing employment sites where it has been demonstrated that the site is no longer required and unlikely to be re-used for employment uses. This policy is applied in conjunction with the marketing requirements within the Local Plan Appendix E (in particular E.1 - E.5). 8.4 Policies 28 and 45 of the Local Plan are also relevant. Policy 28 refers to proposals for non-food and food retail outside the central retail area on edge and out of centre sites which seeks to ensure this type of use is located in the sequentially most preferable location, that being within or adjacent to a main settlement. This site is within the defined Countryside, outside of any main centre, edge of centre or out of centre location. This is the least sequentially preferable location and therefore the applicant needs to demonstrate that there are no other suitable and available sites which are more appropriate. Policy 45 relates to development in the countryside, outside settlement boundaries and states that "development will be granted where it requires a countryside location and meets the essential, small scale and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements". It goes on to state that applications for retail development in the countryside will be considered where it has been demonstrated that the appropriate sequential and/or impact assessments have been undertaken". 8.5 In summary, the principle of new retail sites in the Countryside would need to be justified, so as to ensure that the location of the proposed retail use is in the most sustainable location. The proposal, due to the associated loss of an existing business use, must also demonstrate the site is no longer required for that purpose through sufficient marketing, taking Appendix E.5 as minimum requirements. In order to conclude whether the principle is acceptable these two points are explored further below. ii. The marketing of the unit 8.6 The existing use as business space must have been sufficiently marketed under the minimum requirements in Appendix E (E.5) to be considered acceptable. The application 15/01749/FUL, for the same proposal, was refused (reason 1) for insufficient marketing evidence (decision July 2015). Ten months of evidence was provided in the application and it was advised 18 months would be required as a minimum for this site.

Page 108

8.7 This application includes 18 months of marketing. Marketing information has been submitted by Fludes, the applicants marking agents. The Marketing information includes a report with details of local market conditions and the reasons (interest and feedback) as to why the application site has not been let. During the consideration of the application further clarification on Marketing was provided by the Agent. This included photographs of the marketing boards, an anonymous and undated Enquiry Schedule and proof of press notices. 8.8 It is the view of Officers that the marketing report does not demonstrate a continuous or robust marketing campaign. For instance, under the heading "Letting Brochure/Agency Particulars" it is stated that the marketing agents have provided "potentially interested parties" with details which have been "generally emailed to prospective parties". The applicant's marketing agents highlight (section 4.0) three reasons why the unit has not been taken up by business space applicants directly as: 1) car parking provision 2) minimum eaves height and 3) outside of Chichester City. A record log indicating six interested parties (appendix B) has been received although the evidence from the enquiry log only documents two reasons for the enquiries not being taken further, primarily its location outside of Chichester City and in the case of applicant C, requiring retail consent. There is some concern therefore that neither the eaves height nor parking provision are preventing this site remaining in business use as described. 8.9 There is also some concern with the inconsistency in the approach to marketing, particularly in relation to notices in the press (criterion 7, Appendix E.5). Under the heading "Local/Regional Advertising" the marketing agents explain that the premises was advertised in the local paper (i.e. the Chichester Observer) in May, June, July, September, October and November in 2014. It is not explained, however, why advertisements were only placed in the local paper in January and November 2015. Between February and October 2015 no advertisements appeared in the local paper. The marketing of the unit during 2015 was sporadic and does not meet the criterion in Appendix E of the Local Plan of at least four weeks' worth of advertisements, spread across a six month period. Whilst the local paper is acceptable it would have been desirable to have seen the site advertised in a more regional setting to attract marine related industry from across the south coast or in targeted press related to the industry. 8.10 The marketing report also outlines that the site has been marketed online, has been the subject of mail shots ("normally on a quarterly basis") and periodic "telephone canvasing". Although this is considered to be vague and contributes to a weaker marketing exercise, some weight is, however, given to maintained online advertisement presence through the commercial agent's website and road-front signage. 8.11 The marketing has taken place for the required amount of time as set out in Appendix E.5 of the Local Plan, though it has been weakened through some elements by being disjointed or sporadically undertaken which has contributed to the view of officers that this does not demonstrate a robust marketing exercise. However, following the submission of further information by the agent, including photographs of the marketing boards, an enquiry schedule and proof of press notices, it is considered that the minimum requirements set with Appendix E.5 of the Local Plan have been carried out and the unit has been marketed appropriately and therefore is acceptable within the requirements for Policy 26.

Page 109

iii. Sustainability and location of the site 8.12 This application would result in the use of the site for Class A1 purposes which is materially different to the existing use of the site for a workshop and boat sales use restricted to "water related leisure products", which is clearly associated with the adjacent Chichester Harbour and is controlled by planning condition. The existing 'water related leisure use' is supported by the Birdham Neighbourhood Plan (Policy 23) "Support will be given to the retention of all business related to tourism, marine, horticulture and agriculture against any proposals for redevelopment or for a change of use. Accordingly, proposals for development must not have a significantly adverse impact on the tourism, marine, farming and horticultural businesses." The proposed use by High Seats Limited does not fall within the uses identified in Policy 23 of the Birdham Neighbourhood Plan. 8.13 The proposed use by High Seats Limited would result in a use which could reasonably be sited within a central retail area. The NPPF and policy 28 of the Local Plan require that if no sites are available within the City centre, then an edge of centre or out of centre location could be considered, subject to compliance with a number of identified criteria. Furthermore Policy 1 guides development to within Settlement Boundaries. Policy 45 states development requiring a countryside location must meet the essential, small scale and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements. It goes on to state that retail development in the countryside will only be considered where an appropriate sequential test has been undertaken, in order to protect the countryside from inappropriate development. This proposal results in a destination retail unit outside of any central retail area, edge of centre or out of centre location including that within Chichester City or any other identified shopping area, or settlement boundary in Neighbourhood Plans. In terms of its countryside location it does not meet an essential, small scale and local need which could not be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements. 8.14 The applicant has provided a sequential test consistent with Policies 28 and 45 of the CLP and paragraph 24 of the NPPF. The sequential test lists all available units within 5 miles of Chichester, including the retail centre, edge of centre and out of centre locations, all of which are considered unsuitable by the applicant (HSL) due to size, location, limited passing trade or availability of parking. The applicant was specifically asked for their comments on The Corn Exchange, Chichester, and the currently advertised 2a High Street, Selsey. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Corn Exchange would also require a change of use application to be submitted and approved (Currently B1), this site is within Chichester City and approximately 40m from the designated Primary Shopping Frontage of East Street (south side). In Selsey, the premises at 2a High Street, already has retail use permission. 8.15 The applicant was shown The Corn Exchange and the agent has provided the following comment: "Whilst they liked the accommodation and its location, HSL dismissed this property on the basis that the on-site parking provisions are insufficient. I appreciate that there are a number of public car parks nearby, however their customer base includes elderly individuals who struggle to walk any distance at all." It is the officer's view that despite the limited opportunity for allocated parking for the Corn Exchange unit, the availability of public parking provision within a short walking distance of the building must be given significant weight. There are two car parks within 50m of the site (Baffins Lane and East Pallant). Further afield there are another 3 car parks with 200m of the site. There is also short-stay parking available on Baffins Lane with a drop off/loading bay (east side of road).

Page 110

8.16 The applicant was also asked to comment on 2a High Street, Selsey, currently being marketed by their commercial agent, as it is within the Settlement Boundary for Selsey and in current retail use. Their comment was, "this property was dismissed on the basis that HSL want to be in Chichester, or within a 5 mile radius of the city centre (as per the sequential test). Furthermore, Selsey is located about 10 miles to the south of Chichester, and therefore will not be considered." This appears to be contrary to the applicant's statement that singles out the need for the application site to be to the south of Chichester, "with its higher proportion of older residents" (para' 5.25, D and A statement). 8.17 The applicant has carried out a sequential test consistent with policy requirements which has identified at least one unit within the City Centre and has commented on a further unit that could be suitable within a Settlement Boundary. It is considered therefore that despite the specialised requests of the Applicant, the sequential test is in conflict with two criteria of Policy 28 of the Local Plan as it has not been demonstrated "…that no suitable site can be found, firstly within the existing town centre or, secondly, on the edge of the centre…" (criterion 2), and; "…the type of goods sold and the form of shopping unit proposed could not be conveniently accommodated within the existing shopping centre or where suitable sites and premises are not available within the centre or edge of centre sites…" (criterion 4). 8.18 Furthermore, paragraph 24 of the NPPF states that LPAs should "… require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered…". The sequential test has identified two units which are in City/Town Centres. 8.19 The reason the applicant states for the location of the site in this rural area is due to the bulky nature of the goods. However, products would only be delivered to the site every 6 months (to update the shop displays) and no items would be despatched from site following a product sale as orders are delivered directly to customer's homes. It is therefore considered that the frequency and nature of the 'bulky' products does not provide sufficient justification for a Countryside location for the unit. There are currently a number of furniture stores within the City Centre and their ongoing operation in the centre is evidence that it is practicable for operation. 8.20 Officers therefore have a fundamental objection to change of use from the existing Class A1 water related leisure products use of the application site to retail purposes when it has been demonstrated that there are other available appropriate sites in Chichester City Centre and in the Settlement Boundary of Selsey. There does not appear to be an over-riding reason why a unit within the Countryside should be permitted for what would amount to an unrestricted retail use which should be either within the city centre, the edge of centre, out of centre or within a Settlement Boundary. As such, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to paragraph 24 of the NPPF and Policies 28 and 45 of the Local Plan. Furthermore the loss of a marine related unit would be in conflict with Policy 23 of the emerging Birdham Neighbourhood Plan as the proposed use would not support tourism, marine, horticulture and agriculture in the local area as specified by the policy. iv. Access and parking provision 8.21 The development proposed would require 8 parking spaces plus a further 7/8 spaces for the existing use retained (B1), a total of 16 spaces. WSCC has acknowledged due to proposed staffing levels in the rear of the unit for B1 use, 4 spaces would be adequate, 8 spaces are still required to service the new A1 unit. The applicant has provided a further parking plan of the site which indicates provision for permitted uses on site, staff parking for unit 4 and overflow parking. Given the use of the site as a motor home showroom,

Page 111

historically a number of parking spaces to the south of the site have been exclusively used as parking spaces for vehicles on sale. This therefore reduces the opportunity and availability of spaces for visitors to any of the other uses on site. There does however appear to be ample parking and with the marine retail sales element relocated to Chichester Marina, boat parking which has taken place along the northern boundary would be potentially moved, still allowing parking spaces to the rear of Unit 4 for the workshop marine use. The issue of parking as cited as a reason for refusal in the previous application has, due to the additional information received, now been resolved and it is no longer considered that it could be substantiated as a reason for refusal. 8.22 Despite the provision of additional parking, the location of this retail use outside of any settlement boundary and away from the City centre, or edge of centre, would result in the dependence on car travel. Whilst the proposed number of vehicles trips is not of concern, the sustainability of the site is of concern. Planning Balance and Conclusion 8.23 This application in principle is identical to a previously refused application, against which the appellant appealed but which in March 2016 was withdrawn from the appeal process by the appellant. Whilst the applicant has provided further information in the form of additional parking plans, a sequential test and evidence for a longer period of marketing during the consideration of this application, there is still a fundamental concern regarding the proposal for a destination retail unit in the countryside. It is noted that Chichester District has a large elderly population and the applicant (HSL) has indicated this as a good location to open a further shop, specialising in furniture for this age group. The unit would also result in 5 employees, and therefore potentially some local employment. The merits of this application do not, however, outweigh the concerns of siting the unit in the Countryside, four miles from the city centre where the types of goods proposed to be sold in this application would complement those in the existing retail/city centre. It is also not considered to be an essential, small scale and local need which could not be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements. Furthermore the loss of two-thirds of this unit to furniture sales would be in conflict with the emerging Birdham Neighbourhood Plan which seeks for business to support tourism, marine, horticulture and agriculture in the plan area (Policy 23). 8.24 Based on the above it is considered the proposal is contrary to development plan policies 1, 3, 28 and 45 of the Chichester Local Plan and Paragraphs 14, 24 and 30 of the NPPF and Policies 13, 15, 22 and 23 of the Birdham Neighbourhood Plan and therefore the application is recommended for refusal. Human Rights 8.25 In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded that the decision to refuse permission is justified and proportional to the harm that would be caused if planning permission were to be granted.

Page 112

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE 1 U01011 Location and sustainability of the site. INFORMATIVES 1 W16G Decision Plans 2 W46F App Ref Following Discussion - NWF For further information on this application please contact Rhiannon Jones on 01243 743543.

Page 113

Parish: Bosham

Ward: Bosham

BO/16/00397/DOM

Proposal Domestic garage and garden store.

Site Glebe House Walton Lane Bosham Chichester West Sussex PO18 8QB

Map Ref (E) 481535 (N) 104359

Applicant Mr & Mrs WJ & PC Plant RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

Page 114

Agenda Item 9

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Applicant is a Councillor 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is within an existing established residential curtilage of Glebe House, Bosham, which comprises 1 no. 2 storey dwelling. The existing dwelling features a U shape footprint and features 2 no. gable ends. The dwelling is finished in horizontal timber cladding to first floor level and brick and render to ground floor level. The building features both hipped and gable ends in the roofline. 2.2 Located to the north and east of the application site are agricultural fields. Located to the west of the site is a residential property known as Frenchams. Located to the south of the application site is a grade II listed building known as The Strange Hall North and the Strange Hall South. 2.3 The application site is located outside the settlement boundary of Bosham but within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). There are no other local or statutory designations that would affect development within this area. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the erection of a single storey outbuilding within the curtilage of Glebe House, Bosham. The outbuilding is to be situated at the north-western corner of the residential curtilage adjacent to the boundary fence abutting Frenchams. The outbuilding is to be used for a garage and garden store that is ancillary to the main dwelling. 3.2 The building proposes a 48 sqm footprint, with dimensions of 2.3 metres to eaves and 4.3 metres to ridge. The western elevation comprises a hipped roof with a 30 degree angle and the eastern elevation comprises a gable end is with the garage opening. To the southern elevation a door and 3 no. pane window are proposed and the northern elevation comprises a blank elevation. 4.0 History 04/04306/DOM PER Demolition of single storey utility

room/lean-to and replacement with two storey side extension. Conversion of existing garage to form utility room, new single storey sun room, alterations to existing elevations and new summer house to garden.

74/00089/BO PD Alterations and additions.

76/00120/BO PD Car port.

14/03848/DOM PER Alterations and extensions.

Page 115

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area YES

AONB YES

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

EA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Bosham Parish Council - 03 March 2016 No objections so long as it remains ancillary to the main dwelling and not used for any form of domestic habitation 6.2 1 Third Party comment (Frenchams) We live in Frenchams immediately adjoining the building under application. It will abut against our garden and therefore we are asking for details about the exact height of the building particularly in relation to the fence that Glebe House has erected. The drawings were not helpful in establishing this and it will directly affect the view from our garden particularly with the apparent large pitched roof. Once we have this information, and ideally with a drawing demonstrating the above, then we can make a considered opinion and hopefully will be able to support it. 6.3 1 Third Party support (Frenchams) Thanks to our neighbours for furnishing us with further details of their proposal which we now fully support. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester District Council Local Plan: Key Policies (2014-2029) and all made neighbourhood plans. There is no made Neighbourhood Plan for Bosham at this time.

Page 116

7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: - Policy 1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) - Policy 2 (Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy) - Policy 33 (New Residential Development) - Policy 39 (Transport, Accessibility and Parking) - Policy 43 (Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)) - Policy 47 (Heritage and Design) National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles). Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.5 The following documents are material to the determination of this application: - Chichester Harbour Conservancy Design Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions (Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) revised August 2010 - Chichester Harbour Conservancy Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Management Plan 2014-2029) - Chichester Harbour AONB Landscape Character Assessment (2005) - Bosham Village Design Statement (November 2011) 7.6 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment

Page 117

8.0 Planning Comments Assessment 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Design; ii) Impact on the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; iii) Impact on Adjacent Grade II Listed Heritage Asset; and iv) Transport, Accessibility and Parking. i) Principle of Development 8.2 This application proposes new residential development within an existing established residential curtilage. Policy 33 (New Residential Development) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan: Key Policies (2014-2029) supports new residential development in such circumstances and therefore the principle of development is established. ii) Design 8.3 Policy 33 (New Residential Development) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan: Key Policies (2014-2029) requires development to meet the highest standards of design in relation to the proportion, form, massing, siting, layout, density, height, size, scale, neighbouring and public amenity and detailed design. 8.4 The building is situated adjacent to the vehicular access serving the existing dwelling and therefore its layout and siting is appropriate for an ancillary and subordinate garage building. The building's proportions are smaller than the main host dwelling which reiterates its ancillary and subordinate use to the main dwelling. 8.5 The building's form retains hipped and gable roof elements which are key defining features of the main host dwelling. The use of the hipped roof on the western elevation (neighbouring Frenchams) ensures that no over massing derives from the building's scale, height and overall size. 8.6 The lack of development along the northern boundary of the property, combined with the proposed form of the roof, ensures that any potential impacts upon residential amenity are mitigated. New planting proposed adjacent to the western elevation of the building which will visually screen the proposed building from neighbouring properties. 8.7 The provision of an additional 48 sqm of floor space will result in an increase of the overall built form on development of the site. However, the footprint which the building will occupy is only used as visual residential amenity space and therefore the provision of a garage in this location would not result in there being any significant loss of the applicant's usable amenity space. 8.8 No details surrounding materials and finishing have been submitted within the plans. However, details have been submitted within the application form. The imposition of a pre-commencement condition that requires details to be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority, will ensure a suitable finish is achieved.

Page 118

8.9 In light of the above, the development achieves a high quality design that takes account of the proportion, form, massing, siting, layout, density, height, size, scale, neighbouring and public amenity and detailed design. Therefore, the outbuilding accords with the criteria contained within Policy 33 (New Residential Development) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan: Key Policies (2014-2029). iii) Impact upon the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 8.10 Policy 43 (Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)) requires development proposals to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the AONB. 8.11 The application site, whilst being bounded by open agricultural fields to the north, does not occupy a visually prominent position within the Chichester Harbour AONB. However, the application site does comprise a position within the AONB where the defining flat open agricultural fields meet the line of built development and therefore this transition point requires special attention. 8.12 The application site is bounded on its north by vertical close board timber fencing. The proposed eaves and roofline of the garage building will be visible above the close board timber fencing, however, subject to appropriate finishing, the general form, scale and massing of the building would not appear incongruous in this location. 8.13 Views of the garage will be limited and distant and therefore the potential according impacts are limited. There are no public footpaths located to the north which provide uninterrupted views of the application site. 8.14 In light of the above, and subject to agreed detailed design, the building would conserve and enhance the natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal therefore accords with the contents of Policy 43 (Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029). iv) Impact upon the Setting of the Adjacent Grade II Listed Buildings 8.15 Policy 47 (Heritage and Design) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029) requires proposals to conserve and enhance the special interest and settings of designated heritage assets. 8.16 Located to the south of the application site is a cluster of 2 no. grade II listed buildings known as The Strange Hall North and The Strange Hall South. From reviewing the historical maps the application site fell within the historical curtilage of this building. Therefore, the application site comprises the historical setting to the grade II listed building. 8.17 There has been significant modern development undertaken in the erection of Glebe House which utilises a modern materials palette in contrast to the designated heritage asset; but in accordance with the AONB setting. The significance of development undertaken around the asset, facilitated through its subdivision of plots, has meant that there is a clear inward looking focus to the setting of the heritage asset; rather than a wider open setting.

Page 119

8.18 The siting of the garage building in a north-western position on the plot ensures that the building is situated as far away as reasonably practicable from the curtilage of the grade II listed heritage assets. The siting, size, form, scale and massing of the building, coupled with its intervening development, ensures that the building is not immediately visually prominent in the historic setting of the listed building. 8.19 In light of the above, the proposed garage building does not adversely impact upon the historic setting of the adjacent grade II listed heritage asset. The siting of the building to the confines of the existing residential curtilage ensures that the historical residential setting and curtilage is maintained. Therefore, the proposals accord with the contents of Policy 47 (Heritage and Design) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan: Key Policies (2014-2029). v) Transport, Accessibility and Parking 8.20 Policy 39 of the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029) requires development proposals to provide safe and adequate means of access and internal circulation/turning arrangements for all modes relevant to the proposal. 8.21 The facilitation of a garage building in this location will ensure that a sufficient level of parking is achieved on the site. The space forward of the main host dwelling ensures that vehicles have sufficient turning space and are able to enter and exit in a forward gear. The garage building would therefore not result in any demonstrable impacts upon highway safety. 8.22 In light of the above assessment, the development achieves a safe and adequate means of access and internal circulation/turning arrangements and therefore accords with the contents of Policy 39 (Chichester District Council Local Plan: Key Policies (2014-2029). Significant Conditions 8.23 It is recommended that a condition is imposed to ensure that materials are agreed with the LPA prior to the implementation of any external finish materials on site. Conclusion 8.24 Based on the above assessment the development achieves a high quality design that is appropriate in the historic setting of a grade II listed heritage asset and Chichester Harbour AONB. The proposal therefore accords with the adopted development plan policies contained within the Chichester District Council Local Plan: Key Policies (2014-2029). The use of conditions ensures that a high quality design is achieved which will mitigate any potential harm of nearby heritage assets or the Chichester Harbour AONB. There has been no material considerations submitted throughout the course of the application that outweighs the compliance with the development plan. Therefore, planning permission is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Human Rights 8.25 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

Page 120

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 U00917 – Time Limit - Full 2 U00918 – No Departure from Plans 3 U00919 – Schedule of Materials INFORMATIVE 1 W44F - Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact James Cross on 01243 534899.

Page 121

Parish: Chichester

Ward: Chichester West

CC/16/00212/DOM

Proposal Single storey, flat roof extension to rear. Conversion of existing garage to

habitable space with garage door changed to new entrance door with external canopy. New dropped kerb to allow for two access points into driveway.

Site 12 Sherborne Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 3AA

Map Ref (E) 485065 (N) 104942

Applicant Mr & Mrs J & S Bennetts RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Applicant is a Member/Officer of Council, or spouse/partner

Page 122

Agenda Item 10

2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is situated in Sherbourne Road, within the settlement boundary of Chichester. Properties within the street exhibit a variety of styles and forms, though are similar in their use of materials. 2.2 The application property is a detached two-storey residential dwelling, which is constructed of facing red brick with clay roof tiles, white UVPC windows, and a hardwood front door. 2.3 To the front of the property, a large paved driveway is bordered by a brick wall and hedging. To the rear of the property is a generous garden bordered by a timber fence and includes a swimming pool toward the far end. A pavement and grass verge separates the application site from the highway. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application proposes a single-storey, flat-roof rear extension, conversion of the existing garage for use as habitable space and an additional dropped kerb and access point into the existing driveway. 3.2 The proposed rear extension would project 6.4m from the rear of the existing main property and would measure 3.2m in height as measured from ground level. The structure would be clad in vertical timber boarding. The newly created corner between the main property's existing two-storey projection and the proposed single storey extension would be topped with a timber pergola. The existing 3m flue, which currently emerges through the two-storey projection's north elevation, would project from the south-western corner of the proposed flat roof, which would contain two rooflights. The south elevation would contain French doors whilst the east elevation would comprise of a large glazed sliding door; the northern elevation would contain no openings. 3.3 The conversion of the garage to use as a utility room would involve the replacement of the existing garage door with a single hardwood door and UPVC framed window and the erection of a concrete canopy to the front elevation measuring 2.3m across by 0.8m deep; this feature would be of similar design to that which exists over the property's existing main front door. Internally the partition wall between the garage and the existing utility area would be removed. 3.4 A second access point is proposed for the south-western corner of the curtilage between the highway and the existing driveway. This would involve the formation of a second dropped kerb to the pavement that fronts the property and removal of part of the existing boundary wall and hedge to the front border. 3.5 The application was amended following discussion between the Case Officer and the Applicant. The roof of the proposed extension has been reduced by 0.2m in height relative to the original proposal and a previously proposed flue pipe has been removed from the scheme. The amendments are considered to have enhanced the visual amenity of the scheme and to have reduced the potential impact of the proposed development on the outlook of surrounding properties and from the public realm to an acceptable level.

Page 123

4.0 History

86/00310/CC PER Enlarge & modernise existing extension.

95/00098/DOM PER Two-storey extension.

10/05542/PD REC Planning advice: extension.

11/01426/DOM PER Demolition of existing conservatory. Construction of two storey rear extension.

14/01577/PD REC Planning advice: Extension.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area NO

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

EA Flood Zone NO

- Flood Zone 2 NO

- Flood Zone 3 NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council - No objection 6.2 1 Third Party Objection

Concern that the extension is overlarge

Concern over the proximity of the development to the curtilage boundary

Concern regarding loss of amenity by neighbouring property to the north relating to the above two points.

6.3 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

The proposal has been amended in consultation with occupants of the neighbouring property to the north, including a reduction in height, a change of materials and the removal of high level windows in order to decrease the impact of the proposal upon the outlook and privacy of surrounding properties.

The proposal would allow for more efficient use of the property's internal space.

6.4 Through informal discussions between the case officer and the Highways Authority, the Highways Authority are comfortable with the creation of a secondary access to the site.

Page 124

7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District outside of the South Downs National Park comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all made neighbourhood plans. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), together with paragraphs 56, 60, 61 and 66. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.5 The following Supplementary Planning Documents are material to the determination of this planning application: Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD 7.6 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment D3 - Housing fit for purpose E1 - Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion

Page 125

8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of Development ii) Impact on visual amenity iii) Traffic and accessibility iv) Impact on the amenities of surrounding development Assessment i) Principle of Development 8.2 The application site is situated within the settlement boundary of Chichester, within a densely developed locality, though properties in the vicinity of the application site are well spaced. In the application site's immediate locality, development is characterised by large detached two-storey dwellings with generous gardens. Properties along Sherbourne Road have a high degree of variability, particularly in terms of form, within the immediate locality of the application property, but are generally constructed of similar materials; facing brick, hanging clay tiles, clay roof tiles and UPVC windows. Dropped kerbs giving access to paved driveways are prolific within the street scene. 8.3 Given the variations that exist within the street and the built up nature of the locality, the principle of a single storey rear extension and minor alterations to the front façade of the application property, as well as the addition of a dropped kerb and access point to the existing driveway, is considered acceptable. ii) Impact on visual amenity 8.4 The proposed single-storey extension would be to the rear of the property where it would not be visible from the highway. As such the street scene would remain unaffected by its addition. The extension would be fairly large in scale, but would not be out of keeping with the size of the host dwelling, its curtilage, or in the context of the size and spacing of surrounding development. The flat roof would aid in reducing the perceived bulk of the extension whilst the timber cladding would further soften its appearance. As originally proposed, the extension was considered to be overbearing in relation to the main property, but following amendments to reduce the height and remove the additional flue pipe the scale of the development is now considered acceptable. 8.5 The proposed extension would differ from the main property in terms of its single-storey, flat-roof form and use of newly introduced materials, most pertinently the exterior timber cladding. However, the contrast represented by the modern extension does not appear to be at odds with the main property so the extension would not appear incongruent or negatively impact upon the visual amenity of the existing dwelling or the application site. The glazed sliding door unit to the rear elevation measures 2.4m in height by 4.5m across. Whilst not considered to be ideally proportioned, in that it does seem a little overlarge relative to the existing fenestration of the main house, such matters are not considered to be of significant enough detriment to the visual amenity of the property to warrant a refusal of the proposal. Considering the existing degree of variability in form and style within the vicinity of the application site, the character of the locality would not be significantly or negatively affected by the proposed extension.

Page 126

8.6 The replacement of the garage door with a door and window or the erection of a small concrete canopy to the front elevation would have very little impact on the appearance of the application property. Given the minor nature of the alterations, the use of similar materials to those of the existing property and the variation in appearance of surrounding dwellings, the conversion of the garage would not result in a significant or negative impact upon the visual amenity of the application property and would not result in a facade that is out of keeping with the street scene. 8.7 The proposed dropped kerb and additional access point would not be out of keeping with the character of the area since such features are prolific within the street scene. The second access point would be positioned such that the front boundary of the property would appear symmetrical; as such the demolition of part of the wall to create this access space would not harm the visual amenity of the application site or the locality. iii) Traffic and accessibility 8.8 The provision of a second dropped kerb to the pavement that fronts the property and a corresponding access point would enable the occupants of and visitors to the application property to make more efficient use of the existing driveway by way of being able to 'drive through' the frontage between the two access points instead of having to turn on site or reverse back out onto the highway. This would result in improvements in the applicants' enjoyment of the property and the Highways Authority have indicated that there would be no adverse impact regarding highways safety or other road users. iv) Impact on the amenities of surrounding development 8.9 The proposed single-storey rear extension would be 5m from the facing elevation of the neighbouring property to the north, built almost up to the boundary wall and would project 2m beyond the line of the neighbouring property's rear elevation. The proposal would not encroach to within the 60 degrees, stipulated within design guidance, as measured from the centre of the neighbouring property's nearest ground-floor rear window. Amendments have been made to the proposed extension in consultation with the occupants of the neighbouring property to the north, involving a reduction in height, alterations to the proposed cladding; such that the timber boarding would now clad the entirety of its exterior, and the removal of the originally proposed high level windows to the north elevation. It is considered that the proposed extension, as amended, would not have a significant negative impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property to the north with regards to privacy, outlook or light. 8.10 The proposed single storey rear extension would project along a similar line of the rear elevation of the neighbouring property to the south. As such the proposal would not impact negatively on the amenities of the neighbouring property to the south nor, owing to its distance from any other dwelling, on the amenities of any other surrounding development. 8.11 The proposed conversion of the garage would not impact on the amenities of any surrounding development.

Page 127

Other Matters 8.12 Concerns have been raised by a third party commenter with regards to the erection of the proposed single-storey rear extension. They expressed concern that the extension would appear overlarge and that it could impact negatively on the outlook of the neighbouring property to the north owing to its scale and proximity to the curtilage boundary. However, in light of the aforementioned amendments made to the proposal following consultation with the occupant of the neighbouring property to the north and the Local Planning Authority, it is considered that these concerns have been suitably addressed. Significant Conditions 8.13 It is considered appropriate to condition that no windows should be inserted into the northern elevation of the proposed single-storey rear extension. 8.14 The proposed access point would necessitate some loss of the grass verge that fronts the property, alteration to the kerb, connection to the public highway and would traverse of the pavement. However such works fall outside the planning remit and separate permission would be required from the West Sussex Country Council Highways Authority before the commencement of the works. An informative is proposed to advise the applicant. Conclusion 8.15 Based on the above it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.16 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION: PERMIT 1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 B01G No Departure from Plans 3 U00968 - Materials 4 U00969 - Windows Informatives 1 W01F - Disclaimer - Other Consents 2 W25G - Need for Highway Authority Consent 3 W45F - Application Approved Following Revisions For further information on this application please contact Rachel Ballam on 01243 534581

Page 128

Parish: Chidham & Hambrook

Ward: Bosham

CH/15/03838/FUL

Proposal Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission CH/10/04417/COU and

APP/L3815/A/11/2153950.

Site Plot A Pond Farm Newells Lane West Ashling Chichester West Sussex PO18 8DD

Map Ref (E) 479678 (N) 106490

Applicant Mr William Green RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is located in a remote countryside location in the Parish of Chidham and Hambrook. To the south of the site are a number of gypsy and traveller pitches, to the east and west countryside, and directly to the north a bridleway and the main A27.

Page 129

Agenda Item 11

2.2 Access to the site is via a public bridleway, which runs parallel to the A27 and leads off Newells Lane to the east. The site is part of a cluster of gypsy and traveller pitches known as 'Pond Farm'. The site is bounded by 1.8m timber gates and closeboarded fence form the boundary to the north east and south, and a mature conifer hedge to the north, approx. 3m high. The site comprises two distinct elements, hardstanding to the eastern half and the a number of field shelters for the applicants animals to the west. The existing mobile home is situated centrally within the site. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The proposal seeks the variation of a personal occupancy condition, namely condition 2 attached to appeal decision APP/L3815/A/11/2153950 (application reference CH/10/04417/COU). The proposed variation to the condition would retain the right for occupation of the site by gypsy and travellers, but remove the requirement for the site to be occupied by a particular individual. 4.0 History 00/00548/FUL ART25 Erection of 8 no timber stables

with associated store. 98/01388/FUL REF Retention of 2 no site cabins and

their use for residential purposes. 98/01644/FUL REF Erection of block of sixteen

stables and establishment of stud farm.

98/01645/FUL REF Retention of access tracks and

hardstanding. 99/01845/FUL REF Erection of block of fourteen

stables: Tack room: Staff: Food and Hay Store and private ways.

06/04103/FUL REF Retention of hardstanding and the

stationing of a residential caravan for gypsy settled accommodation.

10/04417/COU REF Stationing of 1 no. mobile home

for settled gypsy accommodation. 11/00544/FUL REF Stationing of a mobile home for

occupation by gypsies and travellers (as defined by Circular 01/2006) for a temporary period of three years.

Page 130

98/01388/FUL REF Retention of 2 no site cabins and their use for residential purposes.

98/01644/FUL REF Erection of block of sixteen

stables and establishment of stud farm.

98/01645/FUL REF Retention of access tracks and

hardstanding. 99/01845/FUL REF Erection of block of fourteen

stables: Tack room: Staff: Food and Hay Store and private ways.

06/02440/COU REF Stationing of 1 no. residential

caravan for Gypsy settled accommodation.

06/05017/FUL REF Siting of 1 no. mobile home for

settled gypsy accommodation. Siting of 1 no. touring caravan and installation of septic tank.

08/01131/COU REF Retention of hardstanding and

siting of mobile home for settled gypsy accommodation.

11/04156/COU APPRET Change of use of land to a private

gypsy and traveller caravan site comprising one mobile home and associated works.

12/00458/COU REF Change of use of land to a private

gypsy and traveller caravan site comprising one mobile home and associated works.

5.0 Constraints Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order YES South Downs National Park NO

EA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

Page 131

6.0 Representations and Consultations Parish Council 6.1 Chidham & Hambrook Parish Council OBJECTS to the Application and makes the following comments: 1. Condition 2 of Planning Permission CH/10/04417/COU and APP/L3815/A/11/2153950

was imposed for valid reasons. 2. These reasons are still valid and the Parish Council sees no reason for removal of the

Planning Condition. The Parish Council recommends REFUSAL of the Application. CDC Planning Policy 6.2 The site is currently occupied and developed; in principle the removal of a personal permission on this site should not alter the status of the Plot. In conclusion there isn't a policy objection to the removal of the personal permission. Third Party Objection 6.3 1 third party objection raising the following concerns; i) Failure to provide reasoning as to why the personal condition is unduly restrictive. ii) Appeal inspector found in favour of the applicant based on his own personal needs

and nothing else. iii) If approved would set a precedent for other sites here. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all made neighbourhood plans. The examiner’s report on the Chidham and Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan has been published and the timetable for referendum is September 2016. As such the plan carries substantial weight. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 48: Natural Environment 7.3 Chidham and Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan: Policy DS2 Policy DS5

Page 132

National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles). 7.6 In addition to the NPPF, the Department for Communities and Local Government 'Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites - Good Practice Guide - May 2008' is also of relevance. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living C3 - A culturally enriched and empowered community D3 - Housing fit for purpose D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle ii) Other Matters Assessment i) Principle 8.2 The site benefits from a permanent planning permission, allowed at appeal (reference APP/L3815/A/11/2153950), albeit that the occupation of the gypsy pitch is limited to a named individual. In determining the appeal the Inspector considered in detail the landscape impacts and made reference to the previous policy RE6 concerning the protection of strategic gaps (a policy which has not been carried forward to the current local plan). The Inspector identified that the appeal proposal would not undermine the objectives of this previous policy and that there was no conflict with gypsy sites being located within strategic

Page 133

gaps in principle, but that some weight should be given to policy RE6 as it was not conclusive at that time whether a similar policy would be included within emerging local plan. The Inspector considered that some limited harm to the openness of the strategic gap and the character and appearance of the area would arise, although he concluded that there were compelling circumstances that would take precedence of over this harm. In coming to this conclusion the Inspector identified there was both a compelling need for gypsy and traveller pitches in the district due to the significant shortfall at the time and that the site would enable the occupier to have a settled base to facilitate the delivery of home tutoring for the applicant's eldest son. 8.3 The Inspector concluded that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted, noting that 'both the general need for gypsy sites and the personal need of the occupants for whom there is currently no suitable available alternative accommodation, carry significant weight'. At this time it was open to the Inspector to limit the permission to a temporary period if it was considered that the proposal would not be suitable in the longer term. The Inspector did not find such a restriction to be necessary, commenting that ‘there was no need to restrict the granting of planning permission to a temporary period, given my findings on the main issues', but did consider that a condition restricting occupancy was necessary as personal need was fundamental to the outcome of the appeal at that time. As such whilst the initial occupation of the site it is considered that regardless of the personal occupancy condition, the principle of a permanent gypsy and traveller pitch in this location was accepted by the Inspector in allowing the appeal, having regard to the lack of a supply to meet the identified need and the likelihood that alternative accommodation would be unlikely to be forthcoming within the next 3 years. 8.4 Presently the Chichester District has a shortfall supply of 4 gipsy pitches. As the site is occupied and its original consent was not a temporary consent, the site is included as part of the overall gypsy and traveller provision in the District (accounting for 1 pitch). Whilst the current planning permission includes a personal condition, this permission affords occupation of the site on a permanent basis. 8.5 It is important that the Local Planning Authority safeguards its supply of existing gypsy pitches, policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan (CLP) Key Policies 2014-2029 seeks to control this, stating that these sites will continue to be safeguarded for as long as the need exists for traveller accommodation in the plan area. In removing the personal occupancy condition and allowing the occupation by any gypsy or traveller meeting the PPTS Annexe 1 definition, this would allow the site to be safeguarded for future use by a gypsy and traveller, rather than for the single specific gypsy family that is presently identified. 8.6 The 2012 Planning Practice Guidance sets out when it is appropriate and reasonable to use conditions to limit the benefits of the planning permission to a particular person or group of people. The guidance is clear that unless the permission otherwise provides, planning permission runs with the land and it is rarely appropriate to provide otherwise. It goes on to state that 'there may be exceptional occasions where granting planning permission for development that would not normally be permitted on the site could be justified on planning grounds because of who would benefit from the permission'. This would include the provision of gypsy and traveller pitches. It is considered that the current personal occupancy condition when assessed against the 6 conditions tests as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance and the above; it would not meet the conditions tests in its current form. However, given the identified need of pitches in the district and at the time the appeal decision was allowed, it is concluded that the removal of the personal occupancy condition would be compliant with the Planning Practice Guidance.

Page 134

8.7 Overall it is considered that the removal of the personal occupation condition would not alter the status that the site is a recognised pitch and counted in the CDC gypsy and traveller provision. As such the removal of any personal condition would not be in conflict with the terms of the original permission, the PPTS and Policy 36 of the CLP. ii) Other matters 8.8 The site is an occupied and developed site and as such the need to provide proof as to gypsy status would not be required. However, in granting a variation to the conditions of the original consent and the imposition of the requirement that it be only occupied by a gypsy or traveller meeting the definition within PPTS Annexe 1, should the present occupiers vacate the site, any future occupier would have to meet the definition of a gypsy and traveller as defined within the PPTS. Significant Conditions 8.9 There would be no additional conditions required other than that which is seeking variation. Previous conditions in relation to commercial activity, the number of caravans and access by larger vehicles are also proposed. Conclusion 8.10 Based on the above assessment it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.11 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of any affected parties have been taken into account. The proposal requires engagement of the 1998 act, however, taking account of rights under Article 8 of Section 1 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. Equalities 8.12 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant. "In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty:

Page 135

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act. (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level. However, the duties do not require a particular outcome. What the decision making body chooses to do once it has had the required regard is for it to decide subject to the ordinary constraints of public and discrimination law. In conclusion, the actual needs of the applicant need to be weighed against the harm that this development would cause to neighbours, along with all of the material planning considerations. The decision must be proportionate in the light of all the circumstances of this case". RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 U00860 Occupation in accordance with PPTS 2 U00862 No. of caravans 3 U00863 No commercial activity 4 U00864 No large vehicles INFORMATIVES 1 W01F Disclaimer - Other Consents 2 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Caitlin Boddy on 01243 534346

Page 136

Parish: Chidham & Hambrook

Ward: Bosham

CH/15/03840/FUL

Proposal Proposed detached utility building.

Site Plot A, Pond Farm Newells Lane West Ashling West Sussex PO18 8DF

Map Ref (E) 479666 (N) 106486

Applicant Mr William Green RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

Page 137

Agenda Item 12

2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is located in a remote countryside location in the Parish of Chidham and Hambrook. To the south of the site are a number of gypsy and traveller pitches, to the east and west countryside, and directly to the north a bridleway and the main A27. 2.2 Access to the site is via a public bridleway, which runs parallel to the A27 and leads off Newells Lane to the east. The site is part of a cluster of gypsy and traveller pitches known as 'Pond Farm'. The site is bounded by 1.8m timber gates and closeboarded fence form the boundary to the north east and south, and a mature conifer hedge to the north, approx. 3m high. The site comprises two distinct elements, hardstanding to the eastern half and the a number of field shelters for the applicants animals to the west. The existing mobile home is situated centrally within the site. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The proposal seeks to erect a utility building, to be used in connection with the residential occupation of the land. The building would be situated to the east of the mobile home, close to the northern boundary. It would have a footprint of 5m x 5m, measuring 2.5m to the eaves, with a pitched tile roof and a ridge of 3.5m. The building would be constructed of brick, with a centrally situated door and two windows to the front and an obscure glazed window serving a bathroom to the rear. 4.0 History 00/00548/FUL ART25 Erection of 8 no timber stables

with associated store. 98/01388/FUL REF Retention of 2 no site cabins and

their use for residential purposes. 98/01644/FUL REF Erection of block of sixteen

stables and establishment of stud farm.

98/01645/FUL REF Retention of access tracks and

hardstanding. 99/01845/FUL REF Erection of block of fourteen

stables: Tack room: Staff: Food and Hay Store and private ways.

06/02440/COU REF Stationing of 1 no. residential

caravan for Gypsy settled accommodation.

06/05017/FUL REF Siting of 1 no. mobile home for

settled gypsy accomodation. Siting of 1 no. touring caravan and installation of septic tank.

Page 138

08/01131/COU REF Retention of hardstanding and

siting of mobile home for settled gypsy accommodation.

12/00458/COU REF Change of use of land to a private

gypsy and traveller caravan site comprising one mobile home and associated works.

08/00091/REF APPWDN Retention of hardstanding and siting

of mobile home for settled gypsy accommodation.

12/00083/REF ALLOW Change of use of land to a private

gypsy and traveller caravan site comprising one mobile home and associated works.

5.0 Constraints Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order YES South Downs National Park NO

EA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations Parish Council 1. The proposed Utility Building is too large, despite the fact that it is described in the Application as small. 2. The base of the building is 5m x 5m and it is 3.5m high (way above the 1.8/2m close board fencing that surrounds the site). 3. The Building would be a blot on the landscape and much too large for its purpose.

Page 139

7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all made neighbourhood plans. The examiner’s report on the Chidham and Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan has been published and the timetable for referendum is September 2016. As such the plan carries substantial weight. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 48: Natural Environment 7.3 Chidham and Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan: Policy DS2 Policy DS5 National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles). 7.6 In addition to the NPPF, the Department for Communities and Local Government 'Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites - Good Practice Guide - May 2008' is also of relevance. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

Page 140

B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living C3 - A culturally enriched and empowered community D3 - Housing fit for purpose D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) The principle of development ii) Impact on the character and appearance of the area iii) Impact on trees and vegetation iv) Impact on neighbouring amenity Assessment i) The principle of development 8.2 The application site is an approved gypsy and traveller site granted at appeal (reference APP/L3815/A/11/2153950), which granted planning permission for the 'stationing of one mobile home for settled gypsy accommodation'. 8.3 The Department for Communities and Local Governments published document 'Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites - Good Practice Guide - May 2008' sets out key elements necessary to a successful site and to identifies good practice examples. Chapter 7 refers to individual permanent sites and paragraph 7.17 in particular refers to the provision of amenity buildings. It advises that it is essential for an amenity building to be provided on each pitch and this should provide for hot and cold water supply, electricity supply, bathroom with W.C and a kitchen/dining area. Furthermore it should include storage space and connections for any appliances. As such in accordance to this guidance an amenity building is an essential requirement for a gypsy and travellers pitch and the principle of such provision is accepted. 8.4 The amenity building proposed would occupy a footprint of 5m x5m, with a W.C/shower room in a corner. It would provide amenity provision for 1 pitch with 1 mobile home and given the requirements for the internal space needed to provide the facilities set out above, it is considered that the size would be proportionate and reasonably necessary to provide for the needs of the gypsy pitch. ii) Impact on the character of the area 8.5 The proposed amenity building would be brick faced, with a tiled pitched roof. The entrance door would be situated centrally to the south elevation, with windows either side. The scale and design would lend an appearance of an ancillary building. It would be situated approximately 3 metres to the east of the existing mobile home and 11 metres from the eastern boundary, screened by the conifer hedge to the north and be set away from public vantage points from the Public Bridleway to the north. The ridge height of the building would reach 3.5 metres and the building would feature eaves of 2.5 metres. Whilst glimpses of the building may be visible above the boundary treatment to the site, it is considered it would be viewed in the context of the residential use of both this site and the wider settlement of gypsy

Page 141

pitches as such it is not considered there would be any detrimental impacts on the visual amenity or character of the countryside location. The proposal would subsequently accord with policy 48 of the Local Plan, which seeks to ensure development respects and enhances the landscape character of the surrounding area and site. iii) Impact on trees and vegetation 8.6 A conifer hedge forms the northern boundary to the site and provides a degree of screening. The building would be situated within close proximity to the hedge and whilst the conifers are individually of no particular merit, they provide a buffer of landscaping and assist in screening the site from its surroundings. As such it is considered appropriate that a condition that prohibits mechanical excavation during construction and protects roots over 25mm in diameter. iv) Impact on neighbour amenity 8.7 Due to the location of the building, its low level nature and the 1.8m close boarded boundary fence to the neighbour to the south, it is not considered that there would be any demonstrable harm to the amenities of the neighbouring property, in terms of overlooking or restricted outlook. As such the proposal is considered acceptable in these terms. Significant Conditions 8.8 In addition to the standard conditions and that stated above, it would be appropriate to condition the use of the building to ensure it contained no sleeping accommodation and for the submission of sample materials prior to construction, to ensure a high quality build. A further condition detailing the method of disposal of surface water run-off is also proposed. Conclusion 8.9 Based on the above assessment it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.10 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of any affected parties have been taken into account. The proposal requires engagement of the 1998 act, however, taking account of rights under Article 8 of Section 1 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. Equalities 8.11 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant. "In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following:

Page 142

Public sector equality duty: (1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act. (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level. However, the duties do not require a particular outcome. What the decision making body chooses to do once it has had the required regard is for it to decide subject to the ordinary constraints of public and discrimination law. In conclusion, the actual needs of the applicant need to be weighed against the harm that this development would cause to neighbours, along with all of the material planning considerations. The decision must be proportionate in the light of all the circumstances of this case". RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 B01G No Departure from Plans 3 U00847 - Materials 4 U00848 - Amenity use 5 U00850 - Hand dig northern foundations INFORMATIVES 1 W01F Disclaimer - Other Consents 2 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Caitlin Boddy on 01243 534346

Page 143

Parish: Donnington

Ward: Donnington

D/15/03176/FUL

Proposal Change of use of land to the siting of 6 no. holiday lodges, associated

parking and new access from existing car park.

Site The Blacksmiths Selsey Road Donnington West Sussex PO20 7PR

Map Ref (E) 485196 (N) 101561

Applicant Mr & Mrs W Fleming RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral 1.1 Red card: Councillor John Ridd; When there is an exceptional level of public interest

Page 144

Agenda Item 13

2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site is located on the north-western side of Selsey Road (B2201). There is an existing building, The Blacksmiths public house, and an associated car park to the south and east of the site, adjacent to the road. The pub itself is an early 19th century Listed Building which has been recently extended to the rear with a flat roof single storey extension of modern design with vertical timber cladding. The entrance to the pub is on the north-east side of the building, adjoining the car park. There is a separate field access to the north of the car park which is currently used to access the agricultural land to the west of the pub. To the south-west of the pub is a pub garden and vegetable garden which is used by the pub. 2.2 The land to the west and north of the site currently forms part of a large arable field and is separated from the pub car park by a row of trees and scrub. Beyond the field lies a hedgerow with the disused Chichester Canal and the footpath, which is located at a lower level, beyond. There are no other public rights of way in the vicinity of the application site. On the south-eastern side of Selsey Road is another open, arable field. Both fields are within the control of the applicant. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The proposal seeks the siting of 6 holiday lodges on land to the north-west of the public house and the car park. Four of the lodges proposed would be 4m x 8.2m and 3.2m in height and would provide a bedroom, bathroom and sitting area, which could also be used as an additional sleeping area. Two of the lodges will be slightly larger at 4.8m x 9.2m and 3.2m in height and would be suitable for disabled or provide larger family accommodation. 3.2 The lodges would be sited in pairs facing each other with access from its own parking space. Each lodge would have a small terrace with trellising to one side to provide privacy and soften the structure. The facades would use vertical cladding of oak or sweet chestnut and allowed to weather naturally. Natural daylighting would be utilised by sloping the roofs from north to south and a 'green roof' would also encourage biodiversity and enhance its sustainable credentials. 3.3 Access to the holiday lodges would be through the existing car park, requiring opening a gap in the existing boundary vegetation. Twelve new parking spaces would be provided as overflow parking and to compensate any loss in providing the means of access. 4.0 History

98/02857/LBC REF Proposed alterations & additions - extension to existing restaurant, extension to form new kitchen, alterations to existing kitchen to form 'snug' to public area & improvements to means of escape from first floor living accommodation.

98/02868/FUL REF Proposed alterations and additions.

99/00777/FUL PER Proposed alterations and additions.

99/00778/LBC PER Proposed alterations and additions. Extension to existing restaurant. Extension to form new kitchen. Alterations to existing kitchen to form 'snug' to public area. Improvements to

Page 145

means of escape from first floor living accommodation.

99/00902/FUL PER Temporary marquee - 1st May until 30 September 1999.

13/03989/FUL PER Part demolition of existing rear addition and store building and erection of new single storey rear extension to form kitchen and store, new porch, internal and external alterations and change of use of first floor staff accommodation to guest accommodation.

13/03990/LBC PER Part demolition of existing rear addition and store building and erection of new single storey rear extension to form kitchen and store, new porch, internal and external alterations and change of use of first floor staff accommodation to guest accommodation.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building No

Conservation Area No

Rural Area Yes

AONB No

Strategic Gap No

Tree Preservation Order No

South Downs National Park

No

EA Flood Zone No

Historic Parks and Gardens No

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council Donnington Parish Council considered this application at a meeting of its Planning Committee held on 12th October 2015. It had no comments to make. 6.2 Chichester District Council - Environmental Department Biodiversity - No protected species surveys have been undertaken on the site so we are unable to establish if protected species are present. Prior to determination we require that an extended phase one habitat survey is undertaken on the site to determine if there is potential for protected species. If there is potential for protected species then further surveys would be required. These surveys plus any mitigation strategies required will need to be submitted as part of the planning application prior to determination.

Page 146

6.3 Chichester District Council – Historic Building Advisor Advice to Planning – Pre-Application Advice not followed - Proposal not supported This scheme does not appear to have responded to advice provided in relation to the preliminary enquiry under 14/03409/PE, apart from providing a landscaping plan (149/01). Critically, the application fails to evidence specific consideration of the potential impacts on the setting of the listed building as required by paragraph 128 of the NPPF and Historic England’s Good Practice Advice Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets. Significance The Blacksmiths Arms was listed in 1986 and is a simple vernacular building with a rational elevation fronting the highway. Its rural setting makes a strong contribution to its significance. Notably, the Sussex Historic Landscape Characterization identifies a surviving late post-medieval (c1600-1799) character to the small farmstead settlement here, largely surrounded by consolidated strip fields of the same period Assessment of the Impacts Due to the flat topography and undeveloped nature of the surrounding fieldscapes, the listed building can also be appreciated as part of the wider historic environment here from public rights of way, as evidenced from the Visual Appraisal which identifies adverse visual impacts. Whilst this is viewed at some distance, and would be screened to some extent by existing vegetation, the statutory protection of the historic environment is required in all cases, not just where publically visible or accessible. Furthermore, impacts on setting can arise from more than visual considerations; the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration, by spatial associations, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places. (See Assessment Step 2: Experience of the Asset in GPA 3 – page 9.) The formality of the landscaping and the repetitive nature of the proposed ‘pods’, and the way they are dispersed within the landscape would result in a fundamental change to the landscape character which would be harmful to the setting of the listed building and represent alien features within the rural area. Given that the Visual Appraisal has also identified harm (viewpoints 1 and 2, paragraphs 5.13 and 5.15); public benefits of a scale and nature to outweigh this harm should be provided under paragraph 134 of the NPPF. As advised under the pre-application enquiry, consideration could be given to consolidating the holiday lodges into a single building, appropriately designed to fit in to the landscape and complement the listed building, possibly with reference to historic maps which suggest there was a building located to the north of the listed building, this could be associated with improvements to the landscape of the existing car park. 6.4 West Sussex County Council - Highways Department After considering access and visibility, parking and turning and sustainability, the Highways Authority considers that a development of this size, in this location, would not cause a significant increase in vehicular movements. The access appears capable of supporting any additional movements that do arise as a result of the proposal.

Page 147

The Local Highway Authority does not consider that the proposal would have a 'severe' impact on the operation of the Highway network, therefore it is not contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 32) and that there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal. 6.5 Representations Two comments have been received raising similar concerns. Whilst no objection has been raised regarding the aspiration to improve the viability of the pub, they believe it would be better sited within the curtilage of The Blacksmith, and if this application was approved, it could lead to further development and that a precedent will be set for future applications on additional parts of the field. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all made neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for Donnington at this time. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 30: Built Tourism and Leisure Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 47: Heritage & Design Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), Sections 3, 7 and 11.

Page 148

7.5 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: A1 - A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of development ii) Impact on character and appearance of area: Natural and Historic Environment iii) Sustainability iv) Biodiversity v) Other considerations Assessment i) Principle of development 8.2 The application seeks six holiday lodges, associated parking and access to support and work in conjunction with The Blacksmiths public house where tourist accommodation already exists. Policy 30 allows such tourist accommodation subject to certain criteria: “1. It is sensitively designed to maintain the tranquillity and character of the area; 2.Is located so as to minimise impact on the natural and historic environment, including that of visitors or users of the facility, particularly avoiding increasing recreational pressures on Chichester Harbour AONB and Pagham Harbour and other designated sites; 3. It provides a high quality attraction or accommodation; and 4. Encourages an extended tourist season.” The policy continues: “In the countryside planning permission will be granted for new tourism buildings including bed and breakfast, self-catering and hotel facilities where the above and following criteria have been met: 1. Be of a scale appropriate to the location and demonstrate they require a rural location and cannot be accommodated elsewhere, or the proposal is associated with the expansion of an existing facility; and 2. Support the objectives of rural regeneration/diversification.” 8.3 The text accompanying Policy 30 explains that although there is a lack of suitable accommodation for overnight tourist stays, such accommodation “will be encouraged in areas that can accommodate additional visitor numbers without detriment to the environment (paragraph 16.25)”. 8.4 Although the applicant has provided a supporting assessment of the need for such accommodation in this area, the development encroaches into open countryside and arable fields and adversely impacts on the natural environment and setting of the Listed Building to the south. Therefore it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal meets the requirements of criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Policy 30.

Page 149

ii) Impact on character and appearance of area: Natural and Historic Environment 8.5 The Design and Access Statement states that the lodges would use vertical timber cladding, either oak or sweet chestnut, thereby sitting comfortably within the landscape and would be in keeping with the rural character and appearance of this countryside location. The aesthetics and sustainable quality of the lodges is carried through in its design by proposing ‘green roofing’ using indigenous planting, sourcing of local materials and labour and a landscaping scheme to enhance the biodiversity of the site and help screen the development. 8.6. Policies 45 and 48 seek to minimise development in the countryside and on the natural environment. Policy 45 states that proposals within the countryside must be “complementary to and does not prejudice any viable agricultural operations” and “ensure their scale, siting, design and materials would have a minimal impact on the landscape and rural character of the area”. Policy 48 seeks that development has “no adverse impact on the tranquil nature and rural character of the area”, “sensitively contributes to its setting” and “respects and enhances the landscape character of the surrounding area and site”. The development would extend and encroach into the open countryside, with the added matter of losing arable farmland. It is therefore considered that the proposal of six lodges in this location does not accord with Policies 45 and 48. 8.7 There is also concern that the increase in levels of activity in and around the site would also be harmful to the otherwise quiet countryside location. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF advises that permission should be granted for sustainable development unless '...any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits...' There would be an increase in levels of traffic generated by the proposed use and there is concern about the adverse effect this noise and vehicular activity would have on the tranquil nature of this countryside location. 8.8 Policy 47 seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment; that new development should recognise and respect the character of the area and heritage assets. Chichester District Councils Historic Building Advisor objects to the proposal, stating the application fails to provide any consideration of the potential impacts on the setting of the Listed Building which is a requirement of the NPPF and Historic England’s Good Practice Advice Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets. Their consultation response states that “the formality of the landscaping and the repetitive nature of the proposed ‘pods’, and the way they are dispersed within the landscape would result in a fundamental change to the landscape character which would be harmful to the setting of the listed building and represent alien features within the rural area.” 8.9 It is considered that there would be harm caused to the character and appearance of the countryside location and the rural area through the encroachment into the open countryside. In addition, there would also be harm caused to the setting of the Listed Building. Therefore the development does not accord with policies 45, 47 and 48 of the Chichester Local Plan. iii) Sustainability 8.10 The site is located within a countryside location, 2.6 miles from Chichester. The Blacksmiths pub is isolated from any services or villages with no street lit footway links along Selsey Road and the rural, remote location of the site would necessitate a heavy reliance on the private car. Whilst the applicant does acknowledge this point, their reason for the holiday lodges is to attract overnight customers who will travel long distance for dinner, bed and breakfast or in conjunction with Southend Barn, a wedding venue 0.6 miles to the south of

Page 150

The Blacksmiths, Both would thereby increase footfall at The Blacksmiths and support its business. 8.11 Although there may be some economic benefit, in this case it is considered that by reason of the proposed use and the sites location, outside any settlement boundary and within a countryside location, it is considered the proposal would represent an unsustainable form of development and would be contrary to the aims contained within Policy 39 of the Chichester Local Plan and the NPPF, which puts sustainability at the heart of it aims and is ‘the golden thread’ running through decision-taking. iv) Biodiversity 8.12 Policy 49 of the Chichester Local Plan requires that biodiversity of sites is safeguarded; habitats or species are protected, avoided or mitigated and incorporate features to enhance biodiversity. In this instance, no information, surveys or documentation has been provided regarding the biodiversity of the site. Chichester District Council’s Environmental officer objects to the application, noting ‘prior to determination, we require that an extended phase one habitat survey is undertaken to determine if there is potential for protected species’. 8.13 In conclusion, the biodiversity of the site has not been investigated to establish the presence of protected species. Therefore the development does not accord with Policy 49 of the Chichester Local Plan.

v) Other considerations 8.14 The Highways Authority were consulted as part of the application and raised no objections, considering the access to the site and visibility to be sufficient and are also content about the manoeuvrability of vehicles when on-site. Should permission be granted, the Highways Authority request conditions covering vehicle turning and parking and a construction management plan.

Conclusion 8.15 Based on the above assessment it is considered the proposal is contrary to development plan policies 1, 30, 39, 45, 47, 48 and 49 and therefore the application is recommended for refusal. Human Rights 8.16 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to refuse is justified and proportionate.

Page 151

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE

1 U01073 – Unacceptable impact on rural location & listed building 2 U01074 – Insufficient Biodiversity Information

INFORMATIVE 1 W46F – App Ref Following Discussion - NWF For further information on this application please contact Chris Bartlett on 01243 534557

Page 152

Parish: East Wittering And Bracklesham

Ward: East Wittering

EWB/16/00311/FUL

Proposal Conversion of 1 no. single storey detached dwelling to form 2 no. 2 storey

semi-detached dwellings, including demolition of existing garage and outbuildings.

Site 22 Seafield Close East Wittering West Sussex PO20 8DP

Map Ref (E) 480008 (N) 96929

Applicant Mr Ben Agostinelli RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

Page 153

Agenda Item 14

2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site falls within the settlement boundary of East Wittering. The application building comprises a bungalow finished in a mixture of timber cladding, red brick and Cotswold bricks. To the eastern elevation is a car port that extends over the driveway area. There is a close timber board fencing that falls between the application primary elevation of the building and Seafield Close. The building features 3 no. windows along its front elevation and 1 no. roof light. The site currently provides off street parking for 3 vehicles on the straight driveway. There is an additional set back garage situated to the east of the dwelling. 2.2 Located to the east and west of the application site are existing residential dwellings. The dwelling to the west is orientated on the plot with a west to east emphasis. The dwelling to the east has a north to south emphasis where the gable end fronts the Seafield Close. The rear of the application building, given its orientation, is therefore set further forward in comparison to the adjacent development to the east. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the conversion of 1 no. single storey detached dwelling to form 2 no. 2 storey semi-detached dwellings, including the demolition of the existing garage and outbuildings. 4.0 History No relevant planning history 5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area NO

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

EA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council This is completely out of keeping in a road of detached bungalows, is overdevelopment of the site and will lead to problems with parking.

Page 154

6.2 Natural England This application is within 5.6km of Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and will lead to a net increase in residential accommodation. Subject to the financial contribution as required through Chichester District Council's interim policy, Natural England are satisfied that the applicant has mitigated against the potential adverse effects of the development on the integrity of the European site(s), and has no objection to this aspect of the application. 6.3 1 Third Party Objection Insufficient parking provision for increased capacity for occupation. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester District Council Local Plan: Key Policies (2014-2029) and all made neighbourhood plans. There is no made neighbourhood plan for East Wittering at this time. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: - Policy 1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) - Policy 2 (Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy) - Policy 33 (New Residential Development) - Policy 39 (Transport, Accessibility and Parking) - Policy 43 (Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)) - Policy 50 (Development of Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas) National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: 7.4 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17, which contains the Framework's Core Planning Principles.

Page 155

Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.6 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is material to the determination of this application: - Chichester District Council Development Management Service Planning Guidance Note 3 (Design Guidelines for Alterations to Dwellings and Extensions) (Revised September 2009) 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment D1 - Increasing housing supply 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of Development; ii) Impact on the Character of the area and Design; iii) Transport, Accessibility and Parking; and iv) Impact upon the Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA Assessment i) Principle of Development 8.2 This application proposes new residential development within an existing established residential curtilage. Policy 33 (New Residential Development) supports new residential development in such circumstances, subject to a number of specific criteria which are considered below. ii) Impact on the Character of the Area and Design 8.3 Policy 33 (New Residential Development) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029) requires development to meet the highest standards of design in relation to the proportion, form, massing, siting, layout, density, height, size, scale, neighbouring and public amenity and detailed design. 8.4 The proposed development seeks the subdivision of the existing dwelling into a pair of semi-detached dwellings. This subdivision is achieved through the demolition of the existing single storey extension/conservatory and garage and the erection of a small two storey side extension in keeping with the character of the existing building and a new, large flat roofed dormer window to the rear. 8.5 The form of the building, with the insertion of a dormer window to the rear, would be altered. However, the dormer window is not publicly visible from the street of Seafield Close and therefore impacts in terms of public amenity are limited. Pedestrian views of the side elevation of the application building are limited, given the proximity of adjacent development. Although the proposed dormer window would increase the massing of the dwelling, due to its size, height and scale, it would not result in any adverse impacts in terms of over massing on neighbouring amenity.

Page 156

The orientation of adjacent properties ensures that the dormer window would not be unacceptably visible or prominent in the proposed location. It should also be noted that a dormer window of similar proportions may be constructed across the rear of the existing dwelling, without the need for planning permission. 8.6 Concern has been raised during the public consultation period that the development constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed demolition of the existing garage measuring a total footprint of 21.8 square metres, and replacement two storey side extension of 18 square metre footprint, results in a net decrease in plot coverage by 3.8 square metres. The overall sprawl of the footprint across the site is therefore improved although it is accepted that there would be an increase in overall floor area facilitated by the provision of a dormer window at first floor level. 8.7 Although the proposal results in a sub-division of the existing building, with the addition of a two storey side extension and dormer window on the rear, the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts in the street scene. A gap of approximately 1.1 metre would be retained between the proposal and the side boundaries, according with the urban grain of other dwellings along Seafield Close. There is no increase in the ridge height of the building, with the rear dormer window set down below the existing ridge height of the building. The rooflights on the front elevation would be flush with the roof and are acceptable. 8.8 The application proposes the retention of the existing crossover at the eastern end of the site to serve plot 2 and the creation of a new vehicular crossover at the western end of the site to serve plot 1. A parking and turning area is proposed to the front of each dwelling, to provide for a minimum of two cars per dwelling. Parking to the front of the dwellings is a common feature along Seafield Close and it defines the character and appearance of the streetscape. The proposed parking layout is therefore in keeping with the overall character and streetscape of Seafield Close. 8.9 The proposals would not result in significant adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity given the urban grain and orientation of dwellings on the site and adjacent sites. 8.10 The applicant has not submitted any detailed design in respect of use of materials and finishes. A condition is therefore recommended requiring details of the materials and finishes, to be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. 8.11 In light of the above officer's assessment, the proposed alterations and extensions to the existing building, together with its subdivision into two dwellings, would not results in overdevelopment of the site. The proposal achieves a high quality design that takes account of the proportion, form, massing, siting, layout, density, height, size, scale neighbouring and public amenity and detailed design. Therefore, the subdivision of the existing dwelling and proposed extensions accord with the criteria contained within Policy 33 (New Residential Development) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan: Key Policies (2014-2029). iii) Transport, Accessibility and Parking 8.12 Policy 39 of the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029) requires development proposals to provide safe and adequate means of access and internal circulation/turning arrangements for all modes relevant to the proposal. 8.13 The Parish Council and neighbouring residents have raised concern that the intensification of development would result in an under-provision of parking.

Page 157

8.14 The plans retain the existing access off Seafield Close on the eastern side of the plot. A new access point would be created on the western side of the plot. The parking arrangements to the front would achieve 2 no. off-street parking spaces for each dwelling. The provision of 2 no. off-street parking spaces per dwelling accords with WSCC parking standards for 2 bedroom dwellings in this location. 8.15 In light of the above assessment, the development therefore accords with the contents of Policy 39 (Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029). iv) Impact upon Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA 8.16 Policy 50 (Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029) requires net increases in residential development to incorporate appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures. 8.17 The applicant has entered into a unilateral undertaking with the Local Planning Authority to provide a contribution in accordance with the joint mitigation strategy outlined in Phase III of the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project. 8.19 The provisions within this undertaking would offset the impacts that derive from the net increase in residential dwellings in the Chichester Harbour SPA. 8.18 In light of the above, the development provides sufficient mitigation measures and therefore accords with Policy 50 (Development and Disturbance of Birds in the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas) of the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029). CIL 8.19 The Community Infrastructure Levy was adopted by the Council on 26th January 2016 and implemented on 1st February 2016. The proposed development would be subject to CIL in accordance with the Council's Charging Schedule. The development is subject to a net internal floorspace levy of £120 sqm. Significant Conditions 8.20 It is recommended that a condition is imposed to ensure that materials are agreed with the LPA prior to the implementation of any external finish materials on site. Conclusion 8.21 Based on the above assessment the development achieves a high quality design that takes account of the street scape and associated parking provision. The proposal therefore complies with the adopted development plan policies contained within the Chichester District Council Local Plan Key Policies (2014-2029). The use of conditions ensures that a high quality design would be achieved which would mitigate any potential harm on the street scape and public visual amenity. The material considerations submitted throughout the course of the application are not considered to be significant enough to outweigh the compliance with the development plan. Therefore, planning permission is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Page 158

Human Rights 8.22 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 U00921 – Time Limit – Full 2 U00922 – No Departure from Plans 3 U00923 – Schedule of Materials 4 U01107 -- Parking Provision as Approved INFORMATIVES 1 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions For further information on this application please contact James Cross on 01243 534559

Page 159

Parish: Funtington

Ward: Funtington

FU/15/03023/FUL

Proposal Change of use of land to a single pitch site including utility building for settled

gypsy accommodation.

Site Field West Of Beachlands Nursery Newells Lane West Ashling West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 479935 (N) 106871

Applicant Mr Chris Oughton RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT WITH S106

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

Page 160

Agenda Item 15

2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is located in a countryside location in the Parish of Funtington. It is situated to the north of the main A27 and east of the settlement boundary of Hambrook. To the south of the site is open agricultural land in the same ownership as the applicant and to the east and west residential development. To the north is the West Ashling Road, with agricultural land beyond. 2.2 The site is currently laid out as a gypsy pitch, before which it was land used for the grazing of horses (prior to May 2015). Access is via a centrally situated, granular drive from West Ashling Road, which leads into the north of the site. The driveway leads to the west of the site, to the existing stables and a barn which are used in connection with the authorised use for the keeping of horses. It also leads to the east of the field to an area of hardstanding where the static mobile home subject to this application is located. A 2m closeboarded timber fence and mature trees form the boundary to the roadside to the north, with 1.8m high timber fencing and an approx. 4m conifer hedge to the eastern boundary. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The proposal seeks permanent planning permission to change the use of the land for the stationing of a single static mobile home for residential purposes for 1 gypsy and traveller pitch. 3.2 The layout of the site would comprise an area of hardstanding measuring 27m wide to the north, tapering to 23m wide to the south, with a length of 29m, this would be situated to the north west of the site. A day room and mobile home would be situated 3m from the eastern boundary. 3.3 The day room would be constructed from brick, measuring 5m x 5.1m, with low eaves of 2.5m and a pitched roof with a ridge height of 3.5m. The mobile home would be two-bed and retain its wheels and axles. 4.0 History

05/00947/FUL PER Creation of new vehicular access

and gate. 11/02399/FUL REF Erection of dwelling in connection

with associated landshare scheme. Change of use of land to a mixed use of grazing and stationing of shepherds huts for tourist lets with associated vehicular access. Erection of barn and formation of access tracks for use by landshare participants.

12/02325/FUL REF Erection of agricultural storage

building.

Page 161

12/04248/FUL PER Change of use of land from agriculture to equestrian (keeping of horses), including erection of associated stabling and permeable access track.

13/00996/DOC DISCHA Discharge of condition nos.3 and

6 of permission FU/12/04248/FUL (materials and method of disposal of stable waste).

13/03782/FUL PER Proposed new field access

crossing and gate. 13/03820/FUL PER Proposed hay barn and addition of

shingle to existing access track. 13/04214/PNO PPREQ Proposed building for agricultural

equipment storage, feed and bedding.

14/03994/FUL PER Erection of stable building with 6

no. lose boxes, plus tack and feed store and external manure area.

14/04121/COU PER Change of use to include an

additional use of keeping horses and grazing.

15/02036/DOC DOCDEC Discharge of conditions 3 and 13

of planning permission FU/14/03994/FUL.

5.0 Constraints Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO

EA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

Page 162

6.0 Representations and Consultations Parish Council 6.1 Funtington Parish Council objects strongly to this application on the following grounds: 1. An application for a dwellinghouse on this site has already been refused by the Planning Authority. 2. Development on the site would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the countryside and would be contrary to the Planning Authority's previously declared policy so far as the site concerned. 3. There is currently an application before the Planning Authority for 10 sites for permanent mobile home pitches within 100 yards of the application site and there is no demonstrable need for further sites in the area. 4. The development would necessitate a new access onto West Ashling Road at a point where vehicle speeds are high and further accesses are not justified. 5. Recently declared national policy has been stated that sites for permanently sited mobile homes should be determined on the same criteria as permanent residential properties. We shall be obliged if this application might be refused and, insofar as the development has proceeded, that the land should be restored to its previous condition forthwith. WSCC Highways 6.2 West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no. FU/14/04121/COU to which no objections were raised. This proposal has been considered by means of a desktop study, as well as a site visit, using the information and plans submitted with this application, in conjunction with other available WSCC map information. A site visit was carried out on 8th October 2015. The proposal is for a single travellers pitch with access onto West Ashling Road via a modified access point, alterations to which do not appear to have been granted planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. The most recently available verified accident records reveal there have been no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the existing point of access, indicating a low risk of highway safety issues with this proposal. The proposal will result in an intensification to the site and if the access does not require a separate planning permission, this shall have to be sought, including conditions on visibility and construction. The proposal for a single pitch should not in itself be detrimental to Highway Safety.

Page 163

CDC Planning Policy 5 November 2015 6.3 The Development Plan The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies was adopted by the Council on 14th July 2015. Policy 36 Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople sets out a criteria based approach to identifying sites within the plan area as part of a forthcoming Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocation DPD and for determining planning applications. The application should be judged against the criterion within Policy 36, particular reference is made to criterion 6 which refers to sites in rural / semi-rural areas not dominating the nearest settled or Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople community. The site is in the vicinity of a number of existing Gypsy and Traveller sites. Also relevant is Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) which was amended in August 2015. It should be noted that government guidance has amended the planning definition of gypsies and travellers. There is a need for applicants to demonstrate whether they have led a nomadic way of life, the reasons for ceasing their nomadic way of life and whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future (PPTS Annex 1). While the applicant has provided information on their genealogy as a Gypsy and indicated that they travel and that they wish to settle on the site, there is no information provided as to why they wish to cease travelling etc. Other relevant Local Plan policies include: 22, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49 and 50. Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) and Five Year Supply: As part of the Councils assessment of need, the Council in partnership with the Coastal West Sussex Authorities (Arun, Adur and Worthing) and the South Downs National Park Planning Authority with support from West Sussex County Council, commissioned a Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Assessment (GTAA) (2012/13). The GTAA identified a total need for 59 pitches for gypsies and travellers and 18 plots for travelling showpeople within the Plan area during the plan period. With a specific need for 37 gypsy and traveller sites before 2017. The Council has granted permission for 36 pitches which means there is a shortfall of 1 pitch compared to the GTAA requirements (as outlined in Policy 36). As the Five Year Supply is rolled forward we currently have 3.8 years supply of pitches. There is therefore a need for 1 pitch (up to 2017) and a further 7 for the period 2018 2020. This is based on figures current at the time of writing this response. Conclusion It is acknowledged that there is a small need for gypsy and traveller pitches with need for 1 pitch up to 2017, and a five year supply of 3.8 years. There is however a policy objection to the proposal based on the need to demonstrate whether the applicant has provided enough evidence to comply with the planning definition set out in Annex 1 of the PPTS. If this cannot be proven the application should be refused as development in the countryside and contrary to Local Plan policies.

Page 164

14 April 2016 Further to comments from Planning Policy (5 November 2015) which outlined a lack of 5 year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites (3.8 years) and concerns that the applicant had not provided enough evidence to comply with the planning definition set out in Annex 1 of the PPtS. We have confirmed in an email (13 April 2016) that the Council still does not have a five year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites (4.3 years). It is therefore acknowledged that there remains a small need for gypsy and traveller pitches [4Pitches]. The agent has also subsequently provided ‘supporting evidence to demonstrate a nomadic way of life’ (12 April 2016), while the applicant does not to appear to be travelling at present due to medical reasons, it is clear that he has had a nomadic life and will continue to do so when he is recovered. Therefore the objections made in our response of the 5 November should be withdrawn. CDC Licensing Officer 6.4 If permission is granted please could an advisory be attached to the permission reminding the relevant person of the following; A caravan Site License will need to be obtained under the Caravan Site and Control of development Act 1960. More details of the application process and the type of condition that are attached to a Site Licence can be found via the webpage. South Downs National Park 6.5 Please note the assessment of this proposal is based on potential impacts upon the setting of the adjacent National Park, and not on other policy considerations such as the principle of the proposed use. The South Downs National Park Authority has no objection to the proposal. However, if the boundary fencing forms part of this application, it would be preferable if the fencing immediately around the site entrance could be reduced or set behind screening planting, which would be in line with the sensitive approach advocated in para 4.11 of the CLG Good Practice Guide on Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites, 2008. The SDNPA trust that the above comments are helpful to Chichester District Council in the appraisal and determination of this planning application, in consideration of the setting and special qualities of the South Downs National Park. Third Party Objection 6.6 One Third Party objection has been received concerning the following; 1. Retrospective application 2. New dwelling in the rural area

Page 165

Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information 6.7 In addition to the information already provided, the agent has submitted the following supporting information (in summary).

1. A gypsy genealogy society document has been provided to support the heritage. With further information supporting his gypsy traveller status.

2. A confidential letter is included from the applicants doctor setting out health conditions and needing a settled base to live on site, warrants help with his health issues and enables his to travel. The applicant currently takes medication for his health.

3. The applicant is happy to accept a personal condition 4. The applicant continues to travel to fairs, shows and horse sales, but general

nomadic way of life has ceased. 5. Having a settled base enables the applicant to maintain a semblance of his gypsy

heritage, but enable his health to improve at his age. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all made neighbourhood plans. There is no made neighbourhood plan for Funtington at this time. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Page 166

7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles). 7.5 In addition to the overarching policies in the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (PPTS) August 2015. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.6 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living B3 - Environmental Resources C3 - A culturally enriched and empowered community D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of development and identified need ii) Impact on the character of the area iii) Impact on neighbouring amenity iv) Drainage v) Highways vi) Nature conservation Assessment i) Principle of development and identified need 8.2 Policy H of the PPTS relates to determining planning applications for traveller sites and requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It also advises that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and planning policy H for traveller sites and local development plan policies. The main considerations are set out below; a) Existing level of local provision and the need for sites 8.3 The Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and travelling showpeople assessment (GTA) identified a total need for a minimum of 59 pitches for gypsies and travellers within the plan area during the plan period, with a specific need for 37 no. gypsy and traveller pitches before 2017.

Page 167

8.4 A number of pitches have been granted in recent years and as such there is only a requirement for one further pitch up to 2017. However the Council must also evidence an up-to-date 5 year supply, there is a requirement for an additional 4 no. pitches 2016-2021 and this has not yet been met. There is therefore still an identified local need up to 2021. b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation 8.5 The two public Gypsy and Traveller sites in Chichester District (Easthampnett and Westbourne) are fully occupied and are subject to a significant waiting list. There are therefore no public pitches available to the applicant. c) Personal circumstances of the applicant 8.6 The applicant is identified as a gypsy and traveller under the definition in the PPTS. The applicant is on the waiting list for the WSCC sites, however there is a significant wait for accommodation. In accordance with paragraph 2 of the Annex 1 there are three considerations; i) Whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life ii) the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life iii) whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future and if so how soon and in what circumstances. 8.7 The applicant has provided supporting information to demonstrate their own personal need to have a permanent location. The supporting information takes the form of a doctors letter from Southbourne surgery, where the applicant is currently registered. The doctor advises upon the mental health of the applicant and confirms that a permanent location would significantly benefit their health and wellbeing, allowing them to maintain access to the GP surgery to receive treatment. 8.8 The applicant advises that they would not seek to completely cease a nomadic way of life and would still be in attendance at fairs and shows throughout the UK. The applicant has provided a list of these which include Epsom Derby, Appleby Horsefair and Priddy Horse Fair, Devon. However the applicant would require a permanent base to allow for the treatment of his ongoing health issues. For these reasons it is subsequently considered that the applicant meets the requirements in Annex 1. d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites 8.9 Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan Key Policies 2014-2029 sets out specific criteria, which are in conformity to the PPTS, for assessing the suitability of sites 1) Well related to existing settlements/close to major roads and/or public transport 2) Safe and convenient vehicle access, suitable topography and already served by

the necessary infrastructure. 3) Able to achieve a reasonable level of visual acoustic privacy, provide an

acceptable level of amenity for proposed or existing neighbouring residents. 4) Not compromise the essential features of nationally designated areas of

landscape, historical or nature conservation protection. 5) Avoid area of flood risk or locations adjacent to incompatible uses or hazards

including contaminated land.

Page 168

6) Respect the scale of the nearest settled community and not dominate it or place undue pressure on the local infrastructure

e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections 8.10 The applicant has provided supporting information that demonstrates their status as a gypsy meeting the definition as set out in Annex 1 paragraph 1 of the PPTS. It is however considered necessary that a condition to restrict the occupation of the site to gypsies and travellers is applied to ensure that the terms of any permission accord with the justification the provision of the pitch. 8.11 Paragraph 25 of Policy H and criteria 6 of policy 36 of the Local Plan, advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. LPAs should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of and do not dominate the nearest settled community and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure. 8.12 The application site measures approx. 783sqm forming the north east portion of a larger parcel of land approx. 0.19hectare. The mobile home is presently stationed on the land and occupied by the applicant in the location proposed within the planning application. The site forms a small cluster of development on West Ashling Road and is outside any defined Settlement Policy Boundary. West Ashling Road links directly to Broad Road, which provides a local village shop and Post Office (approximately 1.7km). Broad Road is the main Road through Hambrook which provides direct access to the A259 Main Road, linking to Chichester, Emsworth and Southbourne. Given the Nomadic habit of life associated with gypsies and travellers, a travelling distance of 1.7km is considered to be appropriate and would enable the occupiers of the site to access a reasonable range of local services and facilities by public transport. 8.13 Having regard to the definition of sustainability as set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF and within the PPTS, the site would not be sustainable for most forms of residential use and would not meet the requirements of the NPPF for permanent settled residential accommodation. However, given the nature of the proposal for gypsy and travellers as outlined above, and the identified need to be met within the District it is considered to be in a location with sufficient links to local infrastructure to be considered acceptable. 8.14 Policy C of the PPTS seeks to ensure that the scale of such sites do not dominate the nearest settled community. The site is located in an area that is characterised by low density residential development, formed along road frontages, with agricultural buildings and operations. There are a number of permitted gypsies and travelling showpeoples pitches to the west of the site, at Tower View Nursery, and also to the south. These are separated by the pasture land in ownership by the applicant. It is not considered that an additional single pitch would result in a significant increase in gypsy and travelling sites that would overwhelm the nearby settled community. The proposal would be contained in the northern corner of the wider site, adjacent to the site known as Beachlands Nursery and it is considered this location would allow it to integrate well with existing development without causing material harm or detrimental impact on the sporadic residential development in the immediate area.

Page 169

8.15 Paragraph 26 advises that 'considering applications local planning authorities should attach weight to the four following matters; a) Effective use of previously developed, untidy or derelict land. b) Promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate

landscaping and play areas for children c) Sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance

the environment and increase its openness d) Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences, that the

impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community

8.16 The proposal is generally considered to be in conformity with the four above criteria. There is an existing 1.8m timber close boarded fence to the front of the site along the West Ashling Road, which provides screening to the roadside. However this is softened by mature landscaping and provides security to a rather open site on a main road. Additional planting has been provided by the applicant around the hardstanding and to the southern boundary to the site. Given the shortfall of a five year supply in the district it is considered this proposal is acceptable. ii) Impact on the character of the area 8.17 Criteria 4 of Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires that development does not compromise nationally important features. Policy H of the PPTS advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan, however where sites are within the rural area LPAs should ensure that sites respect the scale of an do not dominate the nearest settled community and avoid placing undue pressure on the local infrastructure. 8.18 The site is located outside any specific landscape designations, with the South Downs National Park to the north. It is well screened from public vantage points by existing vegetation and boundary screening and given the low level development proposed it is not considered the site would not have an impact on the character of the wider landscape setting. iii) Impact on the amenities of surrounding properties 8.19 Policy 36 of the Local Plan requires that development would provide for a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for occupiers and neighbours. The closest neighbouring residential property is located to the south east of the site known as 'Beachlands Nursery'. It is considered that due to the distance, orientation, low level nature of the proposal and boundary screening, that there would not be an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, in particular to their outlook, privacy, available light or noise generated by the development, which is residential in nature. iv) Drainage 8.20 Policy 36 of the Local Plan (criteria 5) refers to flooding and contaminated land. The site is not located on land identified as being in a flood zone by the Environment Agency, nor is it known to be contaminated land. The site would remain largely laid to grass, maintained as paddock land in association with the lawful keeping of horses. Given the location of the site, the buildings and hardstanding, it is considered proportionate to condition surface water drainage details.

Page 170

v) Highways 8.21 The site would utilise an existing access off West Ashling Road. This was a field access and the applicants have formalised it by laying hardcore and clearing vegetation to allow greater visibility splays when exiting the site. WSCC have queried whether this has received consent, however the access is historical and the changes involved would not have required planning permission. It formed part of the access related to the use of the land to the west for the keeping of horses WSCC have advised they have no objection to the access for one single pitch. There would be adequate provision for parking and turning space adjacent to the mobile home, on the hardstanding. vi) Nature Conservation 8.22 The site lies within the 5.6km buffer of Chichester Harbour, a designated Special Protection Area (SPA), Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Ramsar site, and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The LPA has a duty to protect this area under the Habitat Regulations and through the NPPF and policy 50 of the adopted Local Plan. Residential development within this buffer could have a significant effect on the features for which the site is internationally and nationally designated. As set out and explained in the Interim Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Special Protection Areas and identified Compensatory Habitats, each proposed site for residential occupation attracts a charge of £174 to off-set recreational disturbance and fund mitigation within the harbour. This applies to all sites for residential occupancy including gypsy and traveller sites and affordable housing. The applicant has provided this financial contribution toward mitigation. Significant Conditions 8.23 The application is considered acceptable, subject to a number of conditions, including the use of the site by gypsy and travellers only, together with conditions relating to the number and siting of the touring caravans. Additionally details relating to surface water drainage. Conclusion 8.24 Based on the above assessment it is considered that although the proposal in part conflicts with the development plan policies, the unmet need to gypsy and travellers pitches in general is afforded weight in favour of the proposal and complies with the advice in the NPPF and the PPTS, therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.25 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of any affected parties have been taken into account. The proposal requires engagement of the 1998 act, however, taking account of rights under Article 8 of Section 1 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. . Equalities 8.26 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes

Page 171

discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant. "In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty: (1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act. (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level. However, the duties do not require a particular outcome. What the decision making body chooses to do once it has had the required regard is for it to decide subject to the ordinary constraints of public and discrimination law. In conclusion, the actual needs of the applicant need to be weighed against the harm that this development would cause to neighbours, along with all of the material planning considerations. The decision must be proportionate in the light of all the circumstances of this case". RECOMMENDATION PERMIT WITH S106 1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U00815 Plans 3 U00811 Occupation 4 U00812 Materials 5 U00814 2 caravan 6 U00816 no hardstanding 7 U00817 day room use 8 U00819 Surface water drainage 9 U00818 retention hedge tree INFORMATIVES 1 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Caitlin Boddy on 01243 534346

Page 172

Parish: Loxwood

Ward: Plaistow

LX/15/03625/FUL

Proposal Replacement dwelling.

Site Mallards Farm Guildford Road Loxwood West Sussex RH14 0QW

Map Ref (E) 504059 (N) 133066

Applicant Mr Des Moore RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

Page 173

Agenda Item 16

2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application sites is located at the northern end of a spur road off Guildford Road within the open countryside to the north of Loxwood. There is an existing 2-bedroomed mobile home, which benefits from a lawful development certificate for use as a dwelling, on the site and an outbuilding. The existing dwelling is the northern-most of three detached properties grouped together at the end of the lane. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 This application seeks planning permission for a replacement dwelling. The dwelling would have 1 bedroom, a kitchen/living room and a bathroom, and it would measure approximately 10.5m (w) x 4.9m (d) x 4.3m (h). 4.0 History

14/02872/ELD PER The annexe and mobile home at the site used as self-contained dwellings for at least 18 years both sharing an area of private garden separate from the main dwelling.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area YES

AONB NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

EA Flood Zone

- Flood Zone 2 NO

- Flood Zone 3 NO

Historic Parks and Gardens

NO

6.0 Consultations and Representations 6.1 Loxwood Parish Council: Objection - No attempt has been made to show how this application complies with Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan policies 8, 10, 13, 15 and 17. In addition this application does not comply with NPPF Policy 55 and Chichester Local Plan Policy 45 paragraphs 2 and 3. There is no detailed design drawings to show the proposal fits in its setting. 6.2 Environment Agency: No objection

Page 174

6.3 Representations: None received. 7.0 Planning Policy 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP) and all made neighbourhood plans. The Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan was made on the 14 July 2015 and forms part of the Development Plan against which applications must be considered. Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2014-2029) 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 25: Development in the North of the Plan area Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan (2013-2029): 7.3 The relevant policies of the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan are: Policy 8: Infrastructure – Foul Water Policy 10: Built Environment Policy 13: House extensions – Style and vernacular Policy 15: Telecommunications and Connectivity Policy 17: Environmental Characteristics National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 14 and 17 (Core Planning Principles) and sections 6, 7, 10 and 11 generally.

Page 175

7.6 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB), which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area, local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment D3 - Housing fit for purpose 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of development ii) Design and impact on heritage assets iii) Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties iv) Highway considerations vi) Other matters Assessment i) Principle of development and sustainability 8.2 The existing building is a mobile home with an existing lawful use as a residential dwelling and this application seeks permission for a replacement dwelling. The proposal, therefore, does not constitute a new dwelling in the countryside. Policy 33 of the CLP states that planning permission will be granted for replacement dwellings subject to certain criteria such as design, scale, character, form, massing and siting. Furthermore, the text accompanying Policy 46 of the CLP supports replacement of buildings within the countryside where the original buildings are of a poor design, scale and do not respect the landscape character or its surroundings. 8.3 In this case, the existing mobile home is of no architectural merit and the proposed replacement dwelling is of improved design whilst also retaining the scale of the existing dwelling and will therefore visually enhance the landscape character of the area. It is therefore considered that the principle of the proposed development would accord with the policies of the Local Plan.

Page 176

ii) Design and impact upon character of the surrounding area 8.4 Section 7 of the NPPF requires good design that improves the overall quality of the area, with Paragraph 56 of the NPPF stating that "good design is indivisible from good planning". Policy 33 of the Local Plan requires new development to meet the highest standards of design and to be appropriate in terms of the proportion, form, massing, siting, scale and detailed design to ensure that proposals respect and where possible enhance the character of the surrounding area and the site. 8.5 The design and shape of the replacement dwelling has been kept simple with brick elevations under a hipped tiled roof. The application has been amended since it was submitted to re-orientate the dwelling so that the replacement dwelling has its main aspect facing south rather than north. This amendment ensures the dwelling is looking into the site rather than out of the site, minimising any views of detailed fenestration and thereby keeping the development in a simple format when viewed from outside the site. The site is well screened by a number of substantial trees to the north and west and the proposed development will have no significant impact on the character of the area. 8.6 The floor area is larger than the existing dwelling, with an increase from 31.8m2 to 47.5m2, and the mass and bulk would be greater as a result of the pitched roof and larger footprint. However, the scale of the proposal is still considered to be appropriate for the location. The proposed development would respect the form, rural character and local style of building of its immediate surroundings through the use of simple and locally found materials, and, due to the scale of the dwelling, would not materially harm the openness of or the character of the countryside. In addition, the scale and layout of development within the immediate surroundings is that of sporadic development with no distinct building line. The proposal therefore accord with the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan in respect of its design and impact upon the character of the locality. iii) Impact upon amenities of neighbouring properties 8.7 The proposed dwelling would replace an existing mobile home which has a lawful use as a dwelling. There are no dwellings to the north, east or west that would be affected by the proposed development and the property to the south is within the same ownership as the proposed replacement dwelling and located 11m south of the proposed development. 8.8 There are no additional windows on any elevations compared with those on the existing mobile home. The proposed development would, therefore, not cause any additional overlooking to the nearest property to the south. 8.9 The proposed development retains the single storey scale of the existing mobile home and although has a pitched, hipped roof, is not significantly bulkier than the mobile home. It is considered that the proposed development would not have any overbearing impact on the property to the south or cause any significant loss of light or amenity. 8.10 For the reasons set out above it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in respect of the impact upon neighbours. iv) Highway Considerations

Page 177

8.11 The proposed development would not result in any material change to the traffic to and from the site and parking would be provided adjacent to the dwelling as per the existing arrangements. The proposal would therefore meet the requirements of Policy 39 of the CLP to ensure that new development benefits from safe and adequate access and would not have an adverse impact upon the highway network. v) Other matters 8.12 The proposed dwelling would be served by a septic tank and the Environment Agency have no objections to this given that this is the existing form of foul drainage on the site. The surface water drainage would be managed by way of SUDs. The applicant has also confirmed that high speed broadband is available at the site. Significant Conditions 8.13 It is recommended that conditions to ensure high quality materials appropriate for the location are used, and also to limit extensions and alterations to the proposed building without planning permission are imposed in the interests of protecting the character of the locality. In order to ensure that the foul and surface water drainage provision is satisfactory a condition is recommended requiring full details to be submitted and a condition is also recommended requiring the developer to make provision for connection with the future connection with the broadband network. Conclusion 8.14 Based on the above, it is considered the proposal complies with Chichester Local Plan Policies 1, 2, 25, 33 and 39 and Neighbourhood Plan Policies 8, 10, 13, 15 and 17. Therefore, the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.15 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

Page 178

Recommendation: PERMIT 1 A01F – Time Limit - Full 2 B01G – No Departure from Plans 3 U01115 – Materials & Finishes 4 U01116 – Surface and Foul Water Drainage 5 U01117 – Permitted Development Rights Removed 6 U01118 – Refuse & Cycle Storage 7 U01119 – Landscaping 8 U01120 – Landscaping 9 U01121 – Treatment of Boundary 10 U01122 – Broadband connection INFORMATIVE 1 U01123 – Positive & Proactive Planning For further information on this application please contact Chris Bartlett on 01243 534557

Page 179

Parish: Oving

Ward: North Mundham

O/15/03720/OUT

Proposal Additional 85 dwellings on land with outline approval for 500 dwellings under

reference O/11/05283/OUT.

Site Land On The North Side Of Shopwhyke Road Shopwhyke West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 488000 (N) 105000

Applicant Hanbury Properties RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

Page 180

Agenda Item 17

2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is situated within the Parish of Oving, north and north-west of the hamlet of Shopwhyke and on the eastern edge of Chichester. The overall Shopwyke Lakes site is approximately 2km from the city centre as-the-crow-flies and comprises an irregular shaped parcel of land of approximately 32 hectares. The site measures 3.05 hectares and forms a parcel of previously developed land wholly within the broader masterplan development area on which outline planning permission has been granted for a residential led mixed use development of 500 new homes (O/11/05283/OUT). The application site has been levelled and re-profiled as part of the whole site following reserved matters permission O/14/02826/REM which permitted construction of the main spine road for the greater Shopwyke Lakes development and integration of the network of sustainable drainage features. There are therefore currently no physical boundaries to the application site apart from a small part of the north-west boundary which is defined by the location of the existing large central lake. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application is for 85 dwellings and is submitted in outline with all matters reserved save for access. Matters relating to the layout of the site, the scale and appearance of the dwellings, the landscaping and provision of open space are therefore not before the Committee at this time. The mix of dwellings is not specified but will comply with the Council's requirements in terms of providing 30% affordable housing (25.5 units) and a mix reflecting housing needs as demonstrated by the Strategic Market Housing Assessment (SHMA). Access to the land parcel forming the application site is anticipated to be initially from the north and the west via the road layout currently under consideration following reserved matters approval O/14/02826/REM and from the reserved matters application O/15/03964/REM for 398 dwellings which will be reported to the Committee in due course. 3.2 In terms of movement and access, the Design Code and Regulatory Plan which were also permitted under O/14/02826/REM and which establish a detailed development brief or template for how the whole Shopwyke Lakes development is to be carried out indicate that further routes into and out of the site will be provided from the remaining land parcel to the south. The location of these these will be formally determined as and when the layout for that area is submitted as part of a further reserved matters application. An illustrative drawing submitted with the application indicates that the area occupied by the dwellings plus an area of green open space required by the development (0.114ha) would result in a density of development of about 36dph. 3.3 The surface water drainage strategy for the whole Shopwyke Lakes site has been secured through reserved matters permission O/14/02826/REM and the overarching scheme in this regard will be refined through the detailed layout to be submitted with a subsequent reserved matters application. Foul water drainage is by mains to Tangmere Wastewater Treatment Works where headroom allowance for 85 dwellings has been secured in the parish housing numbers for Chichester city under Local Plan policy 5. 3.4 The application is accompanied by a request for a screening opinion under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. The Authority has screened the development proposals and concluded that within the meaning of the Regulations the submission of an Environmental Statement is not required.

Page 181

4.0 History 11/05283/OUT PER106 Urban extension comprising a

residential development of 500 dwellings within a parkland setting together with employment redevelopment and associated vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access, drainage and landscape, community facilities, elderly care village, localised retail units, major new public open spaces.

14/02826/REM PER Construction of spine road and

associated site levelling and re-profiling works

14/03560/OUT PER106 Urban extension comprising a

residential development of 500 dwellings within a parkland setting together with employment redevelopment and associated vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access, drainage and landscape, community facilities, elderly care village, localised retail units, major new public open spaces - Variation of condition 17 regarding Shopwhyke Road access.

15/03502/OBG PER Variation of S106 to re-designate

SANGS as core open space and public open space and payment of recreational mitigation contribution.

15/03964/REM PDE Proposed 398 Units together with

838sqm of commercial floorspace. Application for approval of reserved matters following outline planning permission O/11/05283/OUT in respect of appearance, layout and scale.

Page 182

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area YES

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

EA Flood Zone FZ1

- Flood Zone 2 NO

- Flood Zone 3 NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Oving Parish Council This application was discussed at the Council's Planning Committee meeting on 10th December 2015. The developers had met councillors on 26th November to explain this proposal to make more effective use of land within the agreed masterplan. The Council recognises the need for additional housing and has no objection in principle with the further houses being proposed for the Shopwyke Lakes development as a consequence of making more effective use of land within the agreed masterplan. However, it was clear that the objections raised previously in relation to the application for 500 houses at Shopwyke Lakes remain valid. It was therefore decided to comment as follows: 1. The NPPF Section 14 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development and Section 7 explains that there are 3 dimensions to this: An economic, a social and an environmental role. The social role is explained as: "supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being". The Council is concerned that the submission of separate planning applications for the initial 500 homes, this additional 85 homes together with a potential 100 or more homes south of Shopwyke Lakes will lead Chichester District Council to consider each application in isolation, instead of reviewing infrastructure capacity for existing residents of the parish together with the overall requirements arising from all this prospective development. A review of infrastructure capacity is required under the NPPF in order to ensure provision of "a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being". This proposed development, like the initial 500 home application, is not included or approved as part of the adopted Local Plan. However, it appears that the proposed allocation within the agreed Shopwyke Lakes Strategic Development Location (SDL) is to fulfil part of the housing shortfall identified by the Inspector for the Local Plan which she confirmed may be located adjoining the Chichester City settlement boundary. As this development is outwith the Local Plan it is essential that the impact of this application on infrastructure is considered alongside the impact of the earlier and potential further applications. They cannot be treated in isolation.

Page 183

2. Allowance for additional traffic generation is woefully inadequate. The spine road proved inadequate for the site, being too narrow, with inadequate pavements. The traffic implications of these applications will have a major impact on the residents of Oving Parish and neighbouring parishes. We estimate that there will be approximately at least 340 vehicle movements associated with the additional 85 houses and 400 vehicle movements with the 100 houses on the south side of the road. In the event that the Oving Traffic Lights are permanently closed as planned, then most of these vehicle movements will be forced to use either the "Spine Road" (known as Main Street) through the Shopwyke Lakes development or through alternative routes (like Drayton Lane) that are already heavily congested. It is inconceivable that all these vehicle movements, in addition to those associated with the approved 500 new houses and the vehicle movements already using the traffic lights as their preferred route into Chichester, should be allowed to travel along roads through a new housing estate. The highest density of housing is along Main Street and the risk of accidents to residents and their children is unacceptable. The pollution from this traffic is also a major concern for the residents of the Shopwyke Lakes development. 3. This extension to the City forms a new "neighbourhood" which it appears may be removed from the Parish of Oving to become part of the urban city settlement. This has serious implications for the Parish and its historic need for additional infrastructure and services, such as a school, health services and regular public transport. The Council objects to this possibility as it can only serve to create inequality between infrastructure provision for the urban and rural areas. 4. The provision of a satellite settlement to Chichester requires Oving Traffic Lights to remain open. 5. Parking provision within the Shopwyke Lakes site as a whole is inadequate. The 2 football pitches and a cricket oval, for example, are provided with only 20 places, which are insufficient for playing teams (The Fishbourne Centre reportedly has close to 70 places). Increasing the housing density must not result in a loss of amenity space such as visitors parking, local play spaces and open spaces for recreation and exercise of dogs, but enable improvement of such provision. 6. It is questionable whether the sewerage pipe capacity from the Shopwyke Lakes development to the new Tangmere Waste Water Treatment Plant is adequate to serve the existing settlements within Oving Parish coupled with planned new developments at Westhampnett, Tangmere, Boxgrove and the new Shopwyke development, given the uplift capacity of 3,000 units. Additional pipe capacity will be required for this additional 85 houses and any further housing applications in the area, otherwise the historic problems of sewerage rising in homes in the parish during heavy rain will not be addressed as previously promised. 7. Primary School children from Oving currently attend the March School at Westhampnett, which will not have sufficient capacity to accept children from Shopwyke Lakes, and secondary schools in Chichester. Additional local school capacity will be required at primary and secondary level to serve this development. 6.2 Tangmere Parish Council Object for the following material reasons: 1. The intensification of this site will lead to significant extra vehicle movements on

Oving Road to the detriment of other highway users;

Page 184

2. The intensification of development of this site will place additional capacity at Tangmere Wastewater Treatment Works.

3. Insufficient additional Public Open Space provided commensurate with this increased number of dwellings at variance with Local Plan Policy No.54 and the soon to be adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

6.3 Chichester City Council No objection in principle to the proposals for an additional 85 dwellings but continues to support the retention of the Oving traffic light junction. 6.4 Chichester Harbour Conservancy The Conservancy has no objection to this application, but asks that the following matters be negotiated if possible:- - Securing of appropriate financial contribution for the additional 85 dwellings as mitigation for recreational disturbance to Chichester Harbour through the Council's Interim Policy / the SDMP Interim Strategy; - Securing of additional financial contribution for any loss of apportioned SANG for approved 500 houses as a result of this current application, as advised and calculated by Natural England; - SANG or 'Core Open Space' to be informal with no restrictions on dogs being exercised off the lead, with LEAPs, NEAPs, sports pitches etc being located elsewhere within the development (as also advised by Natural England); - The proposed development being connected to the Tangmere Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) to avoid exacerbating problems at the Apuldram WWTW. 6.5 Environment Agency No comments to make. Note intention for foul drainage from the site to go to mains. 6.6 Southern Water The commissioning of the requisitioned sewer is subject to the completion of on-site drainage works (including construction of the foul pumping station) carried out by the developer and approved under S.104 of the Water Industry Act. Connection to the public sewerage system should only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that there is adequate treatment and sewerage capacity available to serve the development. Recommend condition saying that occupation should not occur until the LPA is satisfied that there are adequate wastewater treatment facilities to effectively drain the development. 6.7 Highways England Highways England (formerly the Highways Agency) responded in full to planning application O/11//5283/OUT relating to this strategic housing site in February 2013 following extensive analysis, discussion and negotiation over the transport related impacts to the SRN resulting from the proposed development. The outcome of that work was to apply conditions to any permissions granted by the authority. This application (15/037209/OUT) seeks outline consent for an additional 85 dwellings within the existing masterplan area on which the original outline consent has been granted. Accordingly, the conditions which applied to the existing consent shall also be applied to this particular new application. For example Highways Agency Condition 2 specified that 'No more than 124 dwellings in the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the completion and opening to public use of the

Page 185

footbridge over the A27 Chichester Bypass and associated unclimbable barrier within the central reserve of the A27, to the west of the site, as shown on drawing number 2010-1227-047 rev A (or such other scheme of works substantially to the same effect, as may be approved in writing by the local planning authority (who shall consult with the Highways Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport))'. Accordingly, no more than 124 dwellings shall be occupied until the completion of this condition regardless of whether they are solely from the existing consented application (O/11//5283/OUT) or as a combination with this new application (15/037209/OUT) for 85 dwellings if granted consent. More simply, if granted consent the final 85 dwellings on the application site cannot be occupied until such time as all of the conditions in the original consent have been met and discharged accordingly. On the basis of the above requirement Highways England would not seek to object to the proposal. Finally, whilst the original consented application provided mitigation of the adverse traffic impacts of that development you may wish to consider whether or not, in line with any emerging charging policy from your authority, this additional development of 85 dwellings is required to contribute towards the agreed A27 Chichester Bypass Local Plan improvements. [Planning Officer Comment: The A27 contribution sought on the basis of the Cabinet approved amendment to the SPD is £222,275 (£2,615 per dwelling). The Committee will recall that a contribution in respect of the A27 has recently been secured through a S.106 agreement with regard to the Lower Graylingwell development of 160 dwellings in Chichester.] 6.8 Natural England The additional 85 units will be subject to the £176 per dwelling tariff. 6.9 Sussex Police Comments made about the need for the design and layout to incorporate and demonstrate crime and disorder measures. Important that the boundary between public space and private areas are clearly indicated. The public open space to the west of the 85 dwellings has good surveillance from both sides. 6.10 WSCC - Highways The Local Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed development. The internal layout will be considered further at the appropriate reserved matters stage. 6.11 CDC - Environmental Health Officer The additional dwellings are not anticipated to significantly alter the conclusions of the air quality assessment previously carried out for the previous scheme. All mitigation measures that have been previously suggested to reduce the impact of the development on local air quality should be put in place for this development. The measures within the Travel Plan to encourage the use of sustainable transport should be applied to these additional dwellings. Standard land contamination conditions N21G and N23F were applied to the previous scheme and these conditions should also be applied to this additional development. The construction management plan previously agreed (condition 15 of application O/11/05283/OUT) should also be applied to this application in order to control emissions to the environment (such as dust or other particles).

Page 186

6.12 CDC - Housing Enabling Officer The application should deliver the full Local Plan 30% quota of affordable housing and together with the market houses must meet the SHMA recommendations. 6.13 CDC - Drainage Engineer Once a detailed layout has been agreed, it would be beneficial to have updated Micro Drainage printouts that consider the agreed impermeable areas including the development proposed in this application, to ensure that the flood risk assessment and drainage strategy may still be applied. 6.14 CDC - Community Facilities We had previously agreed a per dwelling figure of the amount of floor area designated as community buildings and on that basis I would therefore suggest that this figure is increased pro rata to reflect the greater number of dwellings. For an additional 85 dwellings I would suggest this represents a further 70.8sqm of community facility floorspace. 6.15 2 Third Party Objections Cramming too many houses on the sites Services will not cope Loss of tree cover on east boundary will affect privacy Drainage and potential flooding Traffic congestion Harmful impact on setting of listed building 6.16 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement as well as a Planning Statement, Surface and Foul Water Drainage Statements, a Transport Statement, information regarding Ecology and from Natural England and a statement on Heritage Impact. 7.0 Planning Policy Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 7: Masterplanning Strategic Development Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 12: Water Resources in the Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Catchment Policy 13: Chichester City Transport Strategy

Page 187

Policy 16: Shopwyke Strategic Development Location Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Policy 47: Heritage Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas Policy 52: Green Infrastructure Policy 54: Open Space, Sport and Recreation National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 14 and 15 (the presumption in favour of sustainable development and approving such development without delay), 17 (Core Planning Principles), 32 (only refusing development on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts are severe), 49 (the requirement to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites), 50 (to deliver a wide choice of quality homes), 56 (requiring good design as a key aspect of sustainable development), 59 (using design codes where they could help deliver quality outcomes), 186 (approaching decision taking in a positive way), 187 (looking for solutions rather than problems in decision taking). 7.5 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends

Page 188

S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.6 The following document is relevant to consideration and determination of this application: Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (January 2016). 7.7 The Chichester Site Allocation Development Plan Document (DPD) (Draft) flows from the adopted Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029. Procedurally the formal consultation on the Preferred Approach ended on 18 February. At the time of writing the timetable going forward anticipates the 6 week statutory public consultation (Reg 19) commencing in May, submission to the Secretary of State in September, Examination in January 2017 and Adoption in the Spring of 2017. In terms of relevance to this application, the DPD sets out to deliver small scale residential sites both in Chichester City and on sites surrounding the settlement boundary, including sites separated from the settlement boundary by the A27. The DPD responds to policy 5 of the Local Plan which confirms that Chichester City (or sites adjoining the city in neighbouring parishes) in addition to the strategic development sites on its periphery at West of Chichester, Westhampnett/NE Chichester and at Shopwyke, needs to provide an additional 235 dwellings. Once adopted the Site Allocations DPD will be part of the development plan for the Local Plan area and shall be read alongside relevant policies in the Chichester Local Plan. In terms of this application, the relevant draft policy in the DPD is Policy CC4 which makes provision for 86 dwellings on the Shopwyke Lakes Strategic Development site. This is in addition to the 500 dwellings already permitted under policy 16 of the Local Plan and outline planning permission O/11/05283/OUT. 7.8 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living B3 - Environmental Resources C2 - Encourage healthy and active lifestyles for all C3 - A culturally enriched and empowered community D1 - Increasing housing supply D2 - Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods D3 - Housing fit for purpose D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs E1 - Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion E2 - There will be improved cycling networks and strong links to public transport to ensure that cycling is a viable alternative to using the car E4 - People will have easier access to services at a local level

Page 189

8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The 3 main issues arising from this proposal are: - Whether the principle of additional housing on the Shopwyke Lakes site is acceptable

in policy terms? - Impact on and integration with the overall layout - Whether there would be any harmful highways impact? Principle of development 8.2 The principle of residential development on the Shopwyke Lakes site of which the current application site is an integral part has already been established through outline planning permission O/11/05283/OUT. This extant permission was accompanied at application stage by an illustrative masterplan which showed new housing development distributed across the site including on the current site., Subject to an application for the approval of reserved matters and a satisfactory layout in that regard, there is therefore already extant outline planning permission to build new houses on the current application site. 8.3 The principle of building houses on the Shopwyke Lakes sites is therefore firmly established through the outline planning permission which is underpinned by Local Plan policy 16 (Shopwyke Strategic Development Location). Under the separate parish housing numbers allocation in the Local Plan (policy 5) there is an additional requirement for 235 new homes to be built in Chichester during the Local Plan period. The focus for these homes is proposed to be on sites in Chichester City and adjoining the City's Settlement Boundary, including sites separated from that boundary by the A27. Shopwyke Lakes and the current application site fall into the latter category. 8.4 It is intended that the implementation of policy 5 will be through the Site Allocations DPD which completed its formal consultation period in February and which identifies Shopwyke Lakes as a preferred site for a further 86 dwellings on top of the 500 already permitted under the outline permission. With the DPD still going through its formative stages and with adoption at the time of writing not expected until Spring 2017, little weight can be placed on it in terms of decision making but it nevertheless shows a clear direction of travel in policy terms. Notwithstanding the DPD position, there is a clear strategic incentive to locate a large new housing development on the application site in that it would build on previously developed brownfield land with an extant permission for housing development, thus avoiding the need to find new greenfield sites on the edge of the City. The proposed development would effectively be absorbed into the site of the approved development. Impact on and integration with the overall layout 8.5 It is considered that there is a clear logic to delivering the required Local Plan units on this site. In terms of the implications of the proposal for the development already approved, the 85 units are able to be accommodated as a consequence of the applicant re-visiting the overarching Shopwyke Lakes masterplan and examining the original illustrative layout in more detail. In considering each area of the site in this way, amendments were carried out to the approved illustrative masterplan, informed by the approved Design Code and Regulatory Plan, which resulted in a revised illustrative masterplan. This informed the detailed layout submitted with the concurrent reserved matters application for 398 dwellings. The overall Shopwyke Lakes site will as a result of the current proposal therefore have a slightly higher density at approximately 38dph for 585 dwellings (as opposed to 33dph for the 500 dwellings

Page 190

as approved). The increased density and more efficient use of the available land has been made possible by strengthening the definition of key streets and the housing alongside them, improving the efficiency of street block layouts and adjusting the house-types. The increased density for what will be a urban extension to the City is considered acceptable and is close to the 35dph broadly considered to be acceptable for most development by the Local Plan (para 17.6). By maximising the potential of this brownfield land for new housebuilding avoids the need to build the additional houses on greenfield sites. 8.6 The whole of the Shopwyke Lakes development will include a significant amount of informal open space - 8.12 ha. Under the original outline planning permission this land was designated as SANGS (Site of Alternative Natural Greenspace) and its function was to mitigate the recreational pressure impact of the new residents on the sites of special interest at Chichester Harbour AONB by providing on site recreational space. A subsequent variation of the S.106 agreement for the development stemming from a change in policy by Natural England in its management of the recreational pressure issue whereby it no longer required an on-site SANGS, resulted in the SANGS being re-classified as core open space for public use. As a consequence the 500 dwellings at Shopwyke lakes as approved will benefit from a significant amount of public open space. 8.7 In terms of the current application for 85 dwellings the requirement for public open space and equipped playspace now falls to be assessed against the adopted Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD. A standalone assessment based on the requirements of the SPD and the Local Plan Open Space Calculator reveals the need for 0.114 ha of open space based on a new population of 177 (population calculated according to the required SHMA housing mix). The illustrative layout submitted with the application shows a triangular area of open space extending south from the central lake of approximately 0.78ha. The required 0.114ha of open space can therefore be provided within the proposed application site and does not rely on that land which has already been agreed as open space for the 500 dwelling scheme. In other words there is no 'double counting' with the 8.12ha already approved for the 500 dwellings. To accord with the SPD there is also a requirement that the development provides an area of equipped play space (LEAP) on site and this will need to be shown as part of the subsequent application for reserved matters in respect of layout. For a SHMA compliant housing mix the LEAP is required to be a minimum 265sqm (this figure is included within the overall 0.114 ha open space requirement). 8.8 Whilst 'layout' is a reserved matter and will be formally addressed as part of a subsequent application, the applicant has run an assessment of the parking requirement for the development based on the WSCC Parking Calculator. This produces a requirement for 167 spaces or an average of 1.96 spaces per dwelling. The illustrative layout shows how this parking could be accommodated. 8.9 The final layout of the dwellings on the site will be required through the Design Code and Regulatory Plan to integrate with the remainder of the site. This will ensure a consistency of design approach throughout Shopwyke Lakes. Highways impact 8.10 The Committee will recall that highway issues and traffic generation were significant issues in the consideration of the original outline planning application and the comments of the City Council, Oving Parish Council and Tangmere Parish Council on this application are noted in this regard. As a consequence of this application the applicant has been required to revisit the original traffic modelling for the 500 dwelling scheme to assess whether the addition of a further 85 dwellings on the Shopwyke Lakes site is likely to have any material

Page 191

impact on the anticipated traffic flows above and beyond those which have already been assessed and approved. The Transport Assessment (TA) submitted by the applicant for this application uses the 2021 Chichester Area Transport Model (CATM) as the basis of its asseement as agreed with the highway authorities. The TA has looked at the impact of the 85 dwellings across 12 junctions compared with the 2021 baseline scenario and found that in most cases the additional traffic on the network would be negligible (i.e. less than a 1% traffic increase or less than 20 trips). The two junctions where a higher residual impact was shown by the modelling were on Shopwyke Road (the Shopwyke Road /Drayton Lane junction and the Site access/Shopwyke Road (Main) Junction). Here the modelling shows a maximum trip increase by 2021 of less than 5% (or 39 two-way vehicular trips in the AM peak period and approx. 41 two-way vehicular trips in the PM peak period). The likely traffic impact at the Bognor Road roundabout is considered to be de minimus, with an increase in queue length of a maximum of 2 vehicles on any one arm. 8.11 The conclusion from the TA having looked at all junctions impacted by the proposed development is that the application scheme is anticipated to generate a negligible change in vehicular traffic flows and conditions on the local highway network compared with the consented development at Shopwyke Lakes. It demonstrates that there will be no material detriment to the operation of junctions on the local highway network. The TA has been scrutinised by both Highways England and WSCC Highways. The Committee will note that WSCC as the Local Highways Authority has raised no objection to the application and has made no comment on the traffic generation issue. Highways England has raised no objection to the application provided that the carefully constructed triggers imposed by condition on the outline planning permission are reimposed to the effect that the required highway works are carried out regardless of whether they are solely from the existing consented application (O/11//5283/OUT) or as a combination with this new application (15/037209/OUT) for 85 dwellings if granted consent. 8.12 Whilst the proposed increase in dwellings at Shopwyke Lakes as a result of this application will result in increased traffic movements, the conclusion of the applicant that this will have a neglible impact on the highway network when factored into the 2021 CATM baseline scenario is not disputed either by WSCC or Highways England. To substantiate an objection to this application which might lead to a refusal on highway grounds, it would need to be demonstrated that the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe (NPPF paragraph 32). There is no evidence to suggest a severe impact would occur and on this basis, the highway impacts of the proposal are considered to be acceptable. Other Issues 8.13 The application is submitted separately and distinctly from the outline planning permission even though it falls within the 'main' site. The site is currently being levelled and prepared for development in accordance with the implementation of the outline permission and the reserved matters approval O/14/02826/REM for the spine road and the surface water drainage. Most other planning issues in addition to those discussed in the preceding report have already been addressed as part of the outline application. This includes matters relating to land contamination, surface and foul water drainage, archaeology, sports pitch provision, education, libraries, fire and rescue and ecology. The development will be required to 'wash its own face' in terms of delivering the infrastructure a housing scheme of 85 units needs to deliver to comply with current policy and the CIL regulations and relevant planning conditions from the outline in this regard are therefore to be carried forward and made applicable to this application.

Page 192

8.14 The applicant has submitted a heritage statement with the application to assess the impact of the development on the wider setting of Shopwhyke Manor Farm a Grade 2 listed building, the curtilage boundary of which is set some 30 metres from the eastern boundary of the current application site. The statement concludes that given this separation, the fact that the site does not abut the shared boundary, the fact that 'layout' is not a matter for consideration on this application and the fact that the approved Regulatory Plan requires a landscaped wooded edge to delivered along the east site boundary, it cannot be asserted that there would be any harmful impact and that there are safeguards in place to protect the setting. Your officers agree with this report. Significant Conditions 8.15 The proposals form part of the wider Shopwyke Lakes strategic site and there is a requirement therefore that the conditions on the recommendation acknowledge this and link the development back to the requirements on the outline planning permission for the 500 dwellings. This is particularly important with regard to the triggers for the highway works and the recommendation therefore attaches those conditions which Highways England require in respect of the works to the Oving crossroads and the A27. Highways England provides an example in this regard in its consultation response at paragraph 6.7 above. Section 106 Agreement 8.16 The development requires a S.106 legal agreement which will, where relevant link, the development back to the requirements in the S.106 on the main site under outline planning permission O/11/05283/OUT. Work is progressing on the agreement but the anticipated heads of terms at the time of writing are: - 30% Affordable Housing - 25.5 units (the applicant has agreed to provide 26 units) - A27 SRN contribution £222,275 in accordance with the amendment to the SPD. - Chichester Harbour Recreational Pressure Mitigation £14,960 (£176 per dwelling) in

accordance with adopted policy 50 of the Local Plan. - Open Space and LEAP x 1 (265sqm minimum) provision, management and future

maintenance thereof in accordance with SPD and Local Plan Open Space Calculator. - Community Facilities - provision of 70.8sqm on site of floorspace for community use or

provision through CIL (this matter is being discussed with the applicant). Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 8.17 The Community Infrastructure Levy was adopted by the Council on 26th January 2016 and implemented on 1st February 2016. The proposed development will be subject to CIL, in accordance with the Council's Charging Schedule. The levy is £120 per square metre for net internal residential floorspace. As the application is submitted in outline the floorspace is not yet known so the final sum will be calculated at the Reserved Matters stage. Conclusion 8.18 The Shopwyke Lakes site has outline planning permission for 500 dwellings and is one of 3 strategic development sites on the periphery of Chichester. Timely delivery of housing on this site is paramount to the Council maintaining its 5 year housing land supply and delivering the necessary housing to meet the Local Plan requirement. The impact of a further 85 dwellings on the site would increase the overall density of development from 33dph to 38dph which is close to the benchmark 35dph in the Local Plan and is considered acceptable. The site is the Council's preferred site under the Site Allocation DPD for

Page 193

delivering 86 dwellings as part of the additional 235 dwellings required under Local Plan policy 5. The DPD although at an early stage and carrying little weight shows a clear direction of travel. Notwithstanding the DPD position there is a clear strategic incentive to locate a large new housing development on the application site, building on previously developed brownfield land with an extant permission for housing development, thus avoiding the need to find new greenfield sites on the edge of the City. The application is recommended for approval subject to a S.106 agreement. Human Rights 8.19 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT 1 U01139 - Time Limit - Outline 5 years 2 U01142 - Time Limit - Implementation 3 U01143 - A27/Oving Road toucan upgrade 4 U01144 - Footway/cycleway overbridge over A27(W) 5 U01149 - A27 pedestrian improvements 6 U01150 - A27/Oving Road junction interim measures 7 U01152 - A27 Arundel Road site access 8 U01153 - A27/Oving Road junction final 9 U01155 - Chichester Bypass site access relocation 10 U01156 - Portfield Roundabout improvements 11 U01157 - New footway/cycleway overbridge A27N 12 U01158 - Construction Management Plan 13 U01159 - Access from Shopwhyke Road 14 U01160 - Roads, footways and parking areas 15 U01161 - Travel Plan 16 U01162 - Site levels and sections 17 N21G Contaminated Land 18 N23F Landfill Gas 19 U01164 - No piled foundations without permission 20 U01165 - FRA and minimum floor levels 21 U01166 - Water efficiency measures 22 U01167 - Sustainable design 23 U01169 - Compliance with Design Code 24 U01178 - Surface and foul water drainage 25 U01179 - Lighting 26 U01180 - Approved plans

Page 194

INFORMATIVES 1 U01181 - Planning permission only 2 U01182 - S.106 agreement 3 U01183 - Southern Water 4 U01184 - S.38 agreement with WSCC 5 U01185 - Roads adoption 6 U01186 - Property boundaries For further information on this application please contact Jeremy Bushell on 01243 534734

Page 195

Parish: Westbourne

Ward: Westbourne

WE/16/00150/FUL

Proposal Closure of existing agricultural access and creation of new agricultural

access onto Emsworth Common Road.

Site Sawmills Farm Monks Hill Westbourne West Sussex PO10 8QL

Map Ref (E) 475215 (N) 108537

Applicant Provenance Plants Ltd RECOMMENDATION TO

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Councillor Dunn has submitted a Red Card as there are matters that he wishes to raise for debate at the committee; specifically there are technical objections from third parties on the ground of sight-lines which Councillor Dunn would like the committee to be aware of.

Page 196

Agenda Item 18

2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The proposal relates to a field of approximately 0.88ha, laid to grass on the south side of Emsworth Common Road, a 60mph road. The western boundary of the field abuts the grounds to 1, 2 and 3 Sussex Cottages, the curtilages of which grounds are predominantly wooded. The north boundary of the field adjacent to Emsworth Common Road comprises a post and wire fence, some shrubs and several trees. The road rises to the east of the site and bends at approximately 160m from the proposed access. The road slopes down to the west and then rises slightly approximately 200m to the west of the proposed access. The access to Sussex Cottages is roughly 130m to the west and the junction with Woodbury Lane is some 140m to the east. An existing access into the application site from Emsworth Common Road is situated on the north boundary almost opposite the junction with Woodbury Lane and has a metal field gate across the access. 2.2 There is a public footpath running in a north-south orientation approximately 140m to the east of the proposed access that is close to the existing access. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 A new access from Emsworth Common Road into the field is proposed adjacent to the west boundary of the application site. The proposed access would be 5m wide with 7.5m radii. Gates are proposed 10m back from the road edge and compressed hard-core is proposed in front of the gates and for 14m south of the gates (within the field). 3.2 The current application is solely for a gated access into the site and does not include a track. It does however include a modest area of land as related hardstanding in connection with the vehicular access. 4.0 History

01/02436/FUL REF Change of use from two redundant farm buildings into one residential house.

03/00077/FUL REF New access track along field boundary leading to Sawmills Farm.

05/03521/FUL PER Change of use and alterations of single redundant farm building into 1 no. residential property.

07/02092/FUL REF Change of use and alterations of redundant farm buildings to 1 no. residential property. Amendments to planning permission WE/05/03521/FUL.

07/04674/FUL PER Change of use and alteration of redundant brickworks building to 1 no. residential property. Amendments to planning permission WE/05/03521/FUL.

10/01264/CCC CCCDEC Confirmation of compliance with all conditions attached to planning permission WE/07/04674/FUL.

11/04553/PNO PPREQ Erection of agricultural barn, access track and hard standing.

11/04876/PNO PPREQ Erection of agricultural barn, access track and hardstanding.

12/00847/PNO NOPA Erection of agricultural barn, access track and hardstanding.

Page 197

03/00085/REF DISMIS New access track along field boundary leading to Sawmills Farm.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building No

Conservation Area No

Rural Area Yes

AONB No

Strategic Gap No

Tree Preservation Order No

South Downs National Park No

EA Flood Zone

- Flood Zone 2 No

- Flood Zone 3 No

Historic Parks and Gardens No

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council Westbourne Parish Council has no objection to the planning application. 6.2 WSCC – Highways

- Response 19/02/16 I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would

provide the following comments.

The proposed new access is proposed to be situated further westwards and in a position where significantly longer visibility splays can be achieved. Splays of 2.0 metres by 215 metres and 160 metres are proposed in both directions. The provision of such splays would signify an improvement to the existing access. The use of the guidance within Manual for Streets (MfS) and a case could be supported through the application of this guidance as MfS is detailed as being applicable for lightly trafficked rural lanes and the nature of Monks Hill does act to restrict traffic speeds. The speed limit on Monks Hill is 60mph and visibility splays of 215 metres would be required viewed against the appropriate guidance within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Again, considering the likely traffic speeds for traffic, vehicles are likely to be travelling below the 60 mph; hence a lower visibility splay to the east would be justified. On balance, consideration is given to the fact that the existing access is substandard and that this proposed access would signify a marked improvement. The access track is to be 5.0 metres in width with a 7.5 metre kerb radii access. The proposed gates will be setback 10metres to enable a long vehicle to wait off highway. A turning area is available within the site. In these regards, the layout is acceptable.

Page 198

Conclusion The LHA does not consider that the proposal would have 'severe' impact on the operation of the highway network, therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (para 32), and that there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal. If the LPA are minded to approve this application conditions should be included in relation to visibility.

- Response 03/03/16 Following my consultation response, I have visited the site this morning and considered the existing and proposed access positions. The proposal to relocate the field access will not see any change in traffic movements to and from the site. National planning policy, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), identifies in paragraph 32 that development should only be resisted on transport grounds when the residual impact is considered to be ‘severe’. The new access is to be situated further westwards and in a position where significantly longer visibility splays can be achieved. An ‘X’ Distance of 2.4 can be applied. Having observed the new point of access, it is unlikely that splays of 160 metres could be achieved to the east due to the road alignment. We have reviewed data supplied to WSCC by Sussex Police over a period of the last 3 years. There have been no recorded injury accidents at the proposed point of access with the public highway. On balance, consideration is given to the fact that the existing access is substandard and that this proposed access would signify a marked improvement with no increase in vehicular movements. Obviously should a further application for development be proposed from this point of access, then a further planning application would be required and this would have to be assessed on its own merits and against WSCC guidance. The access track is to be 5 metres in width. Any gates will be setback 10 metres to enable a long vehicle to wait off highway. A turning area is available within the site. In these regards, the layout is acceptable. In conclusion, the LHA (Local Highway Authority) does not consider that the proposed would have ‘severe’ impact on the operation of the highway network, therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (para 32), and that there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal.

- Email 08/04/16

WSCC Highways Authority suggest the following condition. Visibility No part of the development shall be first occupied until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 120 metres have been provided at the proposed site vehicular access onto Emsworth Common Road in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once provided the splays shall thereafter be maintained and kept free of

Page 199

all obstructions over a height of 0.6 metre above adjoining carriageway level or as otherwise agreed. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 6.3 South Downs National Park Authority Thank you for consulting the South Downs National Park Authority (as a neighbouring planning authority) on the above application. The boundary of the National Park runs along the opposite side of Emsworth Common Road at this point. The SDNPA has no objection to the proposals, but would like to make the following two suggestions, should permission be granted: -Due to the short length, the gap in the hedgerow caused by the removal of the existing gateway should close itself together naturally in time. However, a limited amount of new planting with appropriate native species would assist this process. -At the new entrance, use of urban road features such as concrete kerbs should be avoided. 6.4 CDC Environment Officer Bats The lighting scheme for the site will need to take into consideration the presence of bats in the local area and the scheme should minimise potential impacts to any bats using the trees, hedgerows and buildings by avoiding unnecessary artificial light spill through the use of directional light sources and shielding. Nesting Birds Any works to the trees or vegetation clearance on the site should only be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season which takes place between 1st March ' 1st October. If works are required within this time an ecologist will need to check the site before any works take place (with 24 hours of any work). 6.5 Third Parties – 4 letters of objection from same household

160m x visibility distance to the east cannot be achieved

There would be an increase in traffic movements

Impact would be severe

There are two existing accesses to the field from Monks Lane therefore no need for this access.

Series of photographs submitted to demonstrate lack of visibility

Planning history here of access refused and dismissed

An automatic speed survey has not been done

Emsworth Common Road is not a lightly trafficated rural land but a 60mph B road carrying dense and fast moving traffic reduction in the x distance should not be considered as this is not a very lightly trafficated and slow-speed situation.

No idea of agricultural need for the access

In the past WSCC have advised that their guidance recommends visibility splays of 2.4m x 215m

Page 200

6.6 Third Parties – 2 letters of comments from same household

Current access has no visibility in each direction

Concerns regarding maintenance of western visibility splay

1 Sussex Cottage would not allow removal of trees within their land

Consultation mentions speed of traffic on Monks Hill which is irrelevant to this application

Road is very fast in both directions

Trees to east of proposed access that could potentially block the splays

Trees would be lost

Hedge is shown in winter

There is access via Monks Hill and across the footpath 7.0 Planning Policy 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP) Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. This means unless material considerations indicate otherwise development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. 7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), together with Sections 4, 7, 10 and 11 generally. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.5 Westbourne Neighbourhood Plan is at Pre-Submission stage and is currently subject to public consultation and therefore is given limited weight at this time. 7.6 Other relevant documents include; Manual for Streets and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

Page 201

7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues in this case are whether

i) there is an agricultural need for the new access, ii) the proposal is visually acceptable, and iii) there would be an acceptable impact on highway safety iv) biodiversity

Relevant Planning History 8.2 Planning permission was refused in December 2001 (WE/01/02436/FUL) for the conversion of redundant farm buildings to form one house and the provision of an access through the field to Emsworth Common Road (but not keeping to the field boundary). Apart from the structural integrity of the barns being unacceptable, the proposed access, due to its length, alignment and separation from field boundaries was considered to be visually obtrusive and harmful to the rural character of the area. 8.3 A subsequent application was then submitted (WE/03/00077/FUL) for an access track from Emsworth Common Road along the west boundary of the field through to Sawmills Farm which was accessed from Monks Hill. This was refused planning permission. The reasons for refusal were as follows: ‘1) Due to the presence of an existing access track off Monk's Hill, the District

Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed access track is justified in the Rural Area and Strategic Gap. The proposal would therefore cause unnecessary visual harm to the countryside to the detriment of the Rural Area and the Strategic Gap. Approval of the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies G1, G3, G5, C1 and C5 of the West Sussex Structure Plan 1993 and Policies RE1, RE2, RE6 and BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.

2) The District Planning Authority is not satisfied that by reason of its siting, the proposed access on to Emsworth Common Road would not create a danger to highway safety. Approval of the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy T14 of the West Sussex Structure Plan 1993 and Policy TR6 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999’.

8.4 An appeal followed and was dismissed. The Inspector found that the existing access onto Monks Hill had acceptable visibility. The Inspector noted that at that time

'the Government's policy is to ensure that the countryside is protected for its own sake. The guiding principle in the countryside is development should both benefit economic activity and maintain or enhance the environment. Policies in the development plan seek to protect the countryside for its own sake. Development will not normally be permitted unless, among other things, it is related to the essential needs of agriculture. Whilst these policies seek to limit proposals to those that have an overriding need to be there, the need for the proposed access arises out of the personal preferences of the Appellant rather than any overriding necessity and

Page 202

thereby would conflict with the development plan. For this reason alone I consider that the proposed development should not go ahead.'

8.5 The Inspector did not consider that the proposed track would cause visual harm to the countryside but did not consider that there was a need for a further access to be created. 8.6 In terms of matter of visibility, the Inspector stated the following:

'Turning to the proposed crossover on Emsworth Common Road, national guidance on visibility is provided in Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG13). The requirements for visibility are based on traffic speed, and these are found in 'Places, People and Movement', a companion guide to Design Bulletin 32. The advice is that sightlines should never be reduced to a level where danger is likely to be caused. The County Council considers that visibility splays of 160m rather than 215m would be adequate in this particular case. There are trees on the field boundary and if I thought it likely that these trees would obstruct visibility to the east I would share the concern of the local planning authority, particularly if a driver leaving the appeal site were to instinctively stop, partly on the public highway, due to obstructed visibility. From my observations I do not think that this is likely.'

8.7 Application reference WE/10/02981/FUL for an assess similar to that proposed in this case was recommended for approval but was withdrawn at a late stage in the planning process as questions regarding ownership arose. It is understood that ownership has now been resolved and certificate A has been submitted with this application. i. Agricultural need for the relocated access

8.8 A key issue in the determination of this proposal is whether there is sufficient need for the proposed access. The need for the alternative siting for the agricultural vehicular access is said to arise in order to improve visibility from that what exists at present. Moving the access to the proposed location would set it away from the bend in the road and the T junction which lies opposite the existing access. 8.9 This application differs from previous proposals in that it would not result in a further access, rather a replacement of that which exists at present. The existing access would be stopped up, and that the proposed access would provide betterment over the existing in terms of visibility and separation from the T junction and bend in the road, Although there is an existing access to the south-east of the field, along Monks Hill, this is some distance away from Emsworth Common Road) and therefore, on balance, the need to improve the access to the northern end of the field is considered reasonable. ii. Impact on visual amenities

8.10 In terms of the visual impact, the access would be 5m wide and splayed at the point with the highway edge to a maximum of 20m wide. From the west, visual impact of the access would be limited due to the existence of the wooded area. The hedgerow to the northern boundary of the related field owned by the applicant would screen the access to some extent from the east. 8.11 Policy 48 of the current Local Plan endeavours to protect the character of the surrounding area and landscape whether prominent from public realm or not. In this case, the proposal would intensify built development in the rural location that would be prominent from the road and PROW. However, the amount and type of intensification would be small

Page 203

scale and indicative of other modern agricultural accesses, it would not be harmful to the un-developed landscape. 8.12 The boundary of the South Downs National Park (SDNP) lies to the opposite side of the road to the application site. The SDNP Authority has been consulted on this application and has not raised an objection, but has suggested new native planting to assist with the blocking up of the existing access and that urban features to the proposed access such as concrete kerbs should be avoided. In the interest of the countryside character of the locality appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure the materials to implement the proposed access are agreed with the LPA prior to any works taking place and a landscaping condition in relation to the blocking up of the existing access (to be implemented within 1 month of completion of the proposed assess). 8.13 In the interests of highway safety, any hard surfacing adjacent to the highway would need to be bound and therefore relatively formal in nature. However, roads, accesses, gates and fencing (stock and post and rail) are not uncommon features in the locality and in a countryside setting. The materials may be carefully controlled through condition which would ensure that the surfaces, gates, fences, and planting respect the natural and undeveloped character of the locality. 8.14 in addition, given the existing natural screening and the fact that there are other accesses and road junctions in the vicinity, the impact on the visual amenities of the site and locality, on balance, would not be harmed. 8.15 The visual impact is therefore considered acceptable in terms of the impact on the countryside and SDNP. This is the same conclusion as the Inspector reached in 2004. iii. Highway safety 8.16 Visibility from the existing access into the field is significantly restricted to the east where there is a bend in the road and is opposite a main T-junction. The speed limit is 60mph along this stretch of the road. It is therefore reasonable to consider an alternative access for farm vehicles which are slow moving. 8.17 NPPF, paragraph 32 states that; Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are ‘severe’. The views of the Highway Authority are set out in full in section 6 of this report. No objection on visibility grounds has been raised. The Highway Authority have previously suggested a distance of 2.4m x 160m visibility should be provided for an access to a 60mph road, however this distance is not achievable to the east. In this case, given the access would improve upon (and be an alternative to) a substandard access already in existence along this road, a reduced distance of 120m would be appropriate. This was a similar conclusion reached by the previous appeal Inspector in relation to an access proposed in a similar position. 8.18 The LPA have requested conditions which would be incorporated in respect of construction of the visibility splays (2.4m x 120m) prior to first use. Notwithstanding the splays shown on the submitted plans, splays of 2.4 x 120m have been suggested by the LHA. Whilst 8.19 Concerns from the third parties have been raised regarding visibility in respect of (amongst other matters) the lack of possibility of achieving a 160m y distance visibility splay to the east. The LHA have considered these representations, have visited the site and have

Page 204

concluded that the minimum distance of 120m would be acceptable. Even with a 120m eastward visibility, the proposed new access would be an improvement from the existing due to its location away from the T junction and the greater distance achieved to the bend in the road that the existing access is located close to. The 2.4m (x) x 120m (y) visibility splays would not require any vegetation removal and the trees to the northern boundary of the field are not subject to Tree Preservation Orders. 8.20 On balance, having regard to the above considerations, the proposal would represent an improvement to highway safety and the development should not be resisted on this matter. iv. Biodiversity

8.21 The removal of existing vegetation to facilitate the 5m wide access and any other vegetation clearance works would be required to be carried out at a suitable time of year so not to harm wild birds and it be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure protected species such as bats and their habitats are not harmed as a result of such works. The CDC Environment Officer has been consulted and has confirmed the timings regarding vegetation works and lighting mitigation requirement which will be addressed via suitable conditions Additional Matters 8.22 The owner of the land to the west has written in regarding works to trees and vegetation overhanging the boundary (to the west). Under Common Law any tree limb overhanging a boundary can be cut provided the tree is not subject to a Preservation Order, the limb is returned to the owner and the health of the tree is not compromised. This would be a private matter between the relevant parties to come to a natural agreement and it would be advisable for the applicant to discuss any works with the owner of 1 Sussex Cottages before works commence. Conclusions 8.23 In conclusion this application is considered acceptable and would comply with the Development Plan and there are no material considerations, in this case, that would outweigh this consideration. On balance, the need to improve the access to this field is considered acceptable, the character and appearance of the locality would not be harmed and the new access would not be harmful to highway safety. Therefore, subject to conditions, permission should be granted. RECOMMENDATION

1 Time Limit - Full 2 No Departure from Plans 3 materials TBA 4 visibility splays 5 external lighting limitations 6 timings for vegetation clearance 7 closure of existing - landscaping detail 8 landscaping details 9 Landscaping

Page 205

INFORMATIVES 1 Wildlife 2 Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Maria Tomlinson on 01243 534734

Page 206

Parish: West Wittering

Ward: West Wittering

WW/15/03446/FUL

Proposal Erection of dwellinghouse (amendments to 99/00351/OUT and

02/00341/REM).

Site Leander Roman Landing West Wittering West Sussex PO20 8AL

Map Ref (E) 477752 (N) 98638

Applicant P. Martin-Dye RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

Page 207

Agenda Item 19

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral This application was deferred at the meeting on 30/03/16 for a Site Visit Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site lies on the eastern side of Roman Landing and forms a rectangular plot. There are no pavements within the private Roman Landing estate and the front boundary to the application site is formed by hedges with vehicular access within. Roman Landing is a residential estate of large detached properties set within established plots. The site is bounded by residential development to the north and south and a tennis court/club to the east. 2.2 The original dwellinghouse has been demolished and erection of a timber framed dwellinghouse and roof trusses have been implemented, similar to that approved under outline and reserved matters applications 99/00351/OUT and 02/00341/REM Works on site have currently ceased. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of dwellinghouse and, should this proposal be granted, would result in a new stand-alone permission, separate to any previous permissions on the site. 3.2 The proposed house would be two stories with a 9m high ridge and 5m high eaves. The dwelling would be sitting in a similar position to the dwelling being replaced. The property would include a living room, drawing room, utility, with hallway leading to four first floor bedrooms - 3 of which would include en-suite bathrooms. A shared family bathroom is also proposed. A single storey northern wing would be linked to the main two storey house and would include an open plan kitchen and family room and double garage. The link to the main two storey house would include a ground floor bathroom. 3.3 The external finish materials are proposed to include low level render, painted horizontal timber cladding and a natural slate tiled roof. No changes are proposed to the existing boundary vegetation and treatments. Parking and turning would-be available forward of the principle elevation and to the garage. 4.0 History 00/00874/FUL REF Demolition of existing vacant

substandard house and erection of 2 no. dwellings, with garages and associated external works

Page 208

02/00341/REM PER Erection of house and annexe. Demolition of existing sub-standard house.

88/00098/WW REF Outline - chalet bungalow and

garage. 92/00012/WW DISMIS New bungalow and access drive.

88/00182/WW DISMIS New chalet bungalow and garage.

99/00351/OUT PER Demolition of existing sub-

standard house. Erection of house and annexe.

15/02513/NMA REF Non-material amendment to

planning permission WW/99/00351/OUT. External elevations materials to low level cement render, horizontal timber clad walls and natural slate roof covering.

15/03446/FUL PDE Erection of dwellinghouse

(amendments to 99/00351/OUT and 02/00341/REM).

16/00691/ELD PCO Digging and laying of foundations

for replacement dwelling, part demolition of existing dwelling and formation of new vehicular access.

15/00368/CONBC

CLOSED Enforcement Enquiry

00/00091/REF DISMIS Demolition of existing vacant

substandard house and erection of 2 no. dwellings, with garages and associated external works

Page 209

5.0 Constraints Listed Building No Conservation Area No Rural Area No AONB YES Strategic Gap No Tree Preservation Order No South Downs National Park No

EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 No - Flood Zone 3 No Historic Parks and Gardens No

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council Objection The Parish Council objects to this application as insufficient information is available in the current application. 6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy Comments dated 04/11/15 Due to the position of the planning proposals within the Settlement Policy Areas/Urban Area, their screening by surrounding built form/vegetation/trees and/or their scale, height and form; the alternative facing materials - given the context of other surrounding dwellings - would not be intrusive in the wider AONB landscape or harmful to designated nature conservation sites. No objection, subject to encouragement of a dark painted finish to the proposed horizontal softwood feather edge boarding above the low level cement render. Comments dated 24/12/15 Further to the Conservancy's comments made 4.11.15, no objection to the timber boarding is maintained, subject to encouragement of a dark painted finish to the proposed horizontal softwood feather edge boarding above the low level cement render. However, the use of slate is not characteristic of the estate and the size of the dwelling would draw attention to this material. Officers are therefore asked to negotiate the use of plain clay tiles of a dark red or brown hue.

Page 210

6.3 Three third party objection letters have been received concerning the following matters;

The proposal does not respect vernacular of Roman Landing - characterised as being two stories, constructed with brick walls painted white, with steep roofs, majority being covered with clay tiles, with some thatch or shingles, extending down to low eaves.

Building should be clad with brick and painted white

Cladding should be in a light colour not dark painted

Slates at not common in the locality - only used on two shallow pitched houses and are never used on Tudor houses

Building is currently being constructed not in accordance with that approved in 1999

Rooflights (space for these has been made within the trusses) would result in harmful overlooking to Gallicantus

Fenestration alterations and enlargement of apertures would result in loss of privacy

Floor, site and roof plans are missing

Wooden cladding would be totally out of keeping with the estate

Larger and out of character - fresh FUL application should be submitted for all the changes

Design does not reflect local distinctiveness

Construction started after timing for OUT and REM and development in not being implemented in accordance with plans

Roman Landing Tennis Club objects on grounds of lack of information regarding the management of surface water and concerns regarding flood and damage to their tennis court.

6.4 Two third party support letters have been received concerning the following matters;

Immediate neighbouring property owner supports the use of roof slates and the exterior painted finish (weatherboard and painted render). It is believed that this approach would be much more in keeping than the mock Tudor as per the previously approved design

6.5 One third party comment has been received concerning the following matter

Cedar shingles would be more appropriate with the remainder of the materials palette.

6.6 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information During the course of the application, the applicant has sought to submit additional information to address the concerns of Parish Council and neighbours. 6.7 Applicant/Agent’s Additional information received 12/04/16

The agent has submitted additional information via email sent of the 12th April 2016 part of which states; “The position is that the applicant would be prepared to cover the roof with plain clay tiles but it would now be difficult to face the whole building with brickwork. He would however be prepared to consider cladding the

Page 211

building with brickwork or alternatively with self-finished render board in a colour to be agreed, giving the appearance of sand and cement render, if either of these are considered to be preferable to the timber cladding proposed…….In addition the proposed finishes that are shown on the submitted drawing are quite in keeping with a seaside location and indeed there are other houses on Roman Landing of similar appearance, together of course with a wide mix of other styles”.

7.0 Planning Policy 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP) 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans

Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility

Policy 33: New Residential Development

Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking

Policy 40: Sustainable design and construction

Policy 42: Flood Risk and Water Management

Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Policy 47: Design and Heritage

Policy 48: Natural Environment

Policy 49: Biodiversity National Policy and Guidance 7.3 Government planning policy comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. This means unless material considerations indicate otherwise development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. 7.4 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), together with Sections 4, 7, 10 and 11 generally. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.5 There is no Neighbourhood Plan for West Wittering. The West Wittering Village Design Statement was established in 2006 and has been approved by the former Executive Board, and its successor the Cabinet, as material considerations in the determination of planning applications.

Page 212

7.6 Chichester District Council's Planning Guidance Note 3, Design Guideline for Alterations to dwellings and extensions (revised September 2009) (PGN3) and Design Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions Chichester Harbour AONB Revised August 2010 - CDC, Havant BC and Chichester Harbour Conservancy are also relevent documents to this case. 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

B1 - Managing a changing environment 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i. Principle of the development ii. Design and impact upon character of the site and surrounding area iii. Impact upon amenities of neighbouring properties iv. Water management Assessment i. Principle of the development 8.2 The development involves the erection of a two storey dwellinghouse that would replace one that previously existed. The previous property was demolished some time ago and the erect of a replacement property has already commenced on site. The timber frame and trusses have been erected on site, although works have currently ceased. 8.3 The site is located within the designated Settlement Boundary Area of West Wittering. The village of West Wittering is a designated Service Village within the Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy within Policy 2 of the CDC Local Plan. Service Village as identified as; 'Outside of Chichester City and the Settlement Hubs, the Service Villages will be the focus. Provision will be made for the following:

Small scale housing developments consistent with the indicative housing numbers set out in Policy 5;

Local community facilities, including village shops, that meet identified needs within the village, neighbouring villages and surrounding smaller communities, and will help make the settlement more self-sufficient; and

Small scale employment, tourism or leisure proposals for new development and facilities'.

8.4 Settlement Boundaries are identified as areas with a presumption in favour of sustainable development through the Development Plan Documents and/or Neighbourhood Plans, reflecting the general approach that development; 1) 'Respects the setting, form and character of the settlement; 2) Avoiding actual or perceived coalescence of settlements; and 3) Ensuring good accessibility to local services and facilities'.

Page 213

8.5 Therefore, as the site is located within a sustainable location within the designated settlement boundary, the principle of a one for one replacement property is considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan. It is therefore considered that the principle of the development would be acceptable, subject to all other material planning considerations. ii) Design and impact upon character of the site and surrounding area 8.6 Policies 33 and 47 of the CDC Local Plan sets out the current criteria for the design approach with the Development Plan and require new development to respects distinctive local character and sensitively contribute to creating places of a high architectural and built quality. 8.7 Section 7 of the NPPF requires good design that improves the overall quality of the area and within paragraph 56 of the NPPF stats that "good design is indivisible from good planning". 8.8 Roman Landing in an eclectic mix of large detached properties set within established plots with a variety of styles and finishes. The main concerns from third parties involve visual concerns regarding the proposed external finish materials and that it doesn't reflect local distinctiveness. However, within Roman Landing there are a variety of external finish material including white, pink, yellow and pastel blue painted brick, painted timber cladding, hung cedar and plain clay tiles and brick. The roofs within the estate include thatch, clay tiles, shingles and natural states. 8.9 This application proposes a low level cement rendered plinth and horizontal timber painted softwood featheredge boarding to the reminder of the walls. The roofs are proposed to be covered in natural grey slates. The windows would consist of timber casements and the doors timber painted and hardwood stained. Powder coated aluminium bi-fold doors are proposed to the rear of the kitchen and family room. The existing boundaries are proposed to be retained. 8.10 West Wittering Village Design Statement (VDS) identifies the application site as being located within character Area 2 South West. The building style in this area is stated to include; 'Generally design and scale is eclectic giving it much interest and distinction. Development dates from the 1920s to the present day. There are examples of the Arts and Crafts style; copies of thatched Sussex barns; large, detached, houses; bungalows and chalet bungalows and even, on West Strand, a 'Modernist' metal-clad flat-roofed property from the 1970s. The mix of designs gives immense character to the area' (7.2.1 p22). 8.11 The VDS acknowledges the mix of properties within Area 2 of the Village and the use of a variety of materials. 8.12 Walls are reported to include exposed flint work, white UPVC shiplap boarding and exposed timber, and red/brown brick with some feature chimneys comprising of either brick, painted brick or render with inset flints. Roof coverings are reported to include thatched, red/brown or buff plain clay tiles and some slate.

Page 214

8.13 Within Roman Landing the VDS encourages that; 'Any development should retain the style of traditional Sussex farmhouses, the spaces between buildings, and the large plots' and goes on to state 'Building materials should where possible be brick and flint. Roofs should be thatched or with wood or clay tiles. Low existing heights should be maintained, and no house should be more than 2 storeys high'. 8.14 The eclectic mix and variety of the character of Area 2 is said to have given the area 'much interest and distinction' that provides 'immense character to the area'. Therefore, the materials and finishes proposed, whilst not meeting the desires of the VDS in terms of the slate roof, would on balance, contribute towards enhancing the eclectic mix and variety within the character area without harming the visual quality of the residential environment. 8.15 The property is not visible from the wider, flat AONB countryside or the waterfront. The Chichester Harbour Conservancy has no objection to the scheme and has requested a preference, if possible, for dark red or brown clay roof tiles. Given that the distinct character of the locality is defined by its variety it would be unreasonable to insist on clay tiles. As discussed previously, a grey natural state would be respect the character of the locality and enhance the eclectic mix. 8.16 On balance, given the variety to the estate which forms part of its local distinctiveness, there is no requirement for a uniform approach to the materials. However, there is a need for high quality natural materials and in this case natural materials would be utilised (with the exception of the rear ground floor aluminium doors). The LPA would ensure, via condition, that the materials are of the highest natural quality in order to ensure local distinctiveness is maintained. 8.17 There have been previous applications at this site, namely outline and reserved matters applications 99/00351/OUT and 02/00341/REM, and the question as to whether these are still extant are subject to another process. However, for comparison, the overall design approach to the development, in respect of the form, size, height, scale, proportions, mass and bulk is similar to those applications which have been previously permitted. The ridge (9m) and eaves (5m) heights would not increase, but the bulk of the roof would be reduced in terms of the subservient central roof to the east elevation (facing the tennis club) by the introduction of a hipped roof. The link between the main house and the northern wing would be increased in footprint when comparing and the roof form would change slightly. However, this would remain subservient to the main house and northern wing. The siting of the proposed house would be in line with that previously permitted. 8.18 The alterations to the window design and fenestration proportions/alterations would be visually sympathetic to the building and surroundings, in accordance with the design principles of the NPPF and policies 47 and 33 of the CDC Local Plan. 8.19 Following the Planning Committee of the 30 March, officers have worked with the applicant to establish whether an alternative palette of materials would be appropriate. The applicant’s agent has advised that, notwithstanding their view that slate tiles and timber cladding are in keeping with the location of the property, they would be willing to consider clay tiles to the roof and is prepared to consider cladding the building with brickwork or alternatively with self-finished render board in a colour to be agreed, giving the appearance of sand and cement render, if either of these are considered to be preferable to the timber cladding proposed. However it should be noted that cladding the exterior in brick would likely result in an increase in the proportions of the dwelling.

Page 215

8.20 Whilst the applicant has confirmed an alternative palette of materials could be accommodated, the proposals are formally unchanged and the applicant is seeking a slate roof and timber clad elevations. Officers remain of the opinion that these materials are suitable within the eclectic mix present in the area, although the alternative materials offered by the applicant would also be likely to be suitable, and may be secured by condition, if appropriate. 8.21 In conclusion, the design and appearance of the proposed dwellinghouse is considered to contribute positively to creating a place of high architectural quality that respects local distinctiveness and would conserve and enhance the AONB landscape. iii) Impact upon amenities of neighbouring properties 8.22 The NPPF states in paragraph 17 that planning should ensure a good quality of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings. 8.23 Three windows are proposed to the flanks of the property at first floor level one to the north and one to the south of the bay window to the principle elevation (serving bedroom 3). These would be set away of the boundaries in a central position within the plot and to the front of the site (facing the road). This would result in limited additional overlooking to the neighbouring properties and gardens from these flank bay windows. 8.24 The third window is located to the north elevation and would serve an en-suite to the rear of the property. Although this would be some distance from the boundary, as this is an en-suite a condition requiring this window to be obscure and fixed shut has been recommended. 8.25 There has been concerns raised regarding the intention for roof-lights, given the gaps in the trusses that currently exist. The Agent has provided correspondence to confirm that no roof-lights are proposed. A condition is proposed to remove permitted development rights for openings within the roof slopes, so that the LPA can be given the opportunity to consider the impacts of such should roof-lights or other openings be proposed in the future. 8.26 The closest element of the property would measure a distance of 3.8m to the northern boundary. This element of the house would be one and a half stories with a pitched roof sloping away from the northern boundary and a ridge height of 5.75m and eaves of 2.25m. This arrangement results in the development being within a relatively central positon within the plot and therefore the proposed house and northern wing would not result in overbearing or oppressive impact on the neighbouring properties and gardens. 8.27 In conclusion, the impact upon neighbouring amenities, by way of this development, is considered to respect the amenities of the neighbour properties and gardens and a good quality of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings would be achieved. vi) Water management 8.28 The site is located within EA Flood Zone one; an area at least at risk of flooding. Concerns are usually not an issue in these areas and the EA do not require a Flood Risk Assessment of replacement residential properties in such areas.

Page 216

8.29 To accommodate surface water, a water harvesting system is proposed which would consist of an underground tank and recycling facility for surface water to be reused within the garden. The LPA would need to be satisfied that the harvesting system would be suitable for the proposed house and a condition is therefore proposed to require details of the harvesting system to be agreed with the LPA and implemented prior to first occupation and retained and maintained in working order in perpetuity. Although the agent has confirmed the surface water harvesting system will be suitable to the size of the dwelling in order to manage surface water appropriately, the concerns from the Tennis Club regarding surface water management are appreciated. On balance, a surface water harvesting system would be appropriate and can be secured by condition. 8.30 Furthermore this method of re-use of surface water would contribute towards sustainable construction methods. 8.31 It is considered that the proposed surface and foul water drainage requirements of the development would be managed appropriately subject to agreement of details by the LPA and therefore the proposal would be acceptable in this respect. Additional matters Internet connectivity 8.32 The agent has confirmed that; 'the house will be connected to the BT cable system that is available in Roman Landing and the intention within the house is to install a Cat V cable system'. Significant Conditions 8.33 It is recommended that conditions are imposed to ensure materials are agreed with the LPA prior to the implementation of any external finish materials on site. 8.34 Conditions are also proposed to ensure that refuse and cycle storage is provided in accordance with the details submitted and that appropriate drainage is provided. Given the scale of the development, Permitted Development Rights should also be removed so that the LPA can consider the impact of future development on the site. A surface water management condition is proposed requiring details of the harvesting system to be agreed with the LPA and retained and maintained in working order in perpetuity. Conclusion 8.35 Based on the above assessment, it is considered the proposal complies with the Development Plan and any material considerations and, subject to conditions, permission is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.36 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

Page 217

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 B01G No Departure from Plans 2 U00397 - materials TBC 3 U00398 - en-suite window at first floor level in 4 U00399 - no windows or other openings to roofs 5 U00400 - pd removed - external alterations 6 U00405 - surface water management TBC 7 U00403 - Porous surfaces 8 U00404 - surface water 9 U00402 - Bins and bikes 10 U00406 – drainage INFORMATIVE 1 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions For further information on this application please contact Maria Tomlinson on 01243 534734

Page 218

Chichester District Council, East Pallant House, East Pallant, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1TY Email:

dcplanning@chichester.gov.uk

Agenda Item

Report PC

Report to Planning Committee

Date of Committee 27 April 2016

By Head of Planning Services

Local Authority Chichester District Council

Application No: SDNP/16/00787/HOUS

Validation Date 16 February 2016

Target Date: 12 April 2016

Applicant: Ms Jane Mottershead

Proposal: Dormer window to west elevation roof slope (amendment to

previously approved dormer window).

Site Address Brook Cottages Mill Pond Lane West Ashling West Sussex PO18

8DY

Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision

Recommendation: That the application be Approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report. Reason for Committee referral: Contentious application on which Officers consider decision should be by Committee Executive Summary The proposal the subject of this application is for a dormer window to the west elevation roof slope and is similar to that refused planning permission by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 9 December 2015. Previously planning permission had been granted for a smaller dormer window on the west elevation roof slope (SDNP/15/01458/HOUS) under officer’s delegated powers. This proposal differs from that permitted under SDNP/15/01458/FUL by virtue of an increase in its width and height, a reduction of depth, and alterations to the design and materials to be used. The applicant has submitted a further application so that a number of issues raised at the 15 December Planning Committee can be addressed in the submission.

Page 219

Agenda Item 20

It is considered that the proposed dormer window is an acceptable form of extension to the building which will have a minimal impact on the character and appearance of the host building and the West Ashling Conservation Area. Whilst the dormer window will allow for a limited amount of additional overlooking of the neighbouring property this is not considered harmful to the amenities of the occupiers because the amenity space is already overlooked from a number of adjacent properties. 1. Site Description

The application site is located at the end of Mill Pond Lane, a private driveway within the West Ashling Conservation Area and the wider South Downs National Park. The property is not listed but it is considered that the appearance and character of the building contributes to the character of the Conservation Area. The building has been divided into two properties with no 2 Brook Cottages being at its southern end.

2. Relevant Planning History

SDNP/15/01458/HOUS Proposed Dormer window and roof lights, together with the insertion of one gable window at second floor level and a pair of French doors on the ground floor. Approved, May 2015 SDNP/15/03121/NMA Non-material amendment to planning permission. Refused, July 2015 SDNP/15/03620/HOUS Alteration to the style and size of the previously permitted dormer window on the west elevation. Withdrawn, September 2015 SDNP/15/04412/HOUS Dormer window to west elevation roof slope (Amendment to previously approved dormer). Refused, December 2015

3. Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for a dormer window within the west elevation roof slope of the property. The dormer window has already been constructed and as such this planning application is retrospective. Planning permission has previously been granted for a smaller dormer window in the west elevation roof slope of the dwelling.

4. Consultations

Parish Council

No objection Funtington Parish Council is extremely concerned by this application. The application arose following a structural failure in the property and required urgent resolution because of the onset of winter offering the opportunity of the beneficial use of the roof space. The original application with a dormer window on the eastern elevation appeared to the Parish Council to be very acceptable as it did not overlook any adjoining residential property and was in keeping with the character of the surrounding properties.

Page 220

We were therefore disappointed that, apparently at the Planning Officer's instigation, the application was withdrawn and an application to construct the dormer on the western aspect of the property was submitted. In principle we did not object to the revised application but clearly stated that we preferred the original application because we felt that the western dormer would overlook adjoining properties, as indeed proved to be the case. That application was, of course, approved. The application SDNP/15/04412/HOUS was a minor departure from that which had been previously approved by the National Park Authority and as such was not objected to by the Parish Council although we did express again that we preferred the previous application for the east facing dormer. Be that as it may, bearing in mind that the applicant had amended her application apparently at the express wish of the Planning Authority's own Planning Officer who went on to approve the amended application under his delegated powers, we feel that the Planning Authority was estopped from refusing what constituted a minor, de-minimus, variation of an already approved permission. We feel therefore that the Planning Authority has acted improperly insofar as its actions have been inconsistent and have also imposed unjustifiable uncertainty and expense on the applicant. We feel therefore that this application should be approved but again make it abundantly clear that we preferred the east facing proposal.

5. Representations

18 letters of objection received making the following comments: Size and scale of the dormer out of character with the dwelling Impact on the Conservation Area Loss of historic character Additional overlooking Dormer should be on east elevation 9 letters of support received making the following comments: The dormer is not unneighbourly No harmful visual impact The dormer window should be approved 1 no. 80 signature petition in support of the proposal

6. Policy Context 6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless

material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Chichester District Local Plan First Review (1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below.

Page 221

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010 Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks.

6.2 National Park Purposes

The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:

To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas;

To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas.

If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well-being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes.

6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010

In addition to the above, the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant to the determination of this planning application: Paragraphs 14 (Sustainable Development) 17 (Core Planning Principles) Sections 7 (Requiring Good Design) 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment). Sections 16 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 are also relevant to the determination of the application. The draft South Downs Local Plan Preferred Options 2015 was approved by the South Downs National Park Authority on 16 July 2015. The public consultation on the document took place in September and October 2015. The document and the policies contained therein are now a material consideration when determining planning applications within the National Park; however at this stage the policies will carry limited weight. The following policies are considered relevant to this application: SD6 Design SD11 Historic Environment SD39 Conservation Areas SD45 Replacement of dwellings and extensions

Page 222

6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan

The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan.

The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:

General Policy 1 Conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures. General Policy 9 The significance of the historic environment is protected from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are exploited. General Policy 50 Housing and other development in the National Park should be closely matched to the social and economic needs of local people and should be of high design and energy efficiency standards, to support balanced communities so people can live and work in the area.

7. Planning Policy

The following policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review (1999) are relevant to this application:

BE11 New Development

BE12 Alterations, Extensions And Conversions

BE4 Buildings Of Architectural Or Historic Merit

BE6 Conservation Areas

8. Planning Assessment The main issues with this proposal are considered to be: 1) The impact of the size and scale, design and siting of the proposed dormer window on the host building and the West Ashling Conservation Area. 2) The impact of the proposed development on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Issue 1 - The impact of the size and scale, design and siting of the proposed dormer window on the building and the West Ashling Conservation Area

Page 223

The proposal the subject of this application is for a dormer window to the west elevation roof slope of the property and is the same dormer as that refused planning permission by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 9 December 2015. The dormer window provides light and ventilation to a bedroom that has been created in the roof space of the property. The applicant has submitted a further application so that a number of issues raised at the December Planning Committee meeting can be addressed in the submission. A further set of plans has also been submitted which show the dormer more clearly and more accurately. The dormer window is considered to be well designed with a hipped roof and being constructed from hand made plain clay tiles with a lead surround to the window opening. The front face of the dormer has a width of 2.2 metres. The window opening measures 1.61 metres by 0.9 metres and the window frame which is constructed from timber painted in a dark colour, is broken up into three panes. The frame area measures 1.45 sq.m and the glazed area 0.75 sq.m. The dormer window is set 1.0 metres above the eaves line of the property and its ridge extends up to the ridge line of the dwelling. The design and scale of the dormer window is consistent with many dormers within the West Ashling Conservation Area and it is considered that the half hipped roof design is appropriate in terms of its size and scale with the roof of Brook Cottages and it would not be unduly dominant nor detract from the character and appearance of the West Ashling Conservation Area. It is a material consideration when assessing the merits of this proposal that planning permission has previously been approved for a dormer window in the west roof slope of the property albeit of a different design and size.

In conclusion on this first issue, the proposed dormer window is considered to be subservient to the main building in terms of size and scale and it would enable the habitable use of the second floor of the building. It is considered that it would not detract from the character or appearance of the host building, the rural area and the character of the West Ashling Conservation Area which would be preserved. The proposal is considered to comply with policies BE4, BE6, BE11 and BE12 of the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review, 1999. Issue 2 - The impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties The second issue with this application is the impact of the development on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through the ability to overlook their amenity space. Policy BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review, 1999 states that a proposals relationship to and effect on neighbouring development will be taken into account in assessing planning applications. It is acknowledged that there will be a degree of overlooking of the amenity space of the neighbouring property from the dormer window.

Page 224

When assessing the impact of the overlooking of the neighbours’ amenity space it is relevant to note that there are three existing windows located at first floor level on the west elevation of 2 Brook Cottages from which it is possible to look out onto the amenity space of the neighbouring property to the west. The amenity space is also overlooked by a number of other properties in the area. Views of the gable end, large flat roof extension and a terrace of the neighbouring property can be obtained from these three windows. However, the dormer window serves a bedroom and its main function is to provide light and ventilation to that room. Occupiers are unlikely to spend time looking out of the window in the same way as they would if it was say a kitchen or living room. It is considered that whilst there will be a degree of additional overlooking from the dormer window this would not result in harm to the neighbours’ amenities because that space is already significantly overlooked. It is a material consideration when assessing the level of harm caused by this proposal that planning permission has previously been approved for a dormer window in the west elevation roof slope of the property and as such overlooking of the neighbouring property could occur from a dormer window at second floor level if that planning permission was implemented. In conclusion on this second issue, it is considered that the addition of a window at second floor level, whilst resulting in a degree of additional overlooking of the neighbouring property, would not be harmful to the amenities of the occupiers. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policy BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999.

9. Conclusion

In conclusion, the provision of a dormer window to the west elevation of the property is considered to be an appropriate form of addition to the dwelling that does not detract from its character or appearance, preserves the character of the West Ashling Conservation Area and would not be harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling. On balance, the proposed dormer window is considered to be an acceptable form of development which is consistent with policies BE4, BE6, BE11 and BE12 of the Chichester District Local Plan - First Review 1999, policies 1, 9 and 50 of the South Downs National Park Partnership Management Plan and the policies contained within sections 7 and 12 of the NPPF. Therefore the application is recommended for approval.

10. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with

the following plans:

Page 225

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status

Plans - Existing,

Proposed and Approved

Elevations

101 16.02.2016 Approved

Plans - Location Plan,

Block Plan and Site Plan

102 16.02.2016 Approved

Plans - Photoshop

Images View A

103 16.02.2016 Approved

Plans - Photoshop

Images View A

104 16.02.2016 Approved

Reasons: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 02. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)./ To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 03. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed using external materials to match those on the existing building in colour, texture, form and composition unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenity. 04. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted plans and specifications. Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and in the interests of the amenities and character of the area.

11. Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that this planning application does not raise any crime and disorder implications.

12. Human Rights Implications

This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.

13. Equalities Act 2010

Due regard, where relevant, has been taken of the National Park Authority's equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010.

Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

Page 226

Case Officer Details Name: Rafa Grosso Macpherson Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: rgmacpherson@chichester.gov.uk Appendix 1 Site Location Map

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on

behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised

reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South

Downs National Park Authority, Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale).

Page 227

Chichester District Council

Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel

Thursday 14 April 2016

Planning Committee

Wednesday 27 April 2016

DCLG Technical Consultation on Proposed Starter Homes Regulations

1. Contact

Mike Allgrove - Planning Policy Conservation and Design Service Manager Telephone: 01243 521044 E-mail: mallgrove@chichester.gov.uk

2. Recommendation

2.1. Following amendments from the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel, the Planning Committee is asked to note the contents of the Department for Communities and Local Government Technical Consultation on Proposed Starter Homes Regulations and to endorse the response.

3. Background 3.1 The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) has published a

consultation document seeking views on the details for regulations to be made under powers contained in the Housing and Planning Bill.

3.2 The consultation will last for 8 weeks from 23 March to 18 May 2016. A copy of the

CLG consultation document is appended to this report. The main areas covered in the consultation document are summarised below. The government is also seeking further views on the amendment to the definition of affordable homes for the purpose of national planning policy, although the deadline for this consultation response is 22 April.

Restrictions on the sale and lettings of a starter home and flexibility in the age 40

eligibility 3.3 The consultation paper is seeking views on whether the regulations should allow for

a tapered approach which enables starter homes to be sold at an increasing proportion of market value, stepping up over time. Also whether there should be some flexibility over the age criterion in relation to couples where one person is over 40 and an exemption for injured military service personnel or those whose partner has died in service.

Page 228

Agenda Item 21

Size of site where starter homes will be required 3.4 The consultation paper is seeking views on whether a site size of 10 units or more

(or 0.5 ha) would be an appropriate minimum threshold. Minimum percentage requirement

3.5 The consultation paper is seeking views on whether the minimum percentage

requirement for starter homes should be on all sites across the country and if so whether 20% represents a reasonable requirement for most areas.

Exemptions and Commuted Sums

3.6 The consultation paper is seeking views on whether there should be exemptions to

the starter homes requirement based on viability considerations. Also whether there should be the opportunity to meet the requirement through off site provision secured through commuted sums.

4.0 Proposed Council Response 4.1 The officer suggested response to the consultation questions will be circulated to

members prior to the meeting of the Panel and published as part of the papers for the Planning Committee.

5.0 Appendices 5.1 CLG Technical Consultation on proposed Starter Homes Regulations 5.2 Starter Homes Regulations Technical Consultation Response from Chichester

District Council

Page 229

March 2016 Department for Communities and Local Government

Starter Homes Regulations

Technical consultation

Page 230

© Crown copyright, 2016

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence,http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.

This document/publication is also available on our website at www.gov.uk/dclg

If you have any enquiries regarding this document/publication, complete the form at http://forms.communities.gov.uk/ or write to us at:

Department for Communities and Local Government Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Telephone: 030 3444 0000

For all our latest news and updates follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CommunitiesUK

March 2016

ISBN: 978-1-4098-4809-7

Page 231

3

Contents

Scope of the consultation 4

Basic Information 4

Ministerial foreword 5

Section 1: Introduction 6

Section 2: What is a starter home? 8

Restrictions on the sale and lettings of a starter home 8

Age 40 eligibility 9

Section 3: The Starter Homes Requirement 11

Statutory provisions 11

The starter homes requirement and off site commuted sums 15

Section 4: Monitoring and reporting 17

Transitional provisions 18

Equalities considerations 18

Assessment of impact 19

Summary of questions 20

Annex A: Securing affordable housing through planning obligations 22

Average proportion of starter homes which could secured through section 106 23

About this consultation 25

Page 232

4

Scope of the consultation

Topic of this consultation:

This technical consultation document seeks your views on the details for the regulations to support the starter homes clauses in the Housing and Planning Bill.

Scope of this consultation:

We are keen to hear the views of all parties with an interest in the starter homes proposals.

Geographical scope: These proposals relate to England only.

Impact Assessment and Equalities Statement

An impact assessment and Equalities Statement for these regulations will be published shortly to help inform the consultation. We would welcome views on these and any additional evidence to support the assessments.

Basic Information

To: This is a public consultation

Body/bodies responsible for the consultation:

This consultation is bring run by the Housing Supply Directorate of the

Department for Communities and Local Government

Duration: This consultation will last for 8 weeks from 23 March to 18 May 2016.

Enquiries: For any enquiries about the consultation please email your query to:

starterhomestechnicalconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk

How to respond: You may respond by completing an online survey at:

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/Starter_homes

Alternatively you can email your response to the questions in this consultation to

starterhomestechnicalconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk

If you are responding by email, it would be helpful if you could use the summary of questions provided in word format. When you reply it would be very useful if you confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include: - your name, - your position (if applicable), - the name of organisation (if applicable), - an address (including post-code), - an email address, and - a contact telephone number

Page 233

5

Ministerial foreword

We are taking forward ambitious measures to increase the supply of housing and improve

prospects of home ownership for many. We aim to deliver 1 million new homes to boost

housing supply significantly. We want to ensure young people are not denied that which

their parents took for granted – the opportunity to buy their own home, settle down and

enjoy the security that home ownership brings. That is why we have committed to building

200,000 high quality starter homes exclusively for young first time buyers under 40, to be

sold at a minimum of 20% below the open market value.

We want to see starter homes built on housing sites across the country. The Housing and

Planning Bill sets out the statutory framework for the delivery of starter homes, and will be

supported by changes to national planning policy, which were subject to public

consultation ending on 22 February 2016. We announced a £2.3 billion funding package to

support the delivery of up to 60,000 starter homes. Of this funding £1.2 billion will - in the

first instance – be made available to remediate or assemble brownfield land to deliver at

least 30,000 starter homes through the Starter Homes Land Fund.

This technical consultation document seeks your views on the details for the regulations to

be made under powers contained in the Housing and Planning Bill, including options for

the Starter Homes requirement on reasonably sized sites. We want to hear views so the

resulting regulations are feasible, proportionate and effective. I am confident that these

reforms will help a generation of young people into home ownership.

Brandon Lewis MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning

Page 234

6

Section 1: Introduction

The Government is committed to increasing home ownership and improving opportunities

for young first time buyers. The delivery of 200,000 quality starter homes during the

Parliament is a central part of this ambition. Starter homes will be exclusively available for

first-time buyers under the age of 40 and sold at a discount of at least 20 per cent of the

market price.

To deliver this commitment, the Housing and Planning Bill (currently before Parliament)

proposes a new statutory framework for starter homes, including:

a statutory definition of a starter home;

a general duty on local planning authorities to promote the supply of starter homes

when carrying out their planning functions;

the ability to set a starter homes requirement, meaning that local planning

authorities may only grant planning permission for residential development if the

starter homes requirement is met;

reporting arrangements to ensure local communities, and especially first time

buyers, are aware of what action local planning authorities are taking to support the

delivery of starter homes; and

powers for the Secretary of State to intervene if local planning authorities fail to

carry out their functions related to starter homes.

The detailed implementation of key aspects for the statutory framework for starter homes

will be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State, including:

elements of the definition of a starter home;

the starter homes requirement (regulations specifying the number of starter homes

to be delivered and the types of site on which the requirement should be imposed,

such as those of a reasonable size) ; and

the reporting arrangements for starter homes delivery.

This technical consultation sets out the Government’s proposed approach for these

regulations and seeks views from developers, local planning authorities and other partners

about our proposals.

Consultation responses will help to inform the preparation of the regulations following the

Housing and Planning Bill’s Royal Assent.

In December 2015, the Government also published a consultation on further changes to

national planning policy to complement these legislative reforms. This included a

proposal to amend the definition of affordable housing for the purposes of national

planning policy[1]. That consultation closed on 22nd February 2016. The consultation

Page 235

7

document proposed to broaden the definition of affordable housing so it encompasses a

fuller range of products that can support access to home ownership, including starter

homes. Paragraph 11 of that consultation mentioned the Government’s intention to consult

on the percentage requirement for starter homes on reasonably-sized sites.

In light of the proposals now set out in this consultation document relating to the

percentage requirement for starter homes we want to provide a further opportunity for

respondents to make any additional representations on the proposed changes to the

definition of affordable homes for the purpose of national planning policy. Any comments

should be sent to planningpolicyconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk by no later than

Friday 22 April.

[1] See

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488276/151

207_Consultation_document.pdf

Page 236

8

Section 2: What is a starter home?

Clause 2 of the Housing and Planning Bill defines a starter home as a new dwelling only

available for purchase by qualifying first-time buyers and which is made available at price

which is at least 20% less than its market value but which is below the price cap. A price

cap of £250,000 outside Greater London and £450,000 in Greater London is specified in

the Bill.

The clause also sets out the criteria which a person must fulfil to be eligible to purchase a

starter home. These include that the purchaser is a first-time buyer (falling within the

statutory definition) and that he or she is under the age of 40. The Secretary of State may

also, through regulations, specify additional criteria a first-time buyer must fulfil for

example nationality.

The Government proposes to introduce regulations to underpin the new statutory

framework for starter homes. These will cover the restrictions on the sale and letting of a

starter home and some limited flexibility on the under age 40 criterion. This section seeks

views about our proposed approach on each of these elements.

Restrictions on the sale and lettings of a starter home

The Government consulted on potential sale and lettings restrictions for starter homes as

part of its development of planning policy for starter home exception sites in early 2015.

The consultation established that it is important for starter homes to be regarded as

homes, not as short term investment opportunities, but this has to be balanced against the

need for families to move when circumstances change. The exception site policy therefore

set a 5 year restriction from the date of first sale of the starter home, during which time the

purchaser could not sell the starter home for full market value. This aimed to achieve

maximum mobility for individuals who would be free to move on without restriction.

We propose that regulations would prevent starter homes being sold at full market value

for a restricted period. We continue to believe this is important to ensure starter homes

are sold to those who are genuinely committed to living in an area and not to those who

would simply wish to quickly sell to secure financial uplift. We would now like views on

whether the existing approach should be refined – to allow the proportion of market value

the individual is able to realise on sale to increase gradually with the number of years they

have lived in the property before the restriction is completely lifted.

The Government is seeking views on a tapered approach which enables the starter home

to be sold at an increasing proportion of market value, stepping up to 100% over time.

The Government is interested in views on the implementation challenges of a tapered

approach and whether it will support the wider objective to deliver home ownership

opportunities. At the most, the Government does not support extending the restricted

Page 237

9

period beyond the first 8 years of occupation, believing this would unreasonably limit

people’s ability to move on.

During the restricted period, if the qualifying first-time buyer wanted to move, they could

sell the starter home at a discount to another qualifying first-time buyer. The level of

discount would depend on when during the restricted period the qualifying first-time buyer

was selling the starter home. The new purchaser would also be required to be a qualifying

first time buyer. At the end of the restricted period, the property could be sold to anyone,

like any other property.

It is also the Government’s intention that starter homes should not be used as “buy to let”

properties and they should not be rented out during the restricted period. These properties

are intended for owner occupation and we therefore propose that the regulations will be

place restrictions on renting out the property.

Q1: Do you support restrictions on the sale and sub-letting of starter homes for 5

years following initial sale? Do you support allowing individuals to sell at a higher

proportion of market value as the number of years they have lived in the home

increases? If not, what other approaches can we adopt to meet our objectives?

Age 40 eligibility

Starter homes are intended for purchase by first-time buyers under the age of 40. This age

group has seen the most significant drop in home ownership over the last 20 years.

However, the Government recognises that there may be certain, limited circumstances in

which the age cap may need to be varied.

The Government has introduced an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill to allow

the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing for some flexibility. We want to ensure

that in circumstances where joint purchasers are both qualifying first time buyers but one is

over the age of 40 and one is under 40, they should be able jointly to buy a starter home.

The Government is committed to ensuring it supports the armed forces covenant. This is a

promise from the nation that those who serve or have served in the armed forces, and

their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of

public and commercial services; and that special consideration is appropriate in some

cases, especially for those who have given the most such as the injured or the bereaved.

We propose that the regulations should allow for injured service personnel and those

whose partner has died in service to be exempt from the under age 40 restriction. It is the

Government’s position that first-time buyers who have suffered particular hardship as a

result of military service should be given the opportunity to access a starter home,

irrespective of age.

Page 238

10

Q2: Do you agree that flexibility over the age 40 restriction should be given when

joint purchasers are looking to buy a starter home, one purchaser being under 40

years old but the other older than 40?

Q3: Do you agree that there should be an exemption from the age 40 restriction for

injured military services personnel and those whose partner has died in service?

Page 239

11

Section 3: The Starter Homes Requirement

Statutory provisions

Evidence clearly points to a national need to support young, first time buyers into home

ownership. Over the last 20 years, the proportion of under 40s who are homeowners in

England has declined by over a third from 61% to 38% in 2014/15. Despite this change,

expectations for home ownership remain high and 2.3 million households, currently in the

private rented sector, said they expected to buy a home at some point in the future

(English Housing Survey 2014/5).

To respond to this national need, the Government’s Productivity Plan published in July

2015 set out that starter homes would be required on all reasonably sized housing sites.

The Housing and Planning Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to make

regulations to achieve this, allowing him to set a requirement for the provision of starter

homes on residential developments. A local planning authority may only grant planning

permission for these developments if that starter homes requirement is met.

This starter homes requirement is intended to ensure that starter homes become a

common feature of new residential developments across England. Starter homes

requirements could include the provision of a particular number or proportion of starter

homes on a site or the payment of a commuted sum to the local planning authority for the

provision of starter homes elsewhere. The Secretary of State will have flexibility to apply

different requirements to different types of residential developments and to different areas.

It is important that the starter homes requirement is implemented in a way which does not

undermine wider housing supply by making development unviable, or increase the

administrative burdens on developers or local planning authorities.

The Government also recognises the importance of local planning authorities' continuing

to have the local flexibility to secure additional section 106 contributions beyond the starter

homes requirement, for shared ownership and other forms of affordable housing where it

is both viable and there is a demonstrable local need.

We would welcome views about the four key aspects of this approach which are discussed

in more detail below.

a) Minimum threshold for residential developments subject to the starter home requirement

The Government’s starting point is that the starter homes requirement should apply to

most residential developments. It is common practice to secure mixed tenure housing

through section 106 agreements and the Government intends that starter homes will form

part of that mix.

Page 240

12

Most Local Plans now have some form of affordable housing policy in place which requires

affordable housing contributions to be secured through section 106 agreements. We

propose that the starter homes requirement applies to sites which meet at least one of the

following criteria: 10 units or more or 0.5 or more hectares, This would ensure that very

small sites would not have a compulsory starter homes requirement, which could have an

adverse impact on the form or viability of such developments. It also aligns with the

planning definition of 'major development' for development management purposes1.

An alternative would be to set a higher threshold at 25 or 50 units, to focus on larger sites

only. However, this would result in fewer starter homes being delivered. We are also

concerned that a higher threshold would create inconsistency with many local plan

thresholds, so a scheme of 20 units would be caught by an existing affordable housing

local plan policy but not the starter home requirement. A lower threshold, of for example 6

units, would further support starter home delivery but could add unreasonable burdens to

very small sites, both in terms of increasing the complexity of the development and on the

viability of the scheme.

Q4: Would a site size of 10 units or more (or 0.5 ha) be an appropriate minimum

threshold for the starter home requirement? If not, what threshold would be

appropriate and why?

b) Percentage requirement for starter homes

The Government’s intention is that the regulations for the starter homes requirement would

set a clear percentage for the number of starter homes required on relevant residential

developments. The starter homes requirement would be secured through a section 106

agreement. We propose that the regulations also allow for exemptions from the starter

homes requirement for some forms of residential development and also in circumstances

where there are overwhelming viability constraints on the site. The starter homes

requirement would apply in all other circumstances.

This percentage will need to be set at a level which reflects:

a national need to support home ownership for the under 40s, to address declining

opportunities for home ownership in this group;

general viability considerations for residential development so overall housing

supply is not undermined; and

the subsidy cost for a developer of a starter home relative to other forms of

affordable housing secured through section 106 agreement.

In existing local plans, the percentage of homes on a site which must be affordable

housing varies across the country but is generally in the region of around 20 - 35%. These

1 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure Order) (England) 2015

Page 241

13

policies have been tested for general viability during the preparation and examination of

the Local Plan. In higher value areas, like London, the affordable housing target is more

commonly closer to 50%, and in limited cases, such as National Parks, this can be as high

as 100%. The level of affordable housing agreed on an individual scheme is locally

negotiated and is generally subject to viability considerations.

We have examined the actual level of affordable housing contributions, delivered through

Section 106 agreements over the last 3 years. Evidence suggests that a starter homes

requirement of 20% of all homes delivered on a residential development would be viable

on an average development. Annex A sets out the methodology and assumptions used.

There is an option to set the requirement at a level that is lower than this estimate, for

example at 15%. This would ensure that most schemes can deliver this requirement

alongside other forms of affordable housing. Councils and developers would be free to

agree a larger percentage of starter homes where they agreed that viability would allow or,

in these circumstances, agree a mix of affordable housing to include the starter homes

requirement. However, the impact of the lower percentage would be to reduce the likely

overall level of starter home delivery and result in fewer starter homes for first time buyers.

A higher percentage of 25% would ensure most sites deliver a higher number of starter

homes. There is a risk that if we set the percentage too high, where viability is marginal,

more sites will struggle to come forward and overall housing supply will be affected. This

will be a particular concern in locations with lower viability where affordable housing

contributions are generally lower. The higher requirement would also constrain the mix of

affordable housing which could realistically be delivered on each site.

We have also considered whether to set a varied requirement, based on regional

differences in viability. This would allow for a lower minimum requirement in some

locations and higher in others. However, it would not capture the variations in viability

within areas and could add complexity to the requirement for land owners and developers.

A single national requirement would be consistent across all areas and ensure delivery

takes place across the country to maximise opportunities for first time buyers.

On balance, we propose that a single national minimum requirement of 20% of all homes

delivered as part of residential developments is broadly justified.

Q5: Should the minimum percentage requirement be applied uniformly on all sites

over 10 units to provide a single requirement across the country?

Q6: If so, do you agree that 20% represents a reasonable requirement for most

areas?

Page 242

14

c) Exemptions to the requirement

General Viability Exemption

We propose a general exemption to the starter homes requirement for those residential

developments where it can be clearly demonstrated that the starter homes requirement

would render the site unviable. This will ensure that developments with exceptionally high

infrastructure costs or in particularly low demand areas are not unduly burdened by the

requirement and are able to proceed. This exemption would apply only in tightly defined

circumstances. It would require clear evidence from a developer that the scheme could not

support the starter homes requirement and that no other affordable housing contributions

are being provided. The local authority must agree with this assessment. Where the

requirement cannot be met in full due to viability considerations, we will introduce flexibility

in the regulations to allow a lower percentage of starter homes to be provided.

We would particularly welcome views about how viability constraints can be clearly

demonstrated on a site-by-site basis. One approach could be for the regulations to set out

a prescriptive test which the developer and local planning authority would need to follow.

An alternative approach could be to give local flexibility similar to the current approach for

section 106 negotiations.

Q7: Do you support an exemption from the Starter Homes requirement for those

developments which would be unviable if they had to deliver any affordable housing

including Starter Homes? If so, how prescriptive should the viability test be in the

regulations?

Other Exemptions

The starter homes requirement will apply to new residential developments. The

Government recognises, however, that the starter homes requirement will not be

appropriate for some types of residential development. The regulations will therefore

identify types of development which will not be subject to the starter homes requirement.

Some types of specialist housing development could be incompatible with a starter homes

requirement. We propose that the requirement should not apply to dedicated supported

housing which provides specialist accommodation for a particular group and which

includes an element of support, such as residential care homes. A starter homes

requirement would have an adverse impact on the viability of such developments and we

propose that they are exempted.

We also recognise that there are some developments, such as estate regeneration

schemes and other affordable housing led developments, where a very high proportion of

shared ownership and affordable rent units are delivered by housing associations, local

authorities and other providers. The inclusion of starter homes as part of these

developments would help to ensure these developments have a diversity of tenures and

form mixed communities, but the compulsory inclusion could alter the public subsidy

Page 243

15

required to make these developments viable. We would welcome views on whether these

schemes should be subject to the minimum starter homes requirement.

We are also interested in views on whether purpose built student housing should be

exempt from the starter homes requirement, since this type of accommodation is designed

and built for a very specific purpose, often directly connected to an educational institution.

A starter homes requirement is unlikely to be compatible with most student housing

schemes, both in terms of design and potentially in terms of viability.

We would also welcome views about whether an exemption should be made for custom

build developments (if the development is over the minimum threshold for the starter

homes requirement.) Such developments involve the building of market homes and

normally would be subject to section 106 affordable housing contributions (subject to

viability), so arguably they should be subject to the starter homes requirement. However,

it could be burdensome to require a number of starter homes on the site given the different

nature of the custom build delivery models.

Q8: Do you support the proposed exemptions from the starter homes requirement?

If not, why not?

Q9: Should group custom build developments and developments with a very high

level of affordable housing such as estate regeneration schemes be exempt? If not,

why not?

Q10: Are any further exemptions from the starter homes requirement warranted, and

why?

The starter homes requirement and off site commuted sums

In most cases, the starter homes requirement should be an on-site provision of starter

homes. However, the Government recognises that some flexibility on the requirement may

be needed, particularly in high value areas or where development does not easily lend

itself to an on-site provision. The Housing and Planning Bill allows for off-site commuted

sums to be made in lieu of on-site starter home provision. Commuted sums would have to

be used by the local planning authority for providing starter homes elsewhere. In line with

existing practice on affordable housing contributions, we propose that the local planning

authority must agree to an off-site contribution and this should be based on the cost to the

developer of meeting the starter homes requirement.

We are seeking views on the contribution made to starter homes from purpose built private

rented sector housing (for institutional investment). We do not propose that this form of

housing should be bound by an on-site starter homes requirement since purpose built

private rented developments would, for a combination of design, property management

and investment reasons, not easily support a mixed tenure scheme. We propose that

Page 244

16

private rented sector developments could contribute to starter home provision and the

requirement should be met through an off site contribution for delivery of starter homes.

Similarly, we propose that housing designed specifically with older people in mind (but with

no additional support required) would be subject to an off-site contribution to starter

homes. Again, an on-site contribution would not be compatible with the function and

design of this form of housing. An off site contribution to starter homes would be

compatible with some existing practice on affordable housing contributions from specialist

older people’s housing. We would welcome views on the treatment of the starter homes

requirement for both purpose built private rented housing and older people’s housing.

Q11: Do you support the use of commuted sums to deliver starter homes where the

local planning authority agrees?

Q12: Do you support the proposal that private rented sector housing (for

institutional investment) and specialist older people’s housing should meet the

requirement through off-site contributions?

Page 245

17

Section 4: Monitoring and reporting

The Government will be monitoring the delivery of starter homes across the country from

March 2016 in order to identify where permissions have been sought for starter homes.

We will then follow these applications to determine when development has started. DCLG

will also track starter home completions through Local Authority data returns, with the first

data expected in 2017.

In addition, clause 5 of the Housing and Planning Bill requires a local planning authority to

prepare reports about the actions they have undertaken under the starter home functions.

Regulations can set out the content, form and timing of these reports, including whether

they should be combined with existing Authority Monitoring Reports.

We propose to set out in regulations that local planning authorities should prepare a

monitoring report on starter homes which should be published alongside the Authority

Monitoring Report. This report should be published at least on an annual basis. As all local

planning authorities should be updating their Authority Monitoring Reports, and making

them available to the public, we believe that this approach will align well with existing

requirements and will not require a separate monitoring and reporting requirement.

The content of these reports will include:

- number of planning applications received containing starter homes

- number of planning applications containing starter homes approved

- number of starter homes granted planning permission

- number of starter homes completed

- number of brownfield exception sites (as defined in national policy) identified

- number of brownfield exception sites granted planning permission

- starter homes granted permission as a result of the % requirement on housing sites over

10 units

- actions taken to identify opportunity for starter homes, including engagement with

development sector

- number of exemptions granted from the starter home requirement

The Government also intends to set a requirement that the first report on starter homes

development should be published by April 2017. This gives all local planning authorities

the opportunity to consider how they will carry out their new duties on starter homes and

put in place actions to support delivery.

Page 246

18

Q13: Do you agree that Starter Homes monitoring reports should be an annex to the

Authority Monitoring Report?

Q14: Do you agree that these reports establish the key actions taken to support

starter home delivery and the outcomes in terms of permissions granted and

completions?

Q15: Do you agree that April 2017 is a reasonable date for the first report to be

published? If not, do you have alternative suggestions and why?

Transitional provisions

The regulations will follow the affirmative procedure in that they will be subject to approval

by both the House of Commons and House of Lords. The Government intends the

regulations to apply on planning applications submitted to the local planning authority after

the date the regulations come into force.

We wish to understand whether there is a strong justification for a transitional provision so

that there is additional time for local planning authorities to consider the regulations and

their application.

Q16: Do you support a transitional provision for the starter home regulations?

Equalities considerations

We do not consider that the consultation proposals will have a negative impact on

discrimination, good relations or equality of opportunity. In terms of the impact on people

with protected characteristics the consultation proposals which could have the most impact

are those relating to the way in which the starter homes requirement will be set. We will

shortly be publishing an equalities statement relating to the proposals set out in this

consultation and we would welcome feedback on this assessment, in particular whether

there is any further evidence we should be considering in our assessment of the equalities

implications or actions we should consider to mitigate the impacts.

Q17: Is there further evidence we should be considering in our assessment of

equalities implications?

Page 247

19

Assessment of impact

An impact assessment of these consultation proposals will be published shortly to help

inform responses. We will be seeking views on the assumptions underpinning the impact

assessment and have indicated relevant areas below:

Q 18 (i): How do you anticipate the open market value of Starter Homes would

compare to other affordable housing products such as social rent, affordable rent

and affordable home ownership?

(ii): How do you envisage the market value of Starter Homes when compared to the

market value of full priced new build homes bought by first time buyers?

(iii): What is your view on the proportion of sites that would be able to deliver 20%

Starter Homes without viability being affected? How would this affect other

developer contributions?

(iv): Do you agree that in most instances s106 negotiations occur on residential

sites of 10 or more units, regardless of whether a s106 agreement is ultimately put

in place? And do you agree that before the April 2015 pooling restrictions on

Section 106, infrastructure contributions (as a proportion of development activity)

tended to be higher in authorities that secured relatively low s106 affordable

housing contributions?

(v) To what extent do you think the starter home requirement and associated

exemptions will affect site viability, if at all?

(vi) We would welcome (a) any estimates of the costs incurred by developers in

negotiating s106 agreements on sites of different sizes, for example time costs,

consultants or legal fees, and (b) views on the extent these costs might change as a

result of the 20% starter homes requirement.

We would welcome any comments you have on any of the other assumptions in the starter

homes impact assessment which will be published in due course.

Page 248

20

Summary of questions

Q1: Do you support restrictions on the sale and sub-letting of starter homes for 5 years

following initial sale? Do you support allowing individuals to sell at a higher proportion of

market value as the number of years they have lived in the home increases? If not, what

other approaches can we adopt to meet our objectives?

Q2: Do you agree that flexibility over the age 40 restriction should be given when joint

purchasers are looking to buy a starter home, one purchaser being under 40 years old but

the other older than 40?

Q3: Do you agree that there should be an exemption from the age 40 restriction for injured

military services personnel and those whose partner has died in service

Q4: Would a site size of 10 units or more (or 0.5 ha) be an appropriate minimum threshold

for the starter home requirement? If not, what threshold would be appropriate and why?

Q5: Should the minimum percentage requirement be applied uniformly on all sites over 10

units to provide a single requirement across the country?

Q6: If so, do you agree that 20% represents a reasonable requirement for most areas?

Q7: Do you support an exemption from the Starter Homes requirement for those

developments which would be unviable if they had to deliver any affordable housing

including Starter Homes? If so, how prescriptive should the viability test be in the

regulations?

Q8: Do you support the proposed exemptions from the starter home requirement? If not,

why not?

Q9: Should group custom build developments and developments with a very high level of

affordable housing such as estate regeneration schemes be exempt? If not, why not?

Q10: Are any further exemptions from the starter home requirement warranted, and why?

Q11: Do you support the use of commuted sums to deliver starter homes where the local

planning authority agrees?

Q12: Do you support the proposal that private rented sector housing (for institutional

investment) and specialist older people’s housing should meet the requirement through

off-site contributions?

Q13: Do you agree that Starter Homes monitoring reports should be an annex to the

Authority Monitoring Report?

Q14: Do you agree that these reports establish the key actions taken to support starter

home delivery and the outcomes in terms of permissions granted and completions?

Page 249

21

Q15: Do you agree that April 2017 is a reasonable date for the first report to be published?

If not, do you have alternative suggestions and why?

Q16: Do you support a transitional provision for the starter home regulations?

Q17 Is there further evidence we should be considering in our assessment of equalities

implications?

Q 18 (i): How do you anticipate the open market value of Starter Homes would compare to

other affordable housing products such as social rent, affordable rent and affordable home

ownership?

(ii): How do you envisage the market value of Starter Homes when compared to the

market value of full priced new build homes bought by first time buyers?

(iii): What is your view on the proportion of sites that would be able to deliver 20% Starter

Homes without viability being affected? How would this affect other developer

contributions?

(iv): Do you agree that in most instances s106 negotiations occur on residential sites of 10

or more units, regardless of whether a s106 agreement is ultimately put in place? And do

you agree that before the April 2015 pooling restrictions on Section 106, infrastructure

contributions (as a proportion of development activity) tended to be higher in authorities

that secured relatively low s106 affordable housing contributions?

(v) To what extent do you think the starter home requirement and associated exemptions

will affect site viability, if at all?

(vi) We would welcome (a) any estimates of the costs incurred by developers in

negotiating s106 agreements on sites of different sizes, for example time costs,

consultants or legal fees, and (b) views on the extent these costs might change as a result

of the 20% starter homes requirement.

Page 250

22

Annex A: Securing affordable housing through planning obligations

To help inform consultation responses, this annex provides a broad summary of how much

section 106 affordable housing is currently secured nationally, and our analysis about the

proportion of starter homes which could be secured on average through section 106

agreements without impacting viability.

Most local plans now have some form of affordable housing policy in place which requires

affordable housing contributions to be secured through section 106 planning obligations

where viable.

We have examined the level of section 106 contributions to affordable housing over the

last 3 years. Overall, 14,370 nil grant affordable homes secured through section 106 (i.e.

affordable homes funded directly by private developers as a planning obligation) were

completed in 2014/15. We estimate that in the three years from 2012-13 to 2014-15, nil

grant s106 affordable housing completions made up 11% of the homes built by private

developers:

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 3 year

total

Completions (A) 118,540 130,340 155,080 404,000

Affordable housing completions (all) (B)

39,510 36,640 58,560 134,710

Nil grant s106 affordable housing completions (C)

7,630 11,570 14,370 33,570

Private market completions and nil grant s106 affordable housing completions (D = A-B+C)

86,650 105,280 110,890 302,820

Nil grant s106 affordable housing completions as a percentage of private market completions and nil grant s106 affordable housing completions (E = C/D)

9% 11% 13% 11%

Source: DCLG calculation using DCLG live tables 123, 1011 and 1000. Note that the numbers in this table exclude

partial grant s106 affordable housing completions. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The percentage of affordable homes secured through section 106 is also dependent on

the tenure of affordable housing being sought reflecting the different cost subsidy of each

tenure for the developer; and is further complicated by the fact that some section 106

affordable housing has in the past been partly subsidised through grant.

Page 251

23

Average proportion of starter homes which could secured through section 106

The cost to a developer of being required through a section 106 agreement to build starter

homes is expected to be less per unit than other forms of affordable housing, as the starter

homes discount is only at least 20% off market value; although the developer will face a

higher sales risk as the purchaser will be an individual first time buyer rather than a

housing association.

Accordingly, a higher proportion of starter homes could be expected to be secured through

section 106 agreements on sites without impacting on site viability than other forms of

affordable housing, although there would still be a threshold where the proportion would

start to impact on viability.

To help identify this threshold on an average basis, we have estimated that, if the financial

value of existing developer contributions towards affordable housing on sites of 10 or more

units instead went towards starter homes, starter homes would make up approximately

22% of all private developer completions on sites of this size.

This estimate has been calculated on three years of local authority level completions data

from 2012-13 to 2014-15 and takes the following into account:

the mix of the different affordable housing types (social rent, affordable rent and

affordable home ownership) funded through section 106;

our evidence on the average discount on each of the different affordable housing

types sold by developers as a percentage of market value to be2;

whether the affordable housing funded through section 106 is nil grant or partial

grant. Partial grant affordable housing was given a weighting of 30% based on an

assumption that 30% of funding towards partial grant affordable housing comes

from developers;3 and

DCLG analysis of data from Glenigan on the percentage of dwellings included in

planning permissions for sites of different sizes.

This analysis does not imply that 22% is the maximum proportion of starter homes that any

development can bear without affecting viability. It may be possible to secure a

significantly higher proportion of starter homes on individual sites reflecting local market

conditions and site requirements, but it does give an indication of where a percentage

2 We assume a discount of 20% for starter homes. In areas with high house prices, on some sites the

discount may have to be higher in order for the starter homes to be sold below the £250k price cap outside London and the £450k price cap within London. Instances of this are likely to be lower if developers of sites in locations where property prices are very high are able to provide a commuted sum to the local authority in order for the starter homes to be built elsewhere. 3 This reflects evidence in University of Sheffield, University of Cambridge and Curtin University of

Technology (2010), ‘The incidence, value and delivery of planning obligations in England in 2007-08’

Page 252

24

requirement for starter homes may start on average to have an impact on site viability

across England.

Page 253

25

About this consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office. Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond. Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department. The Department for Communities and Local Government will process your personal data in accordance with DPA and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested. Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond. Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact DCLG Consultation Co-ordinator.

Department for Communities and Local Government

2 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DF

or by e-mail to: consultationcoordinator@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Page 254

Starter Homes Regulations Technical Consultation

Response from Chichester District Council

Q1: Do you support restrictions on the sale and sub-letting of starter homes for 5

years following initial sale? Do you support allowing individuals to sell at a higher

proportion of market value as the number of years they have lived in the home

increases? If not, what other approaches can we adopt to meet our objectives?

While we support the restrictions on the sale of starter homes we do not support the

restrictions on the sub-letting of starter homes following the initial sale. As starter homes are

restricted to the under 40s this age group is often mobile due to careers. It would make

sense to be able to rent the property if they need to move for work rather than leaving the

property empty. The sale of starter homes as buy to let properties is not appropriate.

It is considered that achieving a proportion of the market value when selling the property

would be difficult to assess and overly complicated is therefore not supported. However the

retention of starter homes in perpetuity is supported and should be considered.

A clarification on who will enforce the regulations / restrictive period associated with the

starter home process would be welcomed. This is particularly relevant in light of proposed

amendments by the House of Lords that are suggesting that the starter homes remain

discounted for 20 years with stepped increments in value. Whichever length of time starter

homes remain discounted for it would be helpful to understand how any discount system will

be enforced. For example, if a house is sold as a Starter Home who would monitor the

starter homes discount if it is subsequently sold on.

There is concern that the designation of starter homes as affordable housing, which are then

sold off will mean lead to an overall reduction in the provision of affordable housing over the

longer term and thereby a reduced ability to meet housing needs in an area.

Q2: Do you agree that flexibility over the age 40 restriction should be given when joint

purchasers are looking to buy a starter home, one purchaser being under 40 years old

but the other older than 40?

It would be fair to allow this as it is applied to other restricted properties i.e. over 50s

retirement homes. The complication might be for a couple where one is a first time buyer

and the other is not. Guidance should be given on whether started homes apply to such

couples.

Q3: Do you agree that there should be an exemption from the age 40 restriction for

injured military services personnel and those whose partner has died in service

Yes, in addition consideration should also be given to allowing access to starter homes for

those who are injured/disabled in other services i.e. police and firefighters.

Q4: Would a site size of 10 units or more (or 0.5 ha) be an appropriate minimum

threshold for the starter home requirement? If not, what threshold would be

appropriate and why?

Page 255

As for the now withdrawn affordable housing guidance in the NPPF/NPPG the threshold

should be 11. This previous government guidance, although now withdrawn, is reflected in

the recently adopted Chichester Local Plan. By using 11 as the threshold it would make it

consistent with previous guidance which has been reflected in development plan policy.

If affordable housing provision on a site is 30% and of that 20% would be sold as starter

homes this would leave only be 10% available for other forms of affordable housing i.e.

affordable rent. There is concern that it might not be viable for Registered Providers to take

on small amounts of affordable housing and that the delivery of other types of affordable

housing will be compromised and only likely to be achieved on very large sites.

Q5: Should the minimum percentage requirement be applied uniformly on all sites

over 10 units to provide a single requirement across the country?

No, there should be evidence of need and viability rather than uniform application. There will

be different requirements around the country according land values and need. Viability

assessments are already undertaken where appropriate for the delivery of affordable

housing on a site by site basis.

Q6: If so, do you agree that 20% represents a reasonable requirement for most areas?

No, evidence should be required as part of the plan making process in order to establish the

appropriate percentage in order to meet the need. Viability assessments could then be

undertaken where appropriate for the delivery of starter homes based on the identified need.

There is concern that in low wage areas with high housing costs, such as Chichester District,

Starter Homes may be priced at a level that will be unaffordable to many local people whose

housing needs will therefore not be met.

Q7: Do you support an exemption from the Starter Homes requirement for those

developments which would be unviable if they had to deliver any affordable housing

including Starter Homes? If so, how prescriptive should the viability test be in the

regulations?

The viability test should be the same as for other forms of affordable housing.

Q8: Do you support the proposed exemptions from the starter home requirement? If

not, why not?

Yes, these are supported

Q9: Should group custom build developments and developments with a very high

level of affordable housing such as estate regeneration schemes be exempt? If not,

why not?

Group custom build should provide affordable homes / starter homes subject to evidenced

need and viability.

Developments with high levels of affordable housing should be exempt from providing starter

homes.

Page 256

Q10: Are any further exemptions from the starter home requirement warranted, and

why?

No

Q11: Do you support the use of commuted sums to deliver starter homes where the

local planning authority agrees?

The use of commuted sums to deliver starter homes is not supported.

Q12: Do you support the proposal that private rented sector housing (for institutional

investment) and specialist older people’s housing should meet the requirement

through off-site contributions?

No, although it appears to be practical, ‘private rented sector housing’ does not relate to any

planning definition and would be difficult to ensure that tenure didn’t subsequently change

and could therefore be used to avoid the provision of starter homes.

Contributions for specialist older people’s housing could be considered on small sites.

Q13: Do you agree that Starter Homes monitoring reports should be an annex to the

Authority Monitoring Report?

Yes, however it would be better if it was part of the monitoring reports as other housing is.

Q14: Do you agree that these reports establish the key actions taken to support

starter home delivery and the outcomes in terms of permissions granted and

completions?

Yes

Q15: Do you agree that April 2017 is a reasonable date for the first report to be

published? If not, do you have alternative suggestions and why?

No, the date should be the end of December 2016, which ties in with AMR reporting cycle.

Q16: Do you support a transitional provision for the starter home regulations?

Yes, however some notice of when it will be implemented would be helpful i.e. 6 months.

Q17 Is there further evidence we should be considering in our assessment of

equalities implications?

Starter homes are limited to those under 40; there should be some evidence on whether this

impacts on older people, especially those who are divorced and possibly starting again.

Further evidence is required to assess the impact on less wealthy people in expensive

areas.

Q 18 (i): How do you anticipate the open market value of Starter Homes would

compare to other affordable housing products such as social rent, affordable rent and

affordable home ownership?

Page 257

This depends on whether purchasers are able to access finance/mortgages. It may be

difficult for first time buyers in expensive areas such as the south east to secure a mortgage

as a very high household income will be needed. There is also concern that high demand for

starter homes could inflate market values.

(ii): How do you envisage the market value of Starter Homes when compared to the

market value of full priced new build homes bought by first time buyers?

We would envisage a figure of 20% less and no greater than £250,000.outside of London.

(iii): What is your view on the proportion of sites that would be able to deliver 20%

Starter Homes without viability being affected? How would this affect other developer

contributions?

No work has yet taken place to assess how the delivery of starter homes can be achieved

without viability being affected. However we believe it will have an impact on affordable

housing and developer contributions. The biggest impact will be on the delivery of much

needed affordable rented housing in high value areas and the delivery of other forms of

affordable housing

(iv): Do you agree that in most instances s106 negotiations occur on residential sites

of 10 or more units, regardless of whether a s106 agreement is ultimately put in

place? And do you agree that before the April 2015 pooling restrictions on Section

106, infrastructure contributions (as a proportion of development activity) tended to

be higher in authorities that secured relatively low s106 affordable housing

contributions?

S106 negotiations begin at 11 units in line with the previous guidance in the NPPG which is

reflected in the recently adopted Chichester Local Plan. It is suggested that S106

negotiations begin at 11 rather than 10.

We do not have any further information to comment on the second part of the question.

(v) To what extent do you think the starter home requirement and associated

exemptions will affect site viability, if at all?

We believe there will be increased costs but do not have any evidence to quantify this.

However, access to finance for buyers will have an impact on viability. The introduction of a

starter home requirement will dramatically affect the viability of providing affordable rented

housing on site as there is unlikely to be any cross subsidy from shared ownership and the

remaining quota of affordable housing may be too small for registered providers to take on.

(vi) We would welcome (a) any estimates of the costs incurred by developers in

negotiating s106 agreements on sites of different sizes, for example time costs,

consultants or legal fees, and (b) views on the extent these costs might change as a

result of the 20% starter homes requirement.

There is likely to be an increase in costs in the short term however this is not quantifiable at

the moment.

Page 258

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

Planning Committee Wednesday 27 April 2016

Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions

1. This report presents the schedule of outstanding planning enforcement contraventions. The report updates the position on those contraventions included on the previous schedule and those cases that have since been authorised. It is not a full list of enforcement cases. Please note that from 1 April 2012 all new complaints within the national park are being registered on the SDNP system. Those complaints received prior to 31 March 2012 will remain on the CDC system until the file is closed. Statistics as at 31 March 2016 2.

Case Numbers: CDC SDNP cases (included in CDC figures but remaining on CDC system until closed)

SDNP cases (on SDNP system)

Total

On hand as at last report:

297 9 112 409

Cases received since last report:

92 45 137

Cases closed since last report:

96 2 44 140

Current number of cases on hand:

293 7 113 406

FY 2015/16 received 383 0 179 562

FY 2015/16 closed 371 2 160 532

3. Breakdown by year

Breakdown of the outstanding cases are as follows: Outstanding cases logged Pre- SDNP registration 28 Outstanding cases logged in 2012 (CDC System) 11 Outstanding cases logged in 2012 (SDNP System) 2 Outstanding cases logged in 2013 (CDC System) 16 Outstanding cases logged in 2013 (SDNP System) 10 Outstanding cases logged in 2014 (CDC System) 33 Outstanding cases logged in 2014 (SDNP System) 15 Outstanding cases logged in 2015 (CDC System) 133 Outstanding cases logged in 2015 (SDNP System) 54 Outstanding cases logged in 2016 (CDC System) 72 Outstanding cases logged in 2016 (SDNP System) 32

4. Performance Indicators financial year 2015/16 CDC area only:

a. Acknowledge complaints within 5 days of receipt (552 complainants) 98%

b. Time taken to initial visit from date of complaint: Low within 20 days (315 Cases) 96% Medium within 10 days (106 Cases) 90%

Page 259

Agenda Item 22

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

High with 2 days (17 Cases) 100% c. Time taken to notify complainants of action decided from date of complaint: Low within 35 days (329 Cases) 98% Medium within 20 days (106 Cases) 98% High within 9 days (18 Cases) 100% d. Notices served within 10 days of authorisation (8 Cases) 100%

between 01.01.16 to 31.03.16 5. Performance Indicators are not available for cases within the South Downs National Park 6. Notices Served.

Notices Served: 01 Jan – 31 Mar Total in FY 2015/16

CDC SDNP CDC SDNP

Enforcement Notices 2 29 4

Breach of Condition Notices

Stop Notices 1 2

Temporary Stop Notices 10

Section 215 Notices 3 3

High Hedge Remedial Notices

Tree Replacement Notice

Total 3 3 41 7

7. If members have any specific questions on individual cases, these should be directed to the contact officer, Shona Archer (Enforcement Manager) on 01243 534547

Page 260

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

OUTSTANDING CONTRAVENTIONS – SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

BY/SDNP/15/ 00336/COU (Reg Hawks)

Land North of Junction B2138, Bury

Without planning permission the stationing of a mobile home for human habitation

06.08.15 EN BY/22 issued Appeal lodged and conjoined with planning appeal 14/0485/FUL – Public Inquiry (date tbc)

DN/SDNP/13/ 00516/COU (Reg Hawks)

Down View Farm Burton Park Road Duncton Petworth GU28 0JT

Change of use to a mixed use for equestrian purposes and stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation

11.04.14 EN DN/5 issued Compliance date 23.11.14 13.05.15 – email received – static caravan to be removed; 11.06.15 – site inspection – no change ; 28.07.15 – no change 25.09.15 – email sent requesting an update 26.01.15 – site visit - no change. Next step – request site mtg and inspection inside the caravan. 29.03.16 – Notice complied with. Remove from next list

EB/SDNP/14/ 00141/215SEC (Reg Hawks)

Land south west of Tamia Hollist Lane Easebourne GU29 9AD

Untidy Land 21.11.14 EB/6 S215/23 issued Compliance date 19.03.15 25.03.15 – site visit showed non-compliance 26.03.15 – Letter before action sent; 29.07.15 – case review – no response from respondent. 02.11.15 - prosecution proceedings forwarded to Legal Services. 30.11.15 – authorised to commence prosecution proceedings 08.01.16 – Court hearing. Defendant found guilty in their absence. Costs awarded £1053. Court collection order made. 30.03.16 – Notice complied with. Remove from next List

Page 261

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

EBER/SDNP/ 16/00067/ OPDEV (Steven Pattie)

Wassell Barn Streels Lane Ebernoe Petworth West Sussex GU28 9LD

Engineering operations 01.03.16 TSN/44 issued Notice will cease to be in effect 29.03.16 23.03.16 – application validated for Retention of equestrian buildings comprising a twin stable block, single field shelter and stable with tack room. Retention of access track and concrete pad 04.04.16 – prosecution paperwork forwarded to Legal Services for non-compliance with the notice.

EBER/SDNP/ 16/00067/ OPDEV (Steven Pattie)

Wassell Barn Streels Lane Ebernoe Petworth West Sussex GU28 9LD

Engineering operations 10.03.16 TSN/45 issued Notice will cease to be in effect 07.04.16 23.03.16 – application validated for Retention of equestrian buildings comprising a twin stable block, single field shelter and stable with tack room. Retention of access track and concrete pad 04.04.16 – prosecution paperwork forwarded to Legal Services for non-compliance with the notice.

ELAV/SDNP/ 15/00670/LB (Steven Pattie)

Fitzlea Wood Farm Fitzlea Wood Road East Lavington West Sussex GU28 0QN

Building operations 11.02.16 TSN/43 issued Notice will cease to be in effect 10.03.16

Page 262

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

FH/11/00487/ EAGRNP FH/10/00140/ ESHNP (Reg Hawks)

Land at Brackenwood Telegraph Hill Midhurst GU29 0BN

Change of use of the land to a mixed use comprising of equestrian use and agriculture, namely the keeping and training polo ponies

11.02.13 EN FH/22 Appeal lodged – Public Inquiry 11.06.13 - application for retention of the operational development refused (SDNP/13/1290/FUL). Appeal lodged. 15-17.10.13 and 08.11.13 – Planning Inquiry held 07.01.14 - Appeals dismissed/notice upheld with corrections and variations. Application to appeal to the High Court lodged 03.04.14 – Leave to appeal to the High Court refused. New compliance date of 03.10.14 following refusal of application to High Court to challenge PINs decision 13.04.15 - Planning application received for retaining some of the unauthorised development on site; a number of stables and a wash down area have been removed from the land. 17.04.15 – prosecution withdrawn pending outcome of fresh planning application. 14.09.15 - SDNP/15/01024/FUL - application refused. 11.04.16 – s78 appeal in progress.

FH/11/00487/ EAGRNP FH/10/00140/ ESHNP (Reg Hawks)

Land at Brackenwood Telegraph Hill Midhurst GU29 0BN

Construction of buildings, horse walker fencing, hardstanding, trailer ramp, access track, parking area and exercise track.

11.04.13 EN FH/23 Appeal dismissed, notice upheld with corrections/variations. 03.10.14 – New compliance date. 09.12.14 – Site visit showed non-compliance with the notice 15.12.14 – Prosecution papers forwarded to Legal Services 05.01.15 – Legal Services authorised to commence prosecution proceedings. 17.04.15 - prosecution withdrawn pending outcome of fresh planning application. 14.09.15 - SDNP/15/01024/FUL application refused. 11.04.16 – s78 appeal in progress.

Page 263

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

FH/10/00560/ EENGNP (Reg Hawks)

Land North East of Court Farm Miggs Lane Fernhurst GU27 3EZ

Erection of a dwellinghouse in the approximate position shown on the attached plan.

05.12.12 EN FH/21 issued Appeal decision received – Enforcement Notice upheld New compliance date of 19.03.14 04.04.14 – site visit revealed non-compliance 10.07.14 – site visit - work started on dismantling the cabin 24.09.14 – site inspection - doors and windows removed. 04.02.15 – Longer compliance period requested as demolition works are taking place. 28.04.15 – Site inspection revealed structure still standing albeit with no windows and empty. 22.06.15 – letter before action sent; 01.10.15 – owner confirmed site will be cleared by Monday 12 October 2015. 20.10.15 – email stating works to remove the structure continuing. 25.01.16 - Roof dismantled but works to remove the resulting materials from the land halted by poor ground conditions. 30.03.16.- Compliance check revealed no change; 04.04.16 – Email out to landowner requesting a site meeting prior to pursuit of prosecution.

Page 264

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

FU/08/00230/ EWSTNP (Shona Archer)

The Old Post Office Southbrook Road West Ashling Chichester West Sussex PO18 8DN

Untidy building and land

04.02.11 S215 Notice issued 09.10.13 – Defendant was found guilty in their absence. The court imposed the maximum fine of £1,000 together with a victim surcharge of £100 and costs of £438.65 No further contact with the owner and so notice of intended action displayed on site 29.9.14 - works in default are being considered. This action has now been approved by SDNP. 02.12.14 – The initial quote for work to be undertaken is £26,784 inc VAT against the works required in the s215 notice and additional work to prevent further decay at the rear of the building. Potentially this is a building at risk Two further quotes secured. 13.04.15 – meeting held on site with representatives from SDNP. The Parks Heritage Officer considers the building is in a very poor state of repair and stability. Urgent works to LB to be considered. 23.04.15 - Officers from CDC and SDNP carried out a full assessment of the property. Access to the building was made under powers of entry. 08.07.15 – The SDNPA considers it necessary to take Direct Action and issue an urgent repairs notice. An internal meeting to discuss this has taken place; awaiting information from SDNP 01.10.15 – Meeting with SDNP. Officers have been asked to consider costs associated with carrying out basic works to make good the property as opposed to full repair works and the risks associated with each option. 09.02.16 – meeting with SDNP officers arranged to decide action to be taken. The person claiming ownership has until the end of February 2016 to undertake works of improvement.

Page 265

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

FU/08/00230/ EWSTNP (Shona Archer)

The Old Post Office Southbrook Road West Ashling Chichester West Sussex PO18 8DN

Cont’d 18.03.16 – site visit with SDNPA officers to assess building. Owner was not present but access to garden land was achieved in part. Quotes to be obtained to clear the garden for Direct Action to be considered by SDNPA.

Page 266

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

NC/SDNP/14/ 00373/OPDEV (Reg Hawks)

Land west of Stillands Shillinglee Road Northchapel

The creation of an earth bund

22.01.15 EN NC/14 issued Appeal dismissed with variation to compliance period New compliance date 20.05.16

HART/SDNP/ 13/00420/ BRECON (Shona Archer)

2 Ryefield Barns West Harting

Without planning permission the creation of a patio

03.11.15 EN HT/33 issued Compliance date 15.06.16

SE/SDNP/15/ 00136/OPDEV (Reg Hawks)

Manor Farm Singleton Chichester West Sussex

Without planning permission the creation of a sand school/riding area

05.06.15 EN SE/3 issued Appeal lodged – Written Representation The appeal is dismissed and the notice is upheld but the period for compliance is increased New compliance date of 23.11.16

WD/SDNP/13/ 00121/GENER (Reg Hawks)

The Dean and Cider House A286 West Dean

Installation of a biomass boiler chimney flue

07.10.14 EN WD/16 issued. Compliance date 18.01.15 Non-compliance resulted in a prosecution case. 26.05.15 - Defendant contacted Legal to advise that he would make a fresh application. No application was received and so a Plea hearing took place in July with the matter adjourned for trial on 25.09.15. 17.07.15 - SDNP/15/03580/FUL submitted for moving the chimney flue to an alternative position; 25.09.15 – Court hearing adjourned pending determination of the application. 25.01.16 – application still pending consideration (awaiting further information and comments from EHO) 26.02.16 – planning permission given to relocate flue. 30.03.16 – Notice complied with. Remove from next list

Page 267

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

Chichester District Cases:

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

BI/14/00270/ CONADV (Reg Hawks)

The Barnyard Birdham Road Birdham

Prosecution for displaying unauthorised advertisements

15.01.15 – Prosecution papers forwarded to Legal Services 29.01.15 – Prosecution authorised and case now progressing towards a court hearing. 22.05.15 – Court hearing. Defendant made an application for Advertisement Consent which was refused in May 2015. Matter adjourned to 28th August 2015 for trial 28.08.15 – Court hearing. Defendant pleaded guilty. The Court noted the guilty plea and gave an absolute discharge. Court costs £200 (contribution basis). 01.09.15 – letter before action sent by Legal Services requiring full compliance by 01.11.15; 14.01.16 –the ‘totem’ advertisement remains on display. 14.03.16 - Meeting on site with the owners and agent. They have been advised to make an application to retain the car wash business or cease the use; remove the signs along the road and submit a suitable scheme for a large sign that is more in keeping. They may go through pre-app process.

BI/15/00139/ CONSH (Shona Archer)

Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road

Prosecution for non-compliance with TSN’s 40 and 41 (all owners)

21.10.15 - prosecution papers sent to Legal Services 18.11.15 – statements amended in accordance with instructions form Legal Services. 05.01.16 - Affidavit prepared in conjunction with further application for Injunction. 04.03.16 – Hearing date given as 4th April 2016 at Worthing 08.4.16 – all persons with an expressed interest in the land are now included in the application for an Injunction. No interim injunction at this time. A hearing for a Full Order is to be scheduled for some time after 22 April 2016.

Page 268

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

BI/15/00194/ CONTRV (Reg Hawks)

Plot C - Land North West of Birdham Farm, Birdham Road, Chichester

Without planning permission the stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation

06.05.15 EN BI/23 issued Appeal lodged – Public Inquiry 07.04.16 – Committee Rm 1 Linked to s78 appeal re BI/15/01287/FUL 04.12.15 – s78 appeal withdrawn 13.01.16 – s174 appeal withdrawn. New compliance date:13.07.16

BI/15/00194/ CONTRV (Reg Hawks)

Plot D - Land North West of Birdham Farm, Birdham Road, Chichester

Without planning permission the stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation

06.05.15 EN BI/24 issued Appeal lodged – Public Inquiry scheduled for 07.04.16 has been cancelled by PINs Enforcement Ground (g) appeal linked to s78 appeal re BI/15/01288/FUL Public Inquiry now to take place on 23/24 August 2016

BI/15/00139/ CONSH (Reg Hawks)

Plot C - Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road Chichester

Without planning permission erection of a stable building

10.08.15 EN BI/29 issued Compliance date: 21 December 2015 07.01.16 – site visit – stable building remains. 04.04.2016 – at court it was found that the land has changed hands for a fourth time since the acquisition of the land came to the attention of this authority. Officers will now engage with the new owners to achieve compliance.

BI/15/00139/ CONSH (Shona Archer)

Access and track - Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road

Without planning permission excavation, deposit of hardcore and erection of gates and fences

21.09.15 EN BI/30 issued Appeal against the notice is linked to the s78 appeal and will now be heard on 23/24 August 2016.

Page 269

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

BI/15/00139/ CONSH (Shona Archer)

Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road

Without planning permission, change of use of the land to a mixed use as a residential caravan site, for the storage of caravans and the keeping of horses

03.03.16 EN BI/31 issued Compliance date 14.10.16 SN BI/32 issued Effective from 05.03.16 The planning agents representing the landowners have stated their intention to appeal the issue of this notice. PINs intend to include these appeals in the Public Inquiry to be heard in August.

BI/15/00139/ CONSH (Shona Archer)

Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road

Prosecution for breaching the court undertaking for hardstandings (Smith)

27.07.15 – authority given to prosecute 05.10.15 – Court authority given to serve notice by post 02.11.15 – County Court trial – defendant found guilty in his absence. Sentencing set for 30.11.15 30.11.15 - The defendant has been given until 28th December to submit evidence of the purported transfer. 08.04.16 - contempt of court proceedings have now been withdrawn in light of evidence submitted by the defendant and their solicitors demonstrating that the defendant was not guilty. Remove from next list.

BX/11/00276/ CONMHC (Reg Hawks)

Land west of Oakwood Livery Yard Tinwood Lane Eartham

Change of use of the land to the stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation.

13.06.13 EN BX/9 issued Appeal lodged – written representation Appeal determined – enforcement notice upheld with variations (compliance period of 2 years) New compliance date 30.04.16

BX/15/00127/ CONADV (Reg Hawks)

Land adjacent to A27 Tinwood Estate Halnaker Boxgrove

Display of an unauthorised advertisement

02.03.16 Authorised to comment prosecution proceedings 13.05.16 – Court Hearing scheduled for Worthing.

Page 270

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

CC/14/00033/ CONADV (Shona Archer)

Heamoor Pizza 9 St Pancras Chichester

Attachment of a fascia advertisement board to the front façade

14.10.14 LBEN CC/124 issued Compliance date 25.01.15 01.10.15 – authority to prosecute obtained 02.10.15 – legal services to be instructed 14.10.15 – authorised to commence prosecution 26.01.16 – Court Hearing. Defendants did not attend court. Proceedings held in abeyance in order to locate freeholders. 05.04.16 – officer called at the last known address of defendants and found that they have now moved away. As a result there is no one to prosecute in this matter as officers have no other contact details for them. Direct action now to be considered.

CH/15/00151/ CONDWE (Reg Hawks)

Land at Cockleberry Farm Main Road Bosham

Without planning permission, change of use of the land to use for the stationing of a mobile home for purposes of human habitation

17.08.15 EN CH/51 issued Appeal lodged – Written Representation

CH/15/00151/ CONDWE (Reg Hawks)

Land at Cockleberry Farm Main Road Bosham

Without planning permission, the erection of a dwellinghouse

17.08.15 EN CH/53 issued Appeal lodged – Written Representation

Page 271

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH

Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

CH/14/00181/ CONMHC (Shona Archer)

Field West of Five Oaks Newells Lane Chichester West Sussex

Without planning permission the laying of hardcore and the stationing of a mobile home for the purpose of human habitation

09.12.14 EN CH/49 issued Appeal lodged – Hearing date 10.12.15. Appeal dismissed New compliance date of 15.09.16

CH/14/00181/ CONMHC (Shona Archer)

Field West of Five Oaks Newells Lane Chichester West Sussex

Use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home for human habitation

09.12.14 Stop Notice CH/50 issued with EN CH/49 See above

CH/11/00538/ CONBC (Reg Hawks)

Five Oaks Stud Farm, Newells Lane, West Ashling Chichester

Without planning permission erection of a building

07.08.15 EN CH/52 issued Appeal lodged – Written Representation

CH/14/00292/ CONBC (Shona Archer)

Paddock View Drift Lane Chidham Chichester

The erection of a stable building and the construction of a concrete hard standing.

03.11.14 EN CH/46 issued Compliance date 15.06.15 09.04.15 – works of compliance taking place 26.06.15 – concrete base remains. 02.10.15 – letter sent to owner to remind them of the need to comply

CH/14/00292/ CONBC (Shona Archer)

Paddock View Drift Lane Chidham Chichester

The stationing of a mobile home for the purpose of human habitation

03.11.14 EN CH/47 issued Compliance date 15.06.15 09.04.15 – partial compliance achieved. Mobile home has been removed. Boundary wall remains.

Page 272

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH

Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

E/13/00277/ CONMHC (Reg Hawks)

Land north of Marsh Farm Barn, Drove Lane, Earnley, PO20 7JW

Without planning permission change of use of the land to the storage of a caravan and items on the land

28.05.14 EN E/23 issued New compliance date agreed 10.11.14 16.04.15 – site visit revealed partial compliance achieved 22.04.15 – letter requesting final items removed 07.07.15 - Letter before action sent for failure to remove the remaining items from the land; 08.10.15 – site visit revealed work ongoing to tidy up the land 04.11.15 – letter sent to agent with a request to arrange removal of electricity control panel. 20.01.16 – a hen house and the electricity panel remain within the red edge of the enforcement notice. It is not considered expedient to prosecute for failure to comply in relation to these two narrow issues of the notice. Officers to write a report, under delegated authority, recommending that no further action be taken in respect of these matters. 12.4.16 – report signed off to close case in relation to the hen house and block built electricity supply housing structure. Remove from next list.

E/14/00118/ CONCOU (Reg Hawks)

Land at Marsh Farm Barn Drove Lane Earnley

Without planning permission change of use of the land to the stationing of caravans for the purposes of human habitation and the formation of an access track

14.09.15 EN E/26 issued Appeal lodged – Hearing 13.07.16 (City Council Offices)

Page 273

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH

Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

E/14/00348/ CONCOU (Steven Pattie)

107 First Avenue Almodington Batchmere

Without planning permission, change of use of the land to the storage of caravans, caravan trailers, boats and domestic items

14.12.15 EN SY/63 issued Appeal lodged – written representation

FU/06/00384/ CONAGR (Shona Archer)

Land west of Moutheys Lane East Ashling

Change of use of the land to storage of wooden pallets, boxes, scrap metal, household goods, disused vehicles and storage/sale of building materials

11.09.07 EN issued 7.3.13 – site meeting with EA and owners son who now occupies the land with his 12yr old daughter. A further person lives in a touring caravan. EA required the land to be cleared but raised concerns about the method of disposal. Site to be a monitored and new action taken where appropriate 20.6.13 – site visit with police, EHOs and EA 22.07.14 – interviews conducted under caution 02.10.14 – letter before action sent to owner 04.02.15 – EA to prosecute 26.06.15 – observations of the site show that the land remains in use for the keeping and disposal of waste. 9.7.15 – email received from EA stating that they had commenced a prosecution in relation to use of land for disposal of waste. Officers to liaise with EA and await outcome of their proceedings. 01.10.15 – EA requested to update on status of prosecution. 20.1.16 – no update has been received. 07.4.16 – multi-agency site visit. Land is now strewn with household waste. EA is continuing with its prosecution and adding matters/evidence to its case; WSCC will consider the issue of a notice and use of an Injunction; CDC to consider prosecution of the EN and the issue of a further EN relating to the stationing of residential caravans on the land. The condition of the land has deteriorated since the owners’ son has been in occupation of it and his eviction is now underway.

Page 274

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

FU/06/00297/ CONMHC (Reg Hawks)

1 Tower View Nursery West Ashling Road Funtington Chichester PO18 8UD

Use for the stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation and use of part of a building for residential purposes and; Use for the storage of disused lorries, vans, cars and a touring caravan.

23.06.10 EN FU/47 issued - Compliance date of 04.02.11 10.01.12 - Site visit - mobile home no longer used as residential accommodation, but the former farm shop in use as a dwelling. EN does not cover with this use 04.09.12 – LDC application submitted for use as a dwellinghouse ref: 12/02253/ELD; 08.10.13 – LDC application refused; 07.07.14 - The long term residential occupation of the site was considered having regard to the occupier’s personal circumstances and the Human Rights Act 14.04.15 –Further EN FU/58 issued directed at the use of the building as a dwellinghouse in its own right as discussions with owner have not advanced the case (see below). 04.04.16 – no change in the status of the land Report signed off to close the case as not expedient to take any further action. Remove from next list.

FU/06/00297/ CONMHC (Reg Hawks)

1 Tower View Nursery West Ashling Road Funtington Chichester PO18 8UD

Change of use of a building to use as a single dwellinghouse

05.08.15 02.01.15 – authority given to issue notice FU/58 13.1.15 – meeting with owner to discuss his circumstances. Review of evidence submitted with ELD application taking place before EN is issued to require occupation of building to cease EN FU/58 issued Compliance date 16.03.16 04.04.16 – no change in the status of the land. Report signed off to close the case as not expedient to take any further action. Remove from next list.

Page 275

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

FU/15/00237/ CONTRV (Shona Archer)

Land south of the Stables, Scant Road East West Ashling

Without planning permission, creation of a hardstanding, deposit of waste and infilling of a ditch

23.07.15 EN FU/59 issued Appeal lodged – Written Representation

FU/15/00237/ CONTRV (Shona Archer)

Land south of the Stables, Scant Road East West Ashling

Importing of waste and use and compaction to create a hardstanding

29.07.15 SN FU/60 issued Notice becomes effective 01.08.15 02.10.15 - Prosecution Proceedings instigated against contravention of the notice 09.11.15 – authority given to prosecute. 11.12.15 – Magistrates’ Court Hearing further court attendance on 26.01.16 5.1.16 – officers were contacted by Mr Michael Connors who gave details of his legal adviser. Mr Connors stated that his son Miley owns the land and not him. He also stated that the works were done outside of the 28 day period of the notice. 25.02.16 – application lodged to withdraw prosecution from Mr Michael Connors. In light of this new prosecution proceeding required to re- commence prosecution proceedings. 12.04.16 – No further action until the appeal against the issue of the above enforcement notice has been determined.

Page 276

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

HN/09/00331/ CONENG (Reg Hawks)

Land at Garnet Cottage Hunston Road Chichester PO20 1 NP

Without planning permission change of use of land to the storage of a mobile home and builders rubble and/waste

23.08.10 EN HN/17 & HN/18 issued 14.04.14 – Hearing into non-compliance with EN adjourned as defendant did not attend. Matter re-listed for 19.05.14 for trial. Defendant failed to appear. Warrant for arrest issued; 04.09.14 – site visit. Most of the rubble removed. 01.10.14 - Site visit carried. Owners health is an issue and instructions are awaited in respect of Power of Attorney; 11.2.15 – Resident of land visited EPH they were unable to demonstrate their authority to act on the owners behalf. 01.10.15 – Not expedient to pursue enforcement proceedings regarding the redistribution of soil at the rear. Waste and MH removed from the land. 12.4.16 - A report will now be written to close this case [under delegated powers] having regard to the current use and condition of the land.

HN/12/00216 CONMHC (Reg Hawks)

Garnet Cottage Hunston Rd Hunston PO20 1NP

Change of use of the land to the stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation

10.01.13 EN HN/20 issued Compliance date 21.08.13 08.01.14 - Site visit carried out. Mobile home still in situ. 16.01.14 – letter requesting compliance with the notice 10.02.14 – Human Rights audit conducted 07.07.14 – case under review because occupier of the mobile homes is acting as a house keeper/carer for the landowner; 04.09.14 – site visit – no change from above. 01.10.15 – It has been difficult to engage with persons about this matter. Prosecution of the occupier of the MH to be considered. 21.1.16 – this case will now be managed to a conclusion having regard to the circumstances of the owner, the occupiers of the land and changes in the land. 12.04.16 – Due to failure of the landowner or their representative to engage with this authority, it is proposed to consider the expediency of Direct Action to secure the removal of the caravan from the land.

Page 277

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

O/03/00173/ CONMHC (Shona Archer)

Decoy Farm Decoy Lane Aldingbourne

Construction of partially completed building. Change of use of land for storage of motor vehicles etc

01.07.05 ENs issued. Appeal dismissed, 10.12.08 – Court - imposed a 12 months conditional discharge and costs of £1200 17.08.11 - meeting with owners to discuss ownership, compliance and agricultural justification of items on the land 13.11.13 – Court case adjourned 18.11.14 – Trial at Chichester Magistrates Court. Adjournment by defendant agreed – return to court March ‘15 13.03.15 – At trial the defendants were found guilty and fined £7240 in fines plus Council costs of £2342.09. Total sum of £9582.09 09.7.15 – visit to property has revealed minor improvement. Matter to be put forward for direct action. Report in progress 21-9-2015 – Direct Action report drafted 01.10.15 – Draft report which includes quotes from contractors, will be brought before members once clarification of the procurement process and the legal position for clearing the land has been obtained 09.12.15 – Direct Action authorised by Planning Committee. 11.01.16 – Letter sent to preferred contractor confirming decision and requesting methodology statement and risk assessment 12.04.16 – a method statement for carrying out the works has been submitted. It will be checked by CDC for HnS compliance and officers will put together their own Risk Assessment for carrying out the works of clearance. A date of commencement will now be agreed.

O/15/00277/ CONHH (Reg Hawks)

Tapners Barn Marsh Lane Merson Oving

Without planning permission the erection of an extension

23.11.15 EN O/23 issued Appeal lodged – Written Representation

Page 278

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

PS/10/00761/ CONMHC (Reg Hawks)

Land north of Ifold Copse (Nell Ball) Dunfold Road Plaistow

Change of use of the land for the mixed use for agriculture and stationing of a mobile home for purposes of human habitation

24.10.12 EN PS/43 issued Appeal lodged – Hearing held on 16.04.13 (Old Court Room) 03.07.13 – Appeal Decision – appeal dismissed and EN upheld. New compliance date 04.01.14 01.04.14 –application made for retention of the mobile home as permanent dwelling 14/00460/FUL; 22.05.14 - application refused – prosecution action re-commenced for failure to comply with PS/43 22.09.14 – letter from Legal making it clear that defendants have a deadline of 4 weeks to submit a planning application; 20.11.14 – revised application refused on 20.03.15 04.06.15 – further site inspection showed no change; 08.07.15 – matter to be returned to court. 01.10.15 – response from legal awaited; 20.03.15 – Refused - 14/03983/FUL for retention of existing mobile home as a permanent dwelling. 18.09.15 - S78 appeal lodged 20.09.15 – prosecution deferred pending outcome of s78 planning appeal. 25.01.16 – appeal still in progress 22.03.16 – s78 appeal dismissed 22.03.16 – Legal appraised of the situation 12.04.16 – Case conference to be held with Legal re prosecution.

Page 279

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

PS/13/00214/ CONAGR (Reg Hawks)

Land north of Ifold Copse (Nell Ball Farm) Dunfold Road, Plaistow

The erection of a food preparation and egg packing bldg, workshop & two container storage buildings

29.08.13 EN PS/46 issued Appeal decision received – enforcement notice upheld; New compliance date 08.01.15 25.03.15 – site visit confirmed non-compliance with the notice 04.06.15 – prosecution papers forwarded to Legal Services 04.08.15 -authorisation to proceed with prosecution 13.01.16 – prosecution action deferred until 12.02.16 pending discussion with planners to submit fresh application. 12.04.16 – case conference to be held with Legal re prosecution.

PS/14/00378/ CONCOM (Reg Hawks)

Land north of Ifold Copse (Nell Ball Farm) Dunfold Road, Plaistow

The erection of a building (kitchen/food preparation unit)

22.01.15 EN PS/53 issued Compliance date 05.09.15 09.09.15 – site visit showed non-compliance with the notice 11.09.15 – letter before action sent 23.11.15 – Prosecution paperwork forwarded to Legal Services 22.12.15 - Authorised to proceed with prosecution proceedings. 13.01.16 – prosecution action deferred until 12.02.16 pending discussion with planners to submit fresh application 12.04.16 – case conference to be held with Legal re prosecution.

PS/13/00015/ CONAGR (Reg Hawks)

Crouchland Farm, Rickmans Lane, Plaistow

Without planning permission, change of use of the land from agriculture to a commercial biogas plant

15.07.15 EN PS/54 issued Appeal lodged – Public Inquiry scheduled for 24.09.16-04.10.16. The full extent of the planning issues to be considered at the Inquiry will depend on the outcome of current CLU appeal (hearing scheduled for 12.05.16) in connection with unrestricted use of the biogas plant and equipment.

Page 280

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice

SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

PS/13/00015/ CONAGR (Reg Hawks)

Crouchland Farm Rickmans Lane Plaistow

Without planning permission, the installation, construction, engineering operations and deposit of earth in connection with a commercial biogas plant

15.07.15 EN PS/55 issued Appeal lodged – Public Inquiry scheduled for 24.09.16-04.10.16. The full extent of the planning issues to be considered at the Inquiry will depend on the outcome of current CLU appeal (hearing scheduled for 12.05.16) in connection with unrestricted use of the biogas plant and equipment.

SB/11/00022/ CONDWE (Shona Archer)

Acre View RBS Nurseries Thornham Lane Southbourne Emsworth

Without planning permission, change of use of the land occupied by the buildings for use as singe dwellinghouses

18.08.15 SB/108 issued Application 15/02508/FUL submitted for Continuation of use of building as a single dwellinghouse refused Appeal lodged – Public Inquiry 24/25.05.16

SB/11/00022/ CONDWE (Shona Archer)

Willow Cottage RBS Nurseries Thornham Lane Southbourne Emsworth

Without planning permission, change of use of the land occupied by the buildings for use as singe dwellinghouses

18.08.15 SB/109 issued Application 15/02509/FUL submitted for Use of building as a single dwellinghouse refused Appeal lodged – Public Inquiry 24/25.05.16 Notice withdrawn – 12.04.16 – use of a building as a dwellinghouse now confirmed as immune from enforcement action following the submission and consideration of further, previously unseen, evidence. Remove from next list

SB/14/00313/ CONMHC (Shona Archer)

Land to the North of Marina Farm Thorney Road Southbourne

Without planning permission the stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation.

20.10.15 EN SB/111 issued Appeal lodged – Hearing 01.06.16 (City Council Offices)

Page 281

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

SB/15/00274/ CONCOU (Shona Archer)

Reedmans Yard Prinsted Lane Prinsted Emsworth Hampshire PO10 8HS

Change of use of the land to a mixed use comprising agriculture and the storage of cut logs, two x touring caravans, a 4x4 vehicle, a derelict car, window frames and doors, waste building materials and four trailers.

03.11.16 EN SB/110 issued Compliance date 15.06.16

SI/14/00397/ CONMHC (Reg Hawks)

Land at Church Farm, Church Farm Lane Sidlesham

Without planning permission, change of use of the land to the stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation

14.09.15 EN SI/68 issued Appeal lodged – Written Representation

SI/15/00157/ CONMHC (Reg Hawks)

Land south of Green Lane Piggeries, Ham Lane Sidlesham

Without planning permission, stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation

13.05.15 EN SI/67 issued Appeal – hearing held 09.02.16. Awaiting decision.

Page 282

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

SY/13/00077/ CONHH (Shona Archer)

Helmieh Chichester Road Selsey Chichester

Without planning permission the erection of a fence

19.10.15 EN SY/61 issued Compliance date 30.01.16 Notice complied with. Remove from next list

SY/15/00074/ CONHH (Shona Archer)

47 Wellington Road Selsey Chichester

Without planning permission to erection of a dwellinghouse

25.11.15 EN SY/62 issued Appeal lodged – Written Representation conjoined with planning appeal

SY/15/00177/ CONHH (Steven Pattie)

Portsoy 16 Bonnar Road Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 9AT

Without planning permission the erection of an extension

14.12.15 EN SY/63 issued Compliance date 25.07.16

WE/15/00135/ CONWST (Reg Hawks)

Land west of The Bridle Lane Hambrook

Without planning permission, the excavation of top oil, deposit of hardcore to form a track

15.10.15 EN WE/33 issued Appeal lodged – Written Representations

WE/15/00134/ CONACC (Steven Pattie)

Land West Of Hopedene Common Road Hambrook Westbourne

Without planning permission, change of use to a car wash business

20.08.15 EN WE/32 issued Appeal lodged – Written Representation Appeal dismissed – compliance dates of 23.03.16 and 23.05.16 23.03.16 – site visit noted compliance with first part of notice. Further compliance visit required after 23.05.16

Page 283

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

WE/13/00192/ CONT (Shona Archer)

Hambrook Gravel Pitt, Marlpit Lane Hambrook Westbourne

The removal of a plantation of trees covering an approximate area of 0.3ha that are subject to an area Tree Preservation Order

18.06.14 EN WE/30 issued Compliance date 17.04.15 16.1.15 – New owner has submitted amended planting scheme. Land has been re-levelled and grassed. 09.07.15 – planting to be undertaken at beginning of October 15.10.15 – site visit conducted to check progress 23.03.16 – Fruit trees planted on the land. Compliance achieved.-Remove from next list.

WE/15/00322/ CONENG (Reg Hawks)

Land west of Jubilee Wood Hambrook Hill North Hambrook

Without planning permission the construction of a storage compound

20.01.16 EN WE/34 issued Compliance date 02.06.16 Planning application received for agricultural building and compound under 16/00565/FUL

WI/14/00365/ CONCOU (Steven Pattie)

Northshore Yacht Limited The Street Itchenor Chichester

Without planning permission change of use of the land for the storage of boat moulds

08.04.16 EN WI/21 issued Compliance date 20.11.16

Page 284

X:\Committee Reports, Minutes & Timetables\Final Reports\Planning Committee\2016-04-27\xx.0 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions.doc

CON NO. (Case Officer)

ADDRESS DETAILS OF BREACH

Date of Notice

COMMENTS EN = Enforcement Notice/BCN = Breach of Condition Notice HHRN = High Hedge Notice/TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice/HRN = Hedge Replacement Notice

WR/15/00038/ CONMHC (Reg Hawks)

1 Newfields Newpound Wisborough Green Billingshurst

Without planning permission change of use to a mixed use as a dwellinghouse and stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation

03.09.15 EN WR/23 issued Appeal lodged – Hearing 23.06.16 (Richmond - WSCC) 07.04.16 appeal withdrawn New compliance date 07.10.16

WR/15/00038/ CONMHC (Reg Hawks)

Land south of 2 Newfields Newpound Wisborough Green Billingshurst

Without planning permission change of use of land to the stationing of two mobile homes for the purposes of human habitation

03.09.15 EN WR/24 issued Appeal lodged – Hearing 23.06.16 (Richmond - WSCC) 07.04.16 appeal withdrawn New compliance date 07.10.16

WW/13/00232/CONCOM (Shona Archer)

Bramber Plant Centre Chichester Road West Wittering PO20 8QA

Without planning permission the stationing of 2 no. portacabins for office accommodation

26.09.14 EN WW/43 issued

Appeal lodged – written representation Appeal dismissed with variation in time to comply Compliance date 17.02.16 Extension given to 17.03.16 30.03.16 - Notice complied with. Remove from next list

Page 285

Chichester District Council

Planning Committee

Wednesday 27 April 2016

Report of the Head of Planning Services

Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters This report updates Planning Committee members on current appeals and other matters. It would be of assistance if specific questions on individual cases could be directed to officers in advance of the meeting. Note for public viewing via Chichester District Council web site To read each file in detail, including the full appeal decision when it is issued, click on the reference number (NB certain enforcement cases are not open for public inspection, but you will be able to see the key papers via the automatic link to the Planning Inspectorate). WR – Written Representation Appeal H – Hearing I – Inquiry ( ) – Case Officer Initials * – Committee level decision 1. NEW APPEALS

Reference/Procedure Proposal

CC/15/02962/FUL WR (N McKellar) In Progress

Jalna Church Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 7HN – Replacement two storey dwelling.

CC/15/04093/ADV WR (C Boddy) In Progress

26 South Street Chichester West Sussex PO19 1EL - Projecting sign, wrought iron style hanging bracket fixed back to the building fabric.

SDNP/15/05144/HOUS STEDHAM WR (C Cranmer) In Progress

Talbots Ash House Lane Stedham Midhurs, West Sussex GU29 0PX - 2 storey rear extension.

WR/15/03504/DOM WR (R Ballam) In Progress

Park Cottage Kirdford Road Wisborough Green West Sussex RH14 0DF - Demolition of existing incongruous rear dormer. New rear dormer, rear extension and connecting walkway to existing bothy.

Page 286

Agenda Item 23

2. DECISIONS RECEIVED

Reference/Decision

CC/15/02154/ADV HH (M Tomlinson) DISMISSED

Pizza Hut Portfield Way Chichester West Sussex PO19 7WT - 3 no illuminated fascia signs, 2 no illuminated internal suspended signs, 2 no illuminated pole sign, 1 no hanging sign.

"...The proposal comprises a number of signs, most of which would be illuminated. These signs would be in addition to the illuminated key lines on the roof. Large illuminated lettering would be applied to two roof planes, there would be an illuminated facsia, along with illuminated signage inside the building. In addition there would be an illuminated pole sign with a height of 6.5m. Whilst I appreciate there has been previous signage consents for the premises, the size, the amount and extent of the proposed signage along with its positioning, would be an overbearing and visually intrusive feature within the area. The bright red livery of the company would be particularly startling especially when illuminated at night. Moreover the large size of the roof text and the height and size of the pole sign would be clearly visible from some distance away. The cumulative impact of the proposal would be unacceptably intrusive and would significantly harm the visual amenity of the area. The appellant has pointed out that the site lies within a commercial area where there is a backdrop of large retail units with its own variety of signage, including similar sized pole signs. Be that as it may, the signage for the surrounding buildings does not have the same overwhelming impact that the proposal before me would. The over-riding characteristic of the north and west elevations of the building would be of illuminated signage, with the height and size of the pole sign exaggerating the prominence of the restaurant in the surrounding area. Whilst I accept the business has to attract passing trade from a variety of view points, the extent of the proposed signage and its bright level of illumination would allow it to be seen clearly from some distance. Even with the low level landscaping much of the signage would be readily apparent. I agree with the Council that a traditional approach to signage would not be appropriate in what is essentially a commercial and retail area. However, the site is part of the approach to the city, and as such any proposed signage should not appear excessively strident. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states amongst other matters, that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interest of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative interests. The Council have drawn my attention to Policy 47 of the Chichester Local Plan (2015) and the guidance within the Shopfront and Advertisement Design - a Guidance Note (2005). Although I have taken these into account as material considerations, development plan policies are not determinative as the powers to control advertisements under the regulations may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Nevertheless the proposal would fail to accord with the policy and the guidance referred to above as they seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development respects local character and contributes towards high architectural and built quality...The levels of illumination were not specified on the application form, although during the consideration of the application the appellant stated that it would be 600 cd/sqm. This intense level of illumination would be far greater than the 300 cd/sqm required by Highways England between dusk till dawn. Although the illumination would be static, given the amount and position of the proposed signage the illumination intensity would make it an intrusive and garish feature of the area. Moreover, the proximity of the signs to a busy road network, near to a pedestrian crossing and round-a-bout, would be a distracting feature to all users of the highway. The appellant considers the illumination levels could be dealt with by condition. Be that as it may, it is not just the level of illumination that is a concern, but the combination of it with the amount and location of the signage and its proximity to the highway. Taken together the proposed signage would be unacceptably distracting, Page 287

particularly at night, thereby being harmful to public safety, contrary to the requirements of the Framework. For the reasons given the proposed replacement signs would be materially detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would be harmful to public safety. Having taken into account all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed."

CC/15/02316/ADV HH (M Tomlinson) DISMISSED

Vauxhall Frosts Chichester A27 Chichester Bypass Eastbound Kingsham Chichester West Sussex PO19 8TH - 1 no internally illuminated entrance panel, 2 no internally illuminated wall mounted Vauxhall logos, 1 no internally illuminated service and parts pole sign and 1 no directional lawn sign.

"...The freestanding pole sign (Sign C) would be positioned close to the site boundary, near to the foot and cycleway that runs to the side of the bypass. In total the sign would be over 4 metres in height, with an illuminated panel depicting the Vauxhall logo. It would be a prominent and bulky feature, although the appellant has pointed out that the sign would be smaller than the standard used for Vauxhall sites. Be that as it may, the proposed sign would be significantly larger than any other sign on the site, and even though positioned amongst the cars for sale, due to its height and proximity to the footway it would be noticeably visible. Like the numerous banner signs within and close to the site frontage, it would project above the height of the sales vehicles. The positioning of the proposed sign would allow it to be seen in addition to the many banners close to the footway, and taken together the site frontage would have an unacceptably busy appearance. My attention has been drawn by the appellant to the nearby PFS totem which is also illuminated and is close to the footway. However, this sign is positioned set away from the PFS forecourt, and is not surrounded by parked cars and fluttering banners as Sign C would be. Whilst the appellant would be happy to switch off the illumination outside trading hours, this would not mitigate the harm I have found to the character and appearance of the area. I appreciate the sign is not close to housing, and that it would be seen as part of the uses occurring on the appeal site. However, the cars, banners and existing signage already gives the site a busy appearance that draws the eye. The position, size and height of Sign C would unacceptably add to the visual clutter of the advertisements on the site, the impact of which would be exaggerated when illuminated. Whilst the appellant considers the sign would not be any taller than the pole signs, it would nevertheless have a harmfully bulky and solid appearance very different to the other signage on the premises. Thus Sign C would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. The cumulative impacts of the advertisement would have a negative impact contrary to an objective of the National Planning Policy Framework. As such Sign C would be materially detrimental to interests of amenity, and for that reason the appeal must fail...."

CC/15/02681/ADV HH (C Boddy) PART ALLOWED PART DISMISSED

Sainsburys Unicorn House 8 Eastgate Square Chichester West Sussex PO19 1JN - 1 no externally illuminated thin aluminium fascia sign, 2 no non-illuminated aluminium projecting signs and 1 no non-illuminated ATM surround sign.

"The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the externally illuminated fascia sign and two projecting signs. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the non-illuminated ATM surround sign and express consent is granted for its display....Chichester Conservation Area, and is close to a listed church and other listed buildings....have paid special regard to preserving the setting of these listed buildings and of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area....The main issue is the effect of the advertisements on the character and appearance of the area, with particular Page 288

regard to the effect on the Chichester Conservation Area....8 Unicorn House...occupying a corner position formed by the junction of St Pancras with Eastgate Square and The Hornet. Its position makes it a focal building in the area....A characteristic of the area is the variety of buildings...It is an unusual building with its curved walls and roof...The form of the building, its decoration, and the presence of a continuous fascia to all three public elevations, are distinctive features of the premises. As such it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area, adding to the variety of the cityscape....The Council have not objected to this signage, and having regard to the size and position of it I have no reason to disagree....I do not consider this aspect of the proposal would harmfully detract from either the character or appearance of the conservation area. The proposed fascia sign would extend around the curve of the building and would form a prominent addition to it. With its orange, white and plum colours, aluminium construction, and projected lettering, it would have a textured modern style that would have an overly complex form at odds with the historic character and appearance of the area. Even with the separation between the text, the contemporary style and materials on such a prominent site would harmfully draw the eye, appearing unduly dominant and brash within the street scene. The appellant considers the use of aluminium would be preferable to timber as it could be formed around the curve of the building. Be that as it may, this would not outweigh the harm I have found with regard to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the conservation area....the introduction of two orange coloured aluminium projecting signs near to either end of the fascia sign would exaggerate the contemporary appearance of the advertisements...appreciate the colour is corporate livery, they would nevertheless be very bright, and due to their size they would project well beyond the façade of the building. Unlike many of the other projecting signs nearby they would have no supporting bracket. With their contemporary appearance and style they would be distinctly different....there are some modern signs and buildings nearby, in most cases the projecting signs have a more traditional appearance, giving a cohesion to the area the appeal proposal would unacceptably disrupt. I note the appellant considers the building to have a bland frontage to which the proposal would add visual interest. I have also had regard to the size of the building and it having frontages on three roads....from my site visit it was apparent that the appeal building is an attractive focal point, and moreover its distinctive curved form and discreetly decorated appearance makes a positive contribution to the conservation area. The proposed signage would be a jarring contrast with the more traditional advertisements that are common in the conservation area, and due to its form and materials would be an incongruous addition to the building that would not harmonise with the historic environment....The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states amongst other matters, that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interest of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative interests....Policies 1 and 47 of the Chichester Local Plan (2015)...Shopfront and Advertisement Design - a Guidance Note (2005)...Chichester Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2005). Although I have taken these into account as material considerations, development plan policies are not determinative as the powers to control advertisements under the regulations may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Nevertheless the proposal would fail to accord with the policies and the guidance referred to above as they seek to ensure amongst other things, development that respects the historic environment and local character, whilst contributing towards high architectural and built quality....Opposite the appeal building is the flint and stone towered St Pancras church. This is a notable and distinctive building within the area and both it and the listed buildings close to the appeal site along St Pancras contribute to the quality and variety of the cityscape. I have had regard to the statutory requirement of preserving the setting of these listed buildings. Whilst the advertisements would harm the conservation area, due to the size and separation of the proposed signage from the nearby listed buildings, along with the variety of the streetscene as a whole, the impact on their settings would not be unacceptably Page 289

harmful...."

FB/15/02837/DOM HH (P Hunt) ALLOWED

78 Blackboy Lane Fishbourne West Sussex PO18 8BH – Proposed two-storey rear extension with internal alterations.

"...The appeal is made by Mr D and Mrs R Kingswell against the decision of Chichester District Council. The application Ref FB/15/02837/DOM, dated 2 September 2015, was refused by notice dated 29 October 2015. The development proposed is for a two storey rear extension with internal alterations....The main issue in this case is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the living conditions of the occupants of 80 Blackboy Lane, with specific reference to outlook and light. The appeal site relates to a mid-terrace two storey house which has a timber framed canopy structure situated upon its rear elevation that extends the full depth of an existing utility room projection....Notwithstanding the fact that the proposal would be for a two storey extension, its eaves on the north west facing elevation, where adjacent to no 80, would not be materially higher on the proposed extension than the existing canopy structure. A cat-slide roof plane would be created to that elevation, with a ridge line significantly lower than that of the main dwelling. Whilst no 80 has patio doors and a patio area to its rear, a close boarded fence intervenes along the shared boundary. I consider that whilst the proposal would reduce the outlook from the rear of the neighbouring property, and by virtue of its orientation, would also give rise to a greater degree of overshadowing than the existing situation, this would not be so material as to warrant refusing planning permission....I conclude that the proposal would not give rise to material harm to the living conditions of the occupants of no 80 in terms of outlook or light. I find that the proposal does not conflict with Policies 1, 2 or 33 of the Adopted Chichester Local Plan in that they are specifically focussed upon strategic matters and wider residential schemes, as opposed to domestic extensions....For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. Other than the standard time limit condition, the Council has suggested a condition requiring the external materials to be used in the construction of the extensions to match those of the existing building. In the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area, this is an appropriate condition. In addition, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, a condition requiring that the development is carried out with the approved plans is imposed"

PS/14/03983/FUL H (R Jones) DISMISSED

Nell Ball Farm Dunsfold Road Plaistow Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0BF - Retention of existing mobile home as a permanent dwelling.

"...At the hearing I was provided with information on how the farm currently operates. The appellant keeps approximately 1,000 chickens and some 26 Poll Dorset ewes. The need for an agricultural worker to live on the farm primarily arises from the poultry enterprise....The appellant informed me at the Hearing that the keeping of the Black Rock flock and the other farm enterprises requires a considerable overall labour input and that he maintains a close personal relationship with the animals unlike other similar farming enterprises....The appellant considers that the need to be on hand for animal welfare reasons represents a functional need to be at the holding, and in this regard Dr Clive Madeiros, submitted an expert witness report (Document 1)....a farmer should live on site to properly manage his livestock and to ensure that animal welfare legislation is met....clear intention of Local Plan Policy 37 requires the needs of the enterprise concerned to be met rather than the personal preference or circumstances of any of the individuals concerned....The appellant works full time on the business and places heavy reliance on timely human intervention, rather than constructed control and containment systems, to respond to changes in the power supply, weather conditions and to threats by predators....In this regard I give substantial weight to the reports prepared by A.J. Page 290

Marshall Agricultural Consultants, which state4, "many free range poultry flocks are successfully operated in isolated locations well away from other farm buildings and dwellings" and "there is no justification for a permanent on-site presence"....there was also little evidence produced to indicate that the poultry or ewes are particularly prone to difficulty or illness....Many of the necessary on-site tasks could be performed during daytime hours when it reasonable to expect that an agricultural worker would be present....Additionally, a labour calculation carried out by the Council indicates that the holding, as it presently operates, would not generate sufficient labour to require a full time worker...I also take into account that there has been a history of mains electric power failures...Nevertheless, the appellants have not sought to resolve this issue with their energy supplier or convey to them the importance of a continuity of power supply....power failure would not amount, on its own, to sufficient justification for a dwelling on site....There was some discussion at the Hearing about measures that could potentially be used at the site including: additional fencing (including electric); door opening systems for the poultry houses; and surveillance and monitoring systems. The appellant considers that such measures would be costly,...Whilst technological measures may be expensive, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the appellant has explored sufficiently the use of them...weight that can be attached must be tempered by the likely infrequent nature of catastrophic malfunctions of appropriate equipment that is well maintained and properly serviced....based on the evidence submitted and the small scale of the business I consider the frequency and risk of incidents occurring would be extremely low, particularly if adequate security measures were in place....I am concerned that the buildings where the Scotch eggs are produced are subject to enforcement proceedings by the Council so their future is uncertain...I am unconvinced that the enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis insofar as the operation itself has reasonable long term prospects, such that it can be regarded as permanent....The Council states that supervision of the site could be achieved from a dwelling within a short travelling distance and...Whilst the appellant was concerned about the cost of these dwellings and the travel inconvenience, I have no substantial evidence to demonstrate why these or other rental properties would not be suitable....it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for a dwelling to accommodate an agricultural worker on site and as such the proposed development would be contrary to: Local Plan Policies 1; 25; 33; 37 and 45, which collectively seek, amongst other matters...the absence of a continuous presence on site need not compromise the effective and on-going use of the land.... elevated ground close to a hedge bank and mature trees...fair degree of screening in views from the north...Nonetheless, in views from the Public Right of Way the dwelling appears visually exposed, awkward and incongruous on this landscape ridge feature. For this reason alone I consider that the present siting of the building is unsuitable....I have taken account of all other matters raised, including letters of support for the development. However, nothing outweighs my considerations in relation to the main issues and, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed."

SDNP/15/02779/HOUS & SDNP/15/02780/LIS LODSWORTH H (R Mcpherson)

Fitzlea House Fitzlea Wood Road Selham Lodsworth GU28 0PS - Internal alterations and external alterations including one 2-storey rear extension and one single-storey side extension.

COSTS DECISION "...allowed...(HBA) did not visit the appeal site as part of the assessment of the appeal applications....A more constructive approach on behalf of the Authority could have avoided the need for the appeals....The Authority's decisions...were based on historical evidence, policy and practice relevant to the case, as demonstrated in its pre-application advice and its statement of case. As its concern is for the size, scale and form of the Page 291

proposed addition to the east, even if the Authority had taken a different view on the form of any proposed addition to the east, this matter, of itself, would not have avoided the need for the appeals....I consider that the Authority acted reasonably....However,...I found that the works proposed to the cill plate and timber framing, between the kitchen and bakehouse, would be acceptable. That there was an extant listed building consent LD/15/79 for those works was a matter agreed by the two main parties at the Hearing. On this basis,...find that the Authority acted unreasonably. In defending that matter at appeal, the appellant incurred unnecessary expense....Unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense...has been demonstrated and awards of costs, limited to the matters in defence of works proposed to the cill plate and timber framing between the kitchen and bakehouse, are therefore justified..."

SY/15/01408/FUL WR (F Stevens) Awaiting Decision

Ullswater Malden Way Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 0RW - Construction of chalet bungalow on land east of Ullswater.

"The appeal is dismissed...The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: the character and appearance of the area; the living conditions of the occupiers of 4a Malden Way, with particular regard to privacy; and, the living conditions of the occupiers of Croft Corner, with particular regard to outlook....The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area...the front wall of the proposal would project significantly forward of the front wall of Ullswater. Its position so close to the street boundary would disrupt the line established by Ullswater. Given the diminutive scale of the street in front of the appeal site, this forward projection would result in the building having an overbearing presence in the street scene, and appearing cramped within the depth of its site. Thus, the proposal would be in conflict with Policy 33 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (LP)...It would be at odds too with the advice in paragraphs 56, 58 and 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (the Framework) which sets out the importance the Government attaches to design...The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 4a Malden Way...In these circumstances, because of the proximity of the dormer windows in the proposal to No 4a, I consider that the proposed development would result in a materially harmful degree of overlooking into the back garden of No 4a. It would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 4a Malden Way with particular regard to privacy, and would be contrary to LP Policy 33....The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Croft Corner Croft Corner has a relatively small back garden area, the outlook from which and from the room on the ground floor opposite the proposed development, would change. However, given the separation of the proposed house of almost 6m from its side boundary which has a fence around 1.5m high, together with its relatively low eaves height and partially hipped roof, it would not have a materially harmful effect on the outlook from within Croft Corner or from its garden. The proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Croft Corner, with particular regard to outlook, and in this respect, would not conflict with LP Policy 33...Conclusion Whilst the development would provide a modest benefit of one additional house to local housing supply, this is outweighed by the unacceptable harm it would cause to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4a Malden Way, which is in clear conflict with the policies of the development plan as a whole. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed."

Page 292

Reference/Decision

SDNP/15/04020/HOUS TILLINGTON WR (J Shore) Awaing Decision

Home Farm Upperton Road Upperton Tillington Petworth West Sussex GU28 9BE - Full and part demolition of previous extensions, construction of new orangery style extension, new south extension and minor internal and external alterations to original building.

"Appeal A: the appeal is dismissed. Appeal B: the appeal is dismissed...Home Farm is a house that has evolved over time and now comprises a number of extensions around an historic core...The design and materials of the extensions makes them distinct from the historic building. The size and form of the house, its development, historic fabric, and the materials from which it is constructed, are part of the special interest of this listed building...Whilst the works would be largely based on the twentieth century extensions, they would nevertheless be much bulkier and would substantially alter the form of the building...The combined size of the two roofs would be overbearing when compared to that of the historic core of the house, with the four rooflights having a rhythmical position at odds with the organic appearance of the house...Again there are a number of positive aspects to the proposal, such as removing the octagon extension, the oriel window and the Juliet balcony. However, raising the height of the southern end extension combined with the other proposed extensions would give the building an essentially rectangular form very different to the incremental one that it currently possesses...the bulk and scale of the works would be such that they would overwhelm the building, unacceptably and fundamentally altering its form...it would unacceptably erode the spacious and expansive edge of village setting that it has. Furthermore, the amount and size of the proposed glazing to the rear would be at odds with the void / solid ratio apparent particularly to the front of the building...The proposed glazing would be very different to the vernacular form of the listed house and barn...The number and size of the windows, doors and glazed cheek dormers, would be noticeably reflective and particularly apparent at night when rooms are lit, thereby intruding into the historic environment and the scenic beauty of the national park...I also share the concerns of the Authority with regard to the loss of historic fabric...several windows would be replaced and it is not clear whether repairs could be an alternative. Internally the provision of large open plan rooms would fundamentally alter the ground floor plan form...Furthermore, the historic core of the building would become secondary to the extensions, providing service facilities and a means of access to the relocated principle rooms...the further erosion of the use and form of the historic farmhouse would render it largely subservient to the extensions...Despite the absence of objection from local residents, the changes proposed are personal not public benefits relevant only to the appellant and his family, and would not therefore outweigh the harm I have found...The proposal would not preserve the special interest of the listed building...the appeal building was considered to offer a high bat roost potential...It was found that the building supported a maternity colony of brown long-eared bats. As the proposed works would allow no opportunity to retain the roost, it would be destroyed. An alternative roost is proposed in a garden barn / store close to the southern boundary of the garden...The garden store is very different to the existing maternity roost...Whilst the barn would be close to foraging, the physical features of the substitute roost would be very different...would be much smaller in size, and is currently open fronted with an exposed roof structure...it would have a much more frequent use than the loft and consequently greater disturbance...full details of the proposed works have not been provided...it is not clear that a satisfactory mitigation strategy is in place to provide a substitute bat roost, and the harm to a legally protected wildlife species has not been established..." Page 293

Reference/Decision

SDNP/15/04021/LIS TILLINGTON WR (J Shore) Awaing Decision

Home Farm Upperton Road Upperton Tillington Petworth West Sussex GU28 9BE - Full and part demolition of previous extensions, construction of new orangery style extension, new south extension and minor internal and external alterations to original building.

"Appeal A: the appeal is dismissed. Appeal B: the appeal is dismissed...Home Farm is a house that has evolved over time and now comprises a number of extensions around an historic core...The design and materials of the extensions makes them distinct from the historic building. The size and form of the house, its development, historic fabric, and the materials from which it is constructed, are part of the special interest of this listed building...Whilst the works would be largely based on the twentieth century extensions, they would nevertheless be much bulkier and would substantially alter the form of the building...The combined size of the two roofs would be overbearing when compared to that of the historic core of the house, with the four rooflights having a rhythmical position at odds with the organic appearance of the house...Again there are a number of positive aspects to the proposal, such as removing the octagon extension, the oriel window and the Juliet balcony. However, raising the height of the southern end extension combined with the other proposed extensions would give the building an essentially rectangular form very different to the incremental one that it currently possesses...the bulk and scale of the works would be such that they would overwhelm the building, unacceptably and fundamentally altering its form...it would unacceptably erode the spacious and expansive edge of village setting that it has. Furthermore, the amount and size of the proposed glazing to the rear would be at odds with the void / solid ratio apparent particularly to the front of the building...The proposed glazing would be very different to the vernacular form of the listed house and barn...The number and size of the windows, doors and glazed cheek dormers, would be noticeably reflective and particularly apparent at night when rooms are lit, thereby intruding into the historic environment and the scenic beauty of the national park...I also share the concerns of the Authority with regard to the loss of historic fabric...several windows would be replaced and it is not clear whether repairs could be an alternative. Internally the provision of large open plan rooms would fundamentally alter the ground floor plan form...Furthermore, the historic core of the building would become secondary to the extensions, providing service facilities and a means of access to the relocated principle rooms...the further erosion of the use and form of the historic farmhouse would render it largely subservient to the extensions...Despite the absence of objection from local residents, the changes proposed are personal not public benefits relevant only to the appellant and his family, and would not therefore outweigh the harm I have found...The proposal would not preserve the special interest of the listed building...the appeal building was considered to offer a high bat roost potential...It was found that the building supported a maternity colony of brown long-eared bats. As the proposed works would allow no opportunity to retain the roost, it would be destroyed. An alternative roost is proposed in a garden barn / store close to the southern boundary of the garden...The garden store is very different to the existing maternity roost...Whilst the barn would be close to foraging, the physical features of the substitute roost would be very different...would be much smaller in size, and is currently open fronted with an exposed roof structure...it would have a much more frequent use than the loft and consequently greater disturbance...full details of the proposed works have not been provided...it is not clear that a satisfactory mitigation strategy is in place to provide a substitute bat roost, and the harm to a legally protected wildlife species has not been established..." Page 294

Reference/Decision

WW/15/01350/FUL WR (P Kneen) DISMISSED

Land between Windsor and Maycroft Church Road East Wittering West Sussex PO20 8PS - Erection of two storey single family dwelling house, garage and driveway with access onto Sandpiper Walk, off Church Road.

“...The appeal is dismissed...The main issues are: the effect of the proposed development upon the character of the area; and, the acceptability of the proposed development in relation to its location in the countryside...It lies adjacent to, but just outside the settlement boundary of East Wittering, in a stretch of undeveloped land between a cluster of houses around St.Peter's Church to the south and two bungalows to the north...To the west of the site stands a housing development nearing completion, with its access road from Church Road, granted when the Council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Notably, it is set back a significant distance from Church Road, alongside which it maintains an open, green buffer, which tempers the transition from the built environment to the undeveloped, open countryside opposite. The proposed house would fill part of this green buffer and tend to consolidate the settlement with the sporadic development further along Church Road to the north ...The erosion of part of the green buffer would have an adverse visual impact on the undeveloped and tranquil character of the area. The proposed development would have an urbanising effect on the surroundings and would be at odds with the rural character of the countryside to the east, opposite the site. I appreciate that the proposed house would be similar in height & width to the houses to the south, & that the design would incorporate a parking area with access from Sandpiper Walk rather than from the busier Church Road...I acknowledge the Council's internal consultation response to the application for housing to the west of this site, which referred to housing fronting Church Road as being preferable to leaving the area undeveloped. However, the Council granted consent to the layout as proposed. Moreover, the consultation response on one application does not bind the decision-maker on an application for a different development on a different site, in a quite different policy context & with different physical characteristics...I find that the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the character of the area...it would be at odds with LP Policy 48, which says that permission will be granted where there is no adverse impact on the tranquil & rural character of the area & requires development to recognise distinctive local landscape character & sensitively contribute to its setting and its quality. It would also be contrary to one of the core planning principles1 of the Framework, which says that planning should recognise the intrinsic character & beauty of the countryside...it considers the location of the site to be neither isolated nor far from services or facilities. I have no reason to disagree with that conclusion....While the site is adjacent to the settlement of East Wittering, there is no evidence that it requires a countryside location. In this respect, the proposed development would be at odds with the countryside protection Policy 45 of the LP. The appellant considers that paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged as the LP does not meet the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN). However, the LP identifies significant constraints to meeting the OAN, which presently limit the amount of housing that can be delivered up to 2019 in a way compatible with the principles of sustainable development. It sets out that the Council will review the position within 5 years to ensure that the OAN will be met...I conclude in any event that the proposal in this case does not adequately address the environmental role of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 7 of the Framework. When considered against the tests set out in the Framework relating to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, I have acknowledged the design qualities of the proposal & these stand alongside the modest benefit of one house to local housing supply, in accordance with paragraph 47 of the Framework, and the limited associated economic benefits...I find that the adverse impacts of the proposal, as I have identified above, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits. The proposal would be contrary to LP Policy 1 presuming in favour of sustainable development, which the proposed development would not be..." Page 295

Reference/Decision

SB/11/00022/CONDWE I (S Archer)

Willow Cottage R B S Nurseries Thornham Lane Southbourne Emsworth Hampshire PO10 8DD - Use of a building as a dwelling house as above - relates to a different enforcement notice.

Appeals 3135453 & 3137840 withdrawn

WR/15/00038/CONMHC PI (R Hawks) In Progress

1 Newfields Newpound Wisborough Green Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0AX - Stationing of 2 mobile homes. - appeal against enforcement notices.

Appeals 3136347 & 3136346 Withdrawn 8.4.16

3. OUTSTANDING APPEALS

Reference/Status Proposal

AP/14/04250/LBC WR (M Tomlinson) Awaiting Decision

Crown and Anchor Dell Quay Road Dell Quay Appledram PO20 7EE - 2 no free standing signs and 1 no plaque.

BI/15/00139/CONSH PI (S Archer) In Progress 23 – 24 August 2016 at CDC Offices Committee Room 1

Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road Appledram West Sussex - Stable block and works less Article 4 Linked to BI/15/01288/FUL and BI/15/00194/CONTRV

BI/15/00194/CONTRV PI (SArcher) In Progress 23 – 24 August 2016 at CDC Offices Committee Room 1

Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road Birdham West Sussex - Use of land as a Traveller Site. Appeal against enforcement notice Linked to BI/15/01288/FUL and BI/15/00139/CONSH

BI/15/01288/FUL PI (S Archer) In Progress 23 – 24 August 2016 at CDC Offices; Committee Room 1

Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road Birdham West Sussex PO20 7BU - Proposed single pitch site including the provision of a utility building for settled gypsy accommodation together with existing stables. Linked to BI/15/00194/CONTRV and BI/15/00139/CONSH

BI/15/01749/DOM WR (N McKellar) Awaiting Decision

Premier Business Park 4 Birdham Road West Sussex PO20 7BU - Change of use of existing marine retail/storage/light industrial unit to new destination retail unit incorporating new shop front, entrance and side fire escape.

BO/14/03677/PLD H (F Stevens/D Price) In Progress 7 June 2016 at City Council – Assembly Room

Land West of Sweet Meadow Bosham Hoe Bosham Chichester PO18 8ET - Use of site for 1 no dwelling.

Page 296

Reference/Status Proposal

BO/15/00801/FUL WR (C Boddy) Awaiting Decision

The Garden House Bosham Lane Bosham West Sussex PO18 8HG - Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 1 no dwelling and associated works.

BO/15/02233/DOM WR (N McKellar) Awaiting Decision

Brook House Quay Meadow Bosham West Sussex PO18 8LY - Retrospective construction of pitched roof to existing outbuilding. Linked to BO/15/02234/LIS

BO/15/02234/LIS WR (N McKellar) Awaiting Decision

Brook House Quay Meadow Bosham West Sussex PO18 8LY - Construction of pitched roof to existing outbuilding. Linked to BO/15/02233/DOM

SDNP/14/04865/FUL BURY I (D Price) In Progress

Land North of Junction with B2138 Bury Road Bury West Sussex - Change of use from agricultural land to a Gypsy and Traveller's site. Linked to SDNP/15/00336/COU.

SDNP/15/00336/COU BURY I (R Hawks) In Progress

Land North of Junction with B2138 Bury Road Bury West Sussex - Stationing of two caravans for human habitation. Appeal against enforcement notice Linked to SDNP/14/04865/FUL

SDNP/15/04807/HOUS BURY WR (J Shore) Awaiting Decision

Hollow Farm The Street Bury West Sussex RH20 1PA - Single storey boot room/lobby extension. Linked with SDNP/15/04808/LIS

SDNP/15/04808/LIS BURY WR ( J Shore) Awaiting Decision

Hollow Farm The Street Bury West Sussex RH20 1PA - Proposed single storey boot room/lobby extension. Linked with SDNP/15/04807/HOUS

BX/15/03922/FUL WR (F Stevens) Awaiting Decision

1-6 The Old Granary The Street Boxgrove Chichester West Sussex PO18 0ES. Change of use from Class B1 business to Class B1 business and/or Class D1 private health and well-being clinic with rehabilitation centre.

CC/15/01300/FUL H (P Kneen ) In Progress

146 Whyke Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 8HT - Proposed demolition of existing recent single storey extension and roof terrace, and replacement with a 1.5 storey extension; and conversion of existing Whyke Grange into 1 no. five-bed house (including converted stables forming a one-bed annex) and 1 No. three-bed house; erection of 2 no. detached four-bed cottages, with parking and external works.

CC/15/01696/FUL WR (P Kneen) In Progress

Land North Of Stockbridge House Stockbridge Road Chichester West Sussex - Proposed 1 no. studio house.

CC/15/02479/FUL WR (M Tomlinson) In Progress

Unit R1A Chichester Gate Chichester West Sussex PO19 8EL - Proposed installation of HVAC kitchen extraction flue and air intake louvre grill.

Page 297

Reference/Status Proposal

CH/11/00538/CONBC H (R Hawks) In Progress

Five Oaks Newells Lane West Ashling Chichester West Sussex PO18 8DF - Height of building in excess of that permitted under 10/01925/FUL - appeal against enforcement notice.

CH/14/02138/OUT I (J Bell) Awaiting Decision

Land East of Broad Road Hambrook West Sussex - Residential development of 120 single and two storey dwellings comprising 48 affordable homes and 72 market price homes, garaging and parking together with retail unit, sports pavilion, community facility, new vehicular and pedestrian access to Broad Road, emergency and pedestrian access to Scant Road West, sports facilities, two tennis courts, football pitch and four cricket nets, children’s play area, public open space and natural green space on a site of 9.31 ha.

CH/15/00151/CONDWE WR (R Hawks) In progress

Cockleberry Farm Main Road Bosham West Sussex PO18 8PN - Retention of the Chalet. Appeal against enforcement notice.

CH/15/02332/FUL WR (F Stevens) In Progress

Land North of The Avenue Hambrook Chidham PO18 8TZ Erection of 6 no. dwellings and associated works.

E/14/00348/CONCOU WR (S Pattie) In Progress

107 First Avenue Almodington Batchmere Chichester West Sussex PO20 7LQ - Change of use of land to storage of caravans, motorhomes, boats and containers. Linked to E/15/01644/FUL

E/15/01644/FUL WR (M Tomlinson) In Progress

107 First Avenue Almodington Batchmere Chichester West Sussex PO20 7LQ - Retrospective application for extended hard standing to the north of the glasshouse and change of use of land to south of glasshouse for the storage of caravans, boats and storage containers. Linked to E/14/00348/CONCOU

SDNP/14/02401/CND EASEBOURNE WR (J Saunders) Awaiting Decision

Blackberry Barn Hollist Lane Easebourne Midhurst West Sussex GU29 0QN - Removal of Condition 6 of planning permission EB/05/03463/FUL In order to make better use of the building.

EWB/15/01239/FUL H (N Langford) In Progress 26 May 2015 at City Council Old Court Room

148 Stocks Lane East Wittering West Sussex PO20 8NT - Demolition of the existing commercial building and the development of 26 no. one and two bed sheltered apartments for the elderly including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping.

FU/15/00237/CONTRV WR (S Archer) Appeal in progress

Land South of The Stables Newells Lane/Scant Road East West Ashling West Sussex – Creation of a hardstanding – appeal against enforcement notice.

SDNP/15/01791/LDE HARTING WR (R Jones) Awaiting Decision

2 Ryefield Barns Killarney to Goose Green Road West Harting Petersfield West Sussex GU31 5PE - Existing domestic curtilage extension requested in line with garden boundaries on land between house and driveway.

Page 298

Reference/Status Proposal

LX/15/00498/ELD I (C Boddy) In Progress 2-3 August 2016 at CDC Offices Committee Room

Beech Farm Roundstreet Common Loxwood Wisborough Green West Sussex RH14 0AN - The siting of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation independently to Beech Farm House

SDNP/15/04781/HOUS LURGASHALL WR (J Shore) Awaiting Decision

Orchard Park Farm Dial Green Lane Lurgashall West Sussex GU28 9EU - Proposed chain link fencing around tennis court.

O/15/00277/CONHH WR (R Hawks) Appeal in progress

Tapners Barn Marsh Lane Merston Oving Chichester West Sussex PO20 1DZ - Erection of side extension that requires planning permission.

O/15/02834/DOM WR (C Boddy) Appeal in progress

Tapners Barn Marsh Lane Merston Oving West Sussex PO20 1DZ - Retrospective orangery extension to side of existing barn. Linked with O/15/00277/CONHH

O/15/03622/FUL WR (C Boddy) In Progress

Lime Kiln Barn Colworth Lane Colworth Oving PO20 2DS - Removal of condition 3 of planning permission O/16/92.

SDNP/14/06285/MPO PETWORTH H (J Saunders) Awaiting Decision

Land at Laundry Cottage Woodlea and Grass Mere Horsham Road Petworth West Sussex - Removal of affordable housing obligation attached to planning permission SDNP/12/02721/FUL.

PS/13/00015/CONCOU I (R Hawks) In Progress 27 September- 4 October 2016 at WSCC – Edes house WSCC CLU Appeal : 10-12 May 2016 at WSCC Richmond Room

Crouchlands Farm Rickmans Lane Plaistow Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0LE - Use of an anaerobic generator and importation of slurry.

PS/14/04100/FUL H ( F Stevens) In progress (Awaiting Decision)

Little Springfield Farm Plaistow Road Ifold Loxwood Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0TS - Demolition of existing industrial buildings and erection of 3 no detached dwelling houses with associated landscaping, surfacing, car parking provision and access works.

PS/15/00922/COU WR (M Tomlinson) In Progress

The Coach House Oak Lane Shillinglee Plaistow Godalming West Sussex GU8 4SQ - Change of use from existing residential garden and private amenity/sports to club use for yoga, meditation and fitness.

SDNP/15/01349/HOUS ROGATE WR (R Grosso Macpherson) Awaiting Decision

Lower House Durleighmarsh Rogate Petersfield West Sussex GU31 5AX - Oak framed glazed garden room extension to side. Linked to SDNP/15/01351/LIS

Page 299

Reference/Status Proposal

SDNP/15/01351/LIS ROGATE WR (R Grosso Macpherson) Awaiting Decision

Lower House Durleighmarsh Rogate Petersfield West Sussex GU31 5AX - Oak framed glazed garden room extension to side and insertion of roof light on south elevation. Linked to SDNP/15/01349/HOUS

SY/15/00074/CONHH WR (S Archer) Awaiting Decision

47 Wellington Gardens Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 0RF - Without planning permission, erection of a single dwelling house. Linked with SY/15/02518/DOM

SY/15/02518/DOM WR (P Hunt) Awaiting Decision

47 Wellington Gardens Selsey West Sussex PO20 0RF - Self-contained annexe. Linked with SY/15/00074/CONHH

SY/15/04091/DOM WR (M Tomlinson) In Progress

Summerdown Medmerry Selsey West Sussex PO20 9BJ - Removal of condition 3 of permission SY/15/01787/DOM.

SI/14/04058/COU H (F Stevens) Awaiting Decision

Field South of Green Lane Piggeries, Ham Road Sidlesham West Sussex - Change of use of land as private gypsy and traveller caravan site. Linked to SI/15/00157/CONMHC

SI/14/04249/ELD WR (P Kneen) Awaiting Decision

Magnolia Cottage Cloverlands Chalder Lane Sidlesham Chichester West Sussex PO20 7RJ - To continue use of building as a single dwelling.

SB/11/00022/CONDWE I (S Archer) In Progress 24-25 May 2016 at City Council Council Old Court Room

Acre View R B S Nurseries Thornham Lane Southbourne Emsworth Hampshire PO10 8DD - Use of a building as a dwelling house – appeal against enforcement notice. Linked to SB/15/02508/FUL

SB/14/00313/CONMHC H (S Archer) In Progress 1 June 2016 at City Council Old Court Room

Land North of Marina Farm Thorney Road Southbourne - Stationing of a mobile home. Appeal against Enforcement Notice.

SB/15/01837/FUL H (C Boddy) In Progress 19 April 2016 at Chidham and Hambrook Village Hall

Thornham Products Thornham Lane Southbourne West Sussex PO10 8DD - Retrospective grant of planning permission to station the existing single mobile home.

Page 300

Reference/Status Proposal

SB/15/02508/FUL I (S Archer) In Progress 24-25 May 2016 at City Council Council Old Court Room

Acre View Cottage Thornham Lane Southbourne West Sussex PO10 8DD - Continuation of use of building as a single dwelling house. Linked to SB/11/00022/CONDWE

SB/15/02509/FUL I (S Archer) In Progress 24-25 May 2016 at City Council Council Old Court Room

Willow Cottage Thornham Lane Southbourne Emsworth Hampshire PO10 8DD - Use of building as a single dwelling house.

SDNP/14/05772/LDE STEDHAM WR (D Price) Awaiting Decision

The Old Studio Bridgefoot Cottages Stedham Midhurst GU29 0PT - Use of The Old Studio as a self-contained residential unit for a period in excess of 4 years.

WE/15/00135/CONWST WR (R Hawks) Awaiting Decision

Land South East of Hopedene Common Road Hambrook Westbourne West Sussex - Untidy land.

WH/14/01159/OUTEIA I (J Bell) In Progress 19-21 July 2016 at City Council and 22-26 July 2016 at CDC Offices

Land between Stane Street and Madgwick Lane Westhampnett West Sussex - Residential development comprising up to 300 residential dwellings, including an element of affordable housing, with vehicular access from Stane Street and Madgwick Lane, associated landscaping, a community facility, open space and children's play space, surface water attenuation and ancillary works.

WH/14/03827/OUT H (K Rawlins/J Bell) Awaiting Decision

Land West of Abbots Close Priors Acre Boxgrove West Sussex - Outline planning permission is sought for development of the site for up to 22 residential units, public open space, landscaping, access and car parking. All matters are to be reserved except for point of access.

WH/15/02785/FUL WR (C Boddy) In progress

Maudlin Mill Side Green Lane Maudlin Westhampnett Chichester West Sussex PO18 0QU - Erection of B1/B2 industrial unit.

SDNP/15/03361/LDE WEST LAVINGTON H (D Price) In Progress 21 June 2016 at Memorial Hall, Southdowns Centre

Stable Cottage Dunford Hollow West Lavington West Sussex GU29 0ER - Use as single dwelling house with garden and amenity area.

WW/15/01408/FUL WR (F Stevens) Awaiting Decision

Ullswater Malden Way Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 0RW - Construction of chalet bungalow on land east of Ullswater.

Page 301

Reference/Status Proposal

WR/15/00498/ELD I (C Boddy) In Progress 2-3 August 2016 at CDC Offices, Committee Room 1

Beech Farm Roundstreet Common Loxwood Wisborough Green West Sussex RH14 0AN - The siting of a mobile home for the purposes of human habitation independently to Beech Farm House.

WR/15/00864/FUL WR (A Miller) In Progress

Land at Wilton Cottage Kirdford Road Wisborough Green West Sussex RH14 0DB - Construction of a two storey detached dwelling, means of access and detached garage.

WR/15/02080/FUL WR (M Tomlinson) Awaiting Decision

Goose Cottage Durbans Road Wisborough Green Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0DG - Change of use of existing store building to residential.

Page 302

4. VARIATIONS TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS

Land on the East Side of Meadow Way Tangmere West Sussex Planning permission was granted in outline for the development of site to comprise of 59 residential units and associated public open space, landscaping, access and car parking (TG/12/01739/OUT). That planning permission was accompanied by a section 106 agreement which, amongst other things required to provide 23 affordable units. Following the grant of permission, the Council received a request to vary the agreement such that the affordable housing tenures were altered without actually reducing the number of affordable units provided. Furthermore, the changes proposed did not result in a reduction in number of intermediate affordable housing units or affordable rented units and maintained a 30:70 split. The Council’s Housing Enabling Officer raised no objection to the proposal as in some cases there are concerns that a 4b shared ownership unit would be unaffordable. She concluded that she was satisfied that the affordable mix, numbers and tenure as proposed were acceptable and met the SHMA requirements. Accordingly a written variation of the clause to the affordable housing tenure splits was agreed. Members are asked to note the completion of this agreed written variation. Land East of Follis Gardens Clay Lane Fishbourne Planning permission was granted in 2014 for 25 dwellings with access from Clay Lane (FB/13/02278/FUL refers). That planning permission was accompanied by a section 106 legal agreement. Following the grant of permission the Council received a request to vary the agreement to exempt statutory undertakers from the obligations contained within the deed where a part of the land was transferred to the statutory undertaker to enable the undertaker to provide their services. This was requested to enable Southern Gas Networks to install gas infrastructure on the site but the new provision would apply to any statutory service provider. The clause is now included as standard in these agreements and accordingly, the amendment was deemed acceptable. Members are asked to note the completion of the deed. The Heritage Winden Avenue Chichester Planning permission was granted in 2013 for 92no. dwellings comprising 36no. open market dwellings and 56no. supported housing apartments with associated communal spaces, new landscaped public courtyard and communal garden (CC/10/02034/FUL refers). That planning permission was accompanied by a section 106 legal agreement which sought, among other provisions, the delivery of 2 no of the 42 no 1 bed flats and 4 no of the 14 no 2 bed flats (6no. in total) as wheelchair accessible units. A subsequent planning application (CC/14/01344/FUL) sought permission to provide 2 no additional flats in the rented block in place of the approved communal lounge and buggy store. This second planning permission was accompanied by a further section 106 legal agreement that formally varied the original agreement to take into account the two additional flats and change the mix of the wheelchair accessible units to 4 no 1 bed units and 2 no 2 bed units to meet the needs of the intended occupiers at the time. Page 303

Following the second grant of permission the Council received a request to vary the agreement further to provide 3 no of the 1 bed flats and 3 no of the 2 bed flats as wheelchair accessible units. The Council’s Housing Enabling Officer supports the change as it will enable the flats to be delivered to suit the needs of their occupants. Members are asked to note the completion of the deed.

5. CALLED-IN APPLICATIONS

Reference Proposal Stage

NONE

6. COURT AND OTHER MATTERS

Injunctions

Site

Breach Stage

Land North West of Premier Motor Homes Birdham

Use of land as a residential caravan site and the carrying out of operational development

Court Hearing Monday 4 April 2016 to add current land owners to the injunction and to set a final trial date.

Prosecutions

Site Breach Stage

Tinwood Estate Halnaker Boxgrove

Display of an advertisement

Prosecution authorised: waiting for a court date from Court listings.

Nell Ball Farm Plaistow

Failure to comply with the planning enforcement notice

Prosecution proceedings to recommence as negotiations with the landowner have not been successful. Legal to be instructed.

7. POLICY MATTERS NONE

Page 304