DCN Agenda Ganoderma Ext

Document Sample
DCN Agenda   Ganoderma Ext Powered By Docstoc
					                                  Park North, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1RL
                                  Tel: (01403) 215100 Fax: (01403) 262985 (Calls may be recorded)
                                  DX 57609 HORSHAM - 6 www.horsham.gov.uk


                                  Tom Crowley, Chief Executive

                                  Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North



     Development Control (North) Committee
           TUESDAY 5TH AUGUST 2008 AT 5.30p.m
 COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

 Councillors:     Ian Howard (Chairman)
                  Peter Rowlinson (Vice-Chairman)
                  John Bailey                     David Jenkins
                  Andrew Baldwin                  Mrs Liz Kitchen
                  Gordon Brown                    Mrs Sheila Matthews
                  Clive Burgess                   Christian Mitchell
                  Roy Cornell                     Robert Nye
                  Christine Costin                Linda Pettitt
                  John Cox                        Pat Rutherford
                  Leonard Crosbie                 David Sheldon
                  Sheila Dale                     David Skipp
                  Ross Dye                        Mrs Claire Vickers
                  Sarah Gray                      Belinda Walters
                  David Holmes                    Kyle Wickens
                  Sally Horner

       You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business

                                                                                                  Tom Crowley
                                                                                                Chief Executive

                                            AGENDA
1.   Apologies for absence

2.   To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1st
     July 2008 (herewith)

3.   To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

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

5.   To consider the reports of the following officers and to take such action
     thereon as may be necessary
           Head of Development
           Appeals
           Applications for determination by Committee – Appendix A




            Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation
  NOTE:
  (a)  Those items which are headed DELEGATION in the recommendation
       are seeking authority for the application to be decided by the Head of
       Development. The Committee is not being asked to decide the
       application as it is unable to do so at this meeting.

  (b)     The suggested conditions and reasons for refusal may alter
          from those set out in the agenda.

  (c)     Applications relating to sites in two or more parishes are shown
          under the first Parish in alphabetical order.

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




  We kindly ask that all Councillors check their pigeon holes at the end of
                               the meeting.
          DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE
                     5TH AUGUST 2008
                          5.30PM
   The Report by the Head of Development Control contains the following
   items:

Item      Ward           Reference   Site
 No.                      Number

A1        Forest        DC/08/1134   HORSHAM RUGBY CLUB, HAMMERPOND ROAD, HORSHAM

A2        Denne         DC/08/1275   THE FIRS, FARTHINGS HILL, HORSHAM

A3      Southwater      DC/08/1336   SONY DADC UK LIMITED, SOUTHWATER BUSINESS PARK,
                                     WORTHING ROAD, SOUTHWATER

A4       Nuthurst       DC/07/2250   STONEHOUSE, HANDCROSS ROAD, PLUMMERS PLAIN,
                                     HORSHAM

A5       Trafalgar      DC/08/0673   10 MILNWOOD ROAD, HORSHAM

A6       Nuthurst       DC/08/1186   BOW WOOD, BRIGHTON ROAD, MONKS GATE, HORSHAM

A7     Horsham Park     DC/08/1246   17 ORCHARD ROAD, HORSHAM

A8     Horsham Park     DC/08/0959   40 HIGHLANDS ROAD, HORSHAM

A9       Trafalgar      DC/08/1215   5 FARM AVENUE, HORSHAM

A10      Rudgwick       DC/08/1247   THE WATER TOWER, GUILDFORD ROAD, RUDGWICK

A11    Holbrook West    DC/08/1176   15 TRUNDLE MEAD, HORSHAM

A12    Holbrook West    DC/08/1459   BALLYFEARD, PONDTAIL DRIVE, HORSHAM

A13     Itchingfield,   DC/08/0783   GARDEN COTTAGE, BOGNOR ROAD, BROADBRIDGE HEATH,
          Slinfold &                 HORSHAM
         Warnham

A14       Denne         DC/08/1333   ST MARYS CHURCH OF ENGLAND PRIMARY SCHOOL, DENNE
                                     ROAD, HORSHAM

A15      Nuthurst       DC/08/1085   COMMUNITY HALL, LEECHPOND HILL, LOWER BEEDING
DCN080701


                DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE
                             1ST JULY 2008

       Present:     Councillors: Ian Howard (Chairman), John Bailey, Andrew
                    Baldwin, Clive Burgess, Roy Cornell, Christine Costin, Leonard
                    Crosbie, Sheila Dale, Ross Dye, Sarah Gray, David Holmes,
                    David Jenkins, Mrs Sheila Matthews, Christian Mitchell, Robert
                    Nye, Linda Pettitt, Pat Rutherford, David Sheldon, David Skipp,
                    Mrs Claire Vickers, Belinda Walters, Kyle Wickens

       Apologies: Councillors: Peter Rowlinson (Vice-Chairman), Gordon Brown,
                  John Cox, Sally Horner, Mrs Liz Kitchen
                  (Councillors Horner and Kitchen were absent due to their
                  attendance at the LGA annual conference)

      Also present: Councillor Brian Donnelly

DCN/21 MINUTES

       The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3rd June 2008 were
       approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCN/22 INTEREST OF MEMBERS

       Member                          Item             Nature of Interest

       Councillor Claire Vickers       DC/08/0818       Personal – Knows the
                                                        applicant

DCN/23 ANNOUNCEMENTS

       There were no announcements.

DCN/24 INTERESTS OF OFFICERS

       The Chief Executive reported that:

       (i)    Ollie Boulter, Senior Planning Officer, had declared an interest in
              planning application DC/08/1134.

       (ii)   Catherine Andrews, Chief Executive’s PA, had declared an interest in
              planning application DC/08/1170.

       (iii) Doug Wright, Trainee Planner (South) had declared interests in
             planning applications DC/08/1134 and DC/08/1232.

       In each case the officers had indicated that they would take no part in the
       processing or determination of the application.
                                                 Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                           1st July 2008


DCN/25 PROSECUTIONS: BREACH OF ENFORCEMENT NOTICES

      The Council Secretary & Solicitor reported that two prosecutions had been
      heard recently in respect of breaches of enforcement notices.

      In the case of Old Strood, Nowhurst Lane, Broadbridge Heath, the
      Defendants had pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an enforcement
      notice requiring the removal of a garage, three bay car port and lean-to log
      store be removed. The notice had been issued and served on 10th
      December 2004 and should have been complied with by 30th December
      2005. Whilst the Defendants had removed the car port and lean-to log
      store, the garage remained. An application made to retain the garage had
      been refused on 5th February 2008 and an appeal against that decision had
      been lodged on 11th June 2008, two days before the enforcement notice
      hearing. The Magistrates did not agree to the Defendants request for an
      adjournment pending the outcome of the appeal, but took into account the
      partial compliance. The Defendants were each fined £1,000 and ordered to
      pay the Council’s costs in the sum of £580 (totalling £1,160).

      With regard to Stafford House, Bonnetts Lane, Ifield, the Defendant had
      pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an enforcement notice requiring the
      cessation of the use of the land for the parking and storage of vehicles and
      the removal of the hardstanding. The notice had been issued and served
      on 21st September 2006 and should have been complied with by 30th
      November 2006. Prosecution proceedings were issued on 20th March 2008
      and in May 2008 a site inspection showed that compliance with the
      enforcement notice had been achieved. However, the prosecution
      proceeded as the Council had already incurred costs and it was only after
      the issue of proceedings and the placing of the property on the market that
      compliance had eventually been achieved. The Defendant was fined
      £5,000 and ordered to pay the Council’s costs in the sum of £1324.99.

DCN/26 APPEALS

      Appeals Lodged
      Written Representations

       Ref No             Site                           Appellant(s)

       DC/08/0492         Fox Way, Pinkhurst Lane,       Andrew Ellis & Jane
                          Slinfold                       Bromley
       DC/07/2402         62 Warren Drive,               Ms D Heun
                          Southwater
       DC/08/0660         Longfield House, East          Mansion Developments Ltd
                          Street, Rusper
       DC/08/0267         Oaklees, Ashmore Lane,         Mr Dominic Gorton
                          Rusper




                                        2
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/26 Appeals (cont.)
       Appeals Lodged - Written Representations (cont.)

        DC/08/0548            121 Trafalgar Road,           Mr H.Sage
                              Horsham

       Informal Hearings


        Ref No         Site                                     Appellant(s)

        DC/08/0523     Land East Of Oakdene, Guildford Mr & Mrs Bridges
                       Road, Rudgwick
        DC/08/0026     Warnham Lodge Farm, Mayes Mr & Mrs Pavey
                       Lane, Warnham

       Appeal Decisions


        Ref No         Site                         Appellant(s)            Decision

        DC/07/0390     30 Orchard Road,             Mr Berry                ALLOWED
                       Horsham
        WN/27/03       3 Arundel Close,             Mr & Mrs Head           DISMISSED
                       Southwater

DCN/27 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/0734 – FORMATION OF NEW
       FOOTBALL GROUND WITH ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING
       CREATION OF CAR PARKING, HARD SURFACING, ERECTION OF
       STANDS, ENTRANCE AND TOILET BLOCK AND FLOODLIGHTING,
       GROUND LEVELLING AND RE-ARRANGEMENT OF TENNIS COURTS
       AND PART INTERIOR OF EXISTING SPORTS HALL WITH ACCESS VIA
       EXISTING ENTRANCE OFF NORTH HEATH LANE
       SITE: THE HOLBROOK CLUB, NORTH HEATH LANE, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: HORSHAM FOOTBALL CLUB

       The Head of Development reported that this application sought planning
       permission for the formation of a new football ground for Horsham Football
       Club, comprising:

              A standard sized football pitch (100 m x 67m) with run off area
              102 new car parking spaces (including 6 disabled) on the edge of the
               reconfigured tennis courts located at the front of the site
              68 cycle parking spaces




                                           3
                                                     Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                               1st July 2008


DCN/27 Planning Application: DC/08/0734 (cont.)

              A main stand with seating for up to 330 people, contributing towards
               the 750 covered spaces at the ground, incorporating a boardroom,
               storage area, changing rooms, ladies disabled toilet, club shop and
               admin office
              A wheelchair stand for at least 4 wheelchairs
              Three ‘bay’ stands (covered terrace steps) – one at each end
               (capacity 125 spectators each) and one in a central position on the
               eastern side (capacity 500 spectators)
              A turnstile building with 6 turnstiles and a toilet building for males and
               females
              Eight floodlight columns at 15 metres in height, to be folded down
               when not in use.

        The scheme also proposed the refurbishment of the existing sports hall to
        the east of the existing tennis courts.

        Government policies PPS1, PPG13, PPG17 and PPG24; Local
        Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) policies CP1, CP2, CP3,
        CP13, CP14 and CP9; Local Development Framework Development Control
        Policies (2007) policies DC6, DC7, DC9, DC21, DC22 and DC40; and West
        Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 policies LOC1, NE11, NE13, NE14, CH1,
        DEV1, DEV3, DEV4 and DEV5 were all relevant to the determination of this
        application.

        The use of the site as a sports ground and social club dated from the late
        1960s.

        The comments of the Head of Strategic & Community Planning, the Access
        Forum, the Arboricultural Officer, Horsham Society, Southern Water, Sussex
        Police and West Sussex County Council were noted. The Parish Council
        objected to the application. 381 letters of objection and 47 of support had
        been received. Three members of the public and a representative of the
        Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. One member of the
        public, the applicant’s agent and the applicant addressed the committee in
        support of the application.

        The application site was located in the heart of a residential area, within the
        built up area boundary of Horsham. The site was occupied by a range of
        sports and social facilities, open pitches, courts and car parking served by a
        single vehicular access along the frontage of the site in North Heath Lane.
        Residential properties adjoined the site, with the North Heath Lane Industrial
        Estate located to the west and the local shopping centre in Coltsfoot Drive to
        the south.




                                            4
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/27 Planning Application: DC/08/0734 (cont.)

        It was considered that the proposed development would not result in the
        loss of any playing field or recreational facility and could be considered to
        enhance the facilities on offer to the community at large. It was therefore
        considered that the principle of the proposed development was acceptable.
        However, in order to assess the appropriateness of the proposal in detail,
        the various elements of the application needed to be fully considered and
        assessed.

        It was considered that the level of operational development proposed in the
        application was relatively limited and that, due to the location and form of
        the main buildings proposed, the proposed structures would not be visually
        intrusive, have a significant effect on the outlook of residents or cause
        overlooking. Additionally, the proposed boundary treatment would ensure
        that there would be no loss of privacy or additional overlooking caused by
        the development. With regard to crime and disorder, no Police objections
        had been received to the proposals and it was understood that very few
        Horsham Football Club games at the old ground in Queen Street had
        required formal policing. In this respect, there was no reason why there
        should be any significant difference in respect of the proposed new ground.

        A major concern raised by adjoining residents was the potential impact of
        the development on the quiet enjoyment of their houses and gardens and
        the overall impact on the character of the area. Critical to the consideration
        of this issue was the proposed level of use, both in terms of number of
        events and also the scale of the proposed activities. These elements had
        not been clearly defined by the Club as part of their submission. Any events
        additional to the use of the ground for football would increase the number of
        times when potential disturbance to nearby residents could be caused and it
        was considered that unrestricted use of the ground would be unacceptable
        in terms of residential amenities. The applicant had submitted a noise
        report as part of the application, which indicated that the current background
        noise level was generally due to local traffic movements. The report
        recognised that there was a potential for much increased noise disturbance
        associated with this application due to the increased level of spectators
        combined with the public address system.

        The application also proposed the erection of eight floodlight columns, which
        would be located just outside the perimeter fence 4 metres from the
        sidelines. Each column would be 15 metres high. The two main issues
        arising from the installation of floodlights were the potential visual intrusion
        of the columns themselves and the possibility of light spillage/glare. The
        columns, when upright, would be clearly visible from adjoining residential
        properties and would represent a new element in the skyline. However the
        applicants had proposed that they would be folded down when not in use, at




                                            5
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/27 Planning Application: DC/08/0734 (cont.)

        which time they would not be visible. The Council had commissioned an
        independent assessment of the applicant’s floodlighting report, which
        indicated that: in respect of glare, the expected impact of the scheme was
        "slight adverse"; in respect of light trespass the impact would be "moderate
        adverse"; and, in terms of light presence, the effect would be "severe
        adverse". Whilst controlled hours of use and additional planting could
        mitigate this to some extent, it was recognised that deciduous planting was
        least effective in winter months when the floodlighting was most likely to be
        in use.

        The main boundaries of the overall site were bordered by trees, a number of
        which were covered by Tree Preservation Orders, and hedging. It was not
        considered that the proposed development was likely to have any impact on
        these borders. The main frontage to North Heath Lane, where a new car
        park was proposed, contained a number of mature trees, none of which
        were proposed to be removed although some pruning and management of
        the trees was proposed. Due to the reconfiguration and reorientation of the
        tennis courts, proposed as part of the scheme, five trees internal to the site
        would have to be removed. Whilst not worthy in themselves of a
        Preservation Order, they did add to the internal character of the site.

        Concerns had been expressed regarding the capacity of North Heath Lane
        and the existing entrance to the Holbrook Club to cope with the additional
        traffic associated with this development. Limited details had been provided
        both in respect of traffic movements on and the capacity of North Heath
        Lane and the capacity of the site entrance, although a short consultant’s
        report had been submitted relating to transport issues. Another cause for
        concern was the likelihood of parking on adjoining roads on match days and
        the conflicts that would occur with residents’ own parking and the nuisance
        that would be caused.

        The County Surveyor had indicated that, due to the nature of the proposed
        use, a limited Transport Statement would be appropriate but that information
        submitted to date was not complete or comprehensive enough to make a
        final judgement on the proposals. He indicated that the transport statement
        should provide more details on attendances and make comparisons with the
        old Queen Street ground, give information on alternative uses of the ground
        and existing Holbrook Club, incorporate details of measures in respect of
        encouraging supporters arriving on foot, by cycle or by passenger transport
        as well as reviewing the access arrangement from North Heath Lane. On
        this basis, at the present time the County Surveyor had raised an objection
        to the application.

        In conclusion, whilst there were no principal planning policy objections to the




                                           6
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/27 Planning Application: DC/08/0734 (cont.)

        development as proposed, Members considered that the application,
        through its different elements, raised a number of issues and concerns in
        respect of potential impact on the amenities of adjoining residential
        occupiers. Whilst the effect of some of the elements could be mitigated by
        various limitations and controls, Members considered that their combined
        effect could be substantial leading to general disturbance and an overall
        loss of amenity to adjoining residential occupiers. In addition, the issues of
        traffic generation, highway safety, access and parking and the resultant
        conflicts that could arise had not been addressed to the satisfaction of the
        County Surveyor, which in itself was considered to merit refusal of the
        application.

        Councillor Andrew Baldwin requested a recorded vote in respect of the
        recommendation to refuse the application, the results of which were as
        follows:

        FOR the recommendation to refuse: Councillors: John Bailey, Andrew
        Baldwin, Clive Burgess, Roy Cornell, Christine Costin, Leonard Crosbie,
        Sheila Dale, Sarah Gray, David Holmes, Ian Howard, Sheila Matthews,
        Christian Mitchell, Robert Nye, Linda Pettitt, Pat Rutherford, David Sheldon,
        David Skipp, Claire Vickers, Belinda Walters, Kyle Wickens

        AGAINST the recommendation to refuse: Nil

        ABSTAINED: Councillors: Ross Dye, David Jenkins

        ABSENT: Councillors: Peter Rowlinson, Gordon Brown, John Cox, Sally
        Horner, Liz Kitchen

        It was therefore:

                            RESOLVED

                            That application DC/08/0734 be refused for the following
                            reasons:

                            01      The proposal with the information provided is not
                                    considered to satisfactorily address highway
                                    safety and parking issues and as put forward
                                    would be liable to result in additional on street
                                    parking and cause general disturbance and loss
                                    of amenity to nearby residents. The proposal
                                    would therefore be contrary to Policies DEV4
                                    and DEV5 of the West Sussex Structure Plan




                                            7
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/27 Planning Application: DC/08/0734 (cont.)

                                    2001-2016 and Policy DC40 of the Horsham
                                    Local Development Framework General
                                    Development Control Policies (2007).
                           02       Based on the information put forward with the
                                    application, the use is likely to lead to general
                                    disturbance and an overall loss of amenity to
                                    adjoining residential occupiers. As such the
                                    proposal is contrary to Policy DC9 of the
                                    Horsham Local Development Framework
                                    General Development Control Policies (2007)
                                    and Policy DEV1 of the West Sussex Structure
                                    Plan 2001-2016.

DCN/28 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/0739 – CHANGE OF USE FROM B1
       OFFICES TO C1 HOTEL WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING
       SITE: SPRINGFIELD HOUSE, SPRINGFIELD ROAD, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: MR KARIM PABINI - THAMES RIVER GUERNSEY DIRECT
       PROPERTY HOLDINGS LTD

        The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
        for the change of use of Springfield House from offices to hotel use with
        associated parking. The existing building would be retained with no external
        alterations. Eighty-three bedrooms would be provided over the ground floor
        and four floors above, including four disabled access rooms. No restaurant/
        kitchen facilities were proposed. The existing access and egress
        arrangements to the site via the A281 Albion Way and Springfield Road
        would be retained and the existing car park would be remodelled to provide
        42 spaces, seven being for Church use.

        Government policies PPS1, PPG13, PPS6 and the Good Practice Guide on
        Planning for Tourism; Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007)
        policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP11, CP18 and CP19; Local Development
        Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) policies DC9,
        DC11, DC39 and DC40; and West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016
        policies LOC1, NE1, NE5, NE9, NE12, NE13, CH1, DEV1, DEV4, DEV5
        and ERA1 were all relevant to the determination of this application.

        There was no relevant planning history in respect of this site.

        The comments of the County Council, the Head of Public Health &
        Licensing, the Town Centres Manager, the Crime Prevention Design
        Adviser of Sussex Police, the Horsham District Access Forum, Southern
        Water, Strategic & Community Planning and Horsham United Reform
        Church were noted. The Neighbourhood Council raised no objections to the
        proposal.




                                           8
                                                     Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                               1st July 2008


DCN/28 Planning Application: DC/08/0739 (cont.)

        The application site comprised a five storey building currently used as
        offices (B1), which was located in a sustainable town centre location.

        It was considered that, in principle, the proposal complied with Development
        Plan policies in relation to encouraging hotel uses/development.

        The application did not propose any alterations to the external appearance
        of the building and it was not considered that the proposed reconfiguration
        of the existing car park area would have an impact on the visual amenities
        of the locality as they would be located within the courtyard area and were
        effectively screened from public view by the building itself, the Church and
        Swan Walk car park. In view of the current use of the premises and its
        positioning, it was not considered that the proposed hotel use would be
        detrimental to the character of the area or Horsham town as a whole.

        It was noted that the site did not lie within an employment protection zone,
        although it was important to ensure that the loss of office floorspace within
        the town and the associated loss of office employment would not be
        significant in terms of the town or the District. It was also noted that the
        change of use of the property would be to another employment use and
        would therefore be providing employment opportunities within the town. The
        premises had been marketed since August 2006 in an attempt to attract
        alternative occupiers, either on a floor by floor basis or for the building in its
        entirety but, to date, this had been unsuccessful.

        Members therefore considered the development to be acceptable in
        principle subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, including those in
        respect of landscaping, no internal alterations without the benefit of specific
        planning permission, the layout of the parking area and a restriction on the
        use of the premises to hotel (C1) only. The applicant was also to be
        advised of the level of sustainable development considered appropriate and
        provisions for taxi access/drop-off were to be further investigated. It was
        also considered that a contribution should be made towards local
        community facilities for sport, recreation and open space.

                            RESOLVED

                            (i)      That a planning agreement be entered into within
                                     six months or a suitable condition be framed to
                                     secure a financial contribution towards local
                                     community facilities for sport, recreation and
                                     open space.




                                             9
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/28 Planning Application: DC/08/0739 (cont.)

                           (ii)     That, upon completion of the agreement or the
                                    framing of the condition in (i) above and the
                                    framing of additional suitable conditions,
                                    application DC/08/0739 be determined by the
                                    Head of Development. The preliminary view of
                                    the Committee was that the application should be
                                    granted.

DCN/29 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/0837 – CHANGE OF USE AND
       EXTENSIONS FOR 67 BEDROOM HOTEL AND 1 X A3 UNIT (AND 4
       EXISTING RETAIL UNITS ON THE GROUND FLOOR)
       SITE: EXCHANGE HOUSE, WORTHING ROAD, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: SELITS LTD/TRAVELODGE HOTELS LTD

        The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
        for the change of use and extension of Exchange House from offices to
        create a 67 bedroom hotel (including four that were fully wheelchair
        accessible and four for ambulant disabled guests), enclosure of the existing
        undercroft parking area to provide an A3 unit (coffee shop), remodelling of
        the existing facades by recladding and the retention of the existing retail
        units on West Street. No restaurant/bar facilities were planned.

       Government policies PPS1, PPG13, PPS6 and the Good Practice Guide on
       Planning for Tourism; Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007)
       policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP11, CP17, CP18 and CP19; Local
       Development Framework Development Control Policies (2007) policies DC9,
       DC14, DC19, DC39 and DC40; and West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016
       policies LOC1, NE1, NE5, NE9, NE12, NE13, ERA1, CH1, DEV1, DEV4 and
       DEV5 were all relevant to the determination of this application.

       There was no relevant planning history in respect of this application.

       The comments of the County Council, the Head of Public Health &
       Licensing, the Crime Prevention Design Adviser of Sussex Police, the
       Horsham District Access Forum, Southern Water, Strategic & Community
       Planning and the Town Centres Manager were noted. The Neighbourhood
       Council objected to the proposal.

        The application site comprised a four storey building currently used as
        offices (B1) with 4 retail units, parking and service area and was located in a
        sustainable town centre location.

        It was considered that, in principle, the proposal complied with Development
        Plan policies in relation to encouraging hotel uses/development and it was
        noted that there would be no loss of retail floorspace.




                                           10
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             1st July 2008


DCN/29 Planning Application: DC/08/0837 (cont.)

        The scheme would involve extensions to the ground floor as part of the
        coffee shop and to upper floors to create the hotel and the recladding of the
        facades of the building. Whilst the extensions to facilitate the hotel use
        would increase the height and mass of the building as a whole, they would
        principally affect the view from Worthing Road/Blackhorse Way corner. As
        the existing building had a parapet at roof level, the impact of the new floor
        would not be overly prominent. It was considered that the scale and
        massing of the extensions would be acceptable and would not be
        unsympathetic to this part of the town centre, which was characterised by
        taller buildings, including Springfield Court and The Forum. However, it was
        considered that the materials to be used for the extensions and recladding
        required further consideration.

        In view of the current use of the premises and its positioning, it was not
        considered that the proposed hotel use would be detrimental to the
        character of the area or Horsham town as a whole but rather that it would
        provide a tourism facility which was required.

        It was noted that the site did not lie within an employment protection zone,
        although it was important to ensure that the loss of office floorspace within
        the town and the associated loss of office employment would not be
        significant in terms of the town or the District. It was also noted that the
        change of use of the property would be to another employment use and
        would therefore be providing employment opportunities within the town. The
        applicants had advised that, since 2004, the current office floorspace had
        not been fully occupied and over the four years that the property had been
        marketed, one or two small tenants had moved in but this had been offset
        by other tenants vacating.

        Whilst it was accepted that, in view of the location of the site in the town
        centre, the development should be viewed as one where little or no parking
        provision was required, it was considered that further negotiations were
        required to ensure that suitably located car parking was available for
        customers of the hotel. It was also considered that further investigations
        were required in respect of vehicular access and the proposed drop-off
        area.

        Members therefore considered the development to be acceptable in
        principle. It was also considered that a contribution should be made
        towards local community facilities for sport, recreation and open space.

                           RESOLVED

                           (i)     That a planning agreement be entered into within
                                   six months or a suitable condition be framed to




                                           11
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             1st July 2008


DCN/29 Planning Application: DC/08/0837 (cont.)

                                   secure a financial contribution towards local
                                   community facilities for sport, recreation and
                                   open space.

                          (ii)     That, upon completion of the agreement or the
                                   framing of the condition in (i) above, further
                                   negotiations/consultation in respect of materials
                                   and vehicular access and the framing of
                                   additional suitable conditions, application
                                   DC/08/0837 be determined by the Head of
                                   Development in consultation with local Members.
                                   The preliminary view of the Committee was that
                                   the application should be granted.

DCN/30 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/07/2896 – CHANGE OF USE FROM
       INDUSTRIAL UNITS TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 14
       FLATS
       SITE: 59 PARK TERRACE EAST, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: OLD GROVEWOOD PROPERTIES LTD

       The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
       for the demolition of the existing vacant industrial buildings and the
       construction of a three storey building containing a total of 14 x 2 bed flats,
       two of which would be accommodated in the roof space. The proposed
       building would be located on the site of the demolished structure and would
       have a similar ‘L’ shaped footprint aligned along the north-western and
       north-eastern boundaries. Sixteen car parking spaces would be provided
       adjacent to the south-western boundary, comprising one space per flat
       including one wheelchair accessible parking space plus two visitor spaces.
       Cycle storage for 28 bikes would be provided near the entrance to the site
       and a single storey element attached to the south-western end of the
       building would provide storage for refuse and recycling. Amended plans had
       been received since the application was originally submitted and included a
       redesign of the internal layout of the building so that all habitable rooms
       faced into the centre of the site, to reduce concerns regarding the impact of
       rail noise on the occupants; a change in the footprint to an ‘L’ shaped
       building; and an amended design to the exterior.

       Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPG13 and PPS22; Local Development
       Framework Core Strategy (2007) policies CP1, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP11,
       CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework Development
       Control Policies (2007) policies DC8, DC9, DC18, DC19 and DC40; and
       West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 policies LOC1, NE1, NE3, NE5,
       NE13, CH1, ERA1, DEV1, DEV3, DEV4 and DEV5 were all relevant to the
       determination of this application.




                                           12
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/30 Planning Application: DC/07/2896 (cont.)

        There was no relevant planning history in respect of this application.

       The comments of the Head of Public Health & Licensing, Horsham and
       District Access Forum and West Sussex County Council were noted. The
       Neighbourhood Council, whilst welcoming the development of the site in
       principle, objected to the current application. Eight letters of objection, two
       of support and one of comment had been received. The Rt Hon Francis
       Maude MP had also written, seeking assurance that the views of an objector
       would be taken into account when determining the application. One member
       of the public addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

       The site was located within the defined built-up area of Horsham, as defined
       in the Local Development Framework. The area to the south and east of the
       site was predominantly residential containing a mixture of 2- and 3-storey
       semi-detached and terraced Victorian and 1960’s houses, with a 3-storey
       block of flats constructed in the late 1980’s near the southern end of Park
       Terrace East. The Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses adjoined the
       application site to the south-east and to the north-east was a building
       occupied by St Johns Ambulance and a yard used as a van hire depot. A
       railway line ran along the north-western boundary of the site.

       Development Control policy sought to retain employment sites but permitted
       redevelopment where the commercial unit was no longer viable for
       employment use, had been marketed for 12 months, adequate access
       existed and the proposal would result in significant environmental
       improvements, enhance the character of the area and improve the
       relationship with nearby residential occupiers. It was noted that the site had
       been vacant for 2-3 years and that a marketing campaign had not received
       any interest from industrial occupiers. In the light of this and the location of
       the site within a predominantly residential area, the loss of this employment
       site was therefore considered acceptable.

       Core Strategy policies encouraged housing provision and indicated that
       priority would be given to locating new development within Horsham, a
       Category 1 Settlement. In addition, national and local policies required land
       to be used efficiently in order to achieve housing targets. Consequently, the
       provision of flats on this site, which was in a sustainable location close to
       Horsham town centre, was considered to be acceptable in principle.

       The proposed building would be three storeys high with accommodation in
       the roofspace and would be sited at the top of the rise in Park Terrace East.
       In addition, the proposed building would have a larger footprint and overall
       bulk than the terraced houses which would have an overbearing effect on




                                            13
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             1st July 2008


DCN/30 Planning Application: DC/07/2896 (cont.)

       adjoining residents. Members also considered that the proposed design of
       the building would be out of character with the two-storey Victorian terraces
       which were the predominant form of housing in the street.

       The high density of the proposal, at 108 dwellings per hectare, was
       considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site.

       Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

                          RESOLVED

                          That application DC/07/2896 be refused for the following
                          reasons:

                          01       The proposal by reason of its size, scale and
                                   built form would fail to respect the existing
                                   pattern of residential development in the area,
                                   would dominate the street scene and would have
                                   an overbearing impact upon adjoining residents.
                                   The bulk of the building in conjunction with
                                   hardstanding together with car parking areas
                                   would increase the site development intensity
                                   resulting in overdevelopment. The proposed
                                   development would therefore detract from the
                                   visual amenity of the street scene and fail to be
                                   in keeping with the character of the area,
                                   adversely affecting the amenity of adjoining
                                   occupiers. The proposal would be contrary to
                                   policies DC9 of the Horsham Local Development
                                   Framework General Development Control
                                   Policies (2007) and CP1, CP3, CP4 of the
                                   Horsham Core Strategy (2007).
                          02       The proposed development makes no provision
                                   for contributions towards improvements to
                                   transport, infrastructure services and amenities
                                   and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 –
                                   Infrastructure Requirements of the Horsham
                                   Core Strategy (2007).

DCN/31 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/0682 – SINGLE STOREY FRONT
       EXTENSION
       SITE: WEST POINT, SPRINGFIELD ROAD, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: LANCER INVESTMENTS

        The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission




                                          14
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/31 Planning Application: DC/08/0682 (cont.)

        for the erection of a single storey extension to West Point, which was a
        prominent landmark site. The single storey extension would front onto both
        Springfield Road and London Road.

        Government policies PPS1, PPG13 and PPG15; Core Strategy policies
        CP1, CP3, CP17 and CP19; General Development Control policies DC9,
        DC12, DC13, DC14, DC34 and DC40; and West Sussex Structure Plan
        policies LOC1, DEV1, DEV4, DEV5, CH4 and CH5 were relevant to the
        determination of the application.

        In June 2005, an application for 3-Storey and single-storey extensions had
        been refused (DC/05/0891). In August 2006, an application for a single
        storey extension to West Point on Springfield Road and London Road and a
        3-storey flank extension on the London Road frontage was also refused
        (DC/06/1032). An application for a 3-storey extension was withdrawn in
        May 2008 (DC/08/0685).

        The comments of the County Surveyor and the Neighbourhood Council
        were noted. Southern Water raised no objection to the proposal. Five
        letters of no objection and one of objection had been received. The
        applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

        The site was located within the built-up area of Horsham, adjoining the
        London Road Conservation Area, and the existing building was an unusual
        alternate angular floor design dating from the early 1970s. Immediately
        south of the application site was a Grade II Listed Building with rear
        extension.

        The site was located within the town centre, where further retail floor space
        was considered acceptable, and although a small extension to the existing
        retail unit, it was considered that the proposal would lend itself to a wider
        retail range which would help support the vitality and viability of the centre
        as a whole.

        The existing building was of distinctive appearance and was located on a
        prominent site at the junction of Springfield Road and London Road. The
        area in general was characterised by a mix of eclectic architectural styles.

        The applicants had therefore sought to achieve a design and external finish
        that would create an overall improvement to the visual appearance of the
        immediate locality, with the addition of a landscaping scheme integral to the
        proposal in order to soften the existing open concrete apron around the
        apex of the site.




                                            15
                                                  Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                            1st July 2008


DCN/31 Planning Application: DC/08/0682 (cont.)

        It was considered that the proposed development and landscaping scheme
        would complement the existing building style and would enhance this
        prominent site and its visual integrity, particularly when viewed from the
        north approach. It was not considered that it would have any detrimental
        impact on the character or appearance of the adjoining Conservation Area.

        It was also considered that the proposed single storey extension would not
        result in any adverse impact on the private residential amenity of the
        occupiers of the residential properties to the east or west of the site.

        Members therefore considered the proposal to be acceptable.

                          RESOLVED

                          That application DC/08/0682 be granted subject to the
                          following conditions:

                          01      A2        Full Permission
                          02      M1        Materials
                          03      L1        Hard and Soft Landscaping including
                                            surface treatment (replacement planting
                                            to be carried out in perpetuity unless
                                            agreed in writing by the Local Planning
                                            Authority)
                          04      H10       Cycle Provision
                          05      P2        Disabled Persons
                          06      The roof area of the extension shall not be used
                                  as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area
                                  without the grant of further specific permission
                                  from the local Planning Authority.
                          07      O1        Hours of Working
                          08      O2        Burning of Materials
                          09      H4        On-site parking
                          10      'No material operation in implementation of this
                                  permission shall take place until details of a
                                  scheme for the provision transport infrastructure
                                  to meet the needs of the development in
                                  accordance with Policy CP13 of the LDF Core
                                  Strategy and Policy DEV3 of the Structure Plan
                                  2001-2016 has been submitted to and approved
                                  in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
                                  scheme shall include a timetable for the
                                  provision to be made and shall be carried out in
                                  accordance with the approved details




                                          16
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/31 Planning Application: DC/08/0682 (cont.)

                           REASONS

                           ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the
                                 amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the
                                 character and visual amenities of the locality.
                           IDP1  The proposal is consistent with the provisions of
                                 the development plan.

DCN/32 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/0818 – CONVERSION OF GAMES
       ROOM TO 1 X 4 BED DWELLING AND CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO
       RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE FOR THE NEW DWELLING
       SITE: BOURNEHILL BYRE, KERVES LANE, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: MR S ROSS
       (Councillor Claire Vickers declared a personal interest in this application as
       she knew the applicant.)

        The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
        for the change of use of an existing outbuilding to a self-contained dwelling
        house. The building was currently used as an ancillary games room in
        association with the residential barn conversion at Bournehill Byre.

        Government policies PPS1, PPG3, PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13; Horsham
        District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 policies CP1
        and CP3; Horsham District Local Development Framework General
        Development Control Policies Submission Documents September 2006
        policies DC1, DC3, DC9 and DC24; and West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-
        2016 policies LOC2, NE1, NE8, CH1, CH3, DEV1, DEV3, DEV4 and DEV5
        were all relevant to the determination of this application.

        In 1960, permission had been granted for a covered yard (HR/89/60) and, in
        1998, permission had been granted for the conversion of Bournehill Byre
        from a former agricultural building to residential accommodation (SQ/4/98).
        Applications for the erection of a garage and garden store (SQ/76/00) and
        for the conversion of stable block to form granny annexe (SQ/103/00) were
        granted in 2000. In 2001, an application for the conversion of garage
        roofspace into ancillary residential accommodation was also granted
        (SQ/122/01). Permission for the demolition of barns and part demolition and
        part conversion of barn to form games room and change of use of adjoining
        land to residential was granted in 2003 (SQ/7/03).

        The comments of West Sussex County Council were noted. The Parish
        Council strongly objected to the application. Twenty-six letters of support
        had been received. The applicant spoke in support of the proposal.




                                            17
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/32 Planning Application: DC/08/0818 (cont.)

        The site was located within a rural area outside the defined built-up areas of
        both Horsham and Southwater. The site was accessed via unlit country
        lanes without roadside pavements and it was therefore anticipated that the
        occupants of the proposed dwelling be reliant to a significant degree on the
        private motor car. It was therefore considered that the proposal would not
        meet sustainable development objectives as the site was in a relatively
        isolated location some distance from key services and public transport links.
        It was also considered that the proposed residential conversion would not
        meet any specific local need.

        Local Development Framework policies emphasised the importance of
        strategic gaps in terms of protecting, conserving and enhancing key
        settlement characteristics and preventing urban sprawl in the countryside
        and beyond existing settlement boundaries. It was considered that the
        proposed change of use of part of the field to the rear of the building to
        domestic curtilage and the changes to the building on its north-west
        elevation would be harmful to the character and visual amenities of the
        countryside and that the activity generated by the additional residential use
        would detract from the character and objectives of the Strategic Gap. It was
        also considered that the building proposed for conversion had no particular
        merit, being part of a former modern agricultural building and of a plain,
        bulky appearance.

        Members therefore considered the proposal to be unacceptable.

                           RESOLVED

                           That application DC/08/0818 be refused for the following
                           reasons:

                           01      The site lies within the countryside outside of any
                                   defined built-up area and the proposal involves
                                   the provision of an additional dwelling resulting in
                                   the intensification of sporadic residential
                                   development contrary to the policies of DC1,
                                   DC3 of the Horsham District Local Development
                                   Framework – General Development Control
                                   Policies 2007 and policies CP1, CP15 of the
                                   Horsham Local Development Framework – Core
                                   Strategy 2007.
                           02      The Local Planning Authority it is not satisfied
                                   that in this case the proposal complies with the
                                   criteria set out in Development Plan Policies. It
                                   has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of




                                           18
                                                  Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                            1st July 2008


DCN/32 Planning Application: DC/08/0818 (cont.)

                                 the LPA that the building is unsuited to economic
                                 development purposes or that the residential use
                                 would meet a specific local need. Furthermore
                                 the building is not of traditional construction and
                                 or architectural/ historic interest. The extension
                                 to the residential curtilage would also be harmful
                                 to the character and appearance of the rural
                                 landscape. The proposal is contrary to policies
                                 CP1 and CP15 of the Horsham Local
                                 Development Framework – Core Strategy 2007
                                 and polices DC1, DC9 and DC24 of the Horsham
                                 LDF General Development Control Policies
                                 2007.
                         03      The proposal would be harmful to the objectives
                                 of the Horsham/Southwater strategic gap which
                                 aims to prevent coalescence and maintain the
                                 separate identities of Horsham and Southwater
                                 and is therefore contrary to polices DC1 and
                                 DC3 of the Horsham LDF General Development
                                 Control Policies 2007 and CP15 of the Horsham
                                 Local Development Framework – Core Strategy
                                 2007.
                         04      The proposal is considered inappropriate and
                                 fails to comply with the principles of sustainable
                                 development given the location of the site
                                 outside of any defined built up area and its poor
                                 access to services, facilities and employment
                                 opportunities and being poorly served by public
                                 transport provision. The proposed development
                                 would thus be contrary to policy CP1 and CP15
                                 of the Horsham Local Development Framework –
                                 Core Strategy 2007 and policies DC1, DC24 of
                                 the Horsham LDF General Development Control
                                 Policies 2007.
                         05      The proposed development makes no provision
                                 for contributions towards improvements to
                                 transport and community facilities infrastructure
                                 and is thereby contrary to policies CP13 of the
                                 Horsham Local Development Framework – Core
                                 Strategy 2007.




                                         19
                                                  Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                            1st July 2008


DCN/33 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/0913 – CHANGE OF USE FROM
       FORMER BUTCHERS COLD STORE TO A 2– BED DWELLING
       SITE: 50 BARRINGTON ROAD HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: MR P EVERITT

      The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
      for the conversion of a former butchers’ cold store into a two bedroom
      house, including the extension of the single storey element in width and the
      addition of a first floor extension above in order to create a second bedroom
      area.

      Government policies PPS1 and PPS3; LDF Core Strategy policies CP1,
      CP3, and CP5; Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies DC1, DC9 and DC40; and West Sussex Structure Plan
      2001-2016 policies LOC2, CH1, NE8, and DEV1 were relevant to the
      determination of this application.

      Planning permission had originally been granted for the conversion of the
      cold store in 2001 (HU/353/01) but this had not been implemented as the
      foundations were considered to be insufficient and the roof was considered
      to be too low for acceptable standing height. Whilst neither of these
      specific issues were relevant considerations in the planning process,
      Building Control had confirmed that it would be possible to overcome the
      concerns relating to the foundations of the property through underpinning
      and that there was no restrictive head height governed by legislation. A
      subsequent application for a new building to replace the existing was
      refused (DC/05/0195).

      The County Surveyor and the County Planning Officer had raised no
      objections to the proposal, subject to the payment of contributions towards
      transport, education, library and fire & rescue services. Two letters of
      objection had been received.

      The application site was located within the built-up area of Horsham, in an
      area that was predominantly residential in nature.

      Concern was expressed by Members in respect of vehicle access and on-
      site parking, the suitability of the building for conversion in view of its
      dilapidated condition, the effect of the proposal on the amenity of the
      dwelling to the front of the site and the effect of the proposed extensions on
      existing buildings on the site.

                         RESOLVED

                         That consideration of application DC/08/0913 be deferred
                         pending further investigations, in consultation with the
                         local Members and the Chairman of the Committee, in
                         respect of the concerns raised.



                                         20
                                                 Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                           1st July 2008



DCN/34 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/07/1722 – EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO
       OUTBUILDING
       SITE: WESTONS FARMHOUSE, FULFORDS ROAD, ITCHINGFIELD
       APPLICANT: MRS D J SMITH

      The Head of Development reminded Members that this application had
      been delegated to him to determine, subject to completion of a planning
      agreement reinforcing the proposed condition requiring the accommodation
      to be ancillary to Westons Farmhouse and not to form any habitable
      accommodation or to be used as ‘primary residential accommodation or as
      a separate unit of residential accommodation’ (Minute No. DCN/240
      (13.5.08) refers).

      The applicant had subsequently stated that she was not willing to enter into
      a planning agreement in this respect.

      Members were referred to the previous report for details of relevant policies,
      planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment
      of the proposal.

      One member of the public addressed the Committee in objection to the
      application.

      Members considered that the extent of the proposed alterations were
      excessive and inappropriate for a building to be used for non-residential
      ancillary use and that the application was therefore unacceptable.

                         RESOLVED

                         That application DC/07/1722 be refused for the following
                         reasons:

                         01      The level and form of the alterations proposed
                                 are considered excessive and inappropriate for
                                 ancillary use in this sensitive countryside location
                                 and would be harmful to the overall character of
                                 the site which includes a Grade II listed building.
                                 The proposals are therefore considered contrary
                                 to Policies DC1, DC9, DC13 and DC24 of the
                                 Horsham District Local Development Framework
                                 General Development Control Policies 2007.




                                         21
                                                  Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                            1st July 2008


DCN/35 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/07/2853 – REPLACEMENT STABLE
       BLOCK, NEW STABLE AND STORAGE BLOCK, TIMBER GARAGE AND
       IMPROVEMENT TO ACCESS TRACK FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY
       SITE: LAND ADJACENT TO CALDERBANK, IFIELD WOOD, IFIELD
       APPLICANT: MR M WELCH

      The Head of Development reported that this application sought retrospective
      permission for the retention of single storey pitched roof stables that had
      been erected to accommodate four horses; the erection of a separate timber
      stable with an adjoining hay barn; the erection of a single storey, pitched
      roof, timber garage; the improvement of an existing track running adjacent
      to the northern boundary of the property with recycled crushed hardcore and
      road chippings; and the erection of a post and rail fence delineating the
      improved track from the adjacent paddock. The new stable buildings, hay
      store and garage had been erected on an existing hardstanding on the site
      towards the access from Ifield Wood and an existing authorised stable
      building had been replaced on the same hardstanding. The new buildings
      were formed of single storey timber elevations with low angled pitched roofs
      and provided a total of nine stables, a tack room, and hay barn. The
      existing muck heap on the site had been improved by being contained within
      an enclosure formed of approximately 1.8 metres high sleeper walls.

      Government policies PPS1 and PPS7; Local Development Framework Core
      Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP15 and CP19; and Local Development
      Framework General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and
      DC29 were relevant to the determination of this application.

      In September 1978, permission had been granted for a garage, garden
      store and stables (RS/39/78).

      The comments of the Environment Agency, the County Surveyor, the Rights
      of Way Team and Public Health & Licensing were noted. The Parish
      Council raised no objection to the proposal.

      The application site was located within a predominantly rural area, outside
      the built-up area boundary.

      It was not considered that the cumulative impact of the new/replacement
      buildings and the improved track detracted from the rural character of the
      surrounding landscape. The buildings were located in an area of land
      between two residential properties and were considered to be of acceptable
      design and appearance. In view of the siting of the buildings towards the
      front of the site; the presence of existing boundary fencing; the single storey
      height of the buildings; and the distance of the buildings from the vehicular
      highway of Ifield Wood, it was not considered that development had an
      unacceptable impact on the public footpath to the north of the site.




                                          22
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             1st July 2008


DCN/35 Planning Application: DC/07/2853 (cont.)

        Although the distances from the development to the boundaries with the
        existing dwellings were relatively close, it was considered that as the
        buildings were single storey in height and the boundaries were formed of
        close-boarded fencing at a height of approximately 1.8 metres, there was no
        unacceptable overpowering effect on the amenities of these dwellings nor
        was any unacceptable harm caused by way of overlooking. Although the
        stable waste area had been improved by the erection of an enclosure, it was
        considered to be unacceptable in its current position due to its proximity to
        the rear amenity space of the adjoining residential property. However, if the
        application were granted, a condition could be imposed to secure the
        relocation of the stable waste area away from neighbouring residential
        curtilages.

        Members considered the proposal to be acceptable.

                          RESOLVED

                          That application DC/07/2853 be granted subject to the
                          following conditions:

                          01       The stables hereby permitted shall be used for
                                   private equestrian purposes only and shall not be
                                   used for commercial purposes or in connection
                                   with any form of riding establishment.
                          02       Within three months of the date of this
                                   permission, details of the location of
                                   manure/stable waste storage shall be submitted
                                   to the Local Planning Authority for approval in
                                   writing. These details must ensure that all
                                   manure/stable waste is stored at least 30 metres
                                   from neighbouring properties.
                          03       No burning of any kind shall take place on the
                                   site at any time.
                          04       All manure/stable waste/slurry shall be disposed
                                   of at regular intervals and in such a manner as
                                   not to cause annoyance to occupants of nearby
                                   residential premises.
                          05       D10      Floodlighting
                          06       Satisfactory provision shall be made for surface
                                   water drainage and control of leachate.

                          REASON

                          ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the
                                amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the
                                character and visual amenities of the locality.



                                           23
                                                  Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                            1st July 2008



DCN/36 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/0612 – ERECTION OF TWO
       COMPOST BUNKERS AND RETENTION OF ACCESS TRACK AND
       HARDSTANDING
       SITE: PHILLIPS PLAYING FIELD, SOUTHWATER
       APPLICANT: MR M ELLIS

      The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
      for two compost bunkers constructed of timber sleepers, to be used by a
      company of contract gardeners for the recycling of its own green waste.
      The bunkers would measure 10 metres by 10 metres and would be 2 metres
      high. The applicant had confirmed that the site would be used during
      weekdays, with no evening or at weekend use. The application also
      proposed the retention of the existing access track and a turning area.

      Government policies PPS1 and PPS7; Core Strategy 2007 policies CP1,
      CP2, CP3 and CP15; Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies (2007) DC1, DC2 and DC9; and West Sussex Structure
      Plan policies LOC2, NE8, CH1 and ERA8 were relevant to the determination
      of this application.

      A previous planning application for the same scheme had been refused in
      2007 (DC/07/0189).

      The comments of the county Surveyor and the Environment Agency were
      noted. The Parish Council strongly objected to the proposal and six letters
      of objection had been received.

      Whilst every effort was made to encourage recycling in various forms, care
      had to be taken to ensure that this activity was in the correct location. The
      current application site was located in a clearing within a copse of semi-
      mature trees. The site was in a remote countryside location and could be
      readily viewed from the adjacent public footpath running to the west of the
      site. The site was already in use with piles of logs and wood chippings
      within the clearing and piles of rubble, bricks and hardcore along the side of
      the existing trackway, which in itself was causing significant harm to the
      character of this rural area.

      Although the applicant had described the proposal as a small scale project,
      it was considered that this form of activity could be expected to increase in
      the future, resulting in a level of impact on the landscaped character and
      amenity value of this location that would be contrary to the aims of
      countryside protection policies.

      The current proposal was also considered to be contrary to Government
      advice, which aimed to protect the countryside from inappropriate
      development.




                                         24
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              1st July 2008


DCN/36 Planning Application: DC/08/0612 (cont.)

        Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable and
        requested that the removal of the existing piles of rubble, bricks and
        hardcore and the cessation of any unauthorised use should be pursued.

                           RESOLVED

                           That application DC/08/0612 be refused for the following
                           reason:

                           01       The site lies in the countryside and the Local
                                    Planning Authority is not satisfied that the
                                    proposed development is justified as being an
                                    appropriate rural activity. It is therefore
                                    considered to be inappropriate in this location
                                    and would adversely affect the visual amenities
                                    and rural character of the area contrary to the
                                    aims of policies within the Development Plan, in
                                    particular Policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the
                                    Local Development Framework Core Strategy
                                    2007, Policies DC1, DC2 and DC9 of the Local
                                    Development Framework General Development
                                    Control Policies 2007 and Policies LOC2, NE8
                                    and DEV1 of the 2001-2016 West Sussex
                                    Structure Plan.

DCN/37 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/0779 – CONSTRUCTION OF 2
       STABLES WITH STORAGE AREA FOR FOOD AND BEDDING
       SITE: LAND SOUTH OF OAK TREE FARM, IFIELD WOOD
       APPLICANT: MR ROBERT AND MRS CHRISTINE ALEXANDER

        The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
        for the erection of a low profile stable building measuring 13.8 metres by 4.6
        metres with a ridge height of 3.2 metres.

        Government policy PPS1; Local Development Framework Core Strategy
        policiesCP1 and CP3; Local Development Framework General
        Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC29; and West Sussex
        Structure Plan policies LOC1, LOC2, NE8, and DEV1 were relevant to the
        determination of this application.

        There was no relevant planning history in respect of this site.

        The comments of the county Surveyor and the Head of Public Health &
        Licensing were noted.




                                           25
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             1st July 2008


DCN/37 Planning Application: DC/08/0779 (cont.)

        The site was located outside the built-up area and was therefore subject to
        the countryside policies of the Local Development Framework. However, it
        was generally accepted that equestrian development required a countryside
        location provided that such proposals were appropriate in scale and level of
        activity, in keeping with the location and surroundings and did not result in
        sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the
        countryside.

        The current proposal was for a small stable and storage building of a simple
        design, which would be located at the lowest point of the site. The mature
        trees around the field would provide effective screening and ensure that the
        building would not be visible from the wider area and the siting, adjacent to
        an existing track with effective screening in between, was considered to be
        the most appropriate, ensuring that its impact on the visual amenities and
        character of the area would be significantly reduced.

        Members therefore considered the proposal to be acceptable.

                          RESOLVED

                          That application DC/08/0779 be granted subject to the
                          following conditions:

                          01       A2      Full Permission
                          02       M6      Prescribed Materials
                          03       J7(a)   Stables
                          04       J7(b)   No stable waste shall be burnt on the
                                           land
                          05       A Licensed waste removal contractor shall
                                   remove all clearance debris and construction
                                   waste from the site

                          REASONS

                          ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the
                                amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the
                                character and visual amenities of the locality.
                          IDP   The proposal is consistent with the provisions of
                                the development plan.




                                           26
                                                 Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                           1st July 2008


DCN/38 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/0960 – ERECTION OF A STABLE
       BLOCK COMPRISING THREE STABLES AND TACK ROOM AND
       PROVISION OF AN ACCESS TRACK
       SITE: LAND OPPOSITE HOLMBUSH COTTAGES, HAYES LANE,
       SLINFOLD
       APPLICANT: MR G BURMAN

      The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
      for the erection of a low profile timber stable building incorporating three
      stables and a tack room. It was also proposed to construct an access track
      from Hayes Lane to the stable complex.

      Government policies PPS1 & PPS7; Local Development Framework Core
      Strategy policies CP1 and CP5; Local Development Framework General
      Development Control Policy DC1, DC9 and DC29; and Structure Plan
      policies LOC2, NE8 and DEV1 were relevant to the determination of this
      application.

      An outline application for two dwellings on the site was refused in June 1983
      (SF/13/83).

      The comments of the Head of Public Health & Licensing and the County
      Surveyor were noted. The Parish Council raised no objections to the
      proposal and three letters of support had been received.

      The proposed stable building was for private use ancillary to the enjoyment
      of the applicant's property, which was sited approximately 200 metres to the
      north of the site. The proposed stable building was modest in scale, of
      traditional construction and would be located in the north east corner of the
      site which historically had contained built structures. The level of activity
      associated with a stable building of this size was considered acceptable and
      in keeping with its location and surroundings.

      Concern had been expressed regarding the proposed length of the new
      access track that would link the existing field gate to a relatively large
      hardstanding area adjacent to the proposed stables and the applicant had
      now submitted amended plans proposing the creation of a new vehicular
      access onto Hayes Lane, sited immediately to the east of the stable
      buildings. The County Surveyor would therefore need to be re-consulted to
      ensure adequate visibility could be provided at the proposed new access
      point.

      Members therefore considered the proposal to be acceptable in principle.




                                         27
                                                  Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                            1st July 2008


DCN/38 Planning Application: DC/08/0960 (cont.)

                         RESOLVED

                         That application DC/08/0960 be determined by the Head
                         of Development following the receipt of any further
                         comments from the County Surveyor and the expiry of
                         the period for consultation in respect of the amended
                         plans. The preliminary view of the Committee was that
                         the application should be granted.




        The meeting closed at 8.46pm having commenced at 5.30pm


                                                             CHAIRMAN




                                         28
                      DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE
                                  5TH AUGUST 2008
                        REPORT BY THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT

APPEALS

1.   Appeals Lodged

     I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the
     following appeals have been lodged:-


2.   Informal Hearings

     DC/07/2659       Retention of double garage
                      Old Strood, Nowhurst Lane, Broadbridge Heath, Horsham, RH12 3PJ
                      For: Mr C Goring

     DC/07/2826       Erection of a pair of semi detached dwellings
                      30 Rusper Road, Horsham, RH12 4BD
                      For: Vulcan Properties Ltd


3.   Public Inquiry

     DC/08/0448       Demolition of existing dwellings and redevelopment of the site to form an
                      extra care scheme for the frail elderly consisting of 35 x 1-bed and 15 x 2-
                      bed apartments with communal facilities, associated landscaping and car
                      parking (Site: 5A - 13 Guildford Road Horsham)
                      Burnside, 5A Guildford Road, Horsham, RH12 1LU
                      For: McCarthy & Stone (Assisted Living) Limited


4.   Appeal Decisions

     I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the
     following appeals have been determined:-

     DC/07/2569       Demolition of public house and erection of a building comprising 12 x 2-bed
                      and 2 x 1-bed (total 14) with car parking and landscaped areas
                      The Nelson, 25 Trafalgar Road, Horsham, RH12 2QD
                      For: Ruskin Homes Ltd
                      Appeal: DISMISSED (Committee)

     DC/07/2072       Link/covered way between two barns that comprise the property and to
                      provide an eating area of the kitchen
                      Upper Swaynes Barn, Guildford Road, Rudgwick, Horsham, RH12 3JD
                      For: Ruskin Homes Ltd
                      Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
DC/07/0198   1st Floor extension to existing single-storey extension to comprise 3 new
             bedrooms and additional day space and conversion of existing roof space
             into staff offices and staff room and alterations
             Ashton Grange Nursing Home, 3 Richmond Road, Horsham, RH12 2EG
             For: Ashton Leigh Care Home
             Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/07/2580   Removal of condition 3 of HU/250/02 to allow commercial letting of the
             annexe when no family member is in occupation
             The Annexe, Rookwood Heights, 46 Rookwood Park, Horsham, RH12 1UB
             For: Mr M R Fenwick & Mrs J A Fenwick
             Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/07/1504   Replacement of eight Georgian type wooden windows with UPVC
             equivalent
             18 Ashdown Court, Oak Tree Way, Horsham, RH13 6TE
             For: Gill Harrison
             Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/07/2071   Link/covered way between two barns that comprise the property and to
             provide an eating area off the kitchen (Listed Building Consent)
             Upper Swaynes Barn, Guildford Road, Rudgwick, Horsham, RH12 3JD
             For: Mr & Mrs D.Griffin
             Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/07/2842   Partial conversion of existing garage to provide ancillary residential
             accommodation for occupation by staff or family and single storey toilet
             extension to garage
             Slinfold Manor, Five Oaks Road, Slinfold, Horsham, RH13 0SX
             For: Mr & Mrs D Lewis
             Appeal: WITHDRAWN (Delegated)
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1




abcd
                                                DEVELOPMENT
                                                CONTROL REPORT
TO:                    Development Control Committee North

BY:                    Head of Development

DATE:                  5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:           Replacement clubhouse and provision of 2 pitches and
                       floodlighting
SITE:                  Horsham Rugby Club, Hammerpond Road Horsham
WARD:                  Horsham Park
APPLICATION:           DC/08/1134
APPLICANT:             Bell Associates


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION:            That planning permission be granted


1.    THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

      To consider the planning application.

      DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   The proposal is for the erection of a replacement clubhouse and also two Multi Use
      Games Area (MUGA) pitches for community use.

1.2   DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3   The application site comprises approximately 11 hectares, which accommodates
      the existing clubhouse, located towards the centre of the site between the car
      parking area and the playing surfaces and adjacent to the training pitch. The
      existing clubhouse has a floor area of approximately 412 square metres.
      Approximately two thirds of the site is laid out as playing pitches, consisting of three
      full size pitches, a ‘first team’ pitch and a floodlight training area.

1.4   The site lies within an identified Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The
      site is approximately 400 metres to the south west of the built-up area boundaries
      of Horsham. The boundaries of the site are formed by Hammerpond Road to the
      south, with woodland to the north and west and open fields to the east. There is a
      public footpath that runs through Heron Copse which forms part of the woodland
      area.




Contact:   Amanda Wilkes                                          Extension: 5221
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2




1.5   The application site is located approximately 1.5 Km and 1 Km from St. Leonards
      Park Ponds and St. Leonards Forest Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s)

1.6   The application site is accessed via a gated access off of Hammerpond Road, the
      access comprises an unmade road leading to the gravel and shingle car park
      associated with the permitted use of the grounds. There is a secondary gated
      access for use by the emergency services which leads directly to the playing fields.
      This access is located to the north of the proposed MUGA pitches.

1.7   The residential area of Manor Lane and Copperfields are located approximately
      125 metres to the south of the existing clubhouse and are accessed from
      Hammerpond Road. The residential properties located within Grebe Crescent are
      approximately 360 metres to the west of the Club house.


2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1, PPS7, PPS22, PPG13, PPG17

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following
      policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP14, CP15, and CP19.

2.4   Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control
      Policies Submission Documents September 2006 - the following policies are of
      particular relevance: DC9, DC12, DC13, DC14, DC34 and DC40.

2.5   West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 - the following policies are of particular
      relevance: LOC2, CH1, CH2, CH4, CH5, DEV1, DEV4, DEV5, ERA1.

      RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.    The planning history considered most relevant to the current planning application is
      listed below:

      HR/90/67 Permitted - 16-JUN-1967 C/u to rugby football club ground & ancillary
      buildings & car parking

      HR/90/78 Permitted 04-AUG-1978 Erection of 4 squash courts : Outline

      HU/156/96 Refused 09-JUL-1996 Erection of floodlight columns around training
      area
                                                                                       APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3




          HU/170/89 Refused - 11-JUL-1989 Erection of squash & health club with car
          parking & new access

          HR/120/70 Permitted - 21-AUG-1970 Erection of clubhouse ancillary buildings &
          car park

          HR/139/76 Refused - 08-MAR-1977 Clearance of woodland for construction of rifle
          range

          HU/27/97 Permitted - 18-MAR-1997 Erection of floodlight columns around training
          area

          HU/217/93 Permitted - 07-MAR-1994 Re-siting of vehicular entrance, filling &
          levelling of part of site to provide new rugby pitch & cricket square

          OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

          INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

4.1       Arboricultural Officer –

          I visited the above site on Tuesday 22nd July 2008 and report accordingly.

          Development concerns:
          The chief concern on this site is that the new club house is to be erected in a wooded area,
          necessitating the removal of a number of trees. Although not under any constraint, the
          trees targeted for removal (13 in total) are within the AONB, and hence it is crucial that the
          application satisfies the provisions of Policy DC4 of the General Development Control
          Policies Document (December 2007). This indicates that planning permission should not
          be granted for development "in or near to an AONB that would adversely affect the
          character, quality, views, distinctiveness" of the area, or "threaten enjoyment of these
          landscapes". Tree loss is always regrettable where it can be avoided, but I am of the view
          that there are several mitigating factors in this case. These are:-
         The area in question is heavily wooded and known as Heron Copse - though it has not
          been managed as a coppiced area for many decades. Indeed, it does not appear to have
          had any management for a long time, and the area around the proposed new clubhouse
          contains not only lapsed coppice stock and large standards, it is dense with adventitious
          self seeded growth and unwanted invaders, particularly laurel and rhododendron. It is not,
          in my view, 'especial' in woodland terms, and in amenity terms is hidden away from
          Hammerpond Road and other public areas other than those connected with the existing
          rugby club. The extent of tree removal required will not collectively undermine the overall
          quality or amenities of the woodland area. Some trees in the area have already recently
          been felled; indeed, as none are subject to constraint, others could legitimately have been
          removed to facilitate this proposal. The fact that they have not been indicates a cooperative
          attitude on the part of the developers which is all too often absent on other sites without
          constraint.

         Of the trees targeted for removal , by far the largest is the massive beech, T258 on the
          plans. The plans state "Tree No. 258 to be removed due to disease, removal agreed with
          Will Jones", and indeed this is the case, as I have been aware of this tree for quite a
          while. Possibly one of the largest beech trees in the whole District, I first inspected it at the
                                                                                     APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4



          behest of the Rugby Club some years ago. Although massive, it is unfortunately very
          heavily infected with at least three pathogenic decay fungi. The most obvious, from the
          large fungal brackets, is Ganoderma adspersum; however I also noted the presence of
          Meripilus giganteus, and, by far the most worryingly, Kretschmaria deusta, a virulent
          decayer of basal and rooting parts of the tree. Collectively, these add up to a potent
          cocktail of decay which suggests that the tree has a particularly high likelihood of suffering
          windthrow; indeed, it may only have not suffered such a fate so far by way of the protection
          from the winds its woodland position affords it. No development should be considered in
          this area until this tree has been removed.

         I am unconvinced that the beech tree, T106, can be retained. Its position in regard to the
          position of the club house is unclear, due to the non-coordination of the proposal and
          topographical plans; but by my estimation, it appears to me to me that it will be only around
          6m from the northern flank wall of the clubhouse. This is well within its RPA of 9m, and not
          a good idea. The tree itself is not of any especial merit, and would best be removed should
          planning permission be granted for development.

         Though other trees require to be removed, all are within the wooded area to the north of
          the existing gateway; none is of especial merit. Of greater concern would be the three trees
          (oak, birch, beech) to the south of the gate, as these are far more visible - and of individual
          amenity merit - from the existing public car park area. I am glad to see that these are being
          retained.
          Retention of retained trees:
          Retention of other trees in the wooded area, as well as the three individual specimens to
          the south of the existing site access gate, appears feasible but relies on suitable protection
          measures during the construction process. Full tree protective fencing should be used in
          accordance with BS 5837 [2005] with the use of 2.4m 'Heras' panels, affixed to the ground.
          This fencing should be erected subsequent to the required tree felling works in the area,
          but prior to any other development works. I would therefore recommend the use of
          standard condition L2a in this case. Other comments:
         The positions of all underground drainage and service systems to the clubhouse should be
          submitted. In general, these should not ingress into the RPA of any retained tree. These
          details should not be left to condition only.

         The adjacent woodland was - at my visit - tinder dry. I therefore strongly recommend the
          use of standard condition L6 to deal with this.

         The large beech (T258) is likely to be a haven for wildlife. Although it is not an offence to
          fell a tree in the bird nesting season, the developers should be reminded of their
          responsibilities in regard to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Countryside and
          Rights of Way Act 2000 which require that surveys in regard to wildlife are undertaken prior
          to the felling of trees.
          Subject to the above concerns, I can confirm that I have NO OBJECTION to this scheme,
          in principle. However, to fully satisfy the requirements of Policy DC4, suitable "landscape
          enhancements, mitigation or compensation measures" should be provided.


4.2       Landscape Architect –

          My comments are based on my site visit and the following drawings and information:
         Tree removal survey
         Site plan existing
         Site plan proposed
         Topographical survey
                                                                                  APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5



         Design and access statement, May 2008
         Ecological survey

Landscape and visual impact and woodland management

It is clear from the tree removal plan that the proposals will have a devastating impact on individual
trees of good landscape and amenity value. The siting of the new clubhouse appears to require
the removal of 13 trees including large Beech, Oak and Horse Chestnut. This extremely
regrettable and I would only ask that the feasibility of other options has been thoroughly assessed
and sound reason is given for such loss, (note section 4 of the design and access statement).

Whilst the proposals show the loss of significant trees, the site itself is visually well contained by
the surrounding woodland and planting. Offsite views of the development should be reasonably
localised. Should the application be approved, I request that a long term woodland and landscape
management agreement is secured to ensure the long term benefit of this resource.

Existing tree protection

It is important that the existing trees to be retained are adequately protected from possible
development stress. Whilst on site, I noticed that some clearance work is being carried and the
brushwood burnt on site. A bonfire had been lit under the canopy of Beech tree no.106 (shown to
be retained), potentially damaging the tree. If works are already being undertaken, even if only
preparatory, I would ask that the tree protection measures, fence details, etc. are agreed with Will
Jones as soon as possible.

Also with regard to existing tree protection, I request that the proposed site plan is overlaid onto
the topographical survey base showing the accurate location and canopy spread of all the trees.
Currently the plans are not co-ordinated with each other and it is difficult to properly assess the
impact of the wider proposals on all the trees. For example, the proposed site plan does not show
existing trees nos. 106, 114,115 and 116, all of which could be impacted on by the proposals.

Design and access statement

Section 9 on Planning Policy should give some reference to CP1 Landscape and Townscape
Character, particularly given the site’s location in the High Weald AONB. I feel it is necessary to
assess the impact of the proposals on landscape character in order to identify all the opportunities
for mitigating the impact of the proposals and the scope for landscape enhancement. It may be
preferable to agree a draft landscape masterplan at this stage which deals with the design of the
wider proposals and not just the clubhouse.

Car park
Currently the car park has no planting and is a large bleak area of hardstanding. I feel that the
landscape proposals should seek to make landscape enhancements to this area of the site. A
permeable surfacing should be used through which trees can be planted to offer these
improvements.

Ecology

It may be prudent to seek specialist ecological advice regarding the ecological appraisal, possibly
from WSCC? The report makes various recommendations, i.e. bat and dormouse survey and a
construction method statement and management plan. Should the application be permitted these
recommendations should be followed before any further work commences on site.

4.3       Leisure Services – No objections
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6




      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

4.4   County Surveyor - There are no specific issues identified relating to highways other
      than those detailed below, therefore WSCC would not wish to raise an objection to
      the proposals subject to any conditions itemised at the end of this report.

      The application seeks permission to replace the existing clubhouse and provide two
      new M.U.G.A floodlit pitches. The existing floor area of the clubhouse is 412m2 and
      it is proposed to replace this with a facility of 630m2 over two floors. The M.U.G.A
      pitches are to be operational Monday-Saturday, 10am-10pm and Sunday, 11am-
      6pm.

      It is not proposed to alter the existing point of access from Hammerpond Lane.
      There is proposed to be a reduction in vehicle parking with the provision of the
      M.U.G.A pitches.

      It is anticipated by the applicant that vehicle movements will be increased with the
      provision of the new facilities; however it is not considered that the additional
      movements will be of significant impact to the surrounding road network,
      particularly when considering that the peak periods are unlikely to clash with typical
      network peaks.

      It is stated that cycle parking will be increased when the clubhouse facility is
      relocated, the information submitted with the application states that an additional
      10+ cycle spaces will be provided in addition to the existing 15 spaces. The cycle
      parking should be secure and covered in accordance with WSCC minimum
      standards.

4.5   Forest Neighbourhood Council - Forest Neighbourhood Council is happy with the
      submitted plans and has no objections to the proposals. It is happy with the
      floodlighting hours.

      Forest Neighbourhood Council would like any Section 106 monies to
      be allocated to the provision of a footpath from Doomsday Gardens up to
      the Club – if this work is feasible

4.6   Horsham District Access Forum – No comments to make.

4.7   Environment Agency – No objection subject to imposition of condition.

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

4.8   Neighbourhood Notification –

      10 letters of objection received, the following concerns were raised:

            Introduction of 2 new MUGA pitches for community use.
            Increased level of noises and light pollution.
            Intensification of use of current club and associated facilities.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7



                Increase in vehicular movement and generation of traffic along Hammerpond
                 Road and parking implications.
                Impact on pedestrian safety.
                Loss of existing car parking provision
                Visual impact on AONB

      Other
4.9   Open day initiated and held by the applicants on Sunday 9th March which from the
      applicants information was attended by over 50 local residents,

5.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

      Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
      application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.

6.    HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

      It is not considered there are any significant implications for crime and disorder
      arising from this application.


7.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

7.1   The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be:

               the principle of the development,
               the effect on the character, quality, views and distinctiveness of the AONB
               the impact on the character and visual amenities of the area,
               the impact on the amenities of the adjacent and nearby residents
               Parking and traffic conditions in the area.

7.2   The application site falls outside of the built up area of Horsham within a rural
      location and therefore policy DC1 applies. The site is also located within the High
      Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and as such policy DC4 is therefore
      considered as relevant. The main thrust of this policy is to protect identified areas of
      national importance in terms of their landscape quality from potentially intrusive
      development and to ensure that the essential qualities and characteristics of the
      area are maintained. The application currently under consideration proposes the
      replacement of the existing clubhouse and two MUGA pitches within the curtilage of
      the site. Policy DC22 New Open Space and Recreation and CP14 Protection and
      Enhancement of Community Facilities and Services are also considered relevant
      and the proposal is considered to comply with the principles and objectives of both.
      Consequently the proposal for the provision of a new clubhouse and enhancement
      of the club facilities is considered acceptable in principle provided that the proposal
      conforms to all other relevant criteria, and specifically to DC9 Development
      Principles.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8



7.3   The current application seeks permission for the replacement of the existing
      clubhouse (fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act) with a modern but
      sensitively designed building which would provide improved facilities including
      additional changing room areas and improved spectator and player facilities. It is
      proposed to re-site the location of the clubhouse near to the wooded copse in order
      to reduce its visual impact through sensitive use of materials that would enable the
      development to blend with its landscape environment and furthermore improve its
      relationship with the existing ‘first team’ pitch.
7.4   The relocation of the existing clubhouse would create an area of existing hard
       landscaped land along the eastern edge of the car parking area upon which it is
       proposed to provide two Multi Purposes Games Areas. The provision of the two
       proposed MUGA pitches would appear to result in the loss of an area of parking.
       Specifically to the area north of the existing clubhouse, the total number of car
       parking spaces provided would be 170 with a reduction of 50 spaces, however the
       applicants advise that on the limited occasions that additional parking might be
       required for overspill parking, the second access would be opened to provide
       temporary access to field parking. It is proposed to increase cycle parking
       provision from 15 spaces as currently provided to 25+ spaces an addition of 10 or
       more spaces.
7.5   The proposed clubhouse set over two floors, has a footprint of 630 square metres
      and a total area of 12,650 square metres, the footprint of the existing single storey
      clubhouse equates to 412 square metres (applicants figures) an increase of 218
      square metres in respect of the footprint of the proposed clubhouse. The proposed
      building is approximately 19.5 metres deep x 28.7 metres wide. Two rooflines are
      proposed over the main frame of the building which help to break up and articulate
      any potential visual impact that the building might otherwise create as a result of
      the roof expanse. At its highest point over the main hall the roof height of the
      building measures 8.3 metres and gently slopes away to 7.7 metres, the lower of
      the two rooflines measures approximately 6.3 at its highest point gradually sloping
      away to 5.2 metres.
7.6   Although larger than the existing clubhouse, the proposed design of the building
      has been sensitively sited to reduce the visual impact of the building through its
      method of construction at the lower floor level. The natural topography of the site
      has allowed the building to be designed to sit below the main land levels and
      effectively incorporates the building as a whole into its wider setting without any
      detrimental impact to the visual enjoyment of the area.
7.7   The applicants have carefully considered the use of materials in their design and
       have created a ‘living wall’ method of construction at lower ground level, to include
       a steel mesh encapsulated system which is planted with robust draught tolerant
       plants and shrub including wild flowers and grasses and with simple irrigation would
       provide using recycled water would provide a vegetated habitat. Additionally a
       sedum green roof system would be used to promote noise reduction and energy
       conservation. The design further incorporated high level clerestory windows to aid
       with natural ventilation. The upper floor is of a more traditional design with white
       rendered block work which would be visible from the car park area, the upper
       ground floor elevations are to be clad in a wood grain rain effect screen to
       emphasise the natural look of the building. It is considered that the proposed
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9



         design of the building supports the principles of policies DC2 Landscape Character
         and DC8 Renewable Energy and Climate and promotes the use of materials and
         design features that help to reduce the impact on climate change.
  7.8    The proposed MUGA pitches are to be operational from Monday – Saturday 10am-
         10pm and Sunday 11am-6pm. The design and siting of the proposed pitches
         minimises any potential noise or light pollution and impact that might otherwise be
         caused, the surfacing of the pitches in line with Sport England Guidance on MUGA
         pitches suggest a minimum of 30 metres between pitches and residential
         properties. The nearest residential property to the proposed MUGA’s is
         approximately 125 metres away and as such it is considered unlikely that any
         significant loss of residential amenity associated with their use would occur. The
         lighting of the MUGA pitches consists of 4 Phillips Optivision 1000w Luminaires
         mounted on 4 Lighting columns 7m high and has been designed to light only the
         playing area with minimal overspill. Both pitches are to be operated on a strict time
         basis with final booking ending at 10pm.
  7.9    One of the proposed MUGA pitches is largely located over the footprint of the
         existing clubhouse to be removed, the second pitch would however result in the
         loss of 50 car parking spaces. WSCC Highways have been consulted and have
         raised no objections to the proposal. It is anticipated by the applicant that vehicle
         movements will be increased with the provision of the new facilities; however it is
         not considered that the additional movements will be of significant impact to the
         surrounding road network, particularly when considering that the peak periods are
         unlikely to clash with typical network peaks. It is stated that cycle parking will be
         increased when the clubhouse facility is relocated, the information submitted with
         the application states that an additional 10+ cycle spaces will be provided in
         addition to the existing 15 spaces. The cycle parking should be secure and covered
         in accordance with WSCC minimum standards.
  7.10   The provision of community facilities or services is generally encouraged in order to
         enrich the overall quality of life within the District and particularly where they meet
         the identified needs of local communities. Although these facilities are generally
         more acceptable within built up areas, exceptionally they may be located outside of
         these area where there is a suitable site and well related to existing settlement
         areas. Horsham Rugby Club is ideally located to Horsham Town Centre and
         provides an existing facility and the enhancement of current facilities would be to
         the wider communities benefit and on balance complies with the overarching policy
         framework within the Horsham District Core Strategy (2007), specifically CP14.
7.11     The proposed location of the clubhouse is within a wooded copse and requires the
         felling of a number of trees that are within a private area of land. None of the trees
         subject to removal are subject to a Tree Preservation Order or of worthy of such
         protection. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has not raised any objections to the
         loss of the identified trees.
  7.12 The Council’ Landscape Officer was consulted and although raised concerns
       regarding the loss of the identified trees which was felt to be regrettable accepted
       that the site is well contained by surrounding woodland and planting and that views
       of the development would be reasonably localised. The Landscape Officer further
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10



       advised that a woodland and landscape management agreement should be
       secured to ensure the long term benefit of the area.
7.13   An open day was initiated and held by the applicants and local residents invited to
       view the proposals on Sunday the 9th March 2008, the event was attended by over
       50 residents and the applicants state that the comments were generally supportive
       although some concern was given in respect of design which was subsequently
       altered and reflected in the revised design as submitted as part of this application.
       Comments from local residents are submitted in appendix 6 of the supporting
       information.
7.13   To conclude, the applicants have sought to achieve a design and external finish to
       the proposed building that would create an overall improvement to its integration
       within the wider landscape setting and to soften the impact of the proposed building
       within the important AONB setting. The proposal is considered to reflect the overall
       aims and objectives of the relevant policies within the policy framework.

7.14   The proposed community use of the facilities and the associated traffic generation
       created by the addition of the MUGA pitches is not considered to result in any
       significant additional impact of detriment to the character or appearance of the
       AONB or upon the level of private amenities or which should reasonably justify the
       refusal of this application.


8.     RECOMMENDATION

8.1    It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following
       conditions:
       01      A2      Full permission
       02      D6      Finished floor levels
       03      D9      Ventilation Details
       04      M6      Prescribed Materials
       05      N5      Control of Noise
       06      N6      Control of Activities
       07      N7      Sound insulation
       08      N15 No Public Address Systems
       09      01      Hours of working
       10      02      Burning of Materials
       11      D13 (the old Clubhouse)
       12      F4      Illumination
       13      H10 Cycling Provision
       14      L2a Protection of trees - not inspected.
       15      L6      Burning Materials
       16      L4      Landscape Management Plan
       17      L9      Wildlife protection
       18      A 5 metre buffer strip of undeveloped, naturally vegetated land shall be
               retained between the proposed development and the top of the bank of the
               ditch to the North West of the car park.
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11



             Reason: This is to maintain buffer strips of undeveloped, undisturbed,
             functioning riparian habitat. The retention of a buffer strip is important in
             maintaining a corridor for wildlife and will protect the existing ditch-
             associated vegetation at the top of the bank. Furthermore, this will reduce
             the impact of surface water runoff on the water quality of the receiving
             watercourse (Your Council's own Technical Services should be satisfied with
             the proposed method of surface water disposal).


      Reasons:
      ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring
            occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
      IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.


Note to Applicant
1. In keeping with Planning Policy Statement 9 “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation”
(PPS9) any application should also address enhancing the ecological value of the site.
This could include enhancing the ditch via the removal of inorganic debris.

The applicant should ensure that the drainage system is in a good state of repair, regularly
maintained and of sufficient capacity to deal with the flow and loading which may occur as
a result of this proposal.

Care should be taken during site works to ensure that all fuels, lubrication oils and any
other potentially contaminating materials should be stored (for example in bunded areas
secured from public access) to prevent accidental/unauthorised discharge to ground.

All Pollution Prevention Guidelines information may be freely viewed and downloaded
from the NetRegs section of our website. The website address is: www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/netregs/resources/278006




Background Papers:         DC/08/1134
Contact Officer:           Amanda Wilkes
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1




abcd
                                                 DEVELOPMENT
                                                 CONTROL REPORT
TO:                      Development Control Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:             Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of assisted living care
                         home with associated access (approval of reserved matters)

SITE:                    The Firs and land rear of Archers and Burleigh, Farthings Hill,
                         Horsham

WARD:                    Denne

APPLICATION:             DC/08/1275

APPLICANT:               Sunrise Senior Living


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                  Category of development

RECOMMENDATION:             Approve the reserved matters


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the reserved matters.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1     The application relates to the demolition of The Firs and the erection of an assisted
        living care home for frail, older people. Outline planning permission DC/07/1922
        was granted on 15th May 2008 which approved the principle of the development
        together with the means of access to the site. This proposal seeks consent for the
        reserved matters of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping. Submitted with the
        application is a Design and Access Statement, an arboricultural impact assessment
        together with a landscape masterplan and artist's impression plus samples of the
        brickwork and tiles. The outline application was considered at the Committee
        meeting on 5th February 2008.

1.2     The assisted living care home is to provide accommodation for the frail elderly
        together with communal space and all necessary service accommodation. Within
        the home one floor is termed a 'reminiscence neighbourhood' which is a registered
        environment provided for residents suffering from mental frailty or dementia.



Contact:        Val Cheesman                                         Extension:     5163
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2




1.3   The access arrangements were approved with the outline application with the
      access being taken through the existing access point leading to Burleigh and
      Archers which is off Farthings Hill and is to be reconfigured to provide changed
      access arrangements for those two residential properties as well as the access into
      the site. This consists of an access drive which would run around the northern
      perimeter of the site terminating at the south western corner with parking and
      turning facilities.

1.4   The building is located within the southern part of the site running east-west. The
      north west end part of the building would be the principal elevation (entrance)
      where the access road would terminate with 25 park spaces and turning facilities.
      The building would then run from this part of the site down towards the south-
      eastern corner.

1.5   The Design and Access Statement states in relation to the scale and form of the
      building that: “the general footprint will incorporate a number of set backs, returns
      and gable projections that work together to provide interesting articulated
      elevations that will assist in breaking the overall visual mass of the building form. It
      is proposed to reduce the scale of the building at the south east end to 1½
      storeys…. In addition the building's width has been reduced both minimising any
      visual impact on adjacent neighbours (The Grange), as well as orientating windows
      to face south-west, north-east. There will be no windows in the east elevation
      overlooking The Grange. The building will progressively rise in height with varying
      eaves and ridge heights towards the north-west to 2½ and 3 storey…” A maximum
      of 66 residents rooms are proposed.

1.6   The Design and Access Statement also comments that: “the architectural style of
      the proposed building will borrow influences from the surrounding properties.
      Façades will be enhanced with varying eaves and ridge heights, further variation
      will be defined by applying different material combinations to express the elements.
      Low level roofs over porch areas will assist in visually reducing the scale. Materials
      will be selected to match the surrounding vernacular consisting of rough cast white
      render, red/brindle multi-stock face brick with local stone window sills, brick arches
      to window heads, brown/orange plain clay tiled roof and orange/red vertical tile
      hanging. Further interest to individual elevations is achieved by introducing
      additional gables, feature chimneys and varying window patterns and styles.”

1.7   In terms of the accommodation, the building is arranged over three floors. The
      ground floor consists of the main entrance and foyer area which is the focus of the
      communal space within the home. There are also living room style seating areas,
      the main dining room and a bistro being an informal café/dining/seating area. The
      main dining room is used by residents for all meals, breakfast, lunch and supper.
      There is also a private dining room which can be used by residents for entertaining.
      In addition there are the main kitchens, staff rooms, maintenance office and the
      laundry on the ground floor with the remainder of the floorspace being given over to
      20 residents rooms, being 13 single, 4 double and 3 studio. All residents rooms
      have an en-suite bathroom, there are also small tea and coffee making facilities
      including some cupboards and a sink in each residents room.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3



1.8    On the first floor the communal facilities comprise an entertainment room with wet
       activity facilities which residents can use for a variety of activities such as snooker,
       cards, television, cooking etc. There is also a room for hair care and rooms for the
       Care Manager and Assisted Living Co-ordinator and a laundry room. The
       remainder of the space is given over to residents' bedrooms comprising 19 singles
       and 5 doubles giving a total of 24. The second floor is to be the 'reminiscence
       neighbourhood' and therefore a self-contained secure and care managed area.
       This will have its own communal space of dining, living room, activity space and
       quiet room together with 19 single rooms and 4 double rooms.

1.9    Two lifts are provided for access to all floors.

       DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.10   The application site comprises the existing property The Firs and its garden and
       associated land together with part of the front and rear gardens of Archers and
       Burleigh. The site is accessed off the A281 Farthings Hill with the Farthings Hill
       interchange roundabout lying to the north of the site and the A24 dual carriageway
       along the western boundary. Along the eastern boundary is the rear garden of The
       Haltings in Guildford Road and that of The Grange and Rudgwick House which are
       situated in Farthings Walk. Along the southern boundary of the site is land which is
       the subject of planning permission for 13 dwellings as a further phase to the
       Berkeley Homes development at Farthings Walk (DC/07/1198).

       PLANNING HISTORY

1.12   As stated above, the relevant planning application is the outline permission granted
       for the assisted living care home under reference DC/07/1922. A Section 106
       Agreement was completed (ref. S106 1622) relating to transport contributions.

2.     INTRODUCTION

       STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1    Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

       RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2    PPS1, PPS3, PPS13.

       RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3    Relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) are:
       CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP16 and CP19.

2.4    Relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development
       Control Policies 2007 are: DC2, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC31 and DC40.

2.5    Relevant policies of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 are: LOC1, DEV1,
       DEV3, DEV4 and DEV5.
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4




3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

3.1   Southern Water have no comments to make in respect of the reserved matters
      details submitted. They refer to their comments in respect of the outline application
      which related to the inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage
      disposal and that the developer would need to enter into a formal agreement with
      Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure.

3.2   The Head of Public Health and Licensing has advised there are no objections to the
      proposal in principle, however in order to mitigate any adverse environmental
      impact the applicant would need to exercise suitable controls in the following areas:
      environmental noise assessment - the conclusion to the environmental noise
      assessment report appeared to be acceptable. He recommends the
      implementation of the measures detailed in the report (erection of an acoustic
      screen )and further recommends that no building service plant is installed without
      prior approval which would necessitate an acoustics consultant report. In respect
      of the demolition phase, suitable assessment should be made to identify any
      asbestos contained within the building and any other potential contaminated land
      issues. No burning of materials should take place on the site as construction and
      demolition activity is to be limited. In respect of the operation of the premises, he
      recommends a restriction on hours of use for deliveries, suitable acoustic
      insulation, suitable noise controls of any extract ventilation air conditioning systems,
      suitable provision for drainage, suitable provisions for odour control for kitchen
      extract ventilation system, waste and refuse areas to be located away from
      neighbouring properties and suitable positioning of any proposed external security
      lighting or similar.

3.3   Denne Neighbourhood Council have no objection but would like consideration
      given to the following points:

         concern about the amount of parking being provided, could extra parking be
          provided by the use of extra grasscreting along the side the planned parking?
         provision of underground grey water tanks
         use of solar panels on roof as rear of development is south facing
         the use of spray water taps for water conservation
         provision of outside space for drying washing to help cut use of tumble driers

3.4   One letter has been receives from Oaklands with no objection to the concept of the
      care home but have concerns about the actual height of the building in this
      prominent position, querying whether it is compatible in size to the other properties
      in the immediate area as Oaklands is a bungalow, concern about light pollution and
      damage to the environment, location of car park and driveway could give rise to
      intrusion of headlights into their rooms with land being at a higher level, proposed
      driveway will add to congestion at peak times and unsafe access, illuminated signs
      will provide further driver distraction.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5



4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

      Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
      application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.

5.    HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

      It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising
      from this application.

6.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   In the light of the outline permission that has been granted for the care home
      development, the main issues in the determination of the reserved matters are the
      impact of the proposal on the character and visual amenities of the street scene
      and locality, impact on residential amenities, access and parking, existing trees and
      vegetation.

6.2   The principle of the development has been established with the grant of the outline
      planning permission on this site which is within the built-up area and in a
      sustainable location and in accordance with Policy DC31 which acknowledges that
      there is a need to provide for the elderly with appropriate accommodation in
      suitable locations.

      Character and appearance

6.3   Local Plan policies require that new residential development should be of a high
      standard of design and layout in keeping with the character of nearby development
      and the surrounding area.

6.4   Within this particular locality the character comprises large detached residential
      properties in substantial gardens of between 2-3 storeys in height in a variety of
      designs and styles. Along the A281 the street scene has a high degree of mature
      vegetation with the properties being set back from the road frontage.

6.5   The submitted scheme has the building located in the southern part of the site
      running east-west across the site with the principal elevation and entrance to the
      property being at the north-west end. This part of the site is relatively open and
      away from the site boundaries. In particular the belt of trees to the southern
      boundary along the A24 bypass is not affected nor is the wooded area which lies
      immediately to the north of Archers. It is within this remaining area to the south that
      the building is shown to be erected and is generally as shown on the outline
      application. It was considered at that time that the location of the building was
      appropriate within this part of the site.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6



6.6    Turning to the scale and form of the building, whilst the footprint is substantial, it is
       considered that this needs to be seen in the context of the overall size of the site,
       its position within it and the existing vegetation on the site, particularly the site
       boundaries. Furthermore the design has been varied with differences in roof height
       and massing and architectural treatment. The main part of the building to the north
       west corner is three storey and is the entrance into the building. Moving to the
       south east, the height of the building steps down from 3 to 2½ storey with dormers
       in the roof then down to two storeys and ultimately to single storey at the far south
       eastern end. The building is to be constructed of stock brickwork with tile hanging
       under a tiled roof and incorporates projecting gable features, decorative tile
       hanging and covered veranda features at ground floor level. It is considered that
       this design approach has successfully dealt with the scale of the building and
       provides a structure of variety and interest which breaks up the overall scale and
       massing. This is also being assisted by the progressive reduction in the width of
       the property towards the south eastern section which reduces its bulk especially
       when viewed from the properties in Farthings Walk.

       Residential amenities

6.7    The building is shown set to the rear of Archers, Burleigh and Chailey which front
       onto the Guildford Road with distances of 43m plus between the rear elevations of
       these properties and the eastern elevation of the building which is shown set back
       between 14 and 18m from the new joint boundary (which is to be a 2m high wall).

6.8    With regard to the relationship with the properties in Farthings Walk, those most
       affected would be The Grange and Rudgwick House. In this respect there is a
       distance between these dwellings of 31.8 and 44m to the proposed building which
       is set back some 11.7m from the southern boundary at its closest point. The
       current boundary is relatively open at this point, particularly with regard to The
       Grange being formed of post and rail fencing with additional vegetation along the
       boundary with Rudgwick House. The proposal is to erect 2m high close boarded
       fencing along the boundary with additional planting to provide further screening.
       The building at this point is single storey with no windows in the south east
       elevation or within the roofspace. Similarly the south eastern elevation of the two
       storey section, which is set further back, is are blank.

6.9    Finally, in respect of the approved residential development at Farthings Walk (ref.
       DC/07/1198) which adjoins the south western boundary of the site, there is a
       significant belt of trees to be retained along this boundary. The distance between
       those approved dwellings and the building proposed on this application is shown as
       29m with the building being set at a minimum distance of 14m from the joint
       boundary.

6.10   With regard to the distances and the architectural treatment of the building, it is
       considered that there is an adequate separation distance shown and appropriate
       detailing so as to protect the residential amenities of adjacent occupiers.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7



       Highway safety, access and parking

6.11   The proposed access arrangements were approved as part of the outline
       permission and consist of the access point which is taken through the existing
       access point leading to Burleigh and Archers which is off Farthings Hill and would
       be reconfigured to provide changed access arrangements for those two residential
       properties as well as the access into the site. This consists of an access drive
       which will run around the northern perimeter of the site terminating at the south
       western corner of the parking and turning facilities. 25 spaces are shown including
       two disabled spaces. Whilst the parking area is at a higher level in the northern
       area of the application site, given the extensive tree cover around the northern
       boundary it is not considered that these areas of car parking would be visible within
       the wider street scene and would be adequately screened. Also in this location
       they would not impact on nearby residential properties.

       Trees and landscaping

6.12   Important trees particularly those along the boundaries of the site are to be
       retained. This vegetation is to be reinforced with additional planting along the
       boundaries of the site together with appropriate planting within the site to create an
       appropriate setting for the building. The footprint of the building has been slightly
       adjusted from that illustrated on the outline application plans, placing it closer to the
       south-western corner. The Arboricultural Officer considers these minor alterations
       to have no consequence in regards to the trees and has no objection to the
       proposal. The changes also result in the turning head being slightly repositioned
       and the submitted plans show a bin store and cycle store in this area. Whilst these
       also are satisfactory in relation to the trees, it does result in this area becoming
       cramped and reduces the opportunities for landscaping in this corner. The
       applicants have been asked to investigate another location for the bin store and
       cycle store.

6.13   Access around the gardens is provided with a continuous footpath furnished with
       benches and pergolas positioned at various intervals along the path. Elements of
       soft landscaping located adjacent to the footpath are also proposed. As the
       reminiscence neighbourhood is not directly connected to the external gardens, it
       has been designed with a balcony terrace with level access to the communal areas
       giving direct access to an external space.

       Sustainable construction

6.14   This has been addressed within the Design and Access Statement. With regard to
       the design and materials specification it states that bricks will be supplied by
       Freshfield Brickworks in Haywards Heath. All excavated material will be retained to
       be used on site, timber is to be from sustainable sources and use of tropical
       hardwoods is to be avoided. All insulation will have zero ozone depletion and the
       global warming potential will be less than 5. In respect of transportation, to
       encourage staff to travel to work by bicycle with covered cycle storage, staff
       changing rooms and shower facilities to be provided. To further reduce vehicular
       movements to the site, the Sunrise minibus can be used to collect staff from local
       railway and bus station if required. This minibus would be based on site and is for
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8



       the exclusive use of the home's residents and staff. The outline permission
       contains a travel plan condition which would cover this aspect.

6.15   In regard to waste and pollution, a waste separation and recycling policy on the site
       will be developed with the contractor to establish a segregated waste system. If
       this cannot be undertaken on site then all waste generated will be moved to a
       waste transfer station for segregation.

6.16   In terms of energy and efficiency, lower energy design will be investigated and
       incorporated in the services design. Water treatment systems will be utilised to
       reduce the temperature that hot water is stored and distributed at reducing energy
       consumption and the boiler plant size. Where possible energy efficient compact
       fluorescent lamps will be used together with manual and automatic switching and
       dimming facilities. Consideration will be given to the use of zone controlled valves
       for different building zones with local user controls to allow for the use of variable
       speed circulating pumps. Low NOx boilers will be used with levels greater than 35
       mg/kw hr. Energy meters and sub-meters will be provided for use on boilers, water
       heaters, kitchen equipment, commercial laundry equipment, chillers, motor control
       centres and electrical distribution boards. A BREEAM multi-residential assessment
       has been undertaken in which the proposed home achieved a rating of very good
       with a possible score of 56.7%. The office areas achieve a very good rating with a
       total possible score of 61.6%. In respect of water conservation, the majority of
       resident bathrooms will be fitted with showers due to the frailty of the residents
       achieving comparative reductions in water use as compared with baths. Water
       butts will be provided around the building to allow rainwater harvesting for external
       use.

7.     RECOMMENDATION

7.1    It is recommended that the reserved matters are approved.

       INF6 Outline Conditions Applicable

8.     REASONS

       IDP1          The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development
                     plan.

       ITHP1         The proposed works to form the access would not affect the character
                     and amenity of the area or the convenience and safety of other
                     highway users.


Background Papers:          DC/08/1275
Contact Officer:            Val Cheesman



WK1/DC081275/46
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1




abcd
                                                 DEVELOPMENT
                                                 CONTROL REPORT
TO:                      Development Control Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:             Proposed portal framed extension to existing building including a
                         mezzanine level and recycling/storage area
SITE:                    Sony DADC UK Ltd, Southwater Business Park, Worthing Road,
                         Southwater
WARD:                    Southwater
APPLICATION:             DC/08/1336
APPLICANT:               Sony DADC UK Ltd


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION:             That planning permission be granted.


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1     The application relates to the Sony DADC UK Ltd business unit located on the
        northern side of the Southwater Business Park on Worthing Road. The application
        site consists of the principle building located at the eastern end of the site which
        accommodates a reception area, offices and replication/ packing rooms. Further to
        the west are the warehousing units which comprise a temporary covered bay area
        and recently approved warehousing unit. At the furthest western point of the site is
        a detached building which accommodates the bulk storage of production materials.
        The applicant seeks consent for an extension to the site which would replace the
        eclectic and temporary buildings within the centre of the site to incorporate all
        operations within the proposed new extension. The proposed building is a
        substantial extension to the existing site. The proposal would encompass the
        length of land between the principle building and the two-storey storage building, a
        length of approximately 89.6metres. It is intended that the building will continue the
        existing building line of the principle building. The building would be approximately
        14.85 metres in height measured from the adjacent ground level at the rear. The
        applicant intends to excavate a section of the internal ground level by
        approximately 4metres to accommodate the necessary automated storage
        machinery. It is intended that the northern elevation facing toward Station Road



Contact:     Karen Tipper                                            Extension:       5174
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2



         and Little Bridges Close be composite metal cladding and coloured ‘Olive Green’.
         The remaining elevations are to be composite metal cladding predominately in
         white with blue band.

1.2      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3      The application site lies within the built-up area of Southwater. The Business Park
         is located within the southern half of Southwater village. The two main operators
         within the Business Park are Sony DADC UK Ltd and IBM. The application site is
         located at the terminus of Worthing Road which services the Business Park.
         Access to the application site is restricted by way of a security controlled gate. The
         application site is comprised by an eclectic mix of permanent and temporary
         buildings and structures. To the north of the site runs the Downslink the former
         railway line. Along this boundary is a degree of screening, some of which is self-
         seeded and some deciduous. Beyond this strip of land are Station Road and Little
         Bridges Close, which are residential streets.

2.       INTRODUCTION

         STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1      Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

         RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2      PPS1


         RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3      Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following
         policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10 and CP11.

2.4      Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control
         Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC2, DC8, DC9,
         DC20 and DC40.

2.5      West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 - the following policies are of particular
         relevance: LOC1, NE1, NE5, CH1, ERA1, ERA5, DEV1, DEV3 and DEV4.


          RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.       The application site is subject to a long history, the following are considered
         relevant to the current planning application:


                                    19-OCT-
      SQ/103/88   Refused     REF             Warehouse/stores extension
                                    1988
                                    21-NOV-
      SQ/128/88   Permitted   PER             Warehouse/stores (outline)
                                    1989
                                                                                                                APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3



                                    18-APR-
      SQ/14/00    Permitted   PER             Siting of temporary office
                                    2000
                                    31-DEC-
      SQ/148/03   Permitted   PER             Installation of transformer chiller unit and wall
                                    2003
                                    15-MAY-
      SQ/30/96    Permitted   PER             Erection of 3 material silos
                                    1996
                                    13-JUN-
      SQ/54/95    Permitted   PER             Demolition of existing chemical store and erection of new one
                                    1995
                                    01-NOV-   Replacement of security cabin & portable cabin, screen wall & chain link fence &
      SQ/87/00    Permitted   PER
                                    2000      raised storage platform
                                    22-MAY-
      SQ/36/01    Permitted   PER             Erection of temporary storage/manufacturing building
                                    2001
                                    17-MAY-
      SQ/43/95    Permitted   PER             Single storey factory extension
                                    1995
                                    08-JUL-
      HR/124/85   Permitted   PER             Erection of industrial building with ancillary offices & new access
                                    1985
                                    13-SEP-
      HR/132/78   Permitted   PER             Single storey factory unit
                                    1978
                                    30-SEP-
      HR/139/83   Permitted   PER             Outline: industrial warehousing, office & computer centre
                                    1983
                                    21-SEP-
      HR/140/83   Permitted   PER             Computer centre with associated accommodation
                                    1983
                                    12-JAN-
      HR/144/82   Withdrawn WDN               Outline: industrial units
                                    1983
                                    26-MAR-
      HR/200/81   Permitted   PER             Industrial buildings
                                    1982
                                    19-MAY-   Permanent retention of building previously approved (under planning application
      DC/08/0689 Permitted    PER
                                    2008      DC/06/0922) as a temporary building
                                    02-JUN-
      DC/06/0922 Permitted    PER             Retention of temporary storage/manufacturing building for a further 5 years
                                    2006




OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

         INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1      Arboricultural Officer: The proposal for the new building will require the removal
         of a thin strip of trees to the immediate south west of the boundary fence between
         the site and the Downslink footpath. This includes a line of 8 overgrown leylandii
         hedging trees and a number of deciduous self seeded trees, including willows,
         oaks, birches, etc. Though tall, none of these trees are of especial merit and I
         record no objection to their removal. However I not the following:
              Although the building (and its erection) will only require a 2.5metre strip of
                 trees removing, amongst those to be retained are a number of highly drawn
                 up specimens which are most unsuited to retention next to a building,
                 especially when other trees in the area have been removed. Hence a larger
                 number of trees in this area (on-site) will need to be felled.
              Moreover, on the Downslink side of the fence, in the ‘verge’ between the FP
                 and the fence, there are areas where apart from some very low level self
                 seeded undergrowth, there is little tree cover. Therefore, the building will be
                 very noticeable in places from the FP – especially during the winter when
                 leaf cover is absent. This is unsatisfactory, and steps should be taken to
                 improve this.
              I have noted the intention to paint the side of the building green, and fully
                 support this.
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4



            However, I feel that some additional planting should be requested to bolster
             the screening in the area. Some of this will need to be on the downlink side,
             outside the site boundary, as there will be limited space to plant between the
             fence and the building. Is this area owned by the Parish Council?
             Whatever, the more planting to screen the building the better – and
             evergreen would be preferable, too. If planting outside the site boundary is
             not possible, it should be noted that the building will be very noticeable, in
             places, from the Downlink footpath. This would detract from the amenities of
             the area.
            Otherwise no objection recorded.

3.2   Access Officer: There does not seem to be any specific parking bays marked out
      for use for disabled people (they should be 6metres by 3.6metres), In addition it
      does not seem clear if there is an accessible toilet in the plans. (Verbal comments
      21/07/08) – Disabled parking should be 5% of total parking provision. The
      accessible toilet is required to be 2.2m x 1.5m with the door opening outwards.
      The door frame width should be a minimum of 0.775 when accessed from straight
      on.

3.3   Landscape Architect: Any comments to be reported verbally.

3.4   Public Health and Licensing Officer: In order to minimise the risk of nuisance/
      disturbance to neighbouring residential property during the demolition and
      construction work and subsequent operation of the development, should approval
      be given then conditions should be attached. A summation of these proposed
      conditions are:
           No burning of materials on site
           A licensed waste removal contractor should be used.
           Hours of construction activity (including delivery and dispatch) should be
             limited.
           Deliveries to or from the premises shall be restricted.
           An assessment of the acoustic impact arising from the operation of all
             internally and externally located plant shall be undertaken.

      The site occupies an area with an industrial land-use history and accordingly a
      desk study has been provided with the application. In view of the conclusions of
      this report further conditions should be attached to deal with the anticipated
      contamination at the site.

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5   The County Surveyor has not yet commented on the application

3.6   Southern Water: Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate
      capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the
      proposed development. Should the application received planning approval,
      conditions and informative are requested.
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5



3.7    Horsham and District Access Forum: It is not clear where the staff/ visitor
       disabled parking bays will go. There does not appear to be an accessible toilet on
       the plans.

3.8    Environment Agency: The application has been assessed as having a low
       environmental risk, and therefore no objection to the proposal is raised.

3.9    Southwater Parish Council: No objection but works should be limited to 8am-5pm
       Weekdays and Saturdays only. Building works not to be carried out Sundays and
       Bank Holidays. Ask for condition that planting scheme be required to give a buffer
       between the building and Downslink.

       PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.10   One representation has been received from adjacent residential property to the
       north (1 Little Bridges Close), which provided the following comments:
               Existing noise pollution is severe
               Seeks planting of ever-green trees to disguise the proposal and to muffle
                  the noise from site.
               Limit construction hours between 8.00-5.30 week days only and hoarding
                  be erected during construction.

4.     HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
       RIGHTS

       Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
       Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
       application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
       below.

5.     HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

       It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising
       from this application.

6.     PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1    The main issues are considered to be the principle of the proposed development,
       the effect of the proposed development on the existing buildings, visual impact from
       the street, visual and noise impact on neighbouring residential properties, visual
       impact from the Downlink and impact on trees as well as accessibility to and within
       the site.

6.2    The principle of the proposed extension is considered acceptable. The applicant
       estimates that 30 local employment positions will be generated as a result of the
       proposed development which will incorporate all local operations. This is an
       increase of 20% from the current 180 permanent employees to 210 employees.
       This provision is in conformity with policy CP10 of the Core Strategy (2007) which
       seeks the provision of employment on existing sites, including extensions to
       existing buildings and/or sites within the boundaries of an existing industrial estate.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6




6.3    The proposal is for an extension to the site which would replace the eclectic and
       temporary nature of buildings within the centre of the site. The proposal intends to
       incorporate all operations within the proposed new extension. From the submitted
       plans, the layout of the proposal would allow for the production flow sequentially in
       an uninterrupted manner.

6.4    The proposed mezzanine level will provide the capacity for a ‘special packing’
       department, which is a labour intensive process, and as such can be carried out
       without disturbance to other operations.

6.5    The proposed building is a substantial extension to the existing site and would
       encompass the length of land between the existing principle building and the two-
       storey storage building at the western most point. The proposed extension would
       be approximately 89.6metres in length and 34.18metres in depth. The building
       would be approximately 14.85 metres in height measured from the adjacent ground
       level at the rear. The applicant intends to excavate a section of the internal ground
       level by approximately 4metres to accommodate the necessary automated storage
       machinery. Given the uneven ground levels including the excavation of the
       internal floor it is recommended that a condition be attached requiring details of
       finished floor levels, to control the overall height of the proposed development.

6.6    The proposed building will continue the existing northern building line of the
       principle building thereby creating a visually continuous line albeit the proposal will
       step up in height.

6.7    The applicant proposes for the northern elevation facing toward Station Road and
       Little Bridges Close to be composite metal cladding and coloured ‘Olive Green’.
       Thereby creating a less visually intrusive appearance from these residential streets.
       The remaining elevations are to be composite metal cladding predominately in
       white with a blue band. Samples of all materials can be secured by condition to
       ensure colour and texture are acceptable.

6.8    The proposal also includes the enclosing of the existing silos and chiller units
       currently sited within an open-top compound. The proposed enclosure will help to
       reduce the visual intrusiveness of these services.

6.9    Whilst the proposed extension is substantial in terms of bulk, height, scale and
       massing, it is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient justification for
       this form of development which is required to accommodate robotic storage
       machinery, and to accommodate existing and future operations.

6.10   The proposed development would not be visually intrusive when viewed from the
       Business Park service road, as it would be read against both the existing buildings
       and their commercial nature.

6.11   It is acknowledged there will inevitably be a loss of trees along the Downlink which
       currently provide a degree of natural screening. The Arboricultural Officer has
       requested that a tree planting and comprehensive landscaping scheme be secured,
       particularly for evergreen trees along the northern boundary to minimise the visual
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7



       impact the proposed development may have on the outlook from the nearby
       residential neighbours. It is considered that the provision of a landscaping scheme
       would sufficiently mitigate against the potential loss of outlook from the nearby
       residential properties.

6.12   In terms of noise pollution generated from the site, the proposal will enclose the
       production processes, which should help to alleviate the dispersion of noise from
       the site. The Public Health and Licensing Officer has not raised any objections to
       the proposed development subject to the attachment of conditions, which in
       particular require the applicant to submit an acoustic report. The Environmental
       Health Officer has also recommended that delivery hours to or from the site be
       restricted, however it is considered that this would restrict the commercial operation
       of the applicant.

6.13   The applicant has responded to the concerns raised by the consultation responses
       and has agreed to provide disabled parking spaces in line with the 5% standard
       required by the Local Planning Authority. A plan of these spaces and the overall
       parking can be secured by condition. The Access Officer and Access Forum both
       queried the apparent omission of an accessible toilet. There is however a toilet
       shown of the proposed mezzanine level which can be accessed from a personable
       lift. The applicant has provided larger scale drawings which show the disabled
       toilet and it appears to comply with the minimum requirements which the Access
       Officer requires.

6.14   Similarly the applicant has entered into negotiations with Southern Water to
       address their concerns raised. It is considered sufficient to attach the suggested
       conditions made by Southern Water.

6.15   The applicant within the Design and Access Statement have stated that the design
       and build of the project has taken account of environmental issues such as energy,
       transport, pollution, materials, water and health and well being. The statement
       confirms that the applicant has been using the BRE’s Green Guide to construction;
       however the statement does not confirm what rating the building is expected to
       achieve. The agent has agreed that this detail will be provided prior to committee.

7.     RECOMMENDATION

7.1    It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following
       conditions:
       1. A2 Full permission
       2. The sustainability measures set out within the submitted Design & Access
            Statement shall be brought into use prior to the first occupancy of the hereby
            approved dwelling. Reason: To ensure the dwelling makes the most efficient
            use of renewable energy and to comply with policy DC8 of the Horsham District
            Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
       3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the
            proposed construction methods incorporating sustainable construction
            techniques shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
            Authority. Thereafter works shall be undertaken in accordance with the
            approved details. Reason: In the interests of sustainability and in accordance
                                                                   APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8



    with policy DC8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework:
    General Development Control Policies (2007).
4. D6 Finished Floor Levels
5. G6 Recycling
6. L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping
7. M1 Approval of Materials
8. Notwithstanding the hereby approved drawings, prior to first occupation of the
    hereby approved building, details of the parking layout including disabled
    parking bays shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
    Authority and thereafter maintained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing.
    Reason: To ensure adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking
    of vehicles and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local
    Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
9. H6 Wheel washing
10. H10 Cycle provision
11. There must be no burning of materials on site. Reason: To protect the
    amenities of adjacent residential occupiers and in accordance with policy DC9
    of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development
    Control Policies.
12. A licensed waste removal contractor should remove all clearance debris and
    construction waste material from site. Reason: To protect the amenities of
    adjacent residential occupiers and the locality in accordance with policy DC9 of
    the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development
    Control Policies.
13. Hours of construction activity including delivery and dispatch should be limited
    to 08 00-19 00 Monday to Friday 09 00-13 00 Saturday with no activities on
    Sunday or bank holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of adjacent
    residential occupiers and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District
    Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies.
14. An assessment of the acoustic impact arising from the operation of all internally
    and externally located plant shall be undertaken in accordance with BS 4142
    1997. The assessment shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
    together with a scheme of attenuation measures to mitigate any adverse
    impacts identified in the acoustic assessment. The scheme shall be submitted
    to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be fully
    installed in accordance with the approved details before the use hereby
    permitted commences and shall be operated for as long as the use is continued.
    Reason: To protect the amenities of adjacent residential occupiers and in
    accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development
    Framework: General Development Control Policies.
15. Development approved by this planning permission shall not be commenced
    unless
        a) Desk top study has been carried out which shall include the identification
            of previous site uses potential contaminants that might reasonably be
            expected given those uses and other relevant information. And using
            this information a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for
            the site of all potential contaminant sources pathways and receptors has
            been produced
        b) A site investigation has been designed for the site using the information
            obtained from the desk top study and any diagrammatical
                                                                    APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9



          representations (Conceptual Model). This should be submitted to and
          approved in writing by the LPA prior to that investigation being carried out
          on the site. The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable:
            a risk assessment to be undertaken relating to the receptors
               associated with the proposed new use, those uses that will be
               retained (if any) and other receptors on and off the site that may be
               affected, and
            refinement of the Conceptual Model, and
            the development of a Method Statement detailing the remediation
               requirements.
       c) The site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with details
          approved by the LPA and a risk assessment undertaken.
       d) A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements using the
          information obtained from the Site Investigation has been submitted to
          the LPA. This should be approved in writing by the LPA prior to that
          remediation being carried out on the site.
   The development of the site should be carried out in accordance with the
   approved Method Statement. Reason: To protect the amenities of adjacent
   residential occupiers and the locality in accordance with policy DC9 of the
   Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control
   Policies.

16. If during development contamination not previously identified is found to be
    present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in
    writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and
    obtained written approval from the LPA, for an addendum to the Method
    Statement. This addendum to the Method Statement must detail how this
    unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and from the date of approval the
    addendum(s) shall form part of the Method Statement. Reason: To protect the
    amenities of adjacent residential occupiers and the locality in accordance with
    policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General
    Development Control Policies.

17. Upon completion of the remediation detailed in the Method Statement a report
    shall be submitted to the LPA that provides verification that the required works
    regarding contamination have been carried out in accordance with the approved
    Method Statement(s). Post remediation sampling and monitoring results shall
    be included in the report to demonstrate that the required remediation has been
    fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the
    report. Reason: To protect the amenities of adjacent residential occupiers and
    the locality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local
    Development Framework: General Development Control Policies.

18. Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the
   proposed means of foul sewerage disposal have been submitted to and
   approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with
   Southern Water. Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained
   and in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development
   Framework: Core Strategy.
                                                                 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10



19. Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the
    proposed means of surface water disposal have been submitted to and
    approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water.
    Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained and in accordance
    with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core
    Strategy.
20. Prior to commencement of the development, the developer must agree with
    Southern Water in consultation with the Local Planning Authority, the measures
    to be undertaken to divert/ protect the public water supply main. Reason: To
    ensure that the development is properly drained and in accordance with policy
    CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy.
21. In order to protect drainage the developer must advise the local authority in
    consultation with Southern Water of the measures which will be undertaken to
    divert the public sewers prior to the commencement of the development.
    Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained and in accordance
    with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core
    Strategy.

Note to applicant:
1. The applicant is advised that the development hereby approved does not
   include any enabling works which may be required during the implementation of
   the hereby approved development.
2. The applicant is advised that they may be required to enter into a formal
   agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage
   infrastructure required to service this development. Southern Water should be
   contacted at Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street,
   Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel: 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk

Reasons:
Subject to full compliance with the above conditions, the proposal would not
materially affect the amenities of adjacent neighbouring occupiers or the character
and visual amenities of the locality.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1




abcd
                                                 DEVELOPMENT
                                                 CONTROL REPORT
TO:                      Development Control Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:             Provision of sustainable drainage system for management of
                         waters emanating from a previously approved dairy unit
                         comprising five reed beds, three attenuation ponds and
                         implementation of material for associated raising of land levels

SITE:                    Stonehouse Farm, Handcross Road, Plummers Plain

WARD:                    Nuthurst

APPLICATION:             DC/07/2250

APPLICANT:               Mr G Cooper

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development.

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission.


1.      INTRODUCTION

1.1     The application was considered at the Development Control Committee North
        originally on 8th January 2008. It was subsequently re-presented on 4th March
        2008. On both occasions the item was deferred as the Committee did not consider
        that it had consistent and full information on the proposals to make clear
        determination.

1.2     A copy of the original (January) report is attached at Appendix A.


2.      FURTHER INFORMATION

2.1     Following the last deferral, it was suggested a Member group be set up comprising
        Councillor Cox, Councillor Rowlinson, Councillor Horner and Councillor Howard, to
        confirm what further information was required from the applicants, and for a
        meeting with the applicants to take place to receive the information, if necessary.

2.2     Following consultation with the Member group, a number of questions were sent to
        the applicants via email in order to confirm the situation.



Contact:      Peter Harwood                                      Extension:5187
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2




2.3   The applicants have responded, giving various answers to the questions raised.
      Their responses are as follows:

      Background Summary

        Mr Cooper runs a herd of organic dairy cows on his tenancy at Slatehouse Farm.
      He also owns Stonehouse Farm and Jackson’s Farm where he rears cows ready
      for incorporation into the dairy herd. Mr Cooper previously obtained planning
      permission for a grain store at Stonehouse Farm.

       In 2005 Mr Cooper approached Horsham District Council (HDC) with a view to
      converting part of the approved store building into a dairy processing unit.

        HDC confirmed in their letter of 5 April 2005 that a planning application would be
      required because the milk is produced on a different agricultural unit “requiring it to
      be brought in by tanker”.

        A planning application for a dairy processing unit was submitted (DC/06/1106). In
      the application it was noted that the tenancy at Slatehouse Farm may be in doubt
      from 2009. If Mr Cooper was required to leave Slatehouse Farm in lieu he would
      downsize and relocate the herd to Stonehouse Farm, he would endeavour to locate
      a herd at Jackson’s Farm and he would build links with other organic farmers with a
      view to importing milk by tanker from these other agricultural units.

        In September 2006 approval was granted for 180sqm of the proposed store
      building to be used as a dairy processing unit. One of the conditions attached to the
      approval was that a sustainable drainage system be incorporated to the approval of
      the local authority.

        A system was designed and submitted with a view to discharging the condition.
      HDC subsequently decided that the sustainable drainage system should itself be
      the subject of a planning application.

       An application for the sustainable drainage system was submitted in October
      2007 (DC/07/2250) and is the subject of this note and the current discussions.

        The design of the system, including its sustainability, has been subject to a
      number reviews and consultations with the Environment Agency and is considered
      favourably.

        The drainage system from the processing unit has three separate parts; namely;
      a) toilet effluent, b) hard standing and roof runoff and finally c) dairy processing
      waste water. It is the latter part which forms the majority of the proposed scheme
      and the content of this note. It should be noted that no cattle will be present at the
      processing unit and, therefore, the drainage system will not receive any cattle
      slurry.
                                                                    APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3




   The amount of dairy waste water produced is a function of the size of the
processing plant which is in turn a function of the floor space available. In this
instance 180sqm leads to a unit that is able to process 3000 to 5000 litres of milk
per day. The waste waters are produced by washing the process unit through and
the volume of water necessary to wash the unit through each day is the same
irrespective of whether or not the unit processes 1000 or 5000 litres of milk. The
number of cows servicing the unit is, therefore, irrelevant to the size of the drainage
system.

 The reedbeds which manage the dairy waste water are sized to retain the wash
waters for 35 days in order to breakdown the milk fraction before passing the
waters on to storage lagoons.

  The lagoons allow for long retention and final polishing of the water. They are
sized to meet the EA’s requirement that no waste waters can be discharged to the
local watercourse. Instead the waters that are not “lost” by evaporation are either
reused on the farm or used for irrigation on the adjacent fields in the summer
months.

  Of necessity the reed beds and lagoons are open to the elements and therefore
collect incident rain water in addition to the dairy waste waters. Various measures
have been incorporated to mitigate the volume of runoff entering and, therefore, the
size of the system.

  The volume of inflow and outflow for the dairy waste system is calculated and
presented in Appendix D of Supporting Statement submitted with the October 2007
application and is pictorially summarised.

The email dated 17th March highlights three sets of information relating to the size
of the applicants herd and the quantity of milk, which appear to contradict each
other. These apparent inconsistencies are explained by the following:

  Previous Application DC/06/1106 – This states that Mr Cooper’s tenancy at
Slatehouse Farm is in doubt from 2009, after which he may need to reduce his herd
and relocate it to Stonehouse and Jackson’s Farms. It is stated that a herd of 60
cows will support the dairy unit at Stonehouse Farm, with the intended future herd
growing to 120 – 150 cattle. Each cow will yield 6,000ltrs per year, meaning 60
cows will produce 360,000 ltrs per year or 150 cows will produce 900,000ltrs per
year, equivalent to 2,465ltrs per day.

   Current Application DC/07/2250 – The process statement in Appendix C of the
Supporting Statement states 30,000ltrs of milk per day will be processed in the new
dairy, with 3% of the milk going to wastage (900ltrs). This figure should read as
3,000ltrs per day and is a typing error made in our calculations and carried through
our design. The envisaged milk wastage is therefore only 3% of 3,000ltrs (90 ltrs).
However, this milk wastage is not the dominant inflow into the drainage system and
it is the washdown water (4,500ltrs per day), used to clean the dairy equipment that
has a greater influence on the size of the reed beds, whilst the overall size of the
lagoon system is dominated by incident rainfall at 10,800ltrs per day on average.
                                                                       APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4




  Paper before 4th March meeting – About 1hr before the meeting we were
requested to provide details of herd sizes and land areas. The information provided
reflects Mr Cooper’s current situation and therefore includes his herd at Slatehouse
Farm. As a result of this, the quoted herd size and milk production are much
greater than is envisaged in this application. This information is outside the scope
of this application and should therefore be disregarded.

In summarising the above, it can be seen that the information provided is applicable
to slightly different situations and the apparent contradictions are rectified by
acknowledgement of our error. It was intended that our design would be based on a
milk intake of 3,000ltrs per day, which tallies with the 2,465ltrs estimated in the
previous dairy processing unit application. We apologise for the confusion this has
caused and the significance of this error is commented on below. The error made
in our estimation of the milk wastage is of little significance, as the waste water
produced by the dairy process unit is dominated by the much larger volume of
washdown water used to clean the equipment. The 3% milk wastage used in our
design was 900ltrs, it should have been 90ltrs which equates to an additional 0.3
million ltrs over the treatment cycle. This is insignificant when compared to the
volume of wash water (1.67 million ltrs) plus the incident rainfall (7.9million ltrs in
“normal rainfall conditions”), giving a total input of 9.57million ltrs over the whole life
of the treatment cycle. Our error of 0.3 million ltrs, equates to only 3% of the total
inflow.

Taken in isolation it could be assumed that each of the proposed storage ponds
could be reduced by 0.3 million litres, but this would only equate to reducing the
water level by 85mm and is therefore insignificant. However, it should also be noted
that the system is designed to accommodate fluctuations in the volume of annual
rainfall.

The “wet years” considered in our flood assessment (included with the October
2007 application) would add a further 2.2million ltrs of rainfall into the system. This
potential variation in the volume of water received far outweighs the error made by
ourselves. Similarly, the system relies on approx 1million ltrs of water being
extracted for reuse on the farm.

In summary the wastewater generated and the subsequent size of the sustainable
drainage system is a function of the equipment size and is largely independent of
the milk input/wastage and the herd size. A summary of inflow and outflow volumes
is shown on the flow diagram provided earlier in this note. Full details are provided
in the Supporting Statement submitted with the planning application.


Questions

Answers to the specific questions raised in the email of 17th March are given
below:

1. How many milking cows are on the farm at the moment?
                                                                   APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5



No milking cows are on Stonehouse Farm.. A milking herd of 350 are at Slatehouse
Farm. Refer to appended letter from Horsham D.C. dated 5th April, 2005, which
acknowledged that the milk would be brought into the farm from a separate
agricultural unit.

2. How many milking cows are now proposed for the future?.

Mr Cooper’s tenancy at Slatehouse Farm may end in 2009,in this event it is
envisaged that the herd will be reduced and moved to both Jackson’s Farm and
Stonehouse Farm. The existing livestock building at Jackson’s Farm has space for
120 cubicles. Provision will be required for silage clamps and an external feed area.
There are existing buildings at Stonehouse Farm for further cows up to 50.

3. Where would these be housed?

See item 2 above.

Where are the milking parlours?

Milking currently takes place at Slatehouse Farm. There are buildings at both
Jackson’s Farm and Stonehouse Farm which have previously been used for
milking but ideally would be refurbished. The existing building at Jackson’s Farm
probably makes this site the cheaper to develop for the dairy herd, although there
will be increased costs for the transfer of milk from Jackson’s to Stonehouse. It
should be noted that Environmental Health Officers prefer cows and milk
processing operations to be on different sites.

4. What extra land is or has been taken on?

Mr. Cooper is negotiating an extension of his current tenancy at Slatehouse Farm,
Warninglid. Refer to the appended letter from Humberts dated 28 April 2008. He
has also formed a potential alliance with a local organic farmer to rear cows and/or
produce organic feed, in order to maximise productivity should the herd be reduced
to Jackson’s/Stonehouse Farm.

On what basis : 100 acres owned at Stonehouse and Jackson’s Farms
600 acres tenanted at present at Slatehouse Farm
200 acres for potential contract production of organic feed, refer to appended letter
from R.Mortimore dated 28 April 2008.

(Note: 300 acres will be adequate to sustain the envisaged 120 dairy cows stated in
question 2 above, on an organic system.)

5. What is the proposed milk yield from cows on Stonehouse Farm?

No milk will be yield from cows on Stonehouse Farm. Should milking not continue
at Slatehouse Farm, the aim is to provide 120 milking cows plus followers at
Jackson’s Farm which if Friesians could produce up to 8,000ltrs per cow per annum
(i.e. = 960,000ltrs p.a.) A further 50 dry cows would be located at Stonehouse
Farm.
                                                                       APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6




(Note: This estimated yield is based on recent consultation with Mr. Phillip Uglow,
who previously produced a Farm Business Report to support the approved
application for the dairy processing unit. Mr. Uglow has been requested to consider
the current situation and has contributed to the answers provided herewith, refer to
appended letter. He has confirmed that the dairy herd performance referred to in
his report accompanying the application for the dairy processing unit related to the
performance of the dairy herd to the year ending March 2004. During this period
the farm was running 200 Jersey and 100 Friesian dairy cows providing an average
yield of 4.869ltrs per cow. The Jerseys were then sold reducing the herd to 110
Friesians which is what was on the farm at the time of the report. The average
annual rolling yield for organic dairy cows on Kingshay recorded dairy farms in
February 2008 was 6,667ltrs. The average yield on non organic farms in the South
East is 7,753ltrs per cow per annum. With good standards of husbandry and
feeding there is no reason why a herd of Friesian cows should not be capable of
producing 8,000ltrs per head per annum.) The proposed contract production of feed
on other local organic farms will help to improve productivity and assist with
achieving such standards.

What milk will be brought in from outside?

Mr Cooper has been approached by Riverford Organics (One of the largest
suppliers of organic boxes in the UK) to supply 1.0m to 1.6m litres per annum of
organic milk and cream depending on the time of year and weather conditions. The
volume of milk brought in to the processing unit will be the additional required to
satisfy the contract requirement for the supply contract. Any additional milk required
will have to come from other local farms, including Slatehouse Farm, should it
remain operational.. The actual value will depend on the success of Mr. Cooper’s
operation and diversity of product.

6. Is it still intended to use the milk for organic cheese production, if not what is
proposed for the milk?

The demand at the current time is for organic milk and cream but this can change.

The application for the processing unit stated that it was for processing milk and
other organic dairy produce, cheese is of course one element (see appended letter
dated 25th February 2005 from W P Miller). At the time of Mr Uglow’s report
associated with the dairy processing unit, Gayne Cooper had identified an
opportunity to develop an organic soft cheese. Since the report was produced he
has been approached by Riverford Organics (as noted above). Successful
marketing requires the producer to produce a product to meet a market demand as
opposed to producing a product and then developing a market to sell it into.
Supplying Riverford Organics is a case of the producer responding to known
market requirement rather than developing a new market for a new product.
                                                                      APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7




It should be noted that the original report states “It is recognised that it is unlikely
that a milk processing operation will have a positive cashflow in the first 2-3 years”.
Supplying Riverford Organics with processed milk and cream will help enable the
plant to achieve economies of scale from the start and quickly realise a positive
cashflow and return an operating profit. The business will need to continue to
review and anticipate market developments and respond to opportunities and
challenges as and when they are identified. This could include the production of
butter, soft cheese, yoghurt etc. It is important that the processing unit is flexible in
order to retain sustainability in the long term. Demand for organic dairy producers is
in short supply allowing small specialist producers of added value products to be
productive, profitable and add value to a rural economy.


7. What is the amount of liquid wastage per cow per year?

The cows are housed on a separate agricultural unit. The waste entering the
proposed drainage system is produced by the dairy processing equipment, not the
cows.

8. What is capacity of reed bed?

Three reedbeds are provided, each with an area of 485m2 and a capacity to
contain 193m3 of liquid.

9. What is capacity of pond?

Two ponds are provided for storage of the treated dairy wastewater, each has a
capacity to store approx 4000m3 or 4 million ltrs.

10. What is area of buildings and hard standing where rainwater will feed into
system?

Rainwater from the building and hardstandings is kept separate from the dairy
wastewater and attenuated in a separate pond, before being discharged to the local
stream. The area of roof and hardstanding is approximately 1,700m2.

11. Does the permitted dairy processing unit of 180 sq.m run the extent of the main
development or is it intended to be larger?

Presuming that the previously approved building is the “extent of the main
development”, the proposed dairy unit will occupy 180sq.m of its 450sq.m footprint.
The permitted footprint of the dairy unit is adequate for the intended processes
envisaged. Production within the area can be enhanced by use of mezzanine
floors if necessary. Bulk tanks will be at high level to facilitate gravity feed reducing
the need for pumped systems and minimising energy use.

12.. What are the evaporation volumes per year per metre?
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8



      Evaporation will occur on the open water bodies and evapo-transpiration will occur
      on the vegetated land/reed beds. Both are affected by numerous variables and are
      difficult to summarise or quantify in a simple manner. Their combined affect on the
      system is calculated in the spreadsheets provided in Appendix D of the Supporting
      Statement submitted with this application. As shown on the flow diagram provided
      earlier in this note, the total evaporation on the elements of the system that will
      treat the dairy waste is 6100m3 or 6.1million litres.

      13. Rainfall average for Plummers Plain if obtainable?

      Our calculations are based on actual monthly rainfall records for a recognised Met
      Office station in Haywards Heath. These were analysed and average monthly
      rainfall was estimated. This was then adjusted to represent climate change by
      increasing the winter months by 10% and reducing the summer months by 10%.
      Based on this scenario, rainfall on the elements of the system dealing with diary
      wastewater is 7900m3 or 7.9million litres, as shown on the earlier flow diagram for
      “normal rainfall conditions”.

      Detailed calculations based on numerous rainfall scenarios are included in
      Appendix D of the Supporting Statement submitted with this application and include
      consideration of exceptionally dry and exceptionally wet years, along with probable
      flood events.

      14. What are the total vehicle movements proposed to the site once the reed beds
      and ponds are completed?

      Minimal, it is envisaged one tanker bringing the milk round from the Jackson’s Farm
      parlour and possibly a further one from Slatehouse Farm as and when necessary to
      top up volume to be processed to meet contractual obligations. Mr. Cooper will be
      transferring his own milk in bulk using a tractor drawn tanker of approximately
      10,000ltrs capacity, similar to a small rigid lorry tanker. In addition the produce will
      be distributed from the site, it is not anticipated to be more than 2 – 3 vehicles at
      most depending on distribution requirements.

      Total anticipated vehicle movements per day are 10 No. commercial vehicles (i.e. 5
      commercial vehicles in and 5 out per day)

      15. Will milk be brought in to be processed from other farms and how many tankers
      will deliver milk and at what frequency?

      As stated above, all milk will be brought in by tanker, the capacity of which is
      adequate to keep vehicle movements to a minimum. To put this into context : 120
      cows in maximum production i.e. 960,000ltrs p.a. = 2,630ltrs a day. Average small
      road tanker takes 10,000ltrs. Hence, milk production is unlikely to increase beyond
      the tanker capacity and additional tanker movements will not be generated.

2.4   A meeting with the applicants and Member group was organised for 28th July 2008
      to discuss the replies received and to obtain any further information.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9




      CONCLUSION

2.5   The issues are not clear cut, the responses received from the applicants have
      clearly helped to clarify the position. Officers remain concerned about the level of
      engineering works proposed, in particular, the proposed amount of associated
      vehicular movements, particularly during the construction phase, (para 6.3 of
      original report) and the harm to the amenities and quiet enjoyment of nearby
      residents, that these would cause.


3.    RECOMMENDATION

3.1   It is recommended that the application be refused as originally stated.




Background Papers:        DC/07/2250 & DC/06/1106
Contact Officer:          Peter Harwood                             rw16pink/wk1/jlt
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1




abcd
                                                 DEVELOPMENT
                                                 CONTROL REPORT
TO:                      Development Control Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:             Demolition of existing house and erection of 4 x 2 bed flats, 2 x 3
                         bed and 4 x 4 bed houses (total 10 dwellings)

SITE:                    10 Milnwood Road Horsham

WARD:                    Trafalgar

APPLICATION:             DC/08/0673

APPLICANT:               Inland Homes Ltd



REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                  Category of development.

RECOMMENDATION:             That planning permission be refused.



1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   The application is for the demolition of existing house and erection of 4 x 2 bed
      flats, 2 x 3 bed and 4 x 4 bed houses (total 10 dwellings) with associated access
      and landscaping.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2   The site is located at the western end of Milnwood Road at the junction of Newlands
      Road. The site is located within the Horsham built up area boundary. The site is ‘L’
      shaped and comprises 0.338ha including the existing property and land at 10
      Milnwood Road for which prior approval for demolition has recently been granted
      subject to details relating to the method of demolition and the restoration of the site
      (DC/08/0919).




Contact:     Amanda Wilkes                                         Extension: 5521
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2.



1.3    The application site is located in a predominantly residential area characterised by 2
       storey detached houses on good size plots with small front gardens and rear
       garden area approximately ranging from 10-15metres in length. There is on-street
       parking which is available on both Milnwood Road and Newlands Road.

1. 4   The site area is bounded by the rear of the garden area to properties 14A – 40
       Trafalgar Road, the southern part of the site abuts the side boundary of 9 Milnwood
       Road to the east and the northern part of the site abuts the southern boundary of
       Lynwick Cottage, the western section of the northern end of the site abuts the side
       boundary of the rear garden of number 42 Trafalgar Road. The application site
       includes the site area of 10 Milnwood Road itself which has a substantial return
       onto Newlands Road. There is an existing gated access to the site off of Milnwood
       Road.

1. 5   Outline planning consent has previously been granted and was last renewed in
       June 2000 for the erection of 4 dwellings under ref: HU/142/00. This outline
       consent has since expired.

1.6    The existing house fronts Milnwood Road, and comprises a large detached property
       with front facing gable end and a hipped roof, which is set back along the Newlands
       Road elevation, the western elevation has a variety of eaves heights and includes a
       cat slide roof section to the south with a single storey addition.

1.7    The garden area is mainly laid to lawn and there are a number of ancillary
       outbuildings within the curtilage of the site.

1.8    There are a number of important trees on site that are subject to Tree Preservation
       Orders as follows, Horse Chestnut T0001 (adjacent to the northern boundary with
       Lynwick Cottage), Beech T0002, (adjacent to the western boundary with number 38
       Trafalgar Road), Eucalyptus T0003 (Located at the south–eastern corner of the site
       adjacent to number 9 Milnwood Road and 5 Spring Gardens) and Yew T0004
       (adjacent to the site access).

1.9    Historically the site had a fair level of boundary screening afforded to it by virtue of
       a number of Conifers along its western boundary flanking the rear gardens of
       Trafalgar Road which have recently been heavily cut back; those conifers along the
       eastern boundary to Newlands Road have been completely removed. At present
       therefore the site is fairly visually exposed when viewed from the rear of Trafalgar
       Road and from Newlands Road.

1.10   The site is approximately 0.5 miles from Horsham Town Centre and public transport
       links.

2.     INTRODUCTION

       STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1    Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

       RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3.




2.2   PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following
      policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP12, and CP19.

2.4   Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control
      Policies Submission Documents September 2006 - the following policies are of
      particular relevance: DC5, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC18, and DC40.

2.5   West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 - the following policies are of particular
      relevance: LOC1, NE2, NE9, NE13, CH1, ERA1, ERA2, DEV1, DEV3, DEV4 and
      DEV 5.

      RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.    The application site is subject to a long history, the following are considered
      relevant to the current planning application:

      HU/142/00 Permitted 07-JUN-2000 Renewal of hu/184/97 to erect 4 dwellings
      (outline)

      HU/167/62 Refused 28-MAY-1962 Res. dev. Outline

      HU/122/63 Permitted 24-MAY-1963 4 bungalows and 4 garages. Outline

      HU/184/97 Permitted 06-AUG-1997 Renewal of permission to erect 4 dwellings
      (outline)

      HU/99/75 Withdrawn 29-APR-1975 Demolition of house, erection of 14 x 1
      bedroom flats, 16 bed-sit flats, warden and common room accommodation for use
      by retired persons.

      HU/212/94 Permitted 11-OCT-1994 Renewal of unimplemented outline permission
      (hu/266/91) to erect 4 dwellings

      HU/64/03 Withdrawn 13-SEP-2005 Renewal of unimplemented planning
      permission hu/142/00 to erect 4 dwellings (outline)

      HU/396/62 Refused 11-JAN-1963 Erection of 6 bungalows and seven garages

      HU/266/91 Permitted 12-NOV-1991 Erection of 4 detached dwellings plus accesses
      (outline)

      DC/04/2081 Withdrawn 13-SEP-2005 Erection of 3 terraced houses, 2 semi-
      detached houses and 1 detached house - outline (Land west of 10 Milnwood Road)
                                                                                              APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4.



          DC/08/0919 Permitted 12-JUN-2008 Demolition of dwelling house and garden
          structures



OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

4.1       Technical Services – Property and Economic – No adverse comments.

4.2       Arboriculture Officer - Consultation response dated 9/5/08

          1. Yew tree by entrance
          At the meeting in the office it was proposed by the developers to erect the tree protective fencing
          (TPF) as a square around the whole RPA of this tree, an action which appears satisfactory. When
          looked at again on site, it did appear to me that this would be rather restrictive in terms of the access
          into the site, but if the developers are happy to deal with this, then so be it. If not, the approved 'no
          dig' driveway construction installation will be required to be provided, save the top surface dressing,
          prior to any other developments at the site, particularly before any site vehicles enter. The
          developers did appear to be ok with this, and for reference I have copied below the normal standard
          condition used in these cases:

          L12     Protection of trees about entry into site

          No development of any kind shall commence on the site prior to the installation of suitable protective
          measures for safeguarding trees and tree roots in the area of the access into the site, as indicated
          on the approved drawing [1053/P/1, revision A] dated [19/02/08]. The protective measures shall be
          constructed in full accordance with the approved details.

          Reason: To ensure the protection of trees close to access routes into sites, in accordance with
          policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007).

          2. Horse chestnut tree close to northern site boundary.
          Although clearly a tree of visual amenity merit, this is a specimen with a specific arboricultural need,
          based upon safety concerns. Although not an 'unsafe' or hazardous tree per se, the tree has
          nonetheless a clear central issue, that it has been very heavily pollarded in the past, to around 6m
          above ground level. The crown as one now sees it is therefore wholly regenerative growth, based
          upon weakly attached sprout origin shoots which have undergone secondary thickening as well as
          extensive apical growth (upwards!). As a result, the weak and in many cases decaying tissues about
          the pollard points support very tall straight stems exhibiting a safety factor, when assessed using the
          Mattheck guide for stem slenderness, well in excess of what is recommended. It therefore must be
          accepted, development or no development, that this tree requires management. Unfortunately, in a
          case such as this, there is little option other than to completely re-pollard the tree to the 6m pollard
          points. This has a number of effects material to the development proposals:
         The first, and most unfortunate, effect is that the amenity value of the tree, recently increased in
          visual terms by the removal of the line of conifers along Newlands Road, will be very badly
          compromised. This is a real shame, but is in my view unavoidable.

         In terms of the possible development of the site, such action provides the future site owners with a
          good opportunity to manage the tree as a pollard, by applying for consent to re-pollard it on a
          regular basis, possibly every three to five years. I would not object to this, as the tree is retained;
          although it will look horribly stark immediately post pollarding, it will quickly re-foliate, remaining an
          attractive low round squat tree; and future safety concerns, as now seen, will be avoided.

         Such an action also alters the situation viz a viz the possibility of permitting development within the
          tree's RPA. The RPA of the tree is 12.84m, as the main trunk is wide and stout; the closest point of
                                                                                      APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5.



    the proposed new development (at this stage) being 10.4m, an ingress of 19%. In my view, given
    the proposed re-pollarding, this permitted ingress could actually be increased to a maximum of 50%
    without causing harm to the tree, resulting in a revised minimum distance to construction
    of 6.42m. At this distance, within a communal garden, and given that the tree will be readily kept
    trimmed to a small compact size, I do not see that future resident pressures (FRP) will be a
    concern.

   It should of course be noted that this considerably increases the area available in this part of the site
    for development, and given the need to afford the beech tree on the western boundary as much
    space as possible, use of this should in my view be encouraged, other planning concerns
    notwithstanding.
    3. Beech tree on western boundary.
    This is clearly the premier tree on the site; using the classification method at BS 5837 'Trees in
    relation to Construction' [2005] it is a category A1 tree. Given the species, its size, its position, its
    maturity, and its overall amenity value, I confirm that exhaustive efforts should be taken to ensure
    that this tree does not suffer further as a result of development plans.

    I say 'further', as the tree has clearly has a hard time of it in recent decades. The line of houses to
    the west along Trafalgar Road are in close proximity, though they have been there for many years.
    In addition, though, extensive more recent works have been carried out in the rear gardens to these
    properties, and as a result almost the whole western side of the RPA of the tree is effectively set
    to impervious hard standing. Accordingly I cannot accept that this tree satisfies the criteria set out in
    the BS as an 'open-grown tree' (para. 5.2.4) permitting ingress into the RPA by 20%.
    In my view, there are three central concerns in regard to development close to this tree:

    (i) Damage by foundations:
   The developers, aware that their plans indicate considerable ingress into the RPA of the tree, are
    proposing the use of the 'Housedeck' system, essentially basing the house at plot 8 on piles. I
    understand that these piles can be as small as 200mm in diameter, and up to 2.5 to 3.0m apart. All
    slabs and beams are intended to be above ambient ground levels. This system clearly is a huge
    improvement on trench footings, and indeed para. 11.6 of the BS recommends the use of such
    techniques. But it should not be taken that this results in NO ground disturbance; it still results in a
    large (and presently unknown) number of piles being placed within the RPA of the tree; indeed, on
    present plans, almost the entire building is within the RPA. At the planned 4.6m distance from the
    centre of the tree, an ingress into the RPA of close to 70%, and given the notes already made in
    regard to the tree's particular characteristics, this appears ill-advised.

   The developers did, at our meeting, give consideration to moving the position of the building further
    away from the tree; I recall a figure of 2.6m being considered? This would clearly improve things,
    but would still result in the building being erected as close as 7.2m from the tree, an ingress of 48%
    into the RPA.

   I do not take issue with the principles of the Housedeck system, and indeed, para. 11.1.1 of the BS
    confirms that in some cases it may "be necessary to undertake demolition operations and/or to
    incorporate hard surfaces and other construction within" the RPA of a retained tree. But it
    continues, recommending that each case should be treated on its individual merits, and noting,
    particularly, that "the older the tree, the less successfully it will adapt to new conditions". This is
    further affirmed by the advice at para. 6.2.4 which clearly states that "particular care" is needed
    regarding the retention of large old trees, suggesting that "it may be most effective to conserve them
    by incorporating them into open speces or large gardens". This is clearly not the case here.

   So in conclusion, though I do not doubt that the Housedeck system has its benefits, I remain of the
    view that the siting of the house at the distance shown, AND the proposed amended position 7.2m
    away, is in breach of the BS and unsatisfactory. Furthermore, in this case, there are other factors
    involved.
    (ii) Physical proximity (above ground) of dwelling to tree:
   I measured the actual above ground radial crown spread of the tree, and found it to be 7.5m, quite
    small for such a large specimen. So at this distance, any dwelling would be outside the drip zone of
                                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6.



    the tree, notwithstanding within its RPA. This may appear acceptable, but from the site inspection, it
    is clear that residents of this dwelling, looking straight up at a massive tree towering 23m above
    them are very likely to feel the apprehension described at para. 6.3.4 of the BS. A quick examination
    of the reasoning behind the many applications for consent to trim the tree back on the Trafalgar
    Road side will illustrate how residents living in so close a proximity to such a large tree feel. We
    must be sure that we do not permit a repeat problem on the eastern side of the tree.
   As noted, the BS states (para. 6.3.4) that “large trees can cause apprehension to occupiers”. Given
    the very large size of this tree, this is in my view particularly likely here. It is important to point out
    that the perception of this is a material consideration which should be paid due regard.
   Clearly a balanced judgement is required here, and I would not feel comfortable insisting that no
    development was permitted within the falling zone of the tree (23m); this would be unreasonable.
    Nevertheless, following the guidance in the BS, it is clear that sufficient reasonable distance
    between the tree and any new residence is required in accordance with the recommendations at
    para 5.11 of the publication Tree Preservation Orders - A Guide to the Law and Good Practice
    (DETR, March 2000) (the 'Blue Book').
    (iii) Likelihood of future resident pressures (FRP).
   I visited the site at 4 p.m. on possibly the brightest and sunniest day of the year so far, and yet the
    whole of the area which would be the rear garden to plot 8 was heavily shaded. Later in the day, the
    sun is screened by the conifers, and perhaps something could be done to ameliorate this. Many of
    the trees, which in arboricultural terms only classify as category C trees, thereby not being material
    to the planning process, could be trimmed. I would not object to this in pure arboricultural terms,
    subject to suitable replacement, but in planning terms I would advise that this would have a striking
    and profound effect upon the visual amenities of the area, and is likely to be deeply unpopular with
    the residents in Trafalgar Road.

   Paragraph 6.3 of the BS deals specifically with issues likely to result in FRP, and recommends
    action to minimise such. Measures to minimise inconvenience can be requested, such as the use of
    gutter guards, but this appears to highlight that there is a problem, best avoided, so far as is
    reasonable, in the first place. The developers noted that, as a TPO tree, the Council would have a
    measure of control over any future pruning requirements, but conversely I would remind you of the
    advice at paragraph 5.11(ii) of the 'Blue Book', which stresses the need to avoid layouts where trees
    cause unreasonable inconvenience, leading inevitably to requests to fell, anticipates that conflict
    with trees may arise, and aims to prevent it.

   I was also directed to the supplement "Planning and Climate Change" to Planning Policy Statement
    1 (December 2007) which advises (para. 42) that consideration of the environmental performance of
    the proposed development should be taken into account, including the maximisation of cooling and
    avoidance of solar gain in the summer. However, I am not of the view that this can be used as an
    argument in favour of rear gardens heavily shaded by trees, as all parties are aware of what future
    residents will require, as experience has shown.
    In conclusion, it is clear that the matter of the suitable and satisfactory protection of this important
    tree cannot be resolved by the examination of a single issue, such as the suitability of the
    Housedeck system, but should be assessed holistically, taking into account all of the relevant
    issues. I concede that the Housedeck system mitigates against the likelihood of root damage,
    though of course it does not eliminate it, and moreover I agree that the very high crown base height
    of the tree (around 8m above ground level) on its eastern side, as well as its relatively small radial
    crown spread, helps to ameliorate concerns to a degree. But I must advise that my visit has served
    to strengthen my resolve that all efforts should be taken to protect this lovely and important tree, and
    that the underlying thrust of the BS supports this. As you are aware, the district is littered with
    examples of where trees have been lost post development notwithstanding the compelling
    arguments by developers that this will not be the case. Policies contained within the February 2005
    West Sussex Structure Plan (LOC1, DEV1, CH1), the February 2007 Core Strategy (CP1, CP3),
    and the December 2007 General Development Control Policies document (DC2, DC9) all highlight
    the need to pay due regard to the character of the area and to the environment, protecting it and,
    where possible, enhancing it.
                                                                                              APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7.



           I therefore feel happy to confirm my revised view that, in this particular case, the full RPA of the
           beech tree should be maintained, and that no residential development should be permitted within it.
           This will clearly require the site layout to be revised and amended.

           Consultation response dated 04/06/08 following amended plans:
           The plans appear to have taken advantage of the agreed re-pollarding of the Horse chestnut tree,
           which is now accordingly permitted a minimum distance to construction of 8.8m. This is satisfactory.
          In my previous report I noted three concerns which collectively led me to conclude that no
           development should be permitted any closer to the large beech tree on the western site
           boundary than the overall RPA radius of 13.86m. Clearly the amending of the proposed position of
           the dwelling at Plot 8 is an improvement upon the previous proposals, but that is not to say that it is
           satisfactory. The 10m proposed distance between the tree and the dwelling still represents an
           ingress of 27.85% into the RPA of this tree. Hence notwithstanding the improvement, the scheme
           accordingly still falls foul of the recommendations at BS 5837 [2005] and in my view none of the
           concerns I noted have been eliminated.
           I still, therefore, cannot approve of this scheme, for the same reasons I set out in my previous
           report.
           Some other small matters for your attention:
          The plans indicate the erection, along the western boundary, of a "1.8m high c/b fence". How can
           this be constructed effectively - and along the line of the boundary - without the felling of trees in this
           area? Perhaps the answer is that it can, but if not, trees essential to the screening of the site will be
           lost. This I suggest requires clarification from the developers.

          Two items of small print on the 1:250 site layout plans: "existing trees shown dotted to be removed",
           and "crown reduction to existing trees shown dotted". This is unclear, as although it advises that "for
           details refer to arboricultural details" there are no entries in the Tree Report under the column
           'Preliminary Management Recommendations' apart from now agreed proposals in regard to the
           Horse chestnut tree (T4). So exactly what works are required? And which are the 'dotted trees' to be
           removed? This is insufficient and unsatisfactory. Further confusion is caused by the legend, which
           indicates areas of trees to be removed by way of a dotted line, unseen on the plans.
          I therefore must advise that my objections to this scheme remain.



           OUTSIDE AGENCIES

4.3        Trafalgar Neighbourhood Council - We have been contacted by lots of residents
           who are against this development. The Neighbourhood Council also has
           some reservations concerning the development. We have no objection to the
           houses but we do object to the block of flats/maisonettes. They are a first for the
           area and will change the character of the area. The height and design are out of
           keeping with the surrounding houses. We are also concerned over the lack of
           parking, only 10 spaces for 6 dwellings in an area with existing parking restrictions.
           Could the developer put a pair of smaller semi-detached houses in their place?

4.4       Southern Water – No objections subject to conditions and note to applicant.

4.5        County Surveyor – Milnwood Road is an unclassified residential cul-de-sac road
          subject to a speed limit of 30mph. The road has restricted parking provisions on
          either side of the carriageway and a footway network. The site is located at the
          western end of Milnwood Road and is also bound by Newlands Road.

          From the details on the site layout plan (ref:1053/P/1 rev A) it is proposed to provide
          18 vehicle parking spaces which is a net increase of 16 spaces. The cycle parking
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 5 - 8.



      provision has not been stated within the application. The vehicle parking is within the
      maximum standards set out by WSCC and the District Council should consider the
      impact of the development to on-street parking within the area. The parking provision
      for the flats is situated in a location where there is existing on-street parking and as
      such it would be required for the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to be amended in
      order to remove parking in this location. Vehicle crossovers would also be required
      for these spaces and a pedestrian visibility splay of 2m x 2m x 0.6m would be
      required. A new access is also proposed on Newlands Road, to access parking for
      one dwelling, this would require the aforementioned pedestrian visibility splays.

      It is proposed to provide another new access into the site from Milnwood Road close
      to the location of the existing gated access. The internal road is proposed to remain
      private and is a shared surface for all road users.

      A Section 278 Highways Agreement will be required by the applicant in order to carry
      out the access works in the public highway; this can be obtained through contacting
      the Implementation Team at West Sussex County Council.

      A Total Access Demand contribution would be sought by WSCC of £13,680, based
      upon the mix of residential units and the parking provision including a reduction to
      take into account the existing property and parking. This contribution would be
      sought to contribute toward sustainability and infrastructure improvements as
      identified within the WSCC Developer-Funded Schemes List or any other
      appropriately identified schemes in the area.

4.6 County Planning Officer - No objection subject to a legal agreement covering a
    contribution towards School Infrastructure £33,479 Library Infrastructure £2,041,
    Fire Services £752 and TAD contribution of £13,680


4.7   Sussex Police – Do not wish to comment.


4.8 Natural England Government Team - We are satisfied that the survey has been
    carried out to a satisfactory standard and that no evidence of bats was found within
    the property. We would however like to point out that bats may be roosting within
    mature trees within the site so if the proposals involve felling of trees, these will also
    need to be assessed for potential bat roosts.

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

4.9 54 letters of objection (including 16 letters in relation to the revised scheme) have
    been received from the neighbouring residential properties surrounding the
    application site, which provided the following comments and reasons for objection:

              Development considered out of scale and character with surrounding area
              Siting and Mass and height of Development and general form of
               development
              Density of development to high
              Overshadowing of neighbouring properties
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 5 - 9.



              Overbearing impact
              Overdevelopment of site
              Overlooking and loss of private amenity
              Poor amenity provision
              Increase in traffic and highway and safety issues and poor visibility
              Loss of existing parking spaces and insufficient parking in area generally
              Dwelling mix unsuitable, flats not characteristic of area
              Impact on Trees
              Presence of Bats
              Noise pollution resulting from increased traffic
              Loss of green space
              Inadequate details regarding refuse and cycle storage provision
              Demolition of existing property
              Surface water drain off and flooding concerns

5.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

      Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
      application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.

6.    HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

      It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising
      from this application.

7.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

7.1   The main issues are the principle of development and the effects on:

      a)   the impact on the amenity and outlook of neighbouring occupiers
      b)   the impact on visual amenity
      c)   Highway safety
      d)   the impact on tree’s

7.2   The application is for the demolition and redevelopment of the site to provide 10
      new residential dwellings in the form of 4 x 2 bed flats, 2 x 3 bed and 4 x 4 bed
      houses (total 10 dwellings) with associated access, landscaping. The 2 x 3 bed
      houses and the flats (Plots 1-6) have a communal garden area and the 4 x 4 bed
      houses (Plots 7-10) have private rear gardens.

7.3   The original scheme as submitted by the applicants in addition to the four detached
      dwellings (plots 7-10) included a building of considerable mass that wrapped
      around the Milnwood Road and Newlands Road frontages (plots 1-6), following
      concerns raised by both Officers and by local residents the original scheme was
      amended to create three smaller blocks in its place, with those on Newlands Road
      being linked detached. The revised scheme attempted to address some of the
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 5 - 10.



      concerns raised by breaking up the building mass on this corner along both road
      frontages. This however has not, in your Officers’ opinion, achieved that objective
      or the fundamental concerns of overdevelopment.

7.4   The application site falls within the Built up Area Boundaries of Horsham and as
      such policy CP5 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy 2007applies. Policy
      DC18 Smaller Homes/Housing Mix of the Horsham District LDF General
      Development Control Policies 2007 also applies as the development is for more
      than 5 dwellings.

7.5   Policy CP5 supports new residential development and re-use of suitable previously
      developed land (including the reuse or conversion of existing buildings). The
      principle of 4 houses on part of the site (along the western boundary and up to the
      boundaries of 9 and 10 Milnwood Road) have previously been approved by virtue
      of the outline planning permission, however this outline consent has now expired
      and it is considered that the site constraints in relation to development of the site at
      the time of the outline consent and current considerations and constraints have now
      changed in light of more recent guidance specifically in relation to the BS ‘Trees in
      Relation to Construction’ Standards as considered by the Council’s Arboricultural
      Officer.

7.6   The applicants have taken into consideration the requirements of the Horsham
      District LDF General Development Control Policies 2007 policy DC18 and have put
      forward a mix of housing types including 3 and 4 bed dwellings and smaller 2 bed
      (maisonette) flats. However, the residential character of the area is largely made
      up of detached dwellings on fair size plots with the exception of Lynwick Cottage to
      the north of the site fronting Newlands Road. However, it is considered that overall
      this building is not representative of dwelling types in the area and as such because
      of the sensitive location of this particular site the scheme has received considerable
      opposition from local residents.

7.7   Policy DC18 of the Horsham District LDF General Development Control Policies
      2007 encourages the provision of smaller sized dwellings (1 or 2 bedroom units),
      as it is considered that there is a need for them within the District. The policy
      requirements are for developments of 5 dwellings or more, to provide in general
      and as a guideline at least 64% in the form of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings. This
      requirement is subject to the need to consider the character of the area and the
      existing mix of housing.

7.8   In policy terms the proposed mix is 40% for the 4x2-bed flats, 20% for the 2x3-bed
      houses and 40% for the 4x4 bed houses. Only 40% of the proposed dwelling mix
      comprises of 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling and accordingly on face value, the scheme
      appears to fail with the DC18 policy requirements. However, it is considered that in
      view of the sensitive location of this site and the character of the area that the form
      of development must sit comfortably within its wider environment and should
      respect the existing character of the area and therefore a smaller percentage may
      be considered acceptable if the scheme can be sensitively designed to suit. It is
      also considered that due to the existing site constraints a much reduced scheme
      more reflective of the existing character and dwelling mix may be considered more
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 5 - 11.



       appropriate on this particular site and that there may be a case to justify a scheme
       that does not conform to the policy requirements of DC18.


7.9    The second objective of policy DC18 is to ensure that new development makes
       efficient use of land through higher density developments, respecting however that
       all development still respects the character of the area. The existing density of the
       area is stated by the applicants as 28 dph, the proposed density is 30 dph. In
       terms of housing density, PPG3 (Housing) states that ‘local planning authorities
       should avoid developments which make inefficient use of land (those of less than
       30 dwellings per hectare), and encourage housing development which makes more
       efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare)’. The density of the
       proposed development would meet this target, although this is largely because the
       scheme comprises of a number of flats, which almost always have a higher density
       level compared to typical housing layouts. Whilst in terms of density the proposed
       development appears to satisfy local and government criteria, the proposal is
       considered to relate poorly to the surrounding residential properties and therefore
       represents an overdevelopment of the site, which is explained in the following
       paragraphs.

7.10   Plots 1-2 and plots 3-4 are link detached by a single storey garage this adds further
       to the unsatisfactory built-up appearance of the site which would be detrimental and
       out of character with the visual appearance of the street scene.

7.11   Plots 3 and 4 facing Newlands Road directly face the flank elevation of existing
       property at No 6 Milnwood Road which is a distance of approximately14.5 metres
       from window to window, this would result in a bedroom and living room to plot 3-4
       overlooking the kitchen area of this dwelling. The distance shown between window
       to window relationship is considered unacceptable and does not conform to the
       Council’s minimum distance standard of 21 metres between windows to habitable
       rooms.

7.12   In terms of amenity the proposed units on plots 1-6 would share the rear communal
       garden area of approximately 176 square metres. Whilst it is recognised that there
       are no specific amenity standards set on which to assess the proposed amenity
       provision in relation to the units proposed, the fact that the 2 x 3 bed houses also
       share this communal amenity area with the flats again illustrate the compact nature
       of the site and suggests that the number of units proposed is excessive, it also
       adds further to the unsatisfactory built-up appearance of the site which would be
       detrimental to the living conditions of the new residents. Furthermore, it also
       represents a poor form of development which would lead to future and unnecessary
       resident pressures in terms of the amenity provision. The shared garden area
       would also suffer from overshadowing from early morning until midday as a result of
       the siting of plot 1-2 located on Milnwood Road.

7.13   The proposed new buildings as a whole are considered to have a poor relationship
       with each other and with existing neighbouring properties resulting in an
       overbearing impact and form of development. The separation distances between
       the proposed plots are generally poor with first floor levels only 1 metre distance
       from the shared boundaries along the entire depth of the dwellings and no step in at
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 5 - 12.



       eaves level thereby creating a cavernous effect, given the close proximity of the
       proposed units to each other. Whilst on its own this is not a reason for refusal it is
       considered indicative of the compact nature of the development which is out of
       character with surrounding area.

7.14   Without adequate and significant landscaping and planting the rear garden areas of
       plots 8 and 9 would incur serious overlooking from the first floor rear windows of the
       existing dwellings fronting Trafalgar Road.

7.15   The relationship of the proposed dwellings with the boundaries of the site, the level
       of hard standing and parking area indicate that the site does not comfortably
       support 10 units as proposed and the scheme is considered to represent
       overdevelopment.

7.16   With regard to the Aboricultural Officers comments as reported in full in 4.2 above,
       there is still considerable concern with regard to the impact of the proposed
       development on the Beech Tree subject to a TPO located on the western boundary
       of the site, with particular reference to the dwelling proposed on plot 8. Despite the
       ‘house deck’ system put forward by the applicants to overcome these concerns the
       Aboricultural Officers objections still remain.

7.17   With regard to the County Surveyor comments as reported in 4.5 above and in
       terms of parking provision, a total of 18 vehicle parking spaces which is a net
       increase in 16 spaces. The vehicle parking is within the maximum standards set by
       WSCC however the District Council have been advised to consider the impact of
       the development on on-street parking in the area. The proposed development
       would involve the loss of some existing parking bays on both Newlands Road and
       Milnwood Road. Residents state that although quiet during the day demand for
       parking in the area is very high in the evenings and at weekends and therefore the
       increase in demand as a result of the proposed development would undoubtedly
       exacerbate this problem. It is likely therefore that the proposal could result in
       parking spill-over onto surrounding roads.

7.18 Total Access Demand contribution would be sought by WSCC of £13,680, based
     upon the mix of residential units and the parking provision including a reduction to
     take into account the existing property and parking. This contribution would be
     sought to contribute toward sustainability and infrastructure improvements as
     identified within the WSCC Developer-Funded Schemes List or any other
     appropriately identified schemes in the area.

7.19 No objections have been raised by the County Planning Officer subject to a legal
     agreement covering a contribution towards School Infrastructure £33,479 Library
     Infrastructure £2,041, Fire Services £752.

7.20   A Bat Survey has been provided by the applicants and the Natural England
       Government Team have been consulted and are satisfied that the survey has been
       carried out to a satisfactory standard and that no evidence of bats was found within
       the property.
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 5 - 13.



7.21   To summarise, the proposed development is considered unacceptable for a
       number of reasons. The scheme is unacceptable as it does not respect the
       character of the area, the level of proposed amenity space is considered
       inadequate, and the design and layout of the buildings, access road and parking
       area will be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties and
       the relationship of the development as a whole with the site boundaries is
       considered unacceptable.


8.     RECOMMENDATION

       It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:


1.     The proposal would result in a cramped form of overdevelopment by virtue of the
       poor relationship between the development as a whole and the site boundaries and
       also the parking dominated frontages which would be harmful to the visual
       amenities of the area. The proposed development is considered to represent an
       overdevelopment of the site having a poor relationship with neighbouring residential
       properties, inadequate levels of amenity space, and with inadequate space to
       provide landscaping between parking areas to soften the impact of the
       development on the surrounding area. It will therefore cause undue harm to the
       amenity of adjacent dwellings and be of detriment to the visual amenities of the
       surrounding area and to the living conditions of the proposed occupiers, contrary to
       Policy DC9 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies 2007
       and to Policy CP3 of the Horsham District Local development Framework Core
       Strategy 2007 and also to policy Dev1 of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-
       2016.
2.     The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards
       improvements to transport and community facilities infrastructure and is thereby
       contrary to policy CP13 of the Core Strategy 2007, and Policy Dev 3 of the West
       Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016.

3.     The proposed development is unacceptable as it is likely to result in damage to,
       and significant post development pressures upon, the large protected beech tree
       on the western boundary of the site, contrary to the recommendations at BS 5837
       'Trees in Relation to Construction' [2005] which would result in harm to the
       character, appearance and amenities of the area. The proposal is therefore
       contrary to Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework
       General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007), Policy CP1 of
       the Horsham District Council Core Strategy (February 2007) and policies LOC1 and
       DEV1 of the West Sussex Structure Plan (2001 – 2016).




Background Papers:         DC/08/0673
Contact Officer:           Amanda Wilkes
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1




abcd
                                               DEVELOPMENT
                                               CONTROL REPORT
TO:                    Development Control Committee North

BY:                    Head of Development

DATE:                  5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:           2-storey side extension, porch and re-position existing
                       conservatory
SITE:                  Bow Wood, Brighton Road, Monks Gate, Horsham
WARD:                  Nuthurst

APPLICATION:           DC/08/1186

APPLICANT:             Ms V Smith


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                 Applicant request to speak

RECOMMENDATION:                                 To refuse planning permission


1.    THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

      To consider the planning application.

      DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   The application proposes a single storey side extension with accommodation in the
      roofspace. There would be two dormer windows and a ground floor bay window on
      the front elevation, and two linked dormer windows on the rear elevation. An
      existing conservatory currently attached to the side of the existing dwelling would
      be relocated to the rear of the proposed extension.

      Other proposed alterations include the replacement of flat roofs to two existing front
      dormer windows with pitched roofs, and construction of a porch.


      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2   The application site contains a bungalow with accommodation in the roofspace.
      There are two flat roofed dormers in the front roofslope, one large pitched roof
      dormer in the rear roofslope and a conservatory attached to the side elevation. The
      house is set within a large, L-shaped plot at the northern end of Monks Gate which
      is located within the countryside.



Contact:    David Taylor                                              Extension: 5166
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2



      PLANNING HISTORY

1.3   N/53/96      Planning permission granted for the erection of a chimney on
      20/11/1996

      N/11/97       Planning permission granted for ground floor extension and dormer in
      roof on 13/05/1997

      DC/08/0292 Application withdrawn for 2-storey side extension, new porch to front
      and reposition existing conservatory to rear on 03/04/2008

1.4   There is no other relevant planning history.


2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1, PPS7

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1
      and CP3.

2.4   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies Submission Document are DC1, DC9 and DC28.

2.5   The relevant policies of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 are LOC2 and
      CH1.


3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   No internal consultations have been received.

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2   Nuthurst Parish Council – Recommend that the application be refused on the
      following grounds - The proposed extension by reason of its overall size, siting and
      design would fail to reflect the scale and character of the existing dwelling,
      causing over intensification of the property.

      No other outside agencies have commented on the application.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3



      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

      One letter of support has been received from the applicant outlining the reasons for
      requiring the extension. The reasons include:-

         The need for a downstairs bedroom and wet room for the applicants parents
         The applicants father is unable to visit as access cannot be gained to the
          current space with a wheelchair
         The extension would enable the applicants parents to stay indefinitely
         The house is quite small and extension applied for is only 7m wide
         The extension has been designed so that the finished house reflects the design
          of building used historically in Sussex and is sympathetic to the area.
         The extension does not impact on neighbouring properties

3.4   No other representations or consultation responses have been received.


4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

      Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
      application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.


5.    HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

      It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising
      from this application.

6.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the
      impact of the proposal on the scale and character of the existing dwelling; its
      impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers and its effect on the visual amenities
      and character of the locality.

6.2   The application site is set within a large, L-shaped plot at the northern end of
      Monks Gate, outside any defined built up area, in a countryside location.

6.3   Policy DC28 of the General Development Control Policies Document indicates that
      extensions to dwellings in the countryside will be permitted providing the proposals
      would not be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling, and would be in
      sympathy with and subservient to the scale and character of the existing dwelling.

6.4   The proposed extension would be set back 0.5m from the main front wall of the
      house, and would be set down 0.3m from the main ridgeline. The extension would
      be 7m wide in comparison to the existing house which is 8.4m wide. The proposed
      extension would be a substantial addition which would be only slightly smaller than
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4



      the existing dwelling. Consequently, it is considered that the extension would be
      disproportionate in size and would not be subservient to the existing dwelling. The
      scheme would therefore be contrary to policy, would detract from the appearance
      of the property, and would result in increased built form in the countryside.

6.5   The addition of a porch would cause no material harm and the pitched roofs to the
      existing dormer windows would improve the appearance of the property. Nearby
      properties are set well away from the site of the proposed extension, and the
      amenity of occupiers would not be adversely affected.

6.6   It is noted that the extension would be provided in order to accommodate the
      applicants elderly parents. However, it is considered that this could be achieved
      with a more subservient extension and a proposal that is more in keeping with the
      existing dwelling. It is also noted that the previous application (DC/08/0292) that
      was withdrawn was for the same proposal and has not been amended to overcome
      previous concerns about the size of the proposal.

6.7   In conclusion, the single storey side extension by reason of its size and position
      should not cause material harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers but it is
      considered that it would adversely affect the visual amenities/character of the area
      to a significant degree and does not comply with the aims of the Local
      Development Framework.


7.    RECOMMENDATION

7.1   It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reason:

      The proposed extension by reason of its size and massing would be
      disproportionate in size and not subservient to the existing dwelling, and would be
      visually intrusive in the surrounding rural landscape to the detriment of the visual
      character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP3 of the Core
      Strategy 2007 and Policies DC1, DC9 and DC28 of the General Development
      Control Policies (2007).



Background Papers:               DC/08/1186
Contact Officer:                 David Taylor
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1




abcd
                                                DEVELOPMENT
                                                CONTROL REPORT
TO:                    Development Control Committee North

BY:                    Head of Development

DATE:                  5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:           Erection of 2.85m fence and raising of hedge to 2.85m

SITE:                  17 Orchard Road, Horsham
WARD:                  Horsham Park

APPLICATION:           DC/08/1246

APPLICANT:             Mr A Ruban


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                 Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION:                                 To grant planning permission


1.    THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

      To consider the planning application.

      DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   The application seeks permission for the erection of a 2.85m fence and raising of
      hedge to 2.85m. The top 900mm of the fence will consist of a privacy lattice trellis.

      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2    The application site is located within the built-up area and consists of a two storey
      detached property. There is a garage to the west of the main house and a large
      garden surrounds the house, mainly to the south. Predominantly, the boundaries
      are defined by close-boarded fencing, approximately 2 metres in height.

      PLANNING HISTORY

1.3   Conditional planning approval was granted for a two-storey side extension and
      dormer windows under planning reference DC/06/1306. A number of conditions
      were attached to this approval, but the most relevant condition for this application is
      condition 4 which states:



Contact:    Joanna Searle                                               Extension: 5075
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2



      “The existing hedgerows on the northern and eastern site boundaries shall be
      maintained and where necessary enhanced to a minimum height of 3.0 metres
      unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

      Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity and
      in accordance with policy ED2 of the Horsham district Local Plan 1997.”

      This condition was varied by a letter dated 17th August 2008, which stated that “the
      existing hedgerow on the northern boundary shall be maintained and where
      necessary enhanced to a height of 2.0 metres unless the Local Planning Authority
      gives written consent to any variation”


1.4   There is no other relevant planning history.


2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1
      and CP3.

2.4   The relevant policy of the Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies Submission Document is policy DC9.

2.5   The relevant policies of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 are LOC1 and
      DEV1.


3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   Arboricultural Officer raises no objection to the proposal, subject to the following
      comments:

      The gap between the most northerly part of the trunk and the neighbour’s fence
      was measured and the clearance is 450mm. Hence the fence, should it be
      positioned along the line in question, will fit past the beech without touching it.
      The applicant states in his supporting letter that the fence shall be of the “close
      board” type. However, the information sheets submitted indicate panels of 1.83m in
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3



      width. The applicant confirmed that the posts shall be made of wood, not concrete
      and shall be affixed to the ground using met posts. However, this information is not
      submitted with the application.

      The use of met posts will result in significantly less damage to the roots of the tree
      than would the digging of holes necessary to concrete the posts in the
      ground. However, this is in itself conditional upon the two met posts either side of
      the tree being set as far away from the trunk as possible. At 2m gaps, as proposed,
      each met post will only be 1m from the tree as a maximum. This appears too close,
      as large roots could be expected to be found in such close proximity to the tree. It is
      therefore suggested that the 'panel' to the rear of the beech tree is extended to a
      length of at least 3m, allowing the closest two met posts to be 1.5m away. Bracing
      support will be required to achieve this, given that the panels appear to be 2m
      width. Perhaps it would be easier to make the gap 4m, bracing across the two
      contiguous panels accordingly; this would of course allow the closest met posts to
      be set 2m from the tree.

      No affixing of the fence to the tree should be permitted.

      If met posts are used, the fence can easily be erected without causing any damage
      to the beech tree, provided the met posts are placed no closer to the tree than 1.5
      metres, as suggested. No works to the beech tree are required or should be
      permitted.

      The erection of the fence will not cause any serious harm to the existing hedge.


      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2   Forest Neighbourhood Council has no objection to the application.

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3   One letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of 7 Leonard Way on
      the following grounds:

      The boundary is currently defined by a hedge and a close-boarded fence. Land
      Registry information, suggests that the hedge on the boundary may be in the
      ownership of 7 Leonard Way, but this remains unresolved. The erection of the
      fence would potentially lie on land which is owned by 7 Leonard’s Way and
      therefore the owners of 7 Leonard Way object to the positioning of the fence.

      If the scale plan is accurate, the proposed fence will be hard up against/possibly
      running through the trunk of the TPO English Beech. At the western end of the
      boundary, the hedge would also have be cut back to put in the proposed fence.
      The hedge is protected by condition under planning application DC/06/1306.

      The fence and hedge is proposed to overcome a situation between the applicant
      and the owners of 7 Leonard Way and the application should be seen as
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4



      inappropriate and vexatious and the District Council should not be drawn into a
      matter which is not their responsibility.

      Need to consider the overall impact of the recent development at 17 Orchard Road.
      The overshadowing impact of this development on our Southern border was meant
      to be mitigated by restricting the height of the hedge.

3.4   No other representations or consultation responses have been received.

4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

      Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
      application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.


5.    HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

      It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising
      from this application.

6.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   This application consists of a fence to measure approximately 2.85 metres. The
      fence is to be a close-boarded fence with the top 900mm of this height to consist of
      a privacy lattice trellis. Further, the applicant seeks to raise the hedge on the
      northern boundary to 2.85 metres. The hedge forms part of this application,
      following condition 4 attached to DC/06/1306, which, as outlined above, sought
      originally to maintain the hedge at a minimum height of 3 metres. This was
      subsequently varied by a letter dated 17.8.06, which outlined that the existing
      hedgerow should be maintained and enhanced to a height of 2.0 metres. Planning
      permission is therefore needed to maintain the hedge at 2.85 metres.

6.2   It is not considered the fence and hedge at this height would cause unacceptable
      harm to the amenity of the neighbouring property, 7 Leonard Way, through
      overshadowing. The applicant is able to erect a 2 metre fence in this location which
      would be permitted development.            Therefore the proposal is only 0.85 metres
      higher than what is allowed under permitted development – and this height will
      consist of privacy lattice trellis. Further, Orchard Road slopes downhill from north to
      south. Consequently, 17 Orchard Way sits on lower land than the property
      neighbouring the northern boundary (7 Leonard Way) and as such, it is considered
      that the impact of the fence and hedge on 7 Leonard Way would be less than if the
      topography of the site was flat. Furthermore, it should be noted that the existing
      cattery building on the neighbouring site, which lies immediately adjacent to the
      house at 7 Leonard’s Way, appears to be of a similar height to the proposed fence
      and hedge. These buildings would reduce the impact of the proposal in the area
      immediately adjacent to the house at 7 Leonards Way. However, even if these
      buildings did not exist, it is not believed that this proposal would cause
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5



      unacceptable harm to the amenity of the neighbouring property by way of
      overshadowing.

6.3   It should also be noted that originally condition 4 attached to DC/06/1306 requested
      that the hedgerow be maintained to a minimum height of 3 metres. The current
      application seeks a maximum height of 2.85 metres, which is lower than the hedge
      height originally approved. It has been noted that the hedge condition has since
      been varied to a maximum height of 2 metre, but it should also be noted that this
      variation was sought at the applicant’s request.

6.4   The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has visited the site and his comments are noted
      above. It is considered that any concerns raised by the Arboricultural Officer
      regarding the erection of the fence can be resolved by attaching a condition
      requesting that further details are submitted prior to the fence being erected. This
      should ensure adequate protection for the TPO tree.

6.5   The neighbours have raised concerns regarding land ownership issues – the
      applicant has signed Certificate A confirming his ownership and therefore any
      further dispute would be a private matter. Further, whereas the comments of the
      objector have been noted, the applicant is within his rights to submit a planning
      application for this proposal and the Local Planning Authority is therefore in a
      position to decide it accordingly.

6.6   Whereas a fence of this height would not normally be encouraged by the Local
      Planning Authority, there is not considered to be any reason to refuse this
      application. It is not considered that unacceptable adverse harm would be caused
      to the neighbouring property through overshadowing, and the fence can not be
      viewed from the road, therefore it is not considered to adversely affect the character
      of the street scene. In these circumstances, it is recommended that planning
      permission be granted for this proposal.

7.     RECOMMENDATION

7.1    It is recommended that planning permission be granted and to include the following
       conditions:

       01    A2     Full Permission
       02    No development shall be commenced unless and until details relating to the
             construction of the proposed fence have been submitted to and approved by
             the Local Planning Authority in writing. The proposed fence shall then be
             constructed in line with the approved details.
             Reason:         In order to safeguard the TPO tree located in the rear garden
                             of 17 Orchard Road.
      03     No development shall be commence unless and until details relating to the
             protection of the TPO Beech Tree have been submitted to and approved by
             the Local Planning Authority in writing. The protection measures shall then
             be implemented during the construction of the fence.
             Reason:        In order to safeguard the TPO tree located in the rear garden
                            of 17 Orchard Road.
                                                                    APPENDIX A/ 7 - 6




8.   REASONS

      ICAB2      The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring
                 occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.



Background Papers:            DC/08/1246
Contact Officer:              Joanna Searle
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1




abcd
                                                DEVELOPMENT
                                                CONTROL REPORT
TO:                      Development Control Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:             Proposed Single Storey Rear and Side Extensions including
                         Detached Garage
SITE:                    40 Highlands Road, Horsham
WARD:                    Horsham Park

APPLICATION:             DC/08/0959

APPLICANT:               Mr P Voice


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION:                                To grant planning permission


1.    THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

      To consider the planning application.

      DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   The application seeks permission for a single storey side and rear extension and
      detached garage.

      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2   The application site is located on Highlands Road within the built up area boundary
      of Horsham. The area is characterised by semi-detached and detached dwellings
      situated on rectangular shaped plots. The property has a relatively large rear
      garden.

      PLANNING HISTORY

      DC/06/2669 Application withdrawn for single storey rear and side extensions on
      19/12/2006

      DC/07/1024 Planning Permission refused for single storey extension on
      15/08/2007



Contact:    David Taylor                                              Extension: 5166
                                                                       APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2



1.3   There is no other relevant planning history.

2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1
      and CP3.

2.4   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies Document are DC3 and DC9.

2.5   The relevant policies of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 are LOC1,
      DEV1 and CH1.

3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   No internal consultations have been received.

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2   No outside agency consultations have been received.

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

      Three letters of objections have been received from the occupiers of No’s 42, 44
      and 46 Highlands Road on the following grounds:

             The proposal has failed to overcome previous refusal reasons
             The wall adjoining the boundary line is of the same length as the previous
              application
             More overbearing than the previous application
             Inappropriate scale, form,height, mass and close proximity to the boundary
              of the proposed development
             The size of the extension would appear obtrusive and clearly overpower the
              original building
             Loss of light, outlook and overshadowing
             Moving the proposal 1.2m from the boundary is not deemed to be a suitable
              distance to allow sufficient light to filter into the adjoining property
             Pitch of the roof has increased
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3



            Increased footprint

      One letter of support has been received from the occupiers of 38a Highlands Road
      – No objection to siting of the garage, would prefer if roof was flat instead of
      pitched. The property is in urgent need of modernisation which can only improve
      the aesthetics of this part of the road.

3.3   No other representations or consultation responses have been received.

4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

      Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
      application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.


5.    HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

      It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising
      from this application.

6.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the
      impact of the proposal on the amenities of adjacent occupiers and its effect on the
      visual amenities and character of the locality.

6.2   The proposed single storey rear extension would project out of the existing rear
      elevation by 4.5m, would measure 3.2m in width and would have a ridge height of
      4.1m. The proposed side extension would be set back 6.4m from the front building
      line of the property. It would measure a maximum width of 3.1m, 5.3m in depth and
      have a maximum height of 3.3m. The detached garage would be located to the
      south west of the existing dwelling and would measure 3.2m in width, 6.1m in depth
      and would have a ridge height of 4.1m.

6.3   A previous application on the site for a single storey rear extension (DC/07/1024)
      was refused due to overbearing impact on the adjoining occupier at No. 42
      Highlands Road. In an attempt to overcome this, the rear extension has been set
      1.2m away from the eastern boundary and the roofslope pitches away from that
      boundary. The proposed extension would project approximately 1m further to the
      rear than the conservatory of the adjoining property. There are no windows
      proposed on the eastern elevation of the extension and would therefore be no
      concerns regarding loss of privacy for the adjoining occupier.

6.4   The proposed extension would be located to the west side of No. 42 Highlands
      Road. Although there will be a degree of light loss to the adjoining property caused
      by the current proposal it is considered that the harm is not so significant to justify a
      refusal of planning permission in this case in terms of loss of light. Concern has
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4



      been expressed that the proposed extension would appear overbearing from the
      adjacent conservatory extension. Currently views from the clear glazed side
      elevation are over the existing boundary to open skyline. The proposed extension
      would partly close off this view of sky and replace it with a single storey brick wall
      and pitched roof sloping away from the boundary. It is however noted that the brick
      wall would only exceed the height of the 2m boundary fence by approximately
      0.5m.

6.5   The proposal also involves the construction of a relatively small side extension to
      provide an extended kitchen area. The side extension is sited on the western side
      of the dwelling and is set well back from the front building line of the property. The
      proposed side extension appears subservient to the main dwelling and would not
      adversely affect the amenities of adjoining occupiers or have a negative impact on
      the street scene. The rear garden of the property is quite large and a distance of
      approximately 18m would be retained to the rear boundary of the site. It is
      therefore considered that the plot can easily absorb an extension of this scale.

6.6   The proposed detached garage would be located adjacent to the western boundary
      of the site. The garage has been sited approximately 14m from the front boundary
      of the site and would therefore have a minimal impact on the street scene and the
      character of the locality. The adjoining property (No.38a Highlands Road) has a
      single storey flat roofed extension with no windows in the side elevation. It is
      considered that the proposed garage by reason of its size, scale and position would
      not cause material harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers.

6.7   In conclusion, the proposed rear extension on the premises is single storey in
      nature and by reason of its size and position should, it is considered, not cause
      such material harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers or harm the visual
      amenities/character of the area to warrant refusal of the application. It is
      acknowledged that the outlook from the adjacent conservatory will be affected, your
      officers consider this impact to be, on balance, acceptable in this case and
      members will need to consider this aspect of the proposal in particular in coming to
      a conclusion on the merits of the proposal. It is considered that the proposed
      detached garage by reason of its size, scale and position would not cause material
      harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers or adversely affect the visual
      amenities/character of the area and complies with the aims of the Local
      Development Framework.

7.    RECOMMENDATION

7.1   It is recommended that planning permission be granted and to include the following
      conditions:
      01       A2  Full Permission
      02       M4  Matching Materials
      03       D5  No Windows…East Elevation

8.    REASONS

      IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
                                                                      APPENDIX A/ 8 - 5



     ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring
           occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.



Background Papers:             DC/08/0959
Contact Officer:               David Taylor
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1




abcd
                                                DEVELOPMENT
                                                CONTROL REPORT

TO:                     Development Control Committee North

BY:                     Head of Development

DATE:                   5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:            Single storey rear extension and conversion of garage to
                        passageway/utility room and cloakroom

SITE:                   5 Farm Avenue, Horsham

WARD:                   Trafalgar

APPLICATION:            DC/08/1215

APPLICANT:              Mr M Merry

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                 Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION:                 To grant planning permission.

1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   The application seeks permission for a single storey rear extension to the existing
      property and conversion of the existing single rear garage to form a
      passageway/utility and cloakroom.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2   The site comprises a semi-detached two-storey property with a single semi-
      detached garage set back from the rear elevation of the main house. The site is
      located on the west side of Farm Avenue in the Built up Area of Horsham, with
      ground levels gradually rising from east to west across the site.

1.3   The area is characterised by two-storey residential properties with similar design
      characteristics, in particular the shared vehicular access leading to single garages
      to the rear of the property.

1.4   Many of the properties on both sides of the road have undergone improvements
      resulting in single and two-storey side and rear extensions. In particular No 3 to the
      south has a similar rear extension to that proposed and No 11 to the north has a

Contact:       Pauline Ollive                                     Extension: 5424
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2

      two storey rear extension to the rear. The rear gardens of the properties are
      bounded by differing height wooden fences or hedges. The common boundary
      between the application site and No 5 to the north is a low brick wall projecting from
      the rear elevation of the house for approximately 2.6 metres with a low panel fence
      extending the remainder of the rear garden. This enables mutual overlooking the
      adjoining gardens.

      PLANNING HISTORY

1.6   DC/08/0560 - Single storey rear extension and conversion of garage to
      passageway/utility room and cloakroom – Refused 16/05/2008

2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1    Town and Country Planning Act 1990

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2    PPS1.

       RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the LDF Core Strategy are CP1 & CP3.

2.4   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies is policy DC9

2.5   The relevant policies of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 are LOC1,
      DEV1 and CH1.

3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1   Trafalgar Neighbourhood Council – No comments received

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2   Four letters of objection have been received from No. 5 Farm Avenue, relating to:

            Height and overall length
            Overshadowing and loss of light

3.3   No 3 Farm Avenue has written in - in support of the application

3.4   No other representations or consultation responses have been received
                                                                               APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3

4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

4.1   Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this
      application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.

5.     HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1   It is not considered that the proposal gives rise to any crime and disorder
      implications.

6.     PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   The main issues include the principle of the residential development in this location,
      the impact on the character of the area, the visual amenities of the streetscene and
      the impact on the residential amenities of nearby occupants.

6.2   The site lies within the defined built up area of Horsham and is located on the west
      side of Farm Avenue. Here the properties are two-storey 1930’s inter war
      residential dwellings with similar design characteristics that are further
      characterised by shared vehicular access leading to single garages to the rear of
      the properties. Many of the properties have undergone single and two-storey
      extensions to provide further habitable living space.

6.3   The application is for a single storey extension to the rear of the main dwelling that
      would link with the existing single storey garage. It is proposed to change the use of
      the existing garage to form a utility room and passageway. The extension would
      provide an enlarged kitchen, and dining room. Currently the rear garden is
      accessed by way of a gate located between the rear wall of the house and the front
      elevation of the garage. However, it is proposed to alter this arrangement and to
      instead provide access to the rear garden by way of the proposed passageway that
      would be confined within the existing garage structure.

6.4   Overall the proposed extension has a lean to pitched roof with 2 roof lights
      proposed in the west facing roof slope. The proposed extension measures 3.5
      metres in depth to 4.5 metres and spans a width of 5.2 metres, joining the proposed
      kitchen and dining room to the existing garage. This will create a large “L” shaped
      extension to the rear. The proposed extension will be constructed using matching
      materials that would compliment the existing dwelling.

6.5   The current application is a re-submission of a previous application for a similar
      single storey rear extension that was refused planning permission under
      DC/08/0560 due to; “The proposed single storey rear extension by reason of its size, and
      being situated on the common boundary with the adjoining dwelling and in close proximity
      to the main living room window would be detrimental to the amenities at present enjoyed by
      the occupiers of that dwelling resulting in an unacceptable loss of light and overshadowing”.
                                                                               APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4

6.6   In view of the previous reasons for refusal, the main considerations with this current
      application are the design of the proposed extension and the impact of the proposal
      on the adjoining neighbour. The previous application proposed a rear extension that
      would project 4.5 metres from the rear elevation of the house into the rear garden.
      This was contrary to the Councils Design Guidance Leaflet No.1 House Extensions
      and Councils Local Development Framework policies that indicate the depth of
      single storey rear extensions to 3metres are normally acceptable dependant on
      particular circumstances and whether there would be an adverse impact on its
      surroundings and neighbour amenity.

6.7   Turning to the impact of the proposal on the adjoining semi, and the concerns that
      have been raised by the neighbour relating to the size of the proposal and the loss
      of light that would occur to a habitable room. It is acknowledged that there would be
      a degree of change in the relationship with the adjoining neighbours at No 7 (the
      other half of the semi). However, in the design and access statement submitted with
      the application it states that: “Due to the proximity of the adjoining properties, No 7, rear
      lounge window, which is approximately 650mm from the boundary, their 45 degree
      horizontal site line will be impeded, however their vertical 45 degree site line will not be
      affected”. “We would add that this would also be the case if the existing boundary wall or
      fencing was increased in height to 2000mm”.

6.8   From the previous refusal the depth of the extension has been reduced to 3.5
      metres. It is considered that the proposal now will only have a limited impact to the
      neighbours outlook and amenities.

6.9   In conclusion it is considered that the proposal will not materially affect the character
       of the existing house, or adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring
       occupiers, or the visual amenities of the streetscene and is therefore considered
       acceptable.

7.    RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1   It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following
      conditions:

              1)     A2     Full Permission

              2)    M4      Matching Materials

      REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

      ICAB2         The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring
                    occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

      IDP            The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development
                     plan.



Background Papers:           DC/07/1760
Contact Officer:             Pauline Ollive
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1




abcd
                                                 DEVELOPMENT
                                                 CONTROL REPORT
TO:                      Development Control Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:             Three storey rear extension, detached two bay green oak framed
                         garage and a detached garden store

SITE:                    The Water Tower, Guildford Road, Rudgwick

WARD:                    Rudgwick

APPLICATION:             DC/08/1247

APPLICANT:               Mr D Kingston


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                  Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION:             To grant planning permission


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1     The application seeks planning permission to erect a three storey extension to the
        south west side of the tower constructed in matching materials under a mono-
        pitched tiled roof.

1.2     The application also includes a two bay traditional garage under a clay tiled roof,
        which is to be sited to the north of the main dwelling with vehicular access gained
        via the adjacent trackway which leads to Bowcroft Lane.

1.3     The proposed garden store is to be sited within the domestic curtilage and adjacent
        to the trackway leading to the main A281. The store is proposed to be constructed
        in weatherboarding under a clay tile pitched roof.




Contact:      Peter Harwood                                       Extension:    5167
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2



      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4   The application site is located some 400m to the east of the defined built-up area of
      Rudgwick. The total area of the application site is approximately 0.32 ha (0.8
      acres) which is mainly laid to lawn with a row of mature Oak trees situated adjacent
      to the north-south boundary with Swaynes. The main property on the site
      represents the residential conversion of the "water tower" which was granted
      planning permission in 1994.

      PLANNING HISTORY

1.5   RW/75/94 - Conversion of water tower to dwellinghouse - permitted
      RW/44/95 - Erection of conservatory - permitted
      DC/08/0792 - Erection of a single storey side extension, single storey porch and
      three storey rear extension and detached two bay garage and garden store -
      application withdrawn prior to determination of the application.

2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1
      and CP3.

2.4   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies are DC9 and DC28.

2.5   The relevant policies of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 are LOC1,
      DEV1 and CH1.

3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1   The Rudgwick Parish Council supports the application.

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2   The Rudgwick Preservation Society have raised no objection to the garage and
      shed however make a general observation that no trees should be removed to
      facilitate this development and that "the 1995 conversion of the water tower
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3



      provided a small cramped dwelling and it was hoped that the character and setting
      of the building would not be compromised in the future."

3.3   A letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of the adjacent property
      on the following grounds:

         The infilling of the "gap" would remove the important perspective of the original
          tower construction
         Serious detrimental impact on the appearance and character of the tall, slender
          structure
         Proposal contrary to the aims of countryside protection policies contained within
          the Development Plan
         Major adverse effect upon the historic character and appearance of Swaynes
          and its setting
         Scale, form, height and close proximity to adjacent property, represents a form
          of over-development which is overbearing
         Scale, massing and appearance of the development fails to relate
          sympathetically to its setting
         Personal needs of the applicant are not significant to justify a permission
         Possible adverse impact on adjacent tree(s)

4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

      Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
      application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.

5.    HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

      It is not considered that the proposal gives rise to any crime and disorder
      implications.

6.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   The main issues include the principle of development, the effect on the visual
      amenities and character of the area and the impact on neighbouring occupiers'
      amenities.

6.2   This property was the subject of a residential conversion in 1994 and was approved
      as an exception to normal countryside protection policies under the Barns/Rural
      Buildings Conversion Policy within the Development Plan. Conditions were
      imposed restricting the permitted development rights of any future occupiers.

6.3   The proposed extension, although three storeys in height, is relatively modest in
      size in that the footprint is 2m x 2.4m and represents a small percentage increase
      over the existing floor area of the property. Although the extension fills the gap on
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4



      the west elevation, it is considered that its form, under a mono-pitched tile roof,
      represents an acceptable incremental addition to this property which does not
      detract from its scale and character, as a converted water tower, to a significant
      degree to justify a refusal of planning permission in this case.

6.4   The proposed extension is on the west side of the dwelling adjacent to the common
      boundary with Swaynes. The substantial detached dwelling at Swaynes is situated
      on a large plot and is some 80m away from "The Water Tower". Due to the
      extension's position, height and form, (which is situated at a lower height than the
      existing ridge), it is not considered to cause any material harm to the residential
      amenities of the occupiers at Swaynes. There is also a row of mature Oak trees
      along the common boundary between the two properties, which should soften any
      impact the extension may have when viewed from the adjacent occupiers to the
      west.

6.5   Although there are no Tree Preservation Orders on this site, the Council's Tree
      Officer has been consulted due to the close proximity of mature trees to both the
      existing and proposed addition. Although individual trees have limited amenity
      value in this rural location, details of his report will be made available at the
      meeting.

6.6   The proposal also includes the provision of a low profile timber framed two bay car
      port/garage under a clay tiled roof (3.8m high to ridge). Vehicular access is gained
      off the existing driveway. Also a garden store (3.8m x 4.5m x 3.5m in height) is
      proposed situated in the "front" garden behind a mature hedge. These two
      structures are also considered acceptable and by reason of their size, siting and
      design should not detract from the visual amenities and character of the area or
      cause material harm to nearby residential amenities.

6.7   In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed additions are appropriate in terms
      of size and mass and represent an acceptable form of development which does not
      compromise the aims of policies within the Local Development Framework to a
      significant degree and do not cause material harm to the amenities of nearby
      residents or detract from the visual amenities and character of this rural location.

7.    RECOMMENDATION

7.1   It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following
      conditions:

      01     A2     Full Permission
      02     M1     Materials

      03     Before development is commenced, precise details of the design for the
             foundations of the extension and also for the west wall of the detached
             garage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
             and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details.
                                                                    APPENDIX A/ 10 - 5




           Reason:       In order to minimise damage to the root system of the nearby
                         Oak trees in the interests of amenity and to accord with the
                         aims of Policy DC6 of the Local Development Framework
                         General Development Control Policies 2007.

8.   REASONS

     ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring
           occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

     IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.




Background Papers:       DC/08/1247
Contact Officer:         Peter Harwood, ext 5167



WK1/DC081247/46
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 11 - 1




abcd
                                                  DEVELOPMENT
                                                  CONTROL REPORT
TO:                      Development Control Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:             A two storey side extension to the existing dwelling which will
                         include a rear dormer projection, 2 x roof lights and an escape
                         window. A new access point to Trundle mead is also proposed.
SITE:                    15 Trundle Mead, Horsham

WARD:                    Holbrook West

APPLICATION:             DC/08/1176

APPLICANT:               Mr Keith Stanton


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                   Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION:              To grant planning permission subject to conditions


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1     This application seeks full permission for the construction of a two storey side
        extension. The proposal will provide additional internal space for a new bedroom
        and two new showers at ground floor level and a new master bedroom and en-suite
        at first floor level. Minor alteration to the existing layout would also be undertaken.
        The existing conservatory is to be demolished in order to accommodate the
        proposed building footprint. A flat roof rear dormer projection is proposed on the
        rear roof slope of the extension to provide internal space for the en-suite, with a fire
        escape window adjacent. Two roof lights are proposed on the front roof slope of the
        extension, in order to provide light to the master bedroom. The scheme also
        includes a new access point onto Trundle Mead.

1.2     The current proposal represents a revised scheme from a previous application (ref:
        DC/08/0535) which was withdrawn prior to determination. The applicant has since
        undertaken discussions with Officers in order to devise a more modest extension.




Contact: Jamie Forsman                                                 Extension:       5528
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 11 - 2



1.3   The applicant has made several further modest amendments to the design during
      the application process in order to address outstanding planning concerns.

      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4   The application site is located within the built up area boundary of Horsham and is
      occupied by a detached two storey dwelling. A hip to gable end projects from the
      front elevation with the buildings remaining bulk extending along the right flank.
      There is an existing small flat roof dormer projection in the rear roof elevation, and
      an existing conservatory attached to the dwellings left flank elevation.

1.5   The immediate residential area to the east of the site is characterised by modest
      sized hip and pitch roof bungalows. There is a uniform building line along both
      sides of the street with relatively generous front garden setbacks, which give the
      area a distinct pattern of residential development.

2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   Polices CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham Core Strategy (2007) are
      considered relevant to this application

2.4   Policies DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework –
      General Development Control Policies (2007) are considered relevant to this
      application.

      PLANNING HISTORY

2.6   The following applications are relevant:

Reference    Dec Date    Decision      Proposal
DC/04/0925 05-JUL-       Permitted     2-Storey side extension (linking garage to
           2004                        dwelling)
DC/08/0535 07-MAR-       Withdrawn Single storey extension with dormer
           2008                        extension forming rooms in roof space

3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 11 - 3



3.1   No internal consultations undertaken

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3   Denne Neighbourhood Council has objected to the proposal as it would result in
      overdevelopment of the site.

3.4   The West Sussex Highways Authority has raised no objection subject to the
      imposition of conditions.

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5   Three neighbouring residents have objected to the proposal, and have raised the
      following concerns:
           The proposal would result in piecemeal development, which would be
             detrimental to the established residential character of the neighbourhood.
           The extension would not be in keeping with the existing dwelling and would
             detract from the visual enmity of the street scene
           Additional dormer and side elevation windows would be detrimental to the
             established levels of privacy of neighbouring occupants.

4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

      Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
      application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.

5.    HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

      It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising
      from this application.

6.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   It is considered that the principle issues in the determination of the application are
      the principle of development, the impact upon the neighbourhood character and
      visual amenities of the streetscene, the impact upon the amenities of neighbouring
      occupiers and the impact upon the local highway network.

6.2   The site is situated within the built up area of Horsham a category 1 settlement,
      whereby the undertaking of residential extensions is acceptable in principle
      provided that proposals satisfy relevant adopted policies.

6.3   The side extension would extend approximately 5.7 meters from the dwellings left
      flank (as measured from the eaves) and would have a roof ridge height of 6.2
      metres which is 300mm below the existing roof ridge.
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 11 - 4



6.4   The two storey side extension would replicate the dwellings existing right wing, and
      will result in a more symmetrical built form when the viewed from the public
      vantage. The utilisation of sympathetic design elements and a hip to gable roof
      form are considered to be in keeping with the existing architectural vernacular and
      further promote a high degree of integration with the existing building. The
      extension respects the established building line, ensuring the additional bulk will not
      dominate the street scene. There are examples of dwellings of a similar size and
      scale along Trundlemead and it is concluded the proposal would relate
      sympathetically with the built surrounds in terms of its massing and appearance. It
      would not noticeably detract from the visual amenities of the streetscene nor would
      it compromise the character of the neighbourhood and is considered to satisfy
      polices CP1, CP3 and DC9 in this regard.

6.5   The footprint of the extension would not encroach upon the rear garden area and
      the occupants would maintain spacious outdoor amenity areas. There would be
      sufficient corridors of open space between the dwelling and neighbouring boundary
      lines, and no encroachment beyond the established front building line. It is
      considered that the site would not appear overdeveloped for these reasons.

6.6   The rear dormer projection has been reduced in size after negotiations with the
      applicant. While larger than the existing dormer it is sympathetically positioned
      within the roof slope and of a flat roof design ensuring a degree of balance when
      viewing the rear elevation.

6.6   The bulk of the extension is sufficiently distanced from neighbouring properties,
      avoiding overbearing impacts and overshadowing. The proposed side elevation
      faces the side elevation of 11 Trundle Mead which is a blank façade. Neighbours
      have raised concerns over loss of privacy resulting from additional windows. The
      plans show fixed pane obscure glazing on the first floor, side elevation and rear
      elevation windows, and this could be further controlled through the imposition of
      planning conditions. The rooflights would be orientated towards the street, which is
      common in a residential environment.

6.7   The West Sussex Highways Department have commented on the proposal and
      raised no objections subject to conditions which require the provision of pedestrian
      visibility splays on the new vehicle crossover. In light of these comments the
      proposal is not considered to compromise pedestrian or highway safety and
      complies with policies DC9, DC40 and CP19 in this regard.

7.    RECOMMENDATION

7.1   It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following
      conditions:

      01     A2     Full Permission

      02     M1     Approval of materials

      03    D4      Obscured Glass
                                                                APPENDIX A/ 11 - 5



          The first floor window to the south elevation and the proposed rear
          dormer window shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass
          precise details of which, together with details of any opening, shall be
          submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing
          before installation. The approved glass and any agreed opening
          details shall be maintained at all times.
          Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjoining property and in
          accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control
          Policies (2007).

04   D5   No windows
          Not withstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
          (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or
          revoking and re-enacting the same, no windows or other openings
          (other than those shown on the plans hereby approved) shall be
          formed in the first floor side and rear elevation of the development
          without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority pursuant
          to an application for the purpose.
          Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjoining property and in
          accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control
          Policies (2007).


05        No development shall be commenced until visibility splays of 2.4
          metres by 43 metres have been provided at the centre of the
          proposed site vehicular access onto Trundle Mead. These visibility
          splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions over a height of
          0.6 metres above adjoining carriageway level.
          Reason – In the interests of road safety.

06        No development shall be commenced until pedestrian visibility splays
          of 2 metres by 2 metres have been provided either side of the
          proposed site vehicular access onto Trundle Mead. These visibility
          splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions over a height of
          0.6 metres above adjoining carriageway level.
          Reason – In the interests of road safety.

          INFORMATIVE

          The applicant is advised to contact the Area Engineer, West Sussex
          County Council, Worthing Road, Broadbridge Heath, Horsham, RH12
          3LZ, Tel No: 01403 223900 to obtain formal approval from the
          highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public
          highway.
                                                                    APPENDIX A/ 11 - 6



8.   REASONS


     ICAB2 -     The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring
                 occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.


Background Papers:     DC/08/1176
Contact Officer:       Jamie Forsman
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 12 - 1




abcd
                                                DEVELOPMENT
                                                CONTROL REPORT

TO:                     Development Control Committee North

BY:                     Head of Development

DATE:                   5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:            Minor variations to approved planning permission DC/06/0719 for
                        2-storey front and single-storey front and single-storey rear
                        extensions

SITE:                   Ballyfeard, Pondtail Drive, Horsham

WARD:                   Holbrook West

APPLICATION:            DC/08/1459

APPLICANT:              Mr Andrew Wibling

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                 Councillor Referral : Councillor B Walters

RECOMMENDATION:                 To grant planning permission.

1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   The application seeks permission to erect a two-storey, single storey front extension
      and single storey rear extension to the existing dwelling.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2   Ballyfeard is a two storey 1960’s detached brick built house under a pitched tiled
      roof. Originally the roof sloped down to eaves level above the ground floor over the
      projecting garage and front door. With a dormer window situated above with vertical
      tile hanging on part of the first floor elevation. This part of the dwelling has now
      been removed as part of the construction work to provide a two-storey and single
      storey front extension approved under DC/06/0719.

1.3   The surrounding properties are a mix of styles and periods and are set out at a low
      density, although the properties along this part of Pondtail Drive are set within close
      proximity of each other.



Contact:       Pauline Ollive                                       Extension: 5424
                                                                       APPENDIX A/ 12 - 2


      PLANNING HISTORY

1.3   NH/39/95 – Provision of pitched roof over existing dormer window – Permitted
      DC/05/0716 – Single storey rear and two storey front extensions – Withdrawn
      DC/06/0719 – Two storey front, single storey front and single storey rear extension
      - Permitted

2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the LDF Core Strategy are CP1 & CP3.

2.4   DC9 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies
      Document 2007.

2.5   The relevant policies of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 are LOC1,
      DEV1 and CH1.

3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1   Denne Neighbourhood Council have no objections

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2   At the time of this report going to print no formal comments have been received
      from adjoining occupiers.

3.3   No other representations or consultation responses have been received

4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

4.1    Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this
      application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 12 - 3

5.     HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1   It is not considered that the proposal gives rise to any crime and disorder
      implications.

6.     PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   The main issues include the principle of development, the effect on the visual
      amenities and character of the area and the impact on neighbouring occupier’s
      amenities.

6.2   The proposal is for a two storey front and single storey front extension and single
      storey rear extension. The proposal site had undergone a significant amount of
      construction work under permission DC/06/0719, when it was identified by the
      Councils Planning Enforcement Officer that there were some discrepancies with
      what has been constructed so far, to what has been approved.

6.3   The extent of these discrepancies amounts to the installation of a small bathroom
      window at first floor level on the east elevation of the new part of the building and
      that two windows at ground floor level on the east flank wall of the existing building
      are still present although these are to be removed once the proposed rear
      extension has been built.

6.4   The applicant has advised that there was an error when the plans were drawn up
      that was overlooked prior to the submission of the application, as a window was
      shown on the original application DC/05/0716 (this was withdrawn as the proposal,
      for a larger two storey front extension was likely to be refused due to concerns over
      the bulk of the first floor extension), and was not put on the subsequent 2006
      drawings. However, the window was shown on the Building Regulations Application
      and therefore has been installed in compliance with these drawings.

6.5   Therefore the current application seeks to regularize this matter and also to seek
      approval for further alterations to the approved plans to show a slight variation to
      the roof slope of the single storey front extension and to install full length doors
      instead of a window/door combination on the single storey rear extension.

6.6   The main issue raised in connection with the application is the introduction at first
      floor level in the east elevation of a small bathroom window. The introduction by a
      further window does, in the neighbours view result in a loss of privacy to both a
      ground floor window and a first floor bedroom window of their property. A ground
      floor window of this property faces the application site and serves the dwellinghouse
      as a family study room.

6.7   While it is acknowledged that this window faces the neighbours property, it is
      however a small window serving a bathroom and is currently fitted with obscure
      glass and has a small top opening. As a result of the concerns that have been
      raised in connection with this window a condition could be imposed to prevent any
      other form of glazing in the interests of neighbourliness and to protect their
      residential amenities from any overlooking. It should be noted that the window in
      question is also located above a W.C and therefore would be difficult to obtain any
      views of the neighbouring property. It is therefore considered that the window is
      acceptable.
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 12 - 4


6.8   The proposal to alter the roof of the single storey front extension and the window
       combination at ground floor level of the single storey rear extension are considered
       to be minor variations and as such would not be detrimental to the local area, visual
       amenities of the streetscene, or detrimental to neighbour amenity. The proposal is
       therefore recommended for approval.

6.8   It is considered that there would be limited change in the relationship between the
       two properties as a result of the proposed alterations and therefore will not
       materially affect the character of the existing house, the amenities of neighbouring
       occupiers, or the streetscene and is therefore considered acceptable.

7.    RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1   It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following
      conditions:

              1)    A2       Full Permission

              2)     M4      Matching Materials

              3)     D4      Obscure Glass – First floor east elevation facing “Willows”

      REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

      ICAB2         The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring
                    occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

      IDP           The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development
                    plan.



Background Papers:           DC/08/1459

Contact Officer:             Pauline Ollive
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 13 - 1




abcd
                                                 DEVELOPMENT
                                                 CONTROL REPORT

TO:                     Development Control Committee North

BY:                     Head of Development

DATE:                   5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:            Proposed Garage for horsebox, storage and office

SITE:                   Garden Cottage, Bognor Road, Broadbridge Heath

WARD:                   Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

APPLICATION:            DC/08/0783

APPLICANT:              Mr Richard Case

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                 Agent request to speak; Angus Farquhar

RECOMMENDATION:                 To refuse planning permission.

1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   The application seeks permission to erect a large two storey building adjacent to an
      existing “L” shaped stable block, to house a motorised horsebox and to provide fodder
      and bedding storage in three further bays. There would also be a first floor level to
      provide for office space.

1.2   As originally submitted the building would have had a ridge height of approximately 5.6
      metres gabled at one end (east) of the building to house a motorised horsebox, with
      an external staircase leading to the first floor at the western end of the building.

1.3   The location plan shows the access to the site to be from the south that also provides
      access to residential properties to the south and west respectively. This access is
      currently used to access the existing stables and this is not planned to alter as a result
      of the new building.


1.4   Amended drawings have been submitted which show a reduction in height of 0.9m to
      the main body of the building but the gabled end remains the same at 5.6m. In all
      other respects the proposal remains the same as that originally submitted.


Contact:       Pauline Ollive                                      Extension: 5424
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 13 - 2

      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5   The site is located on the west side of the A29 Bognor Road in open countryside to
      the north-west of Horsham and comprises a Victorian lodge style cottage. To the north
      of the site is a contractor’s yard in the ownership of the applicant, and comprises; large
      industrial type buildings that house a garage business, plant hire business and the
      open storage of vehicles. The administration of these businesses is undertaken in the
      applicants own dwellinghouse.

1.6   To the south of these buildings and to the west of the main house and within the
      residential curtilage is a block of stables. The area of garden to the south of the main
      house is mainly laid to grass and is sectioned of by stock fences to form a small
      paddock and private garden area. This area can be accessed via a shared access with
      the residential properties to the west and south of the site. The land beyond these
      buildings to the north, west and south and also the land opposite the site to the east is
      open countryside in agricultural use. The area is typically characterised by small
      groups of buildings in open countryside. The site has some screening from wider
      views and the A29 by mature shrubs and trees. Land levels across the site rise
      gradually from east to west.

      PLANNING HISTORY

1.7   WN/15/73 – Retention and use of caravan – Refused
      WN/16/69 - Retention and use of caravan – Permitted
      WN/17/70 - Retention and use of caravan – Permitted
      WN/2/48 - Pair of agricultural worker's cottages – Permitted
      WN/32/67 - Pair of agricultural cottages (pt.05315) – Refused
      WN/33/67 - Cottage for nursery staff – Refused
      WN/41/85 - 2-storey extension to dwelling – Permitted
      WN/47/69 - Established use certificate for contractors plant hire yard – Permitted
      WN/8/68 - Caravan for farm worker – Permitted
      WN/46/92 - Retention of transport, contractors, haulage & storage yard – Permitted
      WN/37/94 - Erection of four stables and a hay store – Permitted
      WN/16/95 - Two storey side extension – Permitted
      WN/8/99 - Erection of 8 houses and garages and a garage for garden cottage –
      Refused and dismissed at appeal
      WN/11/02 - Extension to workshop - Pemitted

2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1    Town and Country Planning Act 1990

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2    PPS1.

       RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the LDF Core Strategy are CP1 & CP3.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 13 - 3

2.4   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies are DC1, DC2, DC9, DC29.

2.5   The relevant policies of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 are LOC1, DEV1
      and CH1.

3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1   Warnham Parish Council - has no objection to planning application DC/08/0783 -
      garage and store at Garden Cottage, Bognor Road subject to the office use of the first
      floor being in accordance with planning policy

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2   No other representations or consultation responses have been received

4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.1   Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this
      application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.

5.     HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1   It is not considered that the proposal gives rise to any crime and disorder implications.

6.     PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   The main issues include the principle of development, and whether the proposal is
      justified in this location and its effect on the visual amenities and character of the area
      and the impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupier’s.

6.2   Local Development Framework policy DC29 allows for equestrian development in the
      countryside provided that the development is sympathetic in the countryside
      landscape, relates well to the existing buildings and the scale of the development is
      appropriate for the site. It is accepted that the site has equestrian uses in addition to
      the owner’s existing and established commercial business to the north of the site.

6.3   The additional building would be sited adjacent to an existing single storey “L” shaped
      stable block that was permitted under WN/37/94 and is located to the south of the
      owners existing commercial buildings and commercial yard and southwest of the main
      dwellinghouse. To the west of the site are two residential properties known as 1 and 2
      Manor House Farm Cottages, Bognor Road and are the only neighbours likely to be
      affected by the proposal, with further residential properties to the south.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 13 - 4

6.4   It is appreciated that amendments have been made proposing a reduction in the height
       of at least part of the building and that the new building would be located adjacent to
       the existing stable block and therefore any further built development would not
       encroach further into the countryside. However, it is considered the proposal would still
       represent a large and incongruous building that would be at odds with the existing
       layout of the site.

6.5   The proposed horsebox and fodder/bedding storage would be a further ancillary
      building to the residential dwelling house “Garden Cottage” and although it is
      appreciated that the applicant wishes to extend the use of the existing buildings to
      provide further storage facilities, there remains some concern at the extent and scale
      of equestrian development proposed. It is understood from the submitted design and
      access statement that the existing office (in connection with the owner’s existing
      commercial business) would be transferred from its current location (the dwelling
      house) to the first floor of the proposed new building and it is difficult to understand
      how this use relates to the established equestrian uses that currently exist.

6.6   In particular very limited information has been given regarding the transfer of the
      administrative side of the commercial business from the main house into the stable
      block rather than exploring the possibility of confining it within the existing commercial
      setting and in the absence of this matter being clarified, it is considered that this
      element, of the proposal in itself would be contrary to DC29 in its entirety.

6.7   The proposed building would be set some approximately 38 metres back from the
      main road and although there is screening from trees along the front boundary with the
      A29 there are some limited views into the site from the wider area. The proposed
      building with a floor area of 67m2 and at 5.6 metres high at its highest point more than
      doubles the overall size of the existing stable buildings and is therefore by reason of its
      bulk and size is considered contrary to the aims of the countryside protection policies
      which strive to prevent unnecessary development, where buildings should blend
      sympathetically into the countryside.

6.8   While it is acknowledged that there could be a need for a further building for storage in
      connection with the equestrian use. It would be more appropriate if it were confined to
      a single storey building that reflects the size and appearance of the existing equestrian
      building. It is considered that a two storey building in this location is wholly
      inappropriate as it does not reflect the scale and level of the existing activity of
      personal use as stated in the submitted design and access statement.

6.9   Therefore, and in conclusion it is considered that the siting, massing and form of the
      building would be likely to increase the adverse visual impact of buildings within the
      countryside setting. And whilst there is some tree and hedge cover along the front
      boundary that would screen some wider views into the site, the building nonetheless
      would detract from and be detrimental to the rural character of the area and likely to be
      detrimental to the residential amenities of the nearby neighbouring properties resulting
      in a loss of their residential outlook.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 13 - 5

7.    RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1   It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

      The proposed horsebox/fodder-storage/office complex by virtue of its siting, massing,
      form and inappropriate office use would create an additional building in this
      countryside setting detrimental to the visual amenities and rural character of the area
      contrary to the aims of policy DC1, DC2, DC9, and DC29 of the General Development
      Control Policies Document 2007 and policies CP1 and CP3 of the Local Development
      Framework Core Strategy 2007.




Background Papers:          DC/08/0556

Contact Officer:            Pauline Ollive
                                                                       APPENDIX A/ 14 - 1




abcd
                                               DEVELOPMENT
                                               CONTROL REPORT
TO:                    Development Control Committee North

BY:                    Head of Development

DATE:                  5 August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:           The extension of two external canopies from existing classrooms
SITE:                  St Marys Church of England, Primary School, Denne Road.

WARD:                  Denne
APPLICATION:           DC/08/1333

APPLICANT:             The School Governors


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category 4 Development

RECOMMENDATION:           To delegate with a view to approval on expiry of re-consultation
                          with local residents.

1.    THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

      To consider the planning application

      DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   This application originally sought full planning permission for the erection of two
      canopies which were to extend from the existing classrooms and the construction
      of a cycle/scooter stand with associated hard surfacing.

1.2   It was apparent during the officer site visit that the cycle/scooter stand would be a
      contentious component of the application in terms of its impact upon adjoining
      neighbours and the character and appearance of the conservation area. For the
      sake of expediency the applicant has requested that this element of the proposal
      be omitted, and addressed at a latter date after further consultation with the Local
      Planning Authority.

1.3   Due to the amendments neighbouring residents have been re-notified. The
      consultation expiration date will lapse after the next committee meeting. The
      application is therefore for delegation

1.4   The proposed canopies would extend from the southern elevation of the existing
      building. The first canopy will project 2.8 metres from classroom 1, with a length of
      5.9 metres and a height of 2.9 metres sloping down to 2.4 metres at the eaves. The



Contact: Jamie Forsman                                            Extension:          5528
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 14 - 2



      second canopy will project 2.8 metres from classrooms 2 and 3, with a length of
      14.99 metres. The height of the canopy will be level with canopy 1.

      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5   The site is situated within the built up area boundary of Horsham and the Horsham
      Town Conservation Area. A large single storey building with a flat roof profile
      occupies the site and is currently used as an educational facility. There is an
      existing timber framed canopy with polycarbonate roofing extending from the
      buildings southern elevation. The existing field area to the rear of the building
      slopes down towards the boundary line with residential properties beyond.

1.6   The site is bounded by St Marys Church cemetery to the North East, and St Marys
      House to the North with the wider street scene displaying a high degree of built
      character set around the backdrop of St Marys Church. There are a number of
      residential properties adjoining the sites rear boundary.

2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   Polices CP1, CP3 and CP5 of the Horsham Core Strategy (2007) are considered
      relevant to this application

2.4   Policies DC9 and DC12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework –
      General Development Control Policies (2007) are considered relevant to this
      application.

      PLANNING HISTORY

2.6   The site has an extensive planning history the following application is considered
      relevant to this proposal.

      Reference  Dec Date        Decision      Proposal
      DC/06/1092 26/04/06        Permitted     Single storey extentiom

3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   No internal consultations undertaken
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 14 - 3



      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3   Denne Neighbourhood Council – no objections raised.

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5   One neighbouring resident has objected to the proposal, and has raised the
      following concerns:
           The prefabricated cycle/scooter stand would have a detrimental impact
             upon the appearance and character of the conservation area
           The location of the stand would result in conflict between pedestrians and
             cyclists and would compromise safety.
           The stand has the potential to harm an adjacent tree and compromise the
             integrity of the trees root zone
           The stand would be a target for vandals
           The canopies would promote overlooking into neighbouring gardens and
             result in a loss of privacy.
      (The cycle stand has been omitted from the proposal therefore the objections are
      no longer relevant. Impacts such as overlooking are addressed in the planning
      assessment.)

4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

      Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
      application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.

5.    HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

      It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising
      from this application.

6.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   It is considered that the principle issues in the determination of the application are
      the principle of development, the impact upon the character of the conservation
      area and visual amenities of the streetscene and the impact upon the amenities of
      neighbouring occupiers.

6.2   The site is situated within the built up area of Horsham a category 1 settlement, and
      the Horsham Town Conservation area whereby the undertaking of extensions is
      acceptable in principle provided that proposals satisfy relevant adopted policies.

6.3   The proposed canopies will project from the rear (southern) elevation over an
      existing patio area. They will not be visible from the street as they are screened by
      the bulk of the existing building. They would be set below the existing roof profile
      and would maintain an open appearance as they are not fully enclosed. For this
      reason it is considered the perceived bulk of the building would not be increased
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 14 - 4



      when viewed from neighbouring residential properties. Given the proposals relative
      concealment it is considered they would not erode the character of the conservation
      area or detract from the visual amenities of the street scene and accords with
      relevant policies in this regard.

6.4   The proposed canopies will match the existing timber frame canopy and the design
      is considered sympathetic to existing building. Planning conditions could require
      materials to match and to be approved in writing prior to their implementation.

6.5   The canopies will provide some shelter over the existing patio area however the
      proposal would not be anticipated to increase the capacity of the school and result
      in more pupils. The intensity of use on site will remain unchanged and no significant
      increase in the level of noise generated from the site would occur.

6.6   It is considered that the canopies would not result in any additional overlooking
      beyond the existing situation as the patio area is readily accessible from
      classrooms and utilised as a play area. There appears to be adequate boundary
      screening and windows on neighbouring properties to the southwest are generally
      orientated away from the site. In order to address neighbours concerns a planning
      condition requesting further landscaping adjacent the rear boundary line could be
      attached. The proposal will not compromise the amenities or privacy of adjoining
      neighbours and is considered to satisfy relevant policies in this regard.


7.    RECOMMENDATION

7.1   It is recommended that application is determined under delegated powers with a
      view to approval, subject to the lapsing of the consultation period and the following
      conditions.

      01     A2     Full Permission

      02     M1     Approval of materials

      03    U1      Landscaping


8.    REASONS

      ICAB2 -The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring
      occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.


Background Papers:         DC/08/1176
Contact Officer:           Jamie Forsman
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 15 - 1




abcd
                                                 DEVELOPMENT
                                                 CONTROL REPORT
TO:                      Development Control Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    5th August 2008

DEVELOPMENT:             Proposed erection of a metal shed for the storage of football
                         equipment

SITE:                    Community Hall, Leechpool Hill, Lower Beeding

WARD:                    Nuthurst

APPLICATION:             DC/08/1085

APPLICANT:               Lower Beeding Parish Council


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                  Parish Council application

RECOMMENDATION:              To grant planning permission


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider this application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1     Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 3m x 4m metal shed solely for
        the storage of football equipment in association with the Lower Beeding Junior
        Football Club. The shed is to be sited to the west of the main hall and between a
        mature Sweet Chestnut tree and two concrete sheds.

1.2     The proposed shed has metal sides with no windows (for security purposes) and
        incorporates a pitched roof to a maximum ridge height of 2.25 metres.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3     The Village Hall and playing fields are situated in the open countryside some 700m
        to the south of Lower Beeding village on the west side of the B2110.

1.4     The total site is approximately 1.76 ha (4.35 acres) containing a car parking area, a
        community hall and two existing storage buildings.



Contact:          Peter Harwood                                  Extension:     5167
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 15 - 2




      PLANNING HISTORY

1.5   LB/41/79 -    Garage for tractor - permitted
      LB/1/79 -     Garage for tractor and mower - permitted

2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   The following planning guidance is relevant in this case: PPS1 - Delivering
      Sustainable Development, PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sports and
      Recreation.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The following policies of the Horsham District Council Local Development
      Framework Core Strategy are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1
      (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP2 (Environmental Quality), CP14
      (Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities and Services).

2.4   The following policies of the Horsham District Council Local Development
      Framework - General Development Control Policies are relevant to this application:
      DC9 and DC22.

2.5   The following policies of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 are also
      relevant to the assessment of this application: LOC1, NE11, CH1, DEV1 and
      DEV3.

3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

3.1   No consultation responses including any public consultations have been received
      relating to this proposal.

4.    HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN
      RIGHTS

      Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First
      Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the
      application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment
      below.

5.    HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

      It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising
      from this application.
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 15 - 3




6.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   This planning application relates to the provision of a 12 sqm metal “garden” shed
      coloured in shiplap green for storage purposes ancillary to the use of the site as a
      football field and village hall. The structure is to be sited between a mature
      chestnut tree and two concrete storage buildings in a position which is not readily
      observed from a public vantage point.

6.2   It is considered that the proposed shed is acceptable and by reason of its size,
      position, design and materials proposed, should not detract significantly from the
      visual amenities or character of the area and therefore would not be contrary to the
      aims of countryside protection policies as stated in the Local Development
      Framework.

7.    RECOMMENDATION

7.1   It is recommended that the planning application be permitted and to include the
      following conditions:

      01    A2     Full Permission
      02    M6     Prescribed Materials


8.    REASONS

ICAB2, ICOM1




Background Papers:        DC/08/1085
Contact Officer:          Peter Harwood




WK4/DC081085/46

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:81
posted:7/17/2010
language:English
pages:130
Description: DCN Agenda Ganoderma Ext