DCN Agenda 090804 by fdh56iuoui

VIEWS: 47 PAGES: 107

									                                  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 4TH AUGUST 2009 AT 5.30p.m
 COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

 Councillors:  Ian Howard (Chairman)
               Liz Kitchen (Vice-Chairman)
               John Bailey                     David Jenkins
               Andrew Baldwin                  Mrs Sheila Matthews
               Gordon Brown                    Christian Mitchell
               Clive Burgess                   Robert Nye
               Roy Cornell                     Linda Pettitt
               Christine Costin                Peter Rowlinson
               Leonard Crosbie                 Pat Rutherford
               Sheila Dale                     David Sheldon
               Ross Dye                        David Skipp
               Duncan England                  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 7th
     July 2009 (to follow)

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

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

           Chief Executive
           Declarations of Interests of Officers

           Head of Development
           Appeals

            Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation
           Applications for determination by Committee – Appendix A

     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.
        DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE
                   4TH AUGUST 2009


 The Report by the Head of Development contains the following items:
Item      Ward          Reference     Site
 No.                     Number

A1     Horsham Park     DC/08/2562    MID SUSSEX AREA PROFESSIONAL CENTRE, CLARENCE ROAD

A2       Nuthurst       DC/09/0237    THE PLOUGH INN, LEECHPOND HILL, LOWER BEEDING
                        &
                        DC/09/0238
                        &
                        DC/09/0239

A3     Roffey North     DC/09/0810    129 CRAWLEY ROAD, HORSHAM

A4       Rusper &       DC/09/0910    BENSONS FARM, WIMLAND ROAD, FAYGATE
         Colgate

A5       Rusper &       DC/09/1064    WHITE HERONS FARM, FOREST ROAD, COLGATE
         Colgate

A6      Itchingfield,   DC/09/1034    WARDECOT, FULFORDS HILL, ITCHINGFIELD
          Slinfold &
         Warnham

A7      Itchingfield,   DC/09/0463    SMITHAWE FARM, NOWHURST LANE, BROADBRIDGE HEATH
          Slinfold &    &
         Warnham
                        DC/09/0464

A8     Horsham Park     DC/09/0875    179 NEW STREET, HORSHAM

A9        Denne         DC/09/0753    19 THE CRESCENT, HORSHAM

A10     Itchingfield,   DC/09/0731    WILD HARRYS, HAYES LANE, SLINFOLD
          Slinfold &
         Warnham

A11     Itchingfield,   DC/09/0828    MUNTHAM HOUSE SCHOOL, MUNTHAM DRIVE, BARNS GREEN
          Slinfold &
         Warnham

A12     Itchingfield,   DC/09/0250    BADGERS WOOD, FIVE OAKS ROAD, SLINFOLD
          Slinfold &
         Warnham

A13    Horsham Park     DC/09/1049    PARK HOUSE, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM
                        &
                        DC/09/1050

A14       Denne         SEC106 1608   THE PADDOCK, FARTHINGS WALK, FARTHINGS HILL, HORSHAM
      DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (NORTH) 4TH AUGUST 2009

                        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.   Written Representations

     DC/08/2608       Two-storey side extension, replacement of conservatory to rear with single-
                      storey extension and replacement lobby and porch to front.
                      1 Cottage Close, Horsham, RH12 4GS.
                      For: Mr And Mrs Sahota

     DC/09/0346       Construction of a 2-storey building comprising 3 garages with 1 x 1-bed self-
                      contained flat over with balcony and demolition of existing garage.
                      Conway House, 2 Rushams Road, Horsham, RH12 2NT.
                      For: Cleargreen Ltd

3.   Appeal Decisions

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

     DC/08/1481       Replacement windows (Full Planning).
                      Kings Farm House, Wimland Road, Faygate, Horsham, RH12 4SS.
                      For: Mrs Aviva Tyson-Davies
                      Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

     DC/08/1482       Replacment windows (Listed Building Consent).
                      Kings Farm House, Wimland Road, Faygate, Horsham, RH12 4SS.
                      For: Mrs Aviva Tyson-Davies
                      Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

     DC/08/2123       2-storey extension.
                      1 Canonbury Villas, Lambs Green, Rusper, Horsham, RH12 4RG.
                      For: Mr Peter Kurt Muller
                      Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

     DC/07/1722       External alterations to outbuilding.
                      Westons Farmhouse, Fulfords Road, Itchingfield, Horsham, RH13 0NR.
                      For: Mrs DJ Smith
                      Appeal: ALLOWED (Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

     DC/08/0498       Single-storey rear extension
                      8 The Courtyard, Forest Grange, Horsham, RH12 4TG.
                      For: Ms Sally Barney
                      Appeal: ALLOWED (Officers Recommendation Overturned at Committee)

     EN/1/2009        Wheatsheaf Inn, Handcross Road, Plummers Plain, Horsham, RH13 6NZ.
                      For: Mr S Callow and Ms J Graham
                      Appeal: WITHDRAWN
DCN090707



              DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE
                           7TH JULY 2009

       Present: Councillors: Ian Howard (Chairman), Liz Kitchen (Vice-Chairman),
                John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Clive Burgess, Roy Cornell,
                Leonard Crosbie, Sheila Dale, Ross Dye, Duncan England, David
                Holmes, Christian Mitchell, Robert Nye, Peter Rowlinson, David
                Sheldon, David Skipp, Mrs Claire Vickers, Belinda Walters, Kyle
                Wickens

       Apologies: Councillors: Gordon Brown, Christine Costin, Sarah Gray, Sally
                Horner, David Jenkins, Mrs Sheila Matthews, Linda Pettitt, Pat
                Rutherford

DCN/20 MINUTES

       The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 2nd June 2009 were
       approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCN/21 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS


       Member                Item            Nature of Interest

       Councillor David      DC/08/1269      Personal – Member of West
       Sheldon                               Sussex County Council
       Councillor David      DC/09/0936      Personal and Prejudicial -
       Holmes                                Neighbour was a personal friend
       Councillor Robert     DC/09/0099      Personal – Known to applicant
       Nye

DCN/22 ANNOUNCEMENTS

       The Chairman welcomed Councillor Duncan England to his first meeting of
       the Development Control (North) Committee.

DCN/23 APPEALS

       Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:

       Appeals Lodged
       Written Representations

       Ref No         Site                             Appellant(s)

       DC/09/0241     Millfields Cottage, Horsham      Alidia Ltd
                      Road, Rowhook
       DC/08/2586     Greenhurst Barn, Tismans         Ms Jacky Tidy
                      Common, Rudgwick
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             7th July 2009


DCS/23 Appeals (cont.)

       Appeal Decisions

        Ref No           Site                       Appellant(s)           Decision

        DC/08/1891       Venture, 147 Pondtail      Mr Jonathan            ALLOWED
                         Road, Horsham              Ullmer
        DC/08/0316       Faygate Sawmills,          Helical (Faygate)      ALLOWED
                         Faygate Lane, Faygate      Limited
        DC/08/1969       Wheatsheaf Inn,            Mr S Callow            DISMISSED
                         Handcross Road,
                         Plummers Plain
        DC/08/1469       14 Peary Close,            Ms Shelley             DISMISSED
                         Horsham                    Vickers
        DC/08/1796       Rossmore, Broadwater       Mr Kevin Dixon         DISMISSED
                         Lane, Copsale

DCN/24 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/2389 – ERECTION OF 14 FLATS AND
       ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING
       SITE: 90 HURST ROAD, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: CONSTANTIA ESTATES LTD

       The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
       for the erection of a three-storey building with accommodation in the roof
       space. The building would contain 2 x 1-bed flats and 2 x 2-bed flats on the
       ground floor, 4 x 2-bed flats on first and second floors and 2 x 3-bed flats in
       the roof space. The proposed building would be located on the site of the
       previous structure with vehicular access to the western side of the site off
       Hurst Road leading to a parking area to the rear comprising fourteen spaces
       plus five visitor spaces. Refuse store and cycle parking would be located to
       the rear of the building and along the eastern boundary. Landscaping would
       be provided along the road frontage and around the building on all
       elevations. The development would have a density of 79 dwellings per
       hectare. The current proposal followed the refusal and subsequent dismissal
       on appeal of a previous application (DC/08/1529).

       Government policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13; Core Strategy policies CP1,
       CP3, CP4, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Development Control policies
       DC6, DC8, DC9, DC14, and DC18; South East Plan policies SP3, CC1,
       CC2, CC4, CC6, CC7, H2, H5, T4, BE1 and GAT3; and Site Specific
       Allocations of Land (2007) policy AL1 were all relevant to the consideration
       of this application.

       In 1995, an application for outline permission for the demolition of the
       existing building and outbuildings and construction of a new college
       premises had been refused (HU/19/95). In 2008, an application for the
       demolition of the existing building and replacement with a three storey block
       of 14 flats had been withdrawn (DC/07/2494). In 2008, an application for the
                                         2
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              7th July 2009


DCS/24 Planning Application: DC/08/2389 (cont.)

        replacement of the existing building by a three storey block of 14 flats with
        accommodation in the roof space had been refused and the subsequent
        appeal dismissed (DC/08/1529).

        The comments of Sussex Police, West Sussex County Council and the
        Arboricultural Officer were noted. The Neighbourhood Council raised no
        objections to the application. One letter of comment had been received.

        The site was located within the defined built-up area of Horsham Town
        which was a Category 1 settlement.

        The proposed building would be located on the site of the previous college
        building although it would be set slightly closer to the road and would have a
        greater width, bringing it closer to the eastern boundary.

        The current application had been from that dismissed at appeal by reducing
        both the width and the height of the building. The width of the previous
        scheme had been 26 metres, and that now proposed was 21.6 metres, thus
        increasing the gaps to the side boundaries. The height had previously been
        13 metres to the ridge and was now 12.3 metres.

        These changes together with revisions to the layout, particularly with regard
        to the gaps to the boundary and the design of the building itself, were
        considered to be appropriate. It was considered that the proposed scheme
        had addressed previous concerns relating to height and width and was now
        acceptable.

        The main issue raised in objections to the previous applications had related
        to the loss of the existing Art School building. However, it was not a Listed
        Building and was not located within a Conservation Area. The building
        therefore had no statutory protection and its loss could not be resisted. It
        was considered that the replacement of the existing building and
        redevelopment for residential purposes was acceptable in principle and
        accorded with the inclusion of the site in the Site Specific Allocations of Land
        Document of the Local Development Framework for residential
        development.

        The proposed building would be set further from the joint boundary than the
        original building and would have a hipped roof with dormers rather than a
        gabled roof. Whilst the outlook from the adjacent property to the west would
        be different from the current situation, it was not considered that the amenity
        of the occupiers would be significantly affected to warrant a refusal in this
        respect. The access drive would be set along the common boundary and,
        subject to satisfactory walling/fencing and landscaping, it was not
        considered that this would be unneighbourly.



                                          3
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              7th July 2009


 DCS/24 Planning Application: DC/08/2389 (cont.)

        It was considered that the amenities of adjacent residents would not be
        adversely affected.

        The four protected trees within the site would all be retained and the
        proposed access and parking arrangements were considered to be
        satisfactory.

        Members therefore considered that the application was acceptable in
        principle.

                           RESOLVED

                           (i)    That a planning agreement be entered into within
                                  six months to secure suitable contributions in
                                  respect of transport infrastructure, library and fire
                                  service infrastructure and local community
                                  facilities.
                           (ii)   That, upon completion of the agreement in (i)
                                  above and the receipt of further information in
                                  respect of renewable energy requirements and to
                                  ensure that the proposal meets revised recycling
                                  and bin requirements, application DC/08/2389 be
                                  determined by the Head of Development, in
                                  consultation with local Members.

DCN/25 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/1269 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
       CARE HOME AND ERECTION OF 4 X 3-BED AND 10 X 4-BED (14
       DWELLINGS) AND 9 X 2 BED FLATS (TOTAL 23 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN
       ALL) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND ACCESS (OUTLINE)
       SITE: BROOKFIELD, BLACKBRIDGE LANE, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
       (Councillor David Sheldon declared a personal interest in this application as
       he was a Member of West Sussex County Council.)

        The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
        to establish the principle of replacing the existing care home with residential
        development comprising 23 residential units. Matters for consideration
        under this outline application comprised layout, scale and access
        arrangements. The appearance of the buildings and landscaping would be
        dealt with as reserved matters.

        Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPG13 and PPS25; Core Strategy
        policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP14 and CP19; Development
        Control policies DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40; and South East
        Plan policies SP3, CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, H3, H4, H5, T4, NRM4, BE1, BE4
        and GAT3 were relevant to the determination of this application.

                                           4
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              7th July 2009


DCS/25 Planning Application: DC/09/1269 (cont.)

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

        The comments of the Head of Environmental Management, Waste &
        Cleansing, the Access Forum, Southern Water, Sussex Police, the
        Environment Agency, the Housing Strategy & Development Manager, West
        Sussex County Council, the Head of Strategic & Community Planning, the
        Arboricultural Officer and the Neighbourhood Council were noted. Two
        letters of comment had been received. A member of the public spoke in
        objection to the application.

        The site was located within the built-up area boundary of Horsham Town,
        which was a Category 1 settlement, and comprised previously developed
        land.

        The site had a total area of 0.4 hectare and the proposed development
        would give a density of 58 dwellings per hectare. Members considered that,
        whilst high densities could be appropriate in sustainable locations, the
        proposed density was well above the national indicative minimum of 30 units
        per hectare as set out in PPS3.

        Of the 23 proposed units, nine would be affordable and 14 would be for
        private occupation. It was considered that as the affordable units would be
        larger flats and terraced houses, the development would meet a specific
        need in this locality. The private units would comprise 6 x 2-bed flats, 1 x 4-
        bed detached house and 7 x 4-bed terraced town houses. It was
        considered that the mix of dwelling sizes for the development was generally
        appropriate, although Members were concerned that the proposal made no
        provision for 3-bed dwellings.

        It was considered that the proposal would provide a good frontage to
        Blackbridge Lane with the terrace of seven town houses and a focal point at
        the access with the erection of the block of two-bed flats. Parking would be
        internal to the site and screened by existing and proposed landscaping. It
        was considered that the layout was appropriate given the context of the site.

        It was considered that further negotiations were required in respect of the
        scale and massing of the development to ensure that it was not unduly
        prominent or incongruous.

        The properties to the north east of the site were at a lower level than the
        application site, and whilst there was screening along their southern
        boundaries they had relatively short gardens. Concern was therefore
        expressed that the terrace of two storey dwellings would appear dominant
        and overbearing from the rear gardens of these bungalows. It was
        considered this element needed to be clarified.



                                          5
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             7th July 2009


DCS/25 Planning Application: DC/09/1269 (cont.)

        The terrace of houses would also be close to the southern boundary of an
        adjacent school and whilst the plans did indicate that the existing screening
        along the boundaries would be retained together with new planting where
        necessary, it was considered that the scheme would sit more comfortably on
        the site and have a better relationship with adjoining properties and existing
        landscaping if the units were set in from the boundary.

                          RESOLVED

                           That consideration of application DC/08/1269 be deferred
                           pending negotiations regarding a reduction in the density
                           of the proposed development; an improved relationship
                           with the existing adjacent properties; the inclusion of a
                           number of 3-bed private houses; garden sizes; parking
                           layout on rear boundary of Riverside; refuse and
                           recycling facilities; clarification on code for sustainable
                           homes issues; rear access to be provided to rear gardens
                           of terraced properties and to ensure access works would
                           not prejudice any traffic calming on Blackbridge Lane.

DCN/26 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/09/0712 – ERECTION OF A BARN WITH
       ATTACHED OPEN LEAN-TO HAY STORE FOR STORAGE OF TRACTOR,
       FARM MACHINERY, FARM EQUIPMENT, POULTRY EQUIPMENT AND
       FIELD AND CROP PLANTING MATERIALS
       SITE: OAKLEIGH FARM, GHYLL HOUSE FARM, BROADWATER LANE,
       COPSALE
       APPLICANT: MR ROBERT LEIGH

        The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
        for the erection of a barn measuring 13.95 metres in length and 5.95 metres
        in width with a total height of 5.95 metres. The current proposal was 1 metre
        shorter in length and 0.65 metres shorter in height than the previously
        refused scheme (DC/08/2096), with no change to the width. The proposal
        also included a lean-to shelter to the west which measured three metres in
        length and five metres in width. The barn was to be sited to the north of the
        plot, approximately 11 metres from the start of Limekiln Woods. It would be
        approximately 20 metres from the nearest significant trees.

        Government policies PPS1 and PPS7; Core Strategy policies CP1, CP3,
        CP13, CP15 and CP19; Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC23,
        DC25 and DC40; and South East plan policy C4 were relevant to the
        consideration of this application.

        The buildings and land associated with Ghyll House Farm had been the
        subject of an extensive planning and enforcement history, most recently with
        the service of an Article 4 Direction on 8th October 2008. In 2009,
        permission had been refused for the erection of a barn to store a tractor,
                                          6
                                                     Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                               7th July 2009


DCS/26 Planning Application: DC/09/0712 (cont.)

        farm machinery, farm equipment, hay, animal feeds and crop planting
        materials (DC/08/2096).

        The comments of the Local Authority Rural Advisor and West Sussex
        County Council were noted. The Parish Council objected to the application.
        One letter of objection had been received. The applicant spoke in support of
        the application.

        The site was located outside any defined built-up area boundary.

        Since the submission of the previous application, the applicant had
        commenced working the land, including clearing the lower field for the
        growing of winter wheat and the purchase of some livestock.

        Whilst the barn would be sited to the north of the site within close proximity
        to the trackway and would be screened from views by Limekiln Wood, it was
        considered that the scale, height and design was not appropriate to the
        countryside location. Also insufficient justification had been provided to
        demonstrate that a barn of this size was reasonably necessary for the size
        of the holding.

        It was considered that the design and material for construction would be of a
        permanent nature and unlike a metal framed barn, would not be easily
        demountable. The investment required for the proposed barn was
        substantial and would reduce the possibility of the newly created enterprise
        being profitable in the short term. It was also considered that as the
        agricultural unit had only recently been established, financial viability and
        sustainability had yet to be proven.


        This plot was one of thirteen lots recently sold, or on the market, resulting in
        the fragmentation of the smallholding. Concern was expressed at this form
        of sub-division as it was likely to result in applications for stables, barns,
        hardstanding, sand schools etc, on each of the thirteen plots, resulting in
        sporadic development in the countryside leading to an intensification of
        buildings in an isolated rural unsustainable location contrary to the aims of
        countryside protection policies.

        In this respect, it was noted that stables of a more modest nature and
        fencing had already been permitted for equestrian use at one of the lots.

        Members considered that, notwithstanding the amendments made and
        recent permissions for stables in adjacent plots, the current application had
        not adequately addressed the previous reasons for refusal.

                           RESOLVED


                                           7
                                                  Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                            7th July 2009


DCS/26 Planning Application: DC/09/0712 (cont.)

                          That application DC/09/0712 be refused for the following
                          reason:

                       01 The proposed development by reason of its scale, height,
                          design and isolated position would result in a form of
                          development which is inappropriate and incongruous to
                          its countryside location. The development represents
                          sporadic development in the countryside resulting in
                          material harm to its visual amenities and rural character.
                          Furthermore the applicant has failed to adequately
                          demonstrate that the proposed enterprise is financially
                          viable and sustainable and would require a barn of the
                          size proposed. As such the development is considered to
                          be contrary to policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the
                          Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core
                          Strategies (2007); policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC25 of the
                          Horsham District Local Development Framework: General
                          Development Control Policies (2007) and PPS7.

DCN/27 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/09/0253 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
       DWELING AND GARAGE AND ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT 4-BED 2-
       STOREY DETACHED DWELLING
       SITE: JACKSONS FARMHOUSE, HAMMERPOND ROAD, PLUMMERS
       PLAIN, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: MR ANDREW SHAW

        The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
        for the demolition of the existing 2 storey detached property and the
        associated garage, and its replacement with a new 4-bed dwelling and the
        repositioning of the existing access.

        Government policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7; Core Strategy policies CP1,
        CP3 and CP13; Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC4, DC8, DC9,
        DC28 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1, CC4, CC7, H5, W2, C3
        and C4 were relevant to the determination of this application.

        In 2008, an application for demolition of existing dwelling and garage and
        erection of replacement 4-bed 2-storey detached dwelling had been refused
        and subsequently dismissed at appeal (DC/08/1451). In 1982, permission
        had been granted for access with turning space and double garage
        (LB/11/82). In 1973, permission had been refused for the erection of 14
        dwelling houses (LB/18/73).

        The comments of the Arboricultural Officer and West Sussex County
        Council were noted. The Parish Council supported the application. One
        letter of support had been received. A member of the public spoke in
        objection to and the applicant spoke in support of the application.
                                         8
                                                     Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                               7th July 2009


DCS/27 Planning Application: DC/09/0253 (cont.)

        The site was located outside any defined built-up area, close to the
        boundary of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

        The current application proposed a reduction in size of the dwelling
        compared to that dismissed at appeal. As currently proposed, the dwelling
        would be two-storeys with a width of 15.3 metres, a reduction of 3 metres
        from the appeal scheme. A reduction of one metre in the roof ridge height
        was also proposed.

        It was noted that, were the existing house to be retained it could be
        extended under ‘permitted development’ rights which would allow
        extensions up to four metres in height on either side of the existing dwelling,
        giving an overall width of up to 16 metres. It would also allow a single-
        storey extension of four metres in depth to the rear of the house, with a
        further rear extension to a depth of three metres at first floor level. However,
        the overall ridge height of the dwelling could not be increased.

        The existing dwelling had a maximum height of 6.7 metres, depth of 10
        metres and width of 10.5 metres. The current proposal would have a
        maximum height of 8.2 metres, width of 17.9 metres and depth of 9.7
        metres.

        The reduced scheme was welcomed and it was considered that the
        proposal had overcome the concerns expressed in respect of the previous
        application.

        Members therefore considered that the application was acceptable.

                           RESOLVED

                           That application DC/09/0253 be granted subject to the
                           following conditions:

                           01     A2      Full Permission
                           02     M1      Sample Materials
                           03     L1      Hard and Soft Landscaping (details shall
                                  include indications of all trees and hedgerows on
                                  the land and details of any to be retained, together
                                  with measures for their protection in the course of
                                  development.)
                           04     All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the
                                  approved details of landscaping shall be carried
                                  out in the first planting and seeding seasons
                                  following the completion of the development and
                                  any trees or plants, which, within a period of five
                                  years from the completion of the development die,
                                  are removed or become seriously damaged or
                                           9
                                                  Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                            7th July 2009


DCS/27 Planning Application: DC/09/0253 (cont.)

                                 diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting
                                 season with others of similar size and species,
                                 unless the Local Planning Authority gives written
                                 consent to any variation.
                          05     Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town &
                                 Country Planning (General Permitted
                                 Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending
                                 or revoking and re-enacting the same) the dwelling
                                 hereby permitted shall not be extended or altered
                                 in any way unless permission is granted by the
                                 District Planning Authority on application in that
                                 behalf.
                          06     Prior to the commencement of development
                                 detailed plans shall be submitted to and approved
                                 by the Local Planning Authority setting out the
                                 technical specification for the new vehicular
                                 crossover onto Hammerpond Road. The details
                                 shall include information relating to kerbed radii,
                                 vehicular visibility splays and surfacing treatment
                                 of the crossover and drive. The dwelling hereby
                                 permitted shall not be occupied until the new
                                 vehicular crossover and drive have been
                                 constructed in accordance with these approved
                                 details.
                          07     D6      Finished floor levels
                          08     M8      Sustainable Construction
                          09     The existing site vehicular access shall be
                                 physically closed immediately upon completion of
                                 the new site vehicular access. The existing site
                                 access shall not be used by construction traffic.
                          10     No development shall be commenced until visibility
                                 splays of 2.4 metres by 120 metres to the east and
                                 82 metres to the west have been provided at the
                                 centre of the proposed site vehicular access onto
                                 Hammerpond Road. These visibility splays shall
                                 thereafter be kept free of all obstructions over a
                                 height of 0.6 metres above adjoining carriageway
                                 level.
                          11     No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied
                                 until covered secure cycle parking spaces have
                                 been provided in accordance with a detailed
                                 construction plan to be submitted to and approved
                                 by the planning authority.




                                        10
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             7th July 2009


DCS/27 Planning Application: DC/09/0253 (cont.)

                          REASON

                          The proposal having regard to the individual
                          circumstances of the case and its relationship with
                          adjacent development is considered to represent an
                          appropriate form of development.

DCN/28 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: DC/09/0463 & DC/09/0464 - CONVERSION
       OF BARN TO FORM A 2 STOREY 3 BED DWELLING
       SITE: SMITHAWE FARM, NOWHURST LANE, BROADBRIDGE HEATH,
       HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: MR & MRS SCARBOROUGH

        Applications deleted from the agenda.

DCN/29 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/08/2524 – RETROSPECTIVE
       APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF USE OF BARN FROM AGRICULTURAL
       AND EQUESTRIAN TO MIXED USE COMPRISING AGRICULTURAL
       EQUESTRIAN, AGRICULTURAL CONTRACTING (INCLUDING
       KENNELLING OF DOGS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES) AND
       KENNELLING OF DOGS FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES AND RE-GRADING
       OF LAND
       SITE: ROWARTS, FIVE OAKS ROAD, SLINFOLD
       APPLICANT: MR M BEASLEY

        The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
        for the change of use of barn from agricultural and equestrian to mixed use
        comprising agricultural, equestrian, agricultural contracting (including
        kennelling of dogs for agricultural purposes) and kennelling of dogs for
        private purposes together with the re-grading of the land.

        Government policies PPS1 and PPS7; Core Strategy policies CP1, CP3,
        and CP15; Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC23, DC24 and
        DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6 and C4 were
        relevant to the determination of this application.

        In 2005 an application had been refused for the continued use of agricultural
        buildings for B8 storage (DC/05/0775). In 2005 an application for the use of
        agricultural buildings for B8 use had been refused and the subsequent
        appeal had been dismissed (DC/05/2426). In 2008 an application had been
        refused for the change of use of two timber framed barns to B1 light
        industrial use and formation of an earth bund and the subsequent appeal
        had been dismissed (DC/08/1013). In 2008, an application had been refused
        for retrospective permission to change the use of barn, and surrounding land
        for the keeping of dogs (DC/08/1735).



                                         11
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              7th July 2009


DCS/29 Planning Application: DC/08/2524 (cont.)

        The comments of the Head of Public Health & Licensing and the
        Environment Agency were noted. The Parish Council objected to the
        application.

        The applicant had stated that the use within the building would support the
        agricultural contracting business run from the site including that for the
        purposes of pest control using some of the dogs for agricultural purposes
        whilst also supporting other rural enterprises within the Horsham District and
        wider rural area. Information submitted indicated that of the fourteen pens,
        five would be provided for working dogs, seven for show and rescue dogs,
        and two spare pens. The pens would provide kennelling for up to sixteen
        dogs.

        Land surrounding the agricultural dwelling had been re-graded in order to
        prevent heavy rainfall water ingress, with soil moved in this area to direct
        water to an exiting pond and into the stream that marked the property
        boundary. The track was to be reinstated across the re-graded area to
        provide vehicular access to the field.

        Although the application site was not within in a sustainable location, the use
        of the barn for the purposes proposed was considered to be of a suitable
        scale for the level of activity proposed and the building was of suitable
        construction. It was noted that alterations to the barn were internal only and
        did not amount to any substantial reconstruction. The proposed use of the
        barn had been accommodated wholly within the building and there was
        sufficient car parking adjacent to meet the needs of the proposed use. The
        existing access would remain unchanged. The proposed development was
        therefore not considered to result in any significant harm to the rural
        character of the countryside location.

        With regard to the level of activity and traffic generated as a result of the
        proposals, it was considered that the use of the barn could be restricted to
        ensure there would be no commercial kennelling at any time. The use of the
        barn as proposed was considered to be relatively low key, and it was not
        considered that it would result in any significant level of harm or
        intensification of unsustainable patterns of travel.

                           RESOLVED

                           That application DC/08/2524 be granted permission
                           subject to the following conditions:

                           01 The use of the barn hereby permitted shall be in
                              accordance with the plans and supporting information
                              submitted with the application only unless otherwise
                              approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


                                          12
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             7th July 2009


DCS/29 Planning Application: DC/08/2524 (cont.)

                           02 The use of the building hereby permitted for the
                              accommodation of dogs shall be for private use only
                              in connection with Rowarts as set out in the
                              application and shall not be used at any time for the
                              purposes of commercial kennelling.
                           03 J7b        No (kennel) waste
                           04 The proposed method for the storage and disposal of
                              used bedding and dog waste shall be submitted to the
                              Local Planning Authority within one month of the date
                              of this permission, the storage and disposal of used
                              bedding and dog waste shall be carried out in strict
                              accordance with the approved details unless the prior
                              written agreement of the Local Planning Authority is
                              obtained for any variation.
                           05 L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping (including details of
                              reinstated track)
                           06 Prior to work commencing on site, exact details of the
                              dimensions and materials of the track to be re-instated
                              shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local
                              Planning Authority. No work shall commence until the
                              details are approved. The re-instatement of the track
                              shall be carried out in strict accordance with the
                              approved details.
                           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/30 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/09/0936 – CONSERVATORY TO REAR
       ELEVATION
       SITE: 3 ST GEORGES GARDENS, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: MR AND MRS ELKINS-GREEN
       (Councillor David Holmes declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this
       application as the neighbour was a personal friend. He withdrew from the
       meeting and took no part in the consideration of this item.)

        The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
        for a conservatory to the rear elevation of 3 St Georges Gardens measuring
        a maximum of 4.2 metres in depth, 5 metres in width and with a maximum
        height of 3.3 metres.




                                         13
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             7th July 2009


DCS/30 Planning Application: DC/09/0936 (cont.)

        Government policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13; Core Strategy policies CP1
        and CP3; Development Control policies DC3 and DC9; and South East Plan
        policies CC1 and CC4 were relevant to the determination of this application.

        Relevant planning history included:

        HU/396/90      Single storey front extension                            Granted
        HU/157/03      Conservatory                                             Granted
        DC/08/1691     Two storey and single story extensions                   Granted
        DC/08/2593     First floor extension                                    Granted
        DC/09/0493     Rooms in roof space of detached garage with              Refused
                       velux windows in roof

        The Neighbourhood Council objected to the application. Two letters of
        objection had been received. A member of the public spoke in objection to
        the application.

        The proposed conservatory would be sited to the rear of the property,
        beyond the existing two storey rear extension.

        Concern was expressed that the proposed would result in overdevelopment
        of the site due to the number of previous extensions that had already been
        approved in respect of this property. It was considered that a further
        extension to the house would be detrimental to the character of the
        surrounding area.

                          RESOLVED

                          That application DC/09/0936 be refused for the following
                          reason:

                          01     The proposed conservatory combined with other
                                 extensions would constitute over development of
                                 the site and be out of proportion and out of
                                 character with the area, resulting in an
                                 inappropriate reduction of amenity space for the
                                 dwelling contrary to the aims of the policies within
                                 the Development Plan, in particular policy DC9 of
                                 the Horsham District Council General
                                 Development Control Policies Document 2007.




                                        14
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             7th July 2009


DCN/31 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/09/0762 – USE OF THE BUILDING
       KNOWN AS THE COACH HOUSE FOR PERSONAL OCCUPATION BY
       MR D BOWDEN AND MRS S L LEWIS
       SITE: COACH HOUSE, MILLFIELDS FARM STABLES, HORSHAM ROAD,
       RUSPER
       APPLICANT: MR DAVID BOWDEN

      The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission
      for the use of the building known as the Coach House for personal
      occupation by the current occupiers. The conversion of the Coach House to
      a residential dwellinghouse was currently subject to an enforcement notice,
      which required the use of the building as a single dwellinghouse to cease.

      Government policies PPS1 and PPS7; Core Strategy policies CP3, CP5 and
      CP15; Development Control policies DC1 and DC9; and South East Plan
      policies SP3 and CC1 were relevant to the determination of this application.

      In 1988, permission had been granted for alterations to garages to form first
      floor offices and garage (RS/52/88). In 2008, an application for the retention
      of alterations to external appearance of the Coach House and retention of
      use from a mixed use of flat with associated storage of household articles to
      a dwellinghouse had been refused (DC/07/2556) and an Enforcement
      Notice had been served on 11th April 2008.

      The comments of the Parish Council were noted.

      The site was located adjacent to but outside the defined built-up area of
      Rusper.

      Evidence had revealed that, prior to the conversion of the property in 2006,
      the first floor flat had existed in the property for over four years and,
      therefore, had a lawful development certificate been sought in 2006, it was
      considered likely this would have been granted. Whilst the lawful rights that
      may have been accrued had now been abandoned, the existence of a first
      floor flat was an important consideration, indicating that this application was
      for an extension of an existing residential unit in the countryside, rather than
      a new unit of accommodation, which was considered to be more acceptable
      in policy terms.

      Whilst a single dwellinghouse in this rural location might generate more
      unsustainable practices than the previous first floor flat, it was considered
      that the individual circumstances of the case suggested that the harm to the
      character of the area and sustainable principles would not be significant.

      It was therefore considered that a personal planning permission should be
      granted, solely for the use by the current occupiers, with the specification
      that once the current occupiers had vacated, the use of the building for
      residential purposes should permanently cease. It was considered this
      would respect the need to control residential development in the
                                        15
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             7th July 2009


DCS/31 Planning Application: DC/09/0762 (cont.)

        countryside, whilst also showing due consideration to the individual
        circumstances of this case.

                          RESOLVED

                          That application DC/09/0762 be granted subject to the
                          following conditions:

                          01     When the building known as the Coach House
                                 ceases to be occupied by Mr D Bowden and/or
                                 Mrs S L Lewis, the residential use hereby
                                 permitted shall cease and the facilities, equipment
                                 and materials relating to the residential occupation
                                 shall be removed from the site.
                          02     Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and
                                 Country Planning (General Permitted
                                 Development) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2008 or
                                 Orders amending or revoking or re-enacting the
                                 same, no development within Class A, B, C D or E
                                 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be carried out
                                 within the site without the prior approval in writing
                                 of the Local Planning Authority.

                          REASON

                          ICAB1B        The proposal would be acceptable as a
                                        temporary measure and would not
                                        materially affect the amenities of
                                        neighbouring properties.

DCN/32 APPLICATION: DC/09/0543 – PROPOSED RAISING AND ALTERATION
       OF EXISTING ROOF AND VOID TO CREATE ADDITIONAL LIVING
       ACCOMMODATION TO SECOND FLOOR
       SITE: 68 BEDFORD ROAD, HORSHAM
       APPLICANT: MR MARK WELLBELOVE

        The Head of Development reported that this proposal sought permission for
        a second floor addition to this property in order to provide a master bedroom
        and en suite.

        Government policy PPS1; Development Framework policies CP1 and CP3;
        Development Control policy DC9; and South East Plan policies CC1, CC4,
        CC6, BE1 and GAT1 were relevant to the determination of this application.

        In 2008 an application for a second storey addition had been refused
        (DC/08/1757).


                                         16
                                                     Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                               7th July 2009


DCS/32 Planning Application: DC/09/0543 (cont.)

        The comments of the Neighbourhood Council and the Horsham Society
        were noted. One letter of objection had been received. A member of the
        public spoke in objection to and the applicant spoke in support of the
        application.

        The site was located within the defined built-up area of Horsham Town.

        The proposal was to extend the roof in order to provide accommodation
        within the roof space. The addition would have a mono-pitch roof set behind
        the existing parapet wall on the front elevation, incorporating three front roof
        lights with two windows on the rear elevation. The flat roof element of the
        proposal was to be raised by 1.2 metres above the parapet wall.

        The current scheme had been amended from that previously refused by
        reducing the height of the proposal from 9.5 metres above ground level to
        8.5 metres and retaining the chimneys at their current height. The current
        scheme would therefore result in less visual impact on the street scene and
        character of the area. The proposed extension, due to its height and set
        back position, would not be readily observed from ground floor level due to
        the front parapet wall obscuring the view of the addition particularly from the
        south.

        It was noted that whilst the existing terrace had traditional pitched roofs with
        the ridges running at 90 degrees to the road, the front parapet wall gave the
        appearance of a flat roof when viewed from the street. Therefore given the
        reduction in height, together with the reduction in the overall bulk and mass
        of the proposed extension over the previously refused scheme, the impact
        on the visual amenities and character of the area was not considered
        sufficient to justify refusal.

        In the Horsham Town Design Statement (December 2008), Bedford Road
        had been identified as being within a sizeable area of Victorian housing
        where architectural and period features should be retained and
        inappropriate development and repairs which caused disproportionate visual
        damage and destroyed the integrity of rows of buildings should be resisted.
        It was considered that the appearance of the existing terrace of four
        Victorian dwellings would not be adversely affected when viewed from street
        level and that the development would not compromise the aims of the
        Horsham Town Design Statement or policies within the Development Plan.

        Members therefore considered that the application was acceptable.

                           RESOLVED

                           That application DC/09/0543 be granted subject to the
                           following conditions:


                                          17
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              7th July 2009


DCS/32 Planning Application: DC/09/0543 (cont.)

                           01      A2         Full Permission
                           02      M4         Matching Materials

                           REASON

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

DCN/33 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/09/0099 – PROPOSED TEMPORARY 2-
       BED NURSERYMAN’S DWELLING FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING
       VINEYARD
       SITE: LAND EAST OF OAKDENE, GUILDFORD ROAD, RUDGWICK
       APPLICANT: MR AND MRS BRIDGES
       (Councillor Robert Nye declared a personal interest in this application as he
       was known to the applicant.)

        The Head of Development reported that this application had sought
        permission for the construction of a wooden clad single storey “temporary
        nurseryman’s dwelling” of 82.38 square metres. The proposed
        accommodation was intended to be in connection with the vineyard ‘Cross
        Stream’. The existing vehicular access located within the north-western
        corner of the site would remain as existed.

        An appeal had been submitted following the non-determination of the
        application within the statutory period of eight weeks and an Informal
        Hearing was scheduled to commence on the 2nd September 2009.

        The site was located outside any defined built-up area boundary, within the
        countryside.

        It was considered that the main issue in the determination of this appeal
        would was whether there was sufficient and overriding need for the
        proposed residential accommodation and whether it represented appropriate
        development outside the defined built-up area of Rudgwick, having regard to
        the functional and financial tests required to be met.

        It was considered that there was no overriding agricultural justification for
        the proposed residential accommodation to warrant setting aside the strong
        policy objection to the scheme. Furthermore, the siting of the unit coupled
        with the cumulative visual impact of both the existing and proposed structure
        would be detrimental to the visual amenities and rural character of the area.

        Having regard to the specialist nature of vine production, an independent
        specialist advisor had been commissioned to undertake an assessment of
        the proposal. The independent report had concluded that there was no

                                         18
                                                    Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                              7th July 2009


DCS/33 Planning Application: DC/09/0099 (cont.)

        evidence that the appellant had the ability to develop the enterprise
        concerned and it had not been planned on a sound financial basis.

                           RESOLVED

                           (i)    That, had the Committee been in a position to
                                  determine the application, it would have been
                                  refused for the following reasons:

                                          01 The proposal is unacceptable in that it
                                              has not been adequately
                                              demonstrated that there is an
                                              overriding and essential need based
                                              on the tests within Annex A of PPS7
                                              for the temporary dwelling to be
                                              located in the countryside and that the
                                              need cannot be met in an existing
                                              dwelling. The proposal is therefore
                                              considered to be an unsustainable and
                                              inappropriate form of development
                                              which conflicts with Policy CP15 of the
                                              Core Strategy 92007), Policies DC1
                                              and DC27 of the General Development
                                              Control Policies (2007) and Planning
                                              Policy Statement 7.
                                          02 The proposal is for a temporary
                                              dwelling outside the built up area
                                              which it has not been shown requires a
                                              countryside location, and would
                                              therefore result in additional built form
                                              in the countryside to the detriment of
                                              the visual amenity and rural character
                                              of the area contrary to policy CP15 of
                                              the Core Strategy (2007) and policy
                                              DC1 of the General Development
                                              Control Policies (2007).
                           (ii)   That the appeal be contested in accordance with
                                  the Council’s case, as set out in the appeal
                                  statement.

DCN/34 VARIATION OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENT NO. 1327
       SITE: WARNHAM LODGE FARM, MAYES LANE, WARNHAM
       APPLICANT: MR AND MRS PAVEY

        The Head of Development reported that approval was sought for the
        variation of a Section 106 Agreement that had been completed in 2005 in

                                         19
                                                   Development Control (North) Committee
                                                                             7th July 2009


DCS/34 Variation of Section 106 Agreement No.1327 (cont.)

        respect of the conversion of a detached barn to ancillary residential
        accommodation (DC/05/0358).

        The Section 106 Agreement limited the occupation of the barn to domestic
        staff. The applicant maintained that the condition attached to the planning
        permission made it clear that the barn had been intended to be occupied not
        just for the purpose of staff accommodation, but alternatively for purposes
        ancillary to the occupation and enjoyment of Warnham Lodge Farm and as
        such, family members or visitors of the owners or occupiers of Warnham
        Lodge Farm should also be entitled to occupy the barn. A variation of the
        planning agreement was therefore sought in order to address this apparent
        anomaly.

        However, Members expressed concern that the proposed revised wording of
        the agreement was ambiguous.

                          RESOLVED

                           That the proposed variation to Section 106 Agreement
                           No. 1327 be not approved.


        The meeting closed at 8.21pm having commenced at 5.30pm.



                                                                      CHAIRMAN




                                         20
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1.




abcd
                                                      DEVELOPMENT
                                                   MANAGEMENT REPORT


TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment with residential
                         comprising eight dwellings and 13 flats (21 units in total) Outline

SITE:                    Mid Sussex Area Professional Centre, Clarence Road, Horsham

WARD:                    Horsham Park

APPLICATION:             DC/08/2562

APPLICANT:               West Sussex County Council

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development.

RECOMMENDATION: That the application be delegated for approval subject to
negotiation on the most appropriate manner to provide affordable housing and submission
of a revised illustrative layout plan, to address concerns set out in the report, in
consultation with local Members.

1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   This outline application seeks to establish the principle of replacing the existing
      former school building on the site, currently used as a training centre for teachers
      and other professional staff responsible for delivering West Sussex County Council
      services. Matters for consideration under this outline application comprise access
      to the site. The appearance of the buildings, landscaping, layout and scale are
      proposed by the applicant to be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.

1.2   The applicant has submitted an illustrative layout plan seeking to demonstrate how
      the number of proposed units and associated parking etc., could be accommodated
      on the site, comprising built form of two and three storey residential accommodation
      and a single storey ‘car barn’.

1.3   Principal vehicular access to the site is shown from Clarence Road. The proposal
      originally incorporated five visitor parking spaces accessed off Moons Lane.



Contact:      Stephen Booth                             Extension:      5169
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2.



      Following the receipt of comments from the Highway Authority, the applicant
      suggested proposals for vehicular access to the site along Moons Lane for the five
      visitor spaces, being amended, with access being obtained to visitor spaces from
      within the site, achieved either by the submission of a revised plan or the imposition
      of a condition to cover this matter.

1.4   With regard to affordable housing, the applicant notes that the Council’s adopted
      planning obligations SPD states that the delivery mechanism for affordable housing
      should be through a Section 106 Agreement/unilateral undertaking, but states that
      since that document was adopted (June 2007), it has become common practice in
      the case of applications for outline planning permission (and on appeal) for the
      delivery of affordable housing to be achieved by the imposition of a condition, which
      the applicant maintains would be appropriate in this case, requiring eight affordable
      housing units, 70% of which to be social rented and 30% shared ownership
      housing.

1.5   The application has been submitted with a design and access statement, transport
      planning statement, foul and surface water drainage assessment, contaminated
      land risk assessment and tree survey report.

1.6   The applicant has submitted a draft Unilateral Undertaking to provide infrastructure
      requirements generated by the proposal.


      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.7   Currently, the northern half of the site is occupied by a two storey former ‘school
      house’ and school building of similar ridge height, constructed of brick and tile, with
      the southern part of the site mainly utilised for car parking. The boundary of the
      site with Brighton Road and Clarence Road consists of railings mounted on a low
      brick wall, and along Moons Lane, the boundary is marked by a wall approximately
      1.8m high.

1.8   The wider locality is principally residential in nature comprising principally two
      storey development in Clarence Road and Moons Lane to the north of the site. To
      the south of the site, on the opposite side of Brighton Road, lies recent 2 ½ storey
      development, whilst to the east of the site lies three storey flatted development,
      opposite which, on lower ground, lies a four storey development of Knepp, Arundel
      and Bramber Houses.


      PLANNING HISTORY

1.9   There is no relevant planning history on this site, previous applications in the period
      1955 to 1973 relating to the educational use of the site.
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3.




2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1, PPS3, PPG13.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   South East Plan 2009: SP3, CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, H3, H4, H5, T4, NRM4, BE1,
      BE4 and GAT3.

2.4   Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12,
      CP13, CP14.

2.5   Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007):
      DC6, DC8, DC9, DC18 & DC40.



3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1   Southern Water state it requires a formal application for connection to the public
      sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. It has requested an informative
      should be attached to any planning permission stating: “A formal application for the
      connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this
      development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate
      connection point for the development please contact Atkins Limited, Anglo St
      James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (telephone 01962
      858600), or www.southernwater.co.uk. With regard to surface water disposal, it is
      requested a condition is imposed, ‘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’.

3.2   Sussex Police state that from a crime prevention viewpoint, on the basis of the
      indicative layout, concerns are raised about the high permeability and lack of
      defensible space. In addition, the courtyard parking is stated to be a discredited
      design that will not be used by residents, who will park in the street where they can
      see their vehicles. The courtyard will be a magnet to local youths, with resultant
      anti-social behaviour/nuisance, abandoned cars and caravans. If this is to remain,
      then I would like it to be access controlled and to provide adequate boundary
      protection from the rear of Unit 6 to the perimeter. The two 3-storey blocks would
      benefit from strategically placed fencing to prevent free access to the rear. There
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4.



      should be adequate perimeter protection to the frontages of Clarence Road,
      Brighton Road and Moons Lane to enhance ‘defensible space’. It is suggested that
      the access/egress point adjacent to the open sided car barn serves little purpose
      and could be omitted.

3.3   West Sussex County Council comment that in principle, residential redevelopment
      would be acceptable, amendments may be required to increase the access width to
      accommodate a swept path for refuse vehicles and changes are recommended to
      the accessing of the visitor car parking spaces onto Moons Lane. Contributions
      would also be sought towards West Sussex County Council services.

3.4   It continues the Transport Statement accompanying the application confirms the
      existing use of the site would generate a significant number of movements and
      given the proposed number of residential properties, the estimated traffic
      generation of the residential use would not be any greater than that of the existing.
      With the less intensive use of the site, the County Council do not consider the
      implementation of waiting restrictions in association with the proposal along
      Clarence Road, would be required, such restrictions resulting in the loss of a
      number of on-street parking spaces. The parking provision is within West Sussex
      County Council standards. In conclusion, whilst not warranting an objection to the
      proposal, it is recommended that the visitor car parking spaces are accessed from
      the main development rather than Moons Lane and that, subject to conditions, no
      objection is raised to the proposal.

3.5   The Council’s Housing Strategy and Development Manager endorses the
      consultation response from Strategic and Community Planning, which states that a
      minimum of eight affordable units should be sought in order to fully comply with
      policy. It is noted that affordable housing could be secured by condition, and
      Housing Officers would seek confirmation at the earliest opportunity that the units
      would be owned and managed by one of the Council’s preferred partner housing
      associations; that the association is satisfied that the layout and specification of the
      affordable units meets its requirements; and it is important to ensure the affordable
      units offered are tenure neutral and reflect the mix and size of the market dwellings.

3.6   The Head of Strategic and Community Planning comments that with regard to
      Horsham Development Strategy, meeting housing needs, smaller homes and
      housing mix, transport, access and parking, environmental quality and
      sustainability, infrastructure requirements and planning obligations, subject to detail
      comments the application appears to comply with adopted planning policies within
      the Local Development Framework.


      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.7   Forest Neighbourhood Council note that whilst the application is outline only, it
      does contain detailed plans indicating what the applicant envisages, at this stage,
      would be built on the site. It is disappointed that the plans do not take into account
      the Horsham Design Statement, and in particular, the design should have regard to
      the local character of the area. The Neighbourhood Council would welcome an
      opportunity of discussing the application with the applicant/agent and, in the
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5.



          meantime, Forest Neighbourhood Council states it must object to the application as
          submitted on the grounds that the design is contrary to the Horsham Design
          Statement and that the proposed accesses would be unacceptable and detrimental
          to highway safety.

3.8       Letters of objection from occupiers of seven properties in the area have been
          received on the grounds of:

         insufficient parking spaces to serve the new development
         alleyway between 2 Clarence Road and the development could become an area
          for anti-social behaviour
         impact of social housing on the area
         Clarence Road is designated as a lorry route and the proposal would make the
          junction more dangerous
         Moons Lane is an unadopted road, narrow and in private ownership
         the properties should be in keeping with others in Clarence Road
         overlooking
         over-development
         re-design required
         questioning the need for new dwellings.


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 is an integral part of the planning
          assessment set out in Section 6 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 in the determination of this application are considered to be the
          principle of development and its affect on the character and amenities of the area,
          the amenities of neighbouring and future occupiers, highway safety, access and
          parking, existing trees and vegetation and infrastructure requirements generated by
          the development, together with the provision of affordable housing.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6.




Principle of Development

6.2   The site lies within the defined built-up area of Horsham, a Category 1 settlement
      as defined in the Local Development Framework and also comprises previously
      developed land. The application needs to be assessed against Development Plan
      policies and relevant national guidance including that set out in PPS1, PPS3 and
      PPG13.

6.3   It is acknowledged that the proposal results in the loss of the existing Mid Sussex
      Professional Centre, which is currently in use as a training centre for teachers and
      other professional staff in connection with West Sussex County Council services.
      However, the County Council has recently acquired ‘The Parkside Complex’ in
      Horsham town centre and as a result the Professional Centre has been declared
      surplus to County Council service delivery requirements. Whilst Policy CP14 states
      that development proposals would result in the loss of sites and premises currently
      or less used for the provision of community facilities and services, leisure and
      cultural activities for the community will be resisted, it is considered that the
      demolition of the existing building and redevelopment for residential purposes is
      acceptable in this instance in light of the site being declared surplus to the County
      Council’s service delivery requirements.

6.4   The site has an area of approximately 0.38 hectare and 21 dwellings would give
      rise to a density of 55.2 dwellings per hectare. This is above the national ‘indicative
      minimum’ contained in PPS3 (30 units per hectare), however, higher densities can
      be appropriate in sustainable locations, such as those with good public transport
      accessibility, which includes Horsham town centre. Policy DC18 comments that
      development must respect the character into which it is placed although the
      principle of development of the site at the proposed density is not necessarily
      unacceptable in itself, subject to the form and layout of the development being
      appropriate. Provision should also be made for smaller homes to meet the needs
      of all existing households as set out in Policy DC18. Policy CP12 requires
      affordable housing to be provided on developments of 15 units or more. In this
      respect, eight units are proposed for affordable housing, although the method by
      which such housing is proposed to be secured is discussed in more detail below.


Character and appearance

6.5   Development Plan policies require new residential development to be of a high
      standard of design and layout in keeping with the character of nearby development
      and the surrounding area. The location of the site is in a residential area including
      both individual dwellings and flats.

6.6   Whilst the appearance of the buildings, landscaping, layout and scale are to be
      dealt with at reserved matters stage, an indicative layout has been provided
      together with illustrative elevations.

      However, it is considered the indicative layout is inappropriate for the following
      reasons:
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7.




          The back of the ‘cart shed’ and bin store forms the main Brighton Road frontage
           elevation and would present a poor appearance on this prominent site.
          A prominent and excessive parking courtyard with limited landscaping is
           considered inappropriate on the main frontage.
          The proximity of the proposed three storey flat block to the junction of Brighton
           Road and Moons Lane, would mean this element is over-dominant and out of
           character with the area.
          The location of the parking abutting the boundary with Clarence Road and
           Grove House, is liable to have an adverse effect on the amenities of adjoining
           occupiers without a suitable buffer.
          The provision of parking with access directly off Moons Lane is contrary to the
           suggestions of the County Surveyor.

       In order to completely satisfy the Local Planning Authority that these issues can be
       overcome, having regard to the identified site constraints, it is considered a revised
       illustrative plan needs to be presented.

Residential amenities

6.7    As layout and external appearance of the proposal is a matter for consideration at
       Reserved Matters Stage there are no specific details in the outline application with
       regard to these issues. However with an appropriate layout and design of buildings
       it is considered that the level of development proposed should be capable of being
       accommodated on the site in a manner that would not have an unacceptable
       impact on the residential amenities of adjacent properties

Highways, access and parking

6.8    Revised plans showing swept paths for refuse vehicles have been submitted to
       address the comments of the highway authority. Likewise the applicant has agreed
       to the amendment to remove vehicular access to the 5 ‘visitor’ parking spaces in
       Moons Lane, with such spaces being accessed from within the site either to be
       shown on a revised plan, or achieved by way of a condition.

Sustainable Construction

6.9    The applicant states whilst national planning guidance and policy DC8 require
       residential schemes to demonstrate their contribution towards sustainable
       construction this is difficult to achieve in the case of outline applications such as
       this, where detailed design matters are reserved for later approval. However the
       applicant states they would have no objection to this issue being dealt with by
       condition. This approach is considered appropriate by your officers in cases such
       as this.

Trees and Vegetation

6.10   The application is accompanied by an arboricultural report which the illustrative
       layout seeks to accommodate
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8.



Contributions and affordable housing

6.11   The applicant has submitted a unilateral undertaking with regard to financial
       contributions for infrastructure requirements generated by the proposal, it is
       anticipated the comments of the Head of Financial and Legal Services on the
       wording and content of the undertaking will be available at the meeting.

6.12   With regard to the provision of affordable housing the agreement of the applicant to
       40% provision of affordable housing on the site is welcomed. However the
       mechanism by which such provision is proposed to be secured by the applicant is
       by way of a condition. This Council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning
       Document indicates such provision should be secured by way of a Legal
       Agreement. Notwithstanding the comments in the consultation response of
       Strategic and Community Planning, the Council’s Housing Strategy Manager and
       former Head of Strategic and Community Planning consider the most appropriate
       manner in which such provision should be secured is by way of a Legal Agreement
       in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD.. In this regard the
       former Head of Strategic and Community Planning stated “I would say that I am
       surprised that you believe that affordable housing can be dealt with by condition;
       that has never been the case as far as I am aware and from a planning policy point
       of view, I would always urge that a S106 agreement should be entered into for the
       provision of affordable housing, as indicated in the Planning Obligations SPD.”

6.13   This would be consistent with the approach taken on other sites in light of the
       requirements of this Councils Planning Obligations SPD adopted in 2007. This
       approach would also be in accordance with the approach taken by the applicant on
       other sites with regard to the mechanism by which affordable housing is provided.
       In these circumstances the applicant has again been requested to consider the
       mechanism by which affordable housing would be provided.

Conclusions

6.14   The site lies within the built-up area of Horsham in a sustainable location. The
       redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is considered to be acceptable in
       principle.


7.     RECOMMENDATION

7.1    It is recommended that the application be delegated to the Head of Development
       with a view to approval subject to the provisions of a revised illustrative layout plan
       and an agreed mechanism in respect affordable housing provision; and that
       thereafter permission is granted subject to the following conditions:

       01     A2     Outline Permission - delete layout, scale and access
       02     M1     Materials
       03     E3     Fencing
                                                               APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9.



04   No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the site access road
     junction with Clarence Road has been constructed in accordance with the
     approved plans.
     Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with Policy DC40
     of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General
     Development Control Policies (2007).
05   No development, hereby approved shall be commenced until visibility splays
     of 2.4m x 43m have been provided at the unnamed site access road junction
     with Clarence Road in accordance with a plan to be submitted to and
     approved by the Local Planning Authority. These splays shall thereafter be
     kept clear of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 0.8m above the
     adjoining carriageway level.
     Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with Policy DC40
     of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General
     Development Control Policies (2007).
06   No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the internal site
     access road has been provided in accordance with an approved site layout
     and detailed design engineering drawings to be submitted to and approved
     by the Local Planning Authority.
     Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with Policy DC40
     of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General
     Development Control Policies (2007).
07   No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the car parking spaces
     have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with an
     approved site layout and details to be submitted to and approved by the
     Local Planning Authority. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all
     times for their designated use.
     Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with Policy DC40
     of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General
     Development Control Policies (2007).
08   H10 Cycle Parking
09   H4     On Site Parking
10   O1     Hours of Working
11   03     Site Clearance
12   H6     Wheel Washing
13   D6     Finished Floor Levels
14   G6     Recycling
15   L1     Hard and Soft Landscaping
16   L2a Protection of Trees
17   L3     Trenches
18   L6     Burning of Materials
19   L4     Landscape Management Plan
20   M8     Sustainable Construction (residential development)
21   L8     No Felling
22   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:
                                                                 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10.



23    Access
      The dwellings, hereby approved shall not be occupied until the access from
      Clarence Road has been designed, laid out and constructed in accordance
      with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
      Authority.
      Reason: In the interests of road safety.
24    Access closure
      The existing secondary site vehicular access to the north of main access
      onto Clarence Road shall be physically closed prior to the dwellings being
      occupied in accordance with a specification submitted to and approved by
      the Local Planning Authority. This existing site access shall not be used by
      construction traffic.
      Reason: In the interests of road safety.
25    Car parking space
      The dwellings, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until the car parking
      has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These
      spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for its designated use.
      Reason: To provide car-parking space for the dwelling.
26    Cycle parking
      The dwellings, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until covered secure
      cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with a detailed
      construction plan to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
      Authority.
      Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in
      accordance with PPG3 and DEV4 of WSCC Structure Plan.
27    Access Road
      The dwellings, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until the road serving
      the development has been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance
      with plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
      Authority. The design of the access road shall also accommodate the
      recommendations of the Stage One Safety Audit.
      Reason: To provided satisfactory standards of access and in the interests of
      road safety.

Informative:
Access works on the public highway:
The developer is advised that they will be required to enter into a highway works
agreement to be made under the provisions of the Local Government
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1972, Section 111 and Section 278 of the Highways
Act 1980 for the execution of the site access road/Blackbridge Lane junction
improvement works. The applicant is requested to contact the Agreements Officer,
West Sussex County Council, County Hall, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1RQ
(Tel no. 01243 777251) in order that the necessary documentation may be
prepared for inclusion in the legal agreement.

A formal application for the connection to the public sewerage system is required in
order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the
appropriate connection point for the development please contact Atkins Limited,
Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (telephone
01962 858600), or www.southernwater.co.uk.
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11.




8.       REASONS

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

       ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and
             appearance of the street scene or locality.




Background Papers:             DC/08/2562
Contact Officer:               Steve Booth



Sb2pink/wk3/jlt
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.




abcd
                                                      DEVELOPMENT
                                                   MANAGEMENT REPORT


TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             DC/09/0237: Erection of 35 dwellings and access to Sandygate
                         Lane (Outline)

                         DC/09/0238: Alterations to garage building to form new entrance
                         door, open up new opening in internal existing dividing wall,
                         construct new internal studwork partitions, form new insulated
                         floating floor, insulate breathable inner skin to walls and roof.
                         Form new windows in existing garage door openings. Adjust
                         external levels to achieve level threshold (Listed Building Consent)

                         DC/09/0239: Erect 1 x four bed house, 2 x one bed flats and 1 x
                         two bed flat (total one house and three flats), new access,
                         associated parking and garaging, change of use of store to shop
                         including alterations (Full planning permission)

SITE:                    The Plough Inn, Leechpond Hill, Lower Beeding

WARD:                    Nuthurst

APPLICATIONS:            DC/09/0237, DC/09/0238 & DC/09/0239

APPLICANT:               Hall & Woodhouse Ltd.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Committee endorse the form of
development proposed and the applications be delegated with a view to approval subject
to further detailed work on the proposal indicated being undertaken and the further details
and Section 106 Agreements be agreed by the Head of Development in consultation with
local Members.


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning and listed building consent applications.




Contact:          Steve Booth                               Extension:        5169
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.




      DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATIONS

1.1   The three inter-related applications propose the development of a total of 35
      dwellings, vehicular access onto Sandygate Lane, highway alterations, provision of
      open space, the use of a building attached to the listed Plough Inn as a shop,
      together with alterations to the public house car park. The three inter-related
      applications comprise an outline application for the development of the main part of
      the site (excluding the Plough Inn) (DC/09/0237), a listed building application for the
      works to the listed building (DC/09/0238) and a detailed application for Plots 7, 8, 9
      and 10, together with the associated access road onto Sandygate Lane, change of
      use of outbuilding on the Plough Inn to a retail shop, and associated landscape
      works.

1.2   The three applications are accompanied by design and access statement, which is
      supplemented by an affordable housing statement, biodiversity report, flood risk
      assessment, foul sewerage and utilities assessment, heritage statement, noise
      assessment, landscape details, open space assessment, parking provision, site
      photographs, planning obligations, heads of terms document, planning statement,
      structural statement, sustainability/energy statement, transport assessment, travel
      plan, Arboricultural impact appraisal and method statement and visibility splays and
      site lines document.

1.3   The site is subject to Policy AL8 in the Local Development Framework document
      Site Specific Allocations of Land. The package of proposals incorporates highway
      works on Leechpond Hill, the retention of vehicular access to serve The Plough
      public house and the proposed shop from Leechpond Hill, with the main
      development being served by a new vehicular access off Sandygate Lane.

1.4   Matters for consideration under the outline application (DC/09/0237) comprise
      access and layout. The appearance of the buildings, landscaping and scale are
      proposed by the applicant to be dealt with at the reserved matters stage, the works
      which are not covered either by the listed building application (DC/09/0238) or the
      full application (DC/09/0239). The residential development is served principally by
      a curving central vehicular access. Plots 1 - 5 front onto Sandygate Lane and to
      avoid dwellings adjacent to Leechpond Hill presenting their rear boundaries to the
      road, a shared surface footway/single carriageway width access is shown adjacent
      to the existing roadside vegetation (to be retained) with Plots 14 – 18 fronting onto
      the shared surface route.

1.5   A pond within the site and adjacent trees are shown to be retained.


      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6   The site is located at the junction of Leechpond Hill and Sandygate Lane in Lower
      Beeding. The site is incorporated within the defined built-up area of Lower Beeding
      and, in part, the eastern site boundary at its southern end is opposite the boundary
      of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, on the opposite side of
      Leechpond Hill. The site itself comprises The Plough Inn, its associated
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.



      outbuildings, garden and car park, together with the adjacent field. The Plough Inn
      itself is a listed building. The site also contains a pond and a number of mature
      trees, in particular grouped around the pond and individual mature trees, in
      particular on the northern and western boundaries. The field adjacent to the public
      house is mainly grassed with boundaries principally marked by hedging.

1.7   Two runs-off public sewers across the site, one running approximately north/south
      and the other approximately east/west, joining at the south/east corner of the site.


      PLANNING HISTORY

1.8   In 1987 residential development, realignment of the A279, provision of roundabout
      and new access was refused (LB/11/87).

      In 1985 an application for the erection of 15 houses and garages (outline) was
      refused (LB/55/85).

      The remainder of the planning applications on the site relate to the public house
      and associated development.


2.    INTRODUCTION


      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS, PPS3, PPG13, PPG15, PPG23, PPS9, PPS25.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   South East Plan 2009: SP3, CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, H3, H4, H5, T4, NRM4, BE1,
      BE4.

2.4   Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12,
      CP13, CP14.

2.5   Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007):
      DC4, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC13, DC14, DC18, DC35, DC40.

2.6   Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) document: Policy AL8 (Land at The
      Plough, Lower Beeding).
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.



3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      DC/09/0237

3.1   The Council’s Property and Economic Development (Drainage and Minor Works
      Section) make no adverse comments.

3.2   Southern Water note public sewers cross the site, raising no objections subject to
      conditions/informatives.

3.3   The Environment Agency, following discussions with the applicant, have confirmed
      they are satisfied on the grounds of flood risk ‘downstream’ and state that ponds
      and habitats should be protected.

3.4   Natural England state slow worms are present on the site and as mitigation
      measures are not finalised, where possible they should remain on site, if this is not
      possible, receptor sites should be demonstrated. It states a condition regarding
      reptile mitigation is therefore required, notes the site is adjacent to the High Weald
      AONB and comments that opportunities for biodiversity enhancement should be
      sought.

3.5   Sussex Police note the proposal has good natural surveillance, but comment the
      courtyard between Units 22 and 23 could attract local youth, the footpath adjacent
      to Units 14 and 23 appears to serve no purpose and is considered contrary to
      ‘manual for streets’. It is also suggested adequate lighting would be required.

3.6   The Council’s Strategic and Community Planning Department concludes that the
      Department actively supports the proposals, that are considered to comply with the
      Council’s adopted policy and would wish to see the proposals approved so as to
      meet the needs identified and ensure the delivery of the housing in the short term,
      subject to ensuring compliance with Policies DC5, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC13 and
      DC14 in terms of detail.

3.7   West Sussex County Council raise no specific Strategic Planning objection. With
      regard to ecology and highways, it is stated that approval cannot be granted until
      further information/modification is received. Parking is stated to be in accordance
      with maximum standards (two spaces per dwelling) and that cycle parking is
      required. A Stage 1 Safety Audit is required before the development could be
      recommended. It is also noted traffic calming is required and that a phasing clause
      within the legal agreement would be appropriate. The County Council considers
      street lights are not required in light of the characteristics of the area. The
      submitted travel plan needs amending prior to approval. Following investigation, it
      considers no improvements to existing bus provision can be made without impact
      on The Plough Inn due to junction alignment and road widths. Mitigation measures
      for reptiles (slow worms) are required and concern is expressed about parking
      spaces adjacent to the pond from a landscape perspective and, if the area is used
      for slow worm translocation. If subsequently approved, conditions are
      recommended to cover various matters.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5.



3.8       Lower Beeding Parish Council state that it has worked over several years with the
          landowners and their advisors to provide a scheme that meets the village’s
          requirement for a mix of affordable and open market housing to a design that
          incorporates the rural location, and that it fully supports the above three
          applications, subject to the terms of the Section 106 Agreement being acceptable.
          It comments that with regard to Sussex Police’s comments, the Parish Council
          would not wish to see alterations proposed by the Police to the courtyard between
          Units 22 and 23 or the footpaths alongside Unit 14 and between Units 2 and 3, and
          that it would not wish to see street lighting incorporated within the development,
          given its rural nature and the need to stop unnecessary light pollution.

DC/09/0238

3.9       The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer states the re-use of the outbuilding
          is welcomed, the retention of the internal roof structure and other alterations are
          considered appropriate. Conditions are recommended regarding the submission of
          material samples.

DC/09/0239

3.10      Property and Economic Development (Drainage and Minor Works Section) – see
          comments on DC/09/0237.

3.11      Southern Water – see comments on DC/09/0237.

3.12      Environment Agency make no objection, subject to a condition to cover approval of
          surface water drainage scheme, wildlife mitigation and the provision of a
          management plan for the buffer zone adjacent to the pond.

3.13      West Sussex County Council comment that with specific regard to the shop, with a
          floor area of 44 sq m, it is not considered the shop would have a significant impact
          on the highway network. Parking provision is within maximum standards and that
          comments on other aspects of the proposal are considered under the County
          Council’s consultation response in respect of DC/09/0237.

3.14      Letters of objection from 25 properties in the vicinity have been received on the
          grounds of:

         Boundary treatment and privacy.
         Access and traffic issues on the congested and notorious corner of Sandygate
          Lane and Leechpond Hill.
         Fundamental change in character of existing settlement containing 74 dwellings.
         Over-development.
         Adverse impact on settlement.
         Vehicular entrance on Sandygate Lane is opposite drive for 10 properties.
         Vehicles headlights using access at night would shine into property opposite.
         Highway danger.
         A development should be 100% affordable housing, only ten identified and
          questioning the need for the additional dwellings.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6.



         Increased traffic, noise and pollution.
         Conflict with Local Development Framework Policy CP12.
         The development is “beyond that which would assist in the gradual evolution of
          community”.
         Reduction in property values.
         Insufficient school capacity.
         Three storey dwelling on Plot 25 is inappropriate and will impact on privacy and
          light.
         Proposal contrary to Policy CP5.
         No guarantee that the shop will open, will sell what residents wish to buy, or
          survive.
         Proposal does not incorporate improvements to bus services.
         Development should be for a maximum of 20 units.
         Traffic calming will not overcome concerns of new access close to junction of fast-
          through roads.
         Alternative site for affordable housing.
         Affordable houses in one corner of site, only some built in first phase due to
          economic climate


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 is an integral part of the planning
          assessment set out in Section 6 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 in the determination of this application are considered to be the
          principle of development and its affect on the character and amenities of the area,
          the amenities of neighbouring and future occupiers, highway safety, access and
          parking, existing trees and vegetation, infrastructure requirements generated by the
          development, the provision of affordable housing and compliance with site specific
          allocations of land Policy AL8.

6.2       The site lies within the defined built-up area of Lower Beeding and the application
          needs to be assessed against Development Plan policies, including Policy AL8
          specifically relating to the site and relevant National Planning guidance.
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7.



6.3   This application needs to be considered against the Horsham District Local
      Development Framework, particularly Policy AL 8 of the Site Specific Allocations of
      Land (SSAL) (2007) document, as well as the adopted Core Strategy and General
      Development Control Policies (2007) document. National and regional policies are
      also relevant to the consideration of the applications, in particular PPS3, Housing,
      PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment, and PPG13, Transport.

6.4   The Inspectors Report (published September 2007) into the LDF Site Specific
      Allocations of Land (2007) document set out the background to the current
      proposals. In the report the Inspector stated;

      “Since 2003 Lower Beeding Parish Council has been working with the District
      Council, English Rural Housing Association, the owners of The Plough and the
      local village community to provide a package of measures which would achieve
      affordable housing, a reduction in traffic speeds, a pedestrian crossing, road
      changes to allow for a bus route to better serve the village and a shop as part of the
      refurbishment of the Grade II listed village pub. The ability of the Housing
      Association to achieve a successful affordable housing scheme was said to depend
      upon the availably of free serviced land.

      Despite the well attended local meetings where the Parish Council considered it
      had a consensus of support for this package, it was evident from the discussion at
      the hearing session that there is a body of local opinion that consider the claimed
      benefits of this package would not justify the change in character of the village that
      would result. Doubt was also expressed about the viability of a new local shop.
      It is clear to us that the Councils, as the local democratically elected bodies, have
      put considerable effort over some years into attempting to involve the local
      community in ways of meeting identified local needs. Such local initiative warrants
      support and carries weight. The Council confirmed that the 2005 survey of housing
      need for the parish as a whole would be updated before this scheme progresses.
      But we share the concerns of those who oppose a roundabout as the means of
      access and speed control. Alternative solutions need to be explored which avoid
      such a visually alien feature amongst a group of rural buildings, one of which is
      listed. We also consider the establishment and retention of some form of local
      shop as necessary to justify the claimed enhancement in sustainability. Increasing
      flexibility in the policy wording would undermine the importance of this requirement.
      Whilst we conclude, on careful balance, that this allocation should remain, we
      consider Changes are necessary to make the proposal sound under Test 7, and
      these are set out in Annex A. If the full package of measures to meet local needs is
      not deliverable, we firmly believe the scheme should not progress.”

6.5   Policy AL8 of the adopted Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) LDF document
      sets out the following criteria with regard to development on the site and against
      which, amongst other development plan polices and material considerations the
      proposal should be assessed.

6.6   Policy AL8 states ‘…the site is expected to accommodate a maximum of 35
      dwellings.’
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8.



6.7   The application accords with that figure. The Inspectors at the hearings accepted
      that the number of dwellings was appropriate in the context of the overall scheme
      and therefore the principle of the amount of development has been established. In
      these circumstances in policy terms there is no basis to seek a reduction in this
      number if such development can be accommodated on the site in an appropriate
      manner.

6.8   The policy also contains the following criteria:

      a.     The provision of at least 10 affordable homes for identified local
             housing needs as the basis of this scheme.
             The proposal provides 10 affordable dwellings in accordance with the policy.
             Action in Rural Sussex carried out an updated housing need survey in 2007
             (following on from an original survey in 2005) which showed that there was
             an indentified local need for affordable housing. An associated Section 106
             agreement will need ensure that the affordable dwellings are secured and
             made available for local people.

      b.     Sensitive design to respect the character and setting of The Plough
             public house and local vernacular.
             The detailed application seeks to ensure that the setting of the listed building
             is protected. The advice of the Design and Conservation Officer has been
             sought in this regard and satisfactory comments received. The Design
             Statement submitted with the application indicates a desire to follow the local
             vernacular. Appropriate conditions and inclusion of clauses in the Section
             106 agreement can be used to ensure that this policy requirement is met.

      c.     Appropriate design and works to achieve the reduction of traffic
             speeds in the village and improve pedestrian safety.
             The proposal includes measures to reduce traffic speeds and improve
             pedestrian safety with refuges and a right turn bay into Sandygate Lane. A
             contribution of £40,000 is also proposed to enable work to be carried out
             regarding long term solutions to reduce speed in the village. The Section 106
             agreement will be required to secure the improvements and the contribution;
             ensuring that it is spent as proposed.

      d.     Improvements to cycle and pedestrian links from the site.
             Walkways are proposed into the site, as well as the main vehicular access
             onto Sandygate Lane. Crossing places on the central road islands will
             enable pedestrians to access the site and reach village facilities on foot.
             Appropriate conditions and requirements of a Section 106 agreement can be
             attached to the planning permissions to cover these matters.

      e.     The provision and retention of a shop linked with The Plough public
             house.
             The proposal includes provision for a shop in the building attached to the
             southern end of the Listed public house. The Section 106 agreement can be
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9.




             worded to ensure its provision (to a level that makes its use as a shop
             feasible and available to let at a reasonable rate) and ensure its reasonable
             retention in accordance with Policy DC37, Neighbourhood and Village
             Shops.

       f.    The retention and enhancement of the pond and surrounding native
             trees.
             The proposals include the retention and enhancement of the pond. The
             advice of the Environment Agency, Natural England and the County Council
             have been sought in this regard. Further details regarding the retention and
             enhancement of the pond and its environs are required together with
             mitigation measures for reptiles on the site. A tree survey has been
             submitted. Further details illustrating the proposed developments relationship
             with trees shown to be retained together with their relevant root protection
             zones have been received. Further detailed investigation and consideration
             will need to be given in this regard. In order to accommodate the
             development proposed consideration will need to be given to a pragmatic
             and flexible approach to development within the root protection zones of
             certain trees on the site.

       Overall:

6.9    It is therefore considered that the proposals meet the specific objectives of policy
       AL8 in the adopted Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) document; capable of
       delivering the full package of measures to meet local need, subject to an
       appropriate Section 106 legal agreement and conditions. As such the proposal is
       also considered to accord with the Core Strategy (2007) and national policy
       objectives set out in PPS3, Housing, PPS1, Delivering Sustainable Development
       and PPG13, Transport.

6.10   In terms of detail, it the proposal should also accord with General Development
       Control Policies, including DC5 Biodiversity and Geology, DC7 Flooding, DC8
       Renewable Energy and Climate Change, DC9 Development Principles, DC13
       Listed Buildings, and DC18 Smaller Homes/Housing Mix.

Character and Appearance

6.11   Development Plan policies require new residential development to be of a high
       standard of design and layout in keeping with the character of nearby development
       and the surrounding area. The layout of the development on the outline application
       is a matter for consideration under the existing outline application. The overall
       layout of the proposed access roads and dwellings within the site is considered
       appropriate to its context. Careful consideration of the siting, design and boundary
       treatment of Plots 33, 34 and 35 would be required to ensure appropriate levels of
       privacy are retained by the existing dwelling, Little Orchard.

6.12   The applicant has also indicated a willingness to amend the three storey design of
       Plot 25 seeking to address concerns expressed in this regard. Re-consultation on
       revised plans would be undertaken.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10.




Highways, Access and Parking

6.13   The West Sussex County Council Highways Department state that in order for the
       safety of the proposed access onto Sandygate Lane to be fully assessed, a Stage 1
       Safety Audit would need to be provided, considered and any appropriate
       amendments made prior to planning permission being granted for the development.
       It further comments that the level of parking (two spaces per dwelling), is
       considered appropriate.

Sustainable Construction

6.14   The affordable housing units need to be constructed to a minimum Level 3 for the
       Code for Sustainable Homes for such units. With regard to the outline element of
       the scheme, the applicant has been mindful of sustainable construction objectives
       and is accepting of a condition relating to construction achieving Code 3 for
       Sustainable Homes.

Legal Agreement

6.15   A Section 106 Legal Agreement will be required for the provision and tenure of
       affordable housing, infrastructure contributions generated by the proposal,
       provision and mechanism for appropriate retention of the shop, traffic calming/off
       site highway improvements based principally on the draft Heads of Terms
       document submitted with the proposal.

Conclusions

6.16   Whilst there is further information required with regard to the submission of a Stage
       1 Safety Audit associated with the access onto Sandygate Lane, mitigation
       measures for reptiles on the site, re-consultation and revised plans with regard to
       Plots 25, 32, 33, 34 and 35, development within the route of protection zones of
       trees within, and on the boundaries, of the site and detailed negotiations on the
       precise wording of the legal agreement, together with appropriate conditions. The
       Committee is requested to endorse the principles of the method of development on
       the site included within the three applications, prior to the necessary further detailed
       work to progress the proposal being undertaken.


7.     RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1    It is recommended that the Committee endorse the form of development proposed
       and that the applications be delegated with a view to approval subject to the further
       detailed work on the proposal indicated being undertaken. The further details and
       Section 106 Agreement, together with appropriate conditions be agreed by the
       Head of Development in consultation with local Members.
                                                                    APPENDIX A/ 2 - 11.




8.       REASONS - To be determined in consultation with local Members.




Background Papers:         DC/09/0237, DC/09/0238, DC/09/0239
Contact Officer:           Steve Booth


Sb3pink/wk3/jlt
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1




abcd
                                                DEVELOPMENT
                                                MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4 August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a building
                         comprising a research and development laboratory at ground floor
                         and the 1st floor 2 residential flats (1 x 1-bed and 1 x 2-bed)

SITE:                    129 Crawley Road, Horsham

WARD:                    Roffey North

APPLICATION:             DC/09/0810

APPLICANT:               Mr A. Altunkaya



REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                 Officer Referral

RECOMMENDATION:             That planning permission be approved.


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing vacant building
      which is located at the northern end of the site to be replaced with a two storey
      building comprising research and development laboratory and associated offices at
      ground floor and two self contained residential units at first floor. The residential
      units comprise 1no. 1-bed flat and 1no. 2-bed flat. The laboratory (B1) use requires
      a change of use from builder’s yard/ joinery workshop (B2) and as such the change
      of use is also sought.

1.2   The proposal also includes the demolition of the existing first floor over-hang of the
      building fronting onto Crawley Road, which creates the vehicle under croft together
      with the removal of the existing timber shed.




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



1.3   On-site parking, cycle storage and associated landscaping are also proposed as
      part of the application.

      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4   The application relates to the land to the rear of 129 Crawley Road. The property
      fronting onto Crawley Road is of brick construction with a first floor overhang
      creating an under croft leading to the land at the rear. The property to be
      demolished is situated in the northern end of the site and currently forms the
      boundary with property within Vernon Close.

1.5   The existing building comprises a two-storey building with a single storey
      subservient annex and further single storey flat roof storage building to the front.
      The boundary treatment is predominately timber boarded fencing of varying
      heights. The land is a mix of gravel/ shingle and hardstanding.


2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1, PPS3

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following
      policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP11, CP13 and CP19.

2.4   Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control
      Policies Submission Documents September 2006 - the following policies are of
      particular relevance: DC8, DC9, DC20 and DC40.

2.5   South East Plan: CC1, CC2, CC4, CC7, RE3, GAT1

      RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2.6   No relevant planning history.


3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   Public Health and Licensing: It is noted that neighbours are concerned over the
      use of the premises as a laboratory. Health and safety enforcement of laboratories
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3



      lies with the Health and Safety Executive, and it is recommended that they be
      consulted.

      Details of extract air conditioning equipment appear to be absent from the
      application. It is likely that there will be external plant. Acoustic and odour
      assessments may be required before permission is considered further. Suggest
      prohibition without Planning permission.

      The plans refer to installation of “bifold doors to allow machinery access” to the lab.
      There are concerns of possible noise nuisance to the flats above and to adjacent
      neighbours. Acoustic assessment may be required before permission is
      considered further. Suggest prohibition without permission. May need to consider
      tying occupancy of residential unit and commercial together.

      Propose, limit to the commercial premises’ hours of operation (including deliveries
      and dispatch), be limited to 0800-1800 hours Monday-Friday, 0800-1300 hours
      Saturdays and no use on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

      In the event of Approval: Propose hours of general demolition, clearance and
      construction at the site associated with the proposal shall also be limited to the
      above times.

      Propose - No operation or activity involving the storage or use of ‘Hazardous
      Materials’ of a type and in quantities in excess of those stated in DoE Circular 9 84
      shall be commenced unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.
      The recent history of the site (as a builder’s and timber yard) suggests that there
      may be site contamination.

      The proposed ventilation for Bedroom 1 of Flat 1 appears to be via an extensive
      sliding window only. This is not acceptable for ventilation and security purposes.

3.2   West Sussex Fire Safety Team were consulted and responded via the Public
      Health and Licensing Team. No objections.

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3    Southern Water: Should this application receive planning approval, the following
      informative is attached to the consent: “A formal application for connection to the
      public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate
      a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the
      development, please contact Atkins Ltd”

      Our initial investigations indicate that there are no public surface water sewers in
      the area to serve this development. Alternative means of draining surface water
      from this development are required. This should not involve disposal to a public foul
      sewer.

      The impermeable area survey plans indicate that the existing roof areas to the rear
      of the site may be connected to soakaways. It is recommended that storm flow
      should be connected to soakaways as per the existing site. Building control officers
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4



      or your own engineers should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways
      to dispose of surface water from the proposed development. We request that
      should this application receive planning approval, the following condition is attached
      to the consent: “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.”


3.4   West Sussex County Council: The proposal is for a research and development
      laboratory at ground floor level with 1 no. 1 bed flat and 1 no. 2 bed flat on the first
      floor with access onto Crawley Road via an existing access point. There have been
      no recorded accidents in the immediate vicinity of the property. The applicant has
      confirmed that they will cut back the hedge to improve visibility for vehicles
      emerging from the access.

      The number of parking spaces is in accordance with WSCC maximum standard,
      which would include a maximum of three spaces for the two dwellings. There is
      adequate space for vehicles to turn within the site thus enabling them to exit in a
      forward gear.

      Contributions of £5434 are required pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and
      Country planning Act 1990 to mitigate the impacts of the subject proposal with the
      provision of additional County Council service infrastructure, highways and public
      transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development.

      The applicant has provided further information on the vehicular movements
      associated with the former builders’ yard. They have demonstrated that there
      should be no intensification of use as a result of this proposal.

      If the LPA are minded to approve this application, a condition securing cycle
      parking, provision of car parking spaces prior to occupation of the dwellings, and
      any modification to the existing access should be included. A condition should also
      be applied to secure visibility splays of 2m by 43m from the centre of the existing
      access.

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5   Third party consultations received from 123, 125,127, 131 Crawley Road, 10, 11,
      12 Vernon Close objecting to the proposal on the grounds that the proposal would
      result in the loss of privacy, design and materials out of keeping with locality, the
      use is more suited to a local industrial estate and not in keeping with residential
      area, it will reduce property value, possible harmful effects of materials stored on
      site, disturbance through noise and pollution, possible protesters and security
      issues, highway safety and the need for bat protection.

3.6   Two anonymous letters of objection received. Objections are similar to those
      stated above.

3.7   North Horsham Parish Council: Objects to the application on the grounds that the
      proposed research and development laboratory is inappropriate for a residential
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5



      area. It is considered that there may also be safety and security issues attached to
      the application.


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 this case are considered to be the principle of the development
      in this location, the impact on the visual amenities of the area, the private
      residential amenities of nearby neighbours, traffic implications and any noise
      disturbance and pollution implications.

6.2   The application site is situated within the built up area boundary of Horsham, and
      as such is situated within a sustainable location within walking and particularly
      cycling distance of the town centre and other local amenities. The site is therefore
      considered to be sustainable and residential development subject to the usual
      development control criteria would be acceptable in principle.

6.3   With regards to the commercial use proposed on site, the site currently benefits
      from a commercial use, albeit the site is vacant. The site was previously used as a
      builder’s yard/ joinery workshop, which was under Use Class B2. The proposal is
      to occupy the site would fall to be considered under B1 Use Class (notwithstanding
      the provision of residential as mentioned above). Having regard to the general
      industrial nature of the site, it is considered that a small scale commercial use on
      this site would be acceptable in principle, also subject to the usual development
      control criteria.

6.4   The building proposed is two-storey in nature occupying a similar footprint to the
      existing (approximately 158sqm is proposed). The roof line would have a shallow
      pitch with an overall height of approximately 7.5metres. It is intended that the finish
      of the proposed development would be white render over brick, timber cladding
      detail and slate roof. The majority of property within this vicinity are of brick
      construction, it is considered that as the building proposed sits within a central plot
      surrounded by property, that its appearance should blend with its surroundings and
      as such a rendered finish may appear overly incongruous. Notwithstanding the
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6



       proposed render finish annotated on the plans, it is considered that a brick finish
       would be far more appropriate.

6.5    The applicant has stated that the rear boundary (backing onto the properties within
       Vernon Close) would be a 2m brick wall. Having regard to the existing boundary
       treatment, it is considered that this would be of a similar nature to the existing
       treatment and would obscure the proposed windows at ground floor. At first floor a
       single obscure glazed window is proposed. This could be controlled by condition.
       6 rooflights are proposed, however these would not allow for any overlooking or
       loss of privacy.

6.6    The side and front elevations will provide the majority of fenestration. The side
       windows face onto the rear gardens of the neighbouring property and as such it is
       considered that this would be acceptable. At first floor on the front elevation a
       terrace is proposed to the main residential accommodation. This would maintain a
       distance of approximately 26m between these windows and the rear elevations of
       the nearest property within Crawley Road.

6.7    Landscaping is proposed to the boundaries which would help to soften the
       appearance of the site, which currently has a very open and harsh appearance. An
       acceptable landscaping scheme can be controlled by condition.

6.8    Parking provision, comprising 6 spaces. one of which would be wheelchair
       accessible, is to be provided on site. This meets with the maximum standards
       operated by the County Council. No objection has been raised by the County on
       this issue.

6.9    Cycle storage is shown alongside the western boundary as well as within the lobby
       at first floor. It is considered that the internal storage is unacceptable and
       impracticable. However, as storage can be provided externally, in line with policy
       requirements, this is considered acceptable and similarly can be controlled by
       condition.

6.10   Many of the objections raised relate to the use of the site and its appropriateness in
       this residential location. As noted above the site currently benefits from a
       commercial/ light industry use. There are also other retail and commercial uses in
       the vicinity. The application has been considered by the Public Health and
       Licensing department as well as the West Sussex Fire Safety team with no
       objections raised subject to conditions. As such it is considered that the concerns
       regarding noise and pollution have been adequately considered. It will be for the
       applicant to ensure that all other relevant legislation is met.

6.11   Similarly, objections have been raised about security and potential protesters. The
       applicant currently occupies a site in Horsham without any of these concerns. The
       proposal includes a security gate of 3m in line with the existing building line fronting
       onto Crawley Road. It is noted that occupiers of neighbouring property are
       concerned regarding safety of their property and person. However, this would fall
       to be considered under public order legislation and come under the remit of the
       Police Authority.
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7



6.12   The proposed building would be required to ensure that they take account of its
       impact on the environment, and in particular its draw on natural resources. As such
       the residential dwellings would be required to meet a minimum Code Level 3 of the
       Code for Sustainable Homes. The commercial unit would need to ensure
       compliance with BREEAM level ‘good’ or ‘very good’.

6.13   Concern has been raised by the Public Health and Licensing officer regarding the
       fenestration for the bedroom within Unit 2. The proposed drawings do indicate
       rooflights within the proposal, and as such were a larger window required for this
       bedroom, this could be secured by condition.

6.14   Contribution toward libraries, fire and rescue, and transport infrastructure would be
       required. Similarly a district contribution would also be required. This can be
       secured by condition.


7.     RECOMMENDATION

       To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

       1.    A2      Full Permission
       2.    D4      Obscure glass (add: bathroom window on the first floor northern
                     elevation)
       3.    D5      No windows
       4.    D6      Finished Floor levels
       5.    E3      Fencing
       6.    The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the on site parking
             provision shown on the submitted plan (drawing no. 2B) have been
             constructed and made available for use and retained as such.
             Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the
             accommodation of vehicles clear of the highway in accordance with policy
             DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General
             Development Control Policies (2007).
       7.    G5      Recycling
       8.    H1      Access General
       9.    H4      On site parking
       10.   H6      Wheel Washing
       11.   H10 Cycling Provision
       12.   J2      Use Limitation (B1 (b))
       13.   K2      Soil Survey
       14.   L1      Hard and Soft Landscaping
       15.   M1      Approval of Materials
       16.   N4      Restricting noise from industrial/ commercial buildings and sites
       17.   N5      Control of noise
       18.   Prior to the hereby permitted building being brought into use, details of
             extract/ air conditioning equipment shall be submitted to and approved in
             writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall also include an
             acoustic and odour assessment. The details shall be implemented in strict
             accordance with the approved plans.
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8



           Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the site does
           not have a harmful environmental effect and in accordance with policy DC9
           of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General
           Development Control Policies (2007).
     19.    O1 Hours of working
     20.   O2     Burning of materials
     21.   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.
     22.    V1 Hours of working (amend start hours to 0800)
     23.   The residential accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied solely by
           persons and family mainly working at the hereby approved B1 Use.
           Reason: In the interests of amenities of the locality and in accordance with
           policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General
           Development Control Policies (2007).
     24.   No material operation in implementation of this permission shall take place
           until details of a scheme for the provision of community facilities, fire and
           libraries infrastructure to meet the needs of the development in accordance
           with Policy CP13 of the LDF Core Strategy 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.
           Reason: To ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the existing local
           infrastructure to meet the additional requirements arising from the
           development in accordance with policy CP13 of the LDF Core Strategy and
           Policy DEV3 of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016.
     25.   Prior to commencement of works, the applicant shall submit to the Local
           Planning Authority for approval a bat survey. If bats are found to be on site,
           the applicant shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for approval details
           of mitigation measures. The development shall be carried out in strict
           accordance with the approved details.
           Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in
           accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development
           Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the
           interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside
           Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to
           ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.

Note to Applicant:

     1. In order to discharge condition 23 above the applicant/developer will be
        expected to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement with the Council to secure
        contributions towards improvements to open space, sport and recreation
        (£2201), community facilities (£486), fire and rescue (£125), libraries (£285) and
        transport infrastructure (£5434) in the area. For further information please
        contact the case officer, Development Department, Park North, North Street,
        Horsham, RH12 1RL Tel 01403-215174.
                                                                       APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9



     2. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in
        order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify
        the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd


8.   REASONS:

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

     ICAB2B      The proposal would be acceptable as temporary measure and would
                 not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring properties.




Background Papers:       DC/09/0810
Contact Officer:         Karen Tipper
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1.




abcd
TO:
                                                        DEVELOPMENT
                                                     MANAGEMENT REPORT

                         Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Change of use of farm buildings to stud farm

SITE:                    Bensons Farm, Wimland Road, Faygate

WARD:                    Rusper and Colgate

APPLICATION:             DC/09/0910

APPLICANT:               Marsh and Tomkins


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     This application involves the change of use of and alteration to farm buildings
        comprising a piggery building and fodder barn to enable the farm to be used as a
        stud farm. This use has already commenced (it is understood since December
        2008) but the building works involved in the application have not yet been
        undertaken. These comprise increasing the height of the piggery building and
        internal alterations. This is currently a brick built structure with a mono-pitched roof
        with a maximum height of 3.2m sloping down to 2m. The proposal is to increase
        the height to a maximum of 4m sloping down to 3.5m. The mono pitch roof form
        would be maintained.

1.2     The existing piggery building has five bays with a storage shed on the western
        elevation. The partitions are to be retained but front stable partition walls are to be
        inserted set back 1m from the external edge of the building for each box. The
        existing store shed at the northern gable end is to be retained for use as a




Contact:       Val Cheesman                                           Extension:     5163
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2.



      tackroom. The existing domed roof fodder barn is to be partially subdivided with
      four internal loose boxes for isolation/foaling purposes. The remainder of the
      building will be used for fodder and bedding storage.

1.3   The enterprise on the site is the breeding and rearing of thoroughbred horses.
      The farm extends to some 29 hectares of which it is proposed that one field (9.9
      ha) is to be used for the grazing of the horses. It is stated that there are 15 resident
      thoroughbred mares with young stock and four ridden horses. The proposal is that
      the applicants would breed form their own horses, with the young stock being sold
      at six months. In addition there is the provision of a stud farm service to third
      parties whereby up to 20 mares are brought to the site for AI and either returned to
      their owners or kept at the site until the foals are born. This would be between
      January and June. There are no stallions at the site. The mares are at stud for an
      average of a month and most would have left the premises at the end of the official
      stud season on 31st July. The design and access statement submitted with the
      application states:

         "The enterprise is a personal enterprise breeding and rearing horses. There is
         no livery proposed or any teaching or any other commercial venture other than
         the land and buildings being used as a stud farm…. The applicants have a well-
         established equestrian business which has been centred elsewhere. The
         buildings were in agricultural use being part of a larger agricultural enterprise
         with pigs and other livestock based on the property. The proposal is to make
         good use of existing buildings… The majority of the horses are grazed not
         requiring day to day supervision unless there is an ailment during the summer
         months, in the winter months they would be kept within the buildings and require
         regular feeding. The farm is small and not economically viable without
         considerable capital and upgrading building and becoming more
         intensive…traffic movements to s small stud of this type are low, one of the
         applicants having a house at the entranceway and the other applicant living in
         the village of Faygate “.

      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5   The site is accessed off Wimlands Road via a private track (Bensons Lane) which
      leads to this site and also to Bensons Park which comprises two dwellings and
      stables. Bensons Farm comprises a dwelling, 29 ha of land and farm buildings
      located on the west side of Wimlands Road. The buildings the subject of this
      application are located off Bensons Lane comprising the piggery building and
      fodder barn.

      PLANNING HISTORY

1.6   There is no relevant planning history relating to this application site and buildings
      however it should be noted that the farm has been the subject of four applications
      for conversion of redundant farm buildings which lie to the south of the main
      farmhouse (not this application site) to form residential units. All four were refused
      with the latter one (DC/06/1455) being dismissed on appeal primarily in relation to
      sustainability issues.




                                                                                               2
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3.




2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1, PPS and PPG13.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   South East Plan 2009: CC6, C4, GAT1.


2.4   Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007: CP1, CP2, CP15, CP19.


2.5   Local Development Framework Development Control Policies 2007: DC1, DC9,
      DC23, DC24, DC29, DC40.


3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

3.1   West Sussex County Council have commented on highways issues advising that
      Bensons Lane is a private road not maintained by WSCC. There are no changes
      to car parking arrangements and an adequate area of hardstanding is shown to
      permit turning within the site. With regard to the access point of Bensons Lane
      onto Wimlands Road, it is commented that the access appears to be operating
      safely. Further information was requested on the proposed vehicular movements
      to the stables and as 'depending on how many vehicles are likely to be using
      Bensons Lane (the private estate road that serves the stables) it may be advisable
      to have passing places installed. As it stands Bensons Lane is not suitable for two
      vehicles to use. There are no passing places along Bensons Lane therefore it is
      inevitable that if two vehicles meet one will have to reverse a significant distance in
      order to allow the other one to pass. Passing areas should be shown on a revised
      plan and resubmitted in addition to further information on vehicular movements'.

3.2   West Sussex County Council subsequently comment that the additional information
      and passing places plan are an improvement on the existing situation and given the
      proposed low traffic movements it is not anticipated there are now any issues with
      this proposal subject to the Bensons Lane improvements being implemented.


3.3   The Head of Public Health and Licensing has no objection to the proposal subject
      to conditions restricting livery at the site, no burning of waste including stable
      waste, scheme for the management of stable waste to be submitted for approval,
      adequate provision for surface water drainage and no exterior floodlighting without
      prior approval.



                                                                                                3
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4.




3.4   Rusper Parish Council comment: "With the building already existing the Council
      supports the change of use".

3.5   Three letters of objection have been received on the grounds of:

             loss of privacy, noise, disturbance and smells from a commercial stud farm
             querying the number of staff needed to manage the stud
             highway safety, parking, from visitors, staff and deliveries.
             Inadequate provision for stable waste
             querying the number of horses in relation to the land available and also
              number of proposed stables
             querying whether accommodation would be required for staff
             that the increase in the height of the piggery buildings would obstruct view
              from their dwelling
             concern that this is not a small scale application with 50 horses being at the
              site
             access road is very narrow being one car width with no suitable passing
              places
             that the change of use has already taken place
             querying whether further applications for field shelters would be required

3.6   One letter of support for the application has 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 respect of this application are the principle of the development
      and its impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, highway safety
      and the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers.

6.2   Policy DC29 allows for equestrian development in the countryside and encourages
      the reuse of existing buildings. The proposal should be appropriate in scale and
      level of activity and it should be in keeping with its location and surroundings and
      not result in sporadic development.




                                                                                             4
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5.




6.3   In this case two existing buildings are to be used for the stud farm use, no new
      buildings are proposed. With regard to the nature of the activity, the majority of the
      horses are grazed on the fields and thus in this respect the activities would be
      similar to the keeping of other agricultural livestock. The breeding element of the
      operation would be from the applicants' own horses as well as for those owned by
      third parties. In terms of the scale of the enterprise, five stables are proposed
      within the former piggery building with four isolation/foaling boxes within the fodder
      barn. In addition, as the application is for a stud farm use and no liveries or riding
      school activities are proposed, it is considered that traffic movements to and from
      the site would be limited comprising the owners and staff together with vet and
      other equestrian professionals together with deliveries of feed and fodder etc.

6.4   The agent advises that the proposal is to enable the farm to diversify and increase
      the farm income which is encouraged in the Local Development Framework
      policies. The stud farm would maintain the unit as a whole. In respect of residential
      accommodation, it should be noted that there is an existing farmhouse at Bensons
      Farm (occupied by one partner in the business) and this has direct access to the
      paddocks and the buildings and the other partner of the business lives in Faygate.
      Any future requirement for a dwelling on the site would need to be considered as
      part of a separate planning application and would be assessed in connection with
      Policy DC27 and the advice in PPS7 relating to essential rural workers' dwellings.

6.5   With regard to the visual impact of the proposal, the alterations to the piggery
      building are considered to be acceptable and appropriate in this rural location.
      There is an existing access point off Bensons Lane with areas of hardstanding
      which would be utilised for the development. No additional built form is proposed
      and it is not considered that the visual amenities of the location would be
      detrimentally affected by the extent of this proposal.

6.6   The concerns regarding the use of Bensons Lane to access the site are noted,
      particularly in relation to its limited width and in this respect the applicant has now
      provided a plan indicating passing bays along Bensons Lane which can be
      provided as the access track is within the applicant’s ownership. The agent has
      also provided information relating to traffic movements which states that "during
      February - May, on average there are two horse boxes per week. Between May -
      February on average one horse box per week. Car movements would average
      three in and three out per day."

6.7   The nearest residential properties are at Bensons Park and The Lodge, which lie to
      the north east of the subject buildings. These two properties are part of the same
      holding which also has a number of stables on the site. They are set further along
      Bensons Lane than the application site. Subject to conditions relating to storage
      and disposal of stable waste, it is not considered that this stud farm use activity
      would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of these residential
      properties and is considered to be a use that is appropriate in this rural location.




                                                                                                5
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6.




7.    RECOMMENDATION

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

      01    The use hereby permitted shall be limited to the breeding and rearing of
            horses as set out in the application and in association with Bensons Farm
            and the land shown to be in the ownership of the applicants and there shall
            be no liveries or riding lessons undertaken from the site.
            Reason:        In the interests of amenity, to enable the Local Planning
                           Authority to regulate and control the development and in
                           accordance with policy DC29 of the Horsham District Local
                           Development Framework: General Development Control
                           Policies (2007).


      02    D10    No Floodlighting
      03    N15    No public address system


      04    Within three months of the date of this permission, full details of the
            arrangements for the storage and disposal of stable waste shall be submitted
            for approval by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the arrangements
            for the storage and disposal of stable waste shall be undertaken in
            accordance with the approved details.
            Reason:        In the interests of amenity, to enable the Local Planning
                          Authority to regulate and control the development and in
                          accordance with policy DC29 of the Horsham District Local
                          Development Framework: General Development Control
                          Policies (2007).


      05    Within three months of the date of this permission full details of the location
            and construction of the passing bays to be provided along Bensons Lane
            shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. The
            approved requirements shall be completed within three months of the date of
            approval and maintained thereafter.


            Reason:       To provide improved road safety for users of Bensons Lane
                          and in accordance with Policy DC40 of the Horsham District
                          Local Development Framework General Development Control
                          Policies (2007).


      06    M1     Materials




                                                                                          6
                                                                     APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7.




8.   REASONS

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

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

     ITHP3     The vehicular traffic associated with the development would not
               adversely affect the safety and convenience of other highway users.




Background Papers:      DC/09/0910
Contact Officer:        Val Cheesman




WK3/DC090910/46




                                                                                         7
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1.




abcd
                                                      DEVELOPMENT
                                                   MANAGEMENT REPORT


TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Demolition of three existing livery stable buildings and relocate
                         their use to two new purpose-built stable blocks incorporating 11
                         stables, tack room and storage room

SITE:                    White Herons Farm, Forest Road, Colgate

WARD:                    Colgate

APPLICATION:             DC/09/1064

APPLICANT:               Mr & Mrs B Lewis

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   This application seeks planning permission for two purpose-built livery stable blocks
      comprising an ‘L’ shaped unit containing eight stables with a central section for
      storage and a tack room and a further block containing three stables which form a
      courtyard configuration. The buildings have a combined floor area of 240 sq m.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2     White Herons Farm is situated on the south side of Forest Road within an Area of
        Outstanding Natural Beauty. In the main, the property consists of a detached
        dwelling (a replacement dwelling is currently under construction) with a number of
        farm outbuildings, which are mainly situated to the east of the main dwelling.

1.3     These buildings (previously used for housing chickens) have been the subject of
        various planning applications and enforcement action and currently some have a
        commercial use, which were the subject of a planning permission in 1988. The



Contact:      Peter Harwood                                   Extension:      5167
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2.



       three buildings used for livery purposes, which are proposed to be demolished as
       part of the current proposal, are situated off an access track to the north of the
       domestic dwelling.


       PLANNING HISTORY

1.4    CG/37/88      -       Continued use of buildings for upholstery, photography,
                             carpentry, coach work and agricultural manufacturing (B1
                             and B2 use class) at Units 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 – permitted.

       CG/17/97      -       The use of 11 stables and 6 tack rooms in two buildings for
                             the stabling of the applicant’s horses and the commercial
                             livery of horses – Certificate of Lawful Use issued.

       DC/08/1083    -       Replacement dwelling – permitted.


 2.    INTRODUCTION


       STATUTORY BACKGROUND

 2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

       RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

 2.2   PPS1 and 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 (2007) are DC1, DC2, DC4, DC9 and DC29.

 2.5   South East Plan – CC6, C3, and C4.



 3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

       PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

 3.1   Colgate Parish Council raises no objection to the scheme but questions whether
       planning permission was ever given for the existing livery buildings.
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3.




3.2   Three letters of objection have been received (two from the same occupier) on the
      grounds that:

         Access onto Forest Road not suitable for commercial vehicles.
         Damage caused by vehicles to property (White House) situated adjacent to the
          access with Forest Road.
         Entrance to White Herons is opposite the entrance off Forest Road to a
          bridlepath at a position on a straight section used for overtaking.
         Concern at intensification of commercial use on this site.

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3   West Sussex County Highways: As there is no significant intensification of
      vehicular activity associated with the application, no objections are raised. Any
      subsequent permission should include a condition securing car parking spaces
      prior to the occupation of the stables.

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.4   Public Health and Licensing have no objections to the proposal, subject to
      conditions being imposed relating to the proposed stables and White Herons
      Farmhouse to remain in the same ownership; no burning of waste materials on the
      site; a scheme for management of stable wastes to be submitted and approved by
      the Local Planning Authority; no external floodlighting and adequate provision for
      surface water drainage.


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 is an integral part of the planning
      assessment set out in Section 6 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 in this case are the principle of the development in this location,
      the effects on the rural character of the surrounding area, the impact of the scheme
      on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and highway safety.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4.



6.2   The site is located outside the built-up area and is therefore subject to the
      Countryside Protection Policies of the Local Development Framework. These
      policies aim to protect the countryside for its own sake and restrict any
      development to that which can be justified as being essential to the needs of
      agriculture, forestry, the extraction of minerals, disposal of waste or quiet informal
      recreational use. It is generally accepted, however, that equestrian development
      requires a countryside location. Policy DC29 of the Local Development Framework
      states that proposals should be appropriate in scale and level of activity and in
      keeping with its location and surroundings and not result in sporadic development
      leading to an intensification of buildings in the countryside.

6.3   The application proposes to replace three existing buildings, constructed in varying
      materials, including concrete blockwork and corrugated asbestos roofs, which are
      in a poor state of repair and sited in a more prominent location to the north-west of
      the main dwelling house. These buildings have the benefit of being used for 11
      livery stables and 6 tack rooms under a Certificate of Lawful Use (CG/17/97 refers).

6.4   The three buildings to be removed have a total floor area of 252 sq m. The
      proposed replacement stables are of a low profile design (maximum height 4m) and
      are to be constructed using dark stained timber cladding with black Onduline roof
      and set out in the form of a courtyard. The total area of the two proposed stable
      blocks are 240 sq m and are smaller than the structures to be removed. The
      proposed buildings are to be located to the rear/east end of the farm complex
      adjacent to an existing agricultural shed of similar height to the proposed stable
      buildings. The grouping of buildings is therefore maintained in this location and it is
      considered that the impact of the proposed stable buildings on the character of the
      Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty are considerably less than the existing stable
      buildings which are sited in a more prominent location towards the front of the site
      and closer to the public bridle path which runs along the lane (Bridlepath
      ROW2822).The applicant has also confirmed that the reuse of existing buildings on
      this site is not an option for accommodating horses due to their low eaves height
      and also that these buildings have the benefit of planning permission for B1 and B2
      Use etc.under CG/37/88.

6.5   In earlier applications concern was expressed relating to highway safety,
      particularly vehicles accessing and egressing the site off Forest Road. The County
      Surveyor has raised no objection to the current application provided the proposal
      does not represent any significant increase in the level of activity resulting in more
      traffic generated to and from this site. The applicant has confirmed that the
      proposed stables are a replacement and will not result in any escalation of activity
      over and above that which can currently be exercised lawfully on the site.

6.6   In conclusion, it is considered that these replacement commercial stable buildings
      are appropriate for the site and by reason of their height, form, location and level of
      activity would not cause material harm to the visual amenities and character of the
      AONB or adversely affect the amenities of nearby residents or cause any
      significant highway safety issues to justify a refusal of planning permission in this
      case. The proposal is considered not to be contrary to the aims of policies within
      the Development Plan, in particular Policy DC29 (equestrian development) of the
      Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
                                                                       APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5.




7.    RECOMMENDATIONS

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  Before the stable buildings hereby approved are brought into use, the three
          existing stable buildings to be removed, as identified on submitted plan
          drawing no. KP1 (received on 19th June 2009) shall be demolished and
          removed from the site.
          Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of
          amenity in accordance with Policies DC9 and DC4 of the Local Development
          Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
      04 The development hereby permitted shall not be undertaken until precise
          details of the proposed method for the storage and disposal of used bedding
          and manure has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
          Authority.Thereafter, the storage and disposal of used bedding and waste
          shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved detail’s unless the
          prior written agreement of the locals Planning Authority is obtained for any
          variation.
           Reason: In the interest of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the
          LDF General Development Control Policies 2007.
       05 No works or development shall take place on the application site until full
          details of all hard and soft landscaping works, including details of any
          concrete apron / yard area and also details for the provision of parking
          vehicles associated with the livery users, have been submitted to and agreed
          in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
           Reason: In the interests of amenity and to accord with the aims of policies
          within the Development Plan in particular Policy DC9 of the LDF 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.

      ITHP3        The vehicular traffic associated with the development would not
                   adversely affect the safety and convenience of other highway users.


Background Papers: DC/09/1064
Contact Officer:   Peter Harwood                                         ph3pink/wk3/jlt
                                                                              APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1.




abcd
                                                        DEVELOPMENT
                                                     MANAGEMENT REPORT


TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Change of use of agricultural land adjacent to residential curtilage
                         to provide one car parking space

SITE:                    Wardecot, Fulfords Hill, Itchingfield

WARD:                    Itchingfield

APPLICATION:             DC/09/1034

APPLICANT:               Mr & Mrs J Dark

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer referral.

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission is granted.


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1     The proposed works, the subject of this application, refer to the change of use of
        agricultural land on the south side of the dwelling for the provision of a car parking
        space (10m x 3m).

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2     The application site is situated within the countryside and some 126m to the north
        of Itchingfield Conservation Area.

1.3     Wardecot is a modern 1 ½ storey detached dwelling built in 2000 and sited on a
        rectangular shaped plot with vehicular access off Fulfords Hill Road onto the open
        frontage of the property for the parking of motor vehicles and to provide access to
        the attached garage.

1.4     Between the application site and the private detached dwelling of Bailings (a Grade
        II Listed Building) is an agricultural access track leading to Church Farm.



Contact:      Peter Harwood                                      Extension:     5167
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2.




2.    INTRODUCTION

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.


      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1, PPS7.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 – the
      following policy is of particular relevance: CP1.

2.4   Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control
      Policies (2007) – the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC2,DC7,
      DC9 and DC40.

2.5   South East Plan – C4.

      RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2.6   I/29/99      -      Erection of one replacement bungalow – permitted November
                          1999.
      I/18/00      -      Proposed erection of dormers to form rooms in roof – permitted
                          July 2000.
      DC/08/0746 -        Proposed storage shed for farming equipment (Agricultural
                          Prior Notification) – application withdrawn in May 2008.



3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   None.

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2   West Sussex County Council – have confirmed that there are no significant
      highway safety concerns with regard to this proposal, although questioned the need
      for a further car parking space which increases the generous frontage with room for
      at least three cars and therefore with the additional provision would exceed the
      West Sussex County Council maximum parking standards for such a dwelling.

3.3   Any observations of the Itchingfield Parish Council will be reported verbally at the
      meeting.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3.



      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4   Two letters of objection have been received from the adjacent occupier at Bailings
      on the grounds that:

            The applicant has already exceeded the domestic curtilage, as originally
             approved under permission I/29/99.
            If allowed, the car parking space would lead to an area for a garage.
            That the application be withdrawn until the disputed southern boundary is
             resolved as concern is expressed at the erosion of the agricultural land
             situated between the application site and Bailings.


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 is an integral part of the planning
      assessment set out in Section 6 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 this case are the principle of the proposed change of use in this
      location, the effect of the development on the character of the area (including the
      setting of the adjacent listed building) and highway safety considerations.

6.2   The proposal is to regularise the creation of a hardstanding which extends the
      original hardstanding area to the front of the dwelling, into the adjacent agricultural
      land.This narrow strip of agricultural land between Wardecot and Bailings provides
      vehicular access to Church Farm to the rear/west of the application site. This
      access-way is designed as agricultural land resulting in the domestic curtilage of
      Wardecot being surrounded on three sides by agricultural land. Whilst concern is
      expressed at the incursion of domestic curtilages into open countryside, each
      application has to be considered on its individual merits. In this case, the extended
      area is located, in the main, between two residential properties and adjacent to
      Fulfords Hill Road and therefore the incursion is such that, it would be difficult to
      demonstrate material harm being caused to the policies contained within the
      Development Plan which aim to protect the countryside from inappropriate
      development.
                                                                              APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4.




6.3     The small scale incursion also results in the parking of domestic vehicles closer to
        the adjacent Grade II Listed Building. It is considered that, due to the distances
        involved, including existing boundary treatment, that the ‘proposed’ use as a
        vehicular hardstanding would not be detrimental to the setting of the adjacent listed
        building to a significant degree to justify refusal of planning consent in this case. It
        should also be noted that the issue of the disputed southern boundary, as raised by
        the adjacent occupier, is not considered to be a material consideration in the
        determination of this application and remains a legal matter between both land
        owners.

6.4     The applicant has stated that there is insufficient parking provision in front of
        Wardecot as it is not practical to park in front of the existing garage as there would
        be a need to move both cars in order to get in and out of the garage and that the
        application site has been used for car parking since the property was purchased
        over five years ago. In this regard, the comments of West Sussex County Council
        are noted, however, the works are not associated with any intensification of use on
        the site and therefore the provision of an additional parking space is not considered
        to represent a significant increase in parking provision, although it would exceed
        the West Sussex County Council maximum parking standards.

6.5     In conclusion, it is the view of your officers that the retention of this hardstanding is
        acceptable and due to its size and location, is not considered to represent
        development which causes material harm to the visual amenities/character of the
        area or is detrimental to the setting of the adjacent listed building .It is also
        considered that a further parking space in this location does not result in any
        highway safety implications or cause any material harm to the aims of countryside
        protection policies within the Development Plan and therefore it is recommended
        that the application be permitted.



7.       RECOMMENDATIONS

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

        01        The hardstanding area, hereby approved, shall at all times be retained with a
                  permeable surface unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent
                  to any variation.
                  Reason: To ensure the works are properly drained in accordance with the
                  aims of Policy DC7 of the Local Development Framework General
                  Development Control Policies (2007).



Background Papers:             DC/09/1034
Contact Officer:               Peter Harwood

Ph2pink/wk3/jlt
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1.




abcd
                                                DEVELOPMENT
                                                MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Conversion of barn to form a 2 storey 3 bed dwelling

SITE:                    Smithawe Farm, Nowhurst Lane, Broadbridge Heath, Horsham

WARD:                    Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

APPLICATION:             DC/09/0463 & DC/09/0464

APPLICANT:               Mr & Mrs Scarborough


REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission and listed building consent


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning application and listed building consent

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1   The applications seek planning permission and listed building consent for the
      conversion of a barn to form a 2 storey 3 bed dwelling. The application is for minor
      changes to a partially implemented permission for the barn and a detached garage,
      permitted under SF/64/03. The application was deleted off the agenda of the July
      Development Management North Committee due to the detached garage
      appearing not to have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2   Smithawe Farmhouse, a grade II listed building, is located on the northern side of
      the village of Broadbridge Heath and is accessed from a public bridleway, that runs
      off the A281. The barn is sited 5m to the south west of the adjacent residential
      property of the farmhouse. The barn itself is well screened from the surrounding
      countryside by the larger buildings comprising Smithawe Farmhouse to the north
      east and other farm buildings in separate ownership but adjoining the application




Contact:      David Taylor                                            Extension: 5166
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2



      building to the west. The proposal site lies outside any defined built up area
      boundary.


2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1, PPS7 and PPG13

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1,
      CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP13, CP15 and CP19.

2.4   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies Document 2007 are DC1, DC7, DC9, DC13 and DC40.

2.5   The relevant policies of the South East Plan 2001-2016 are CC1, CC3, CC4, and
      CC6.

      PLANNING HISTORY

2.6   Planning permission was originally granted for the conversion of the barn into a
      house and the erection of a garage to serve Smithawe Farmhouse under SF/15/98
      on 17/11/1998. The application was never implemented.

2.7   Planning permission for the renewal of the above unimplemented permission was
      granted under SF/64/03. The garage has been constructed that serves Smithawe
      Farmhouse as well as the driveway being constructed and the re-building of a
      stone wall.

2.8   Planning permission granted for the erection of a detached double garage under
      DC/04/1390 on 17/11/2004.


3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   HDC Conservation Officer – “The revised plans overcome my previous concerns,
      please attach conditions requiring cast metal conservation rooflights and timber
      framed doors and windows to be used.”

3.2   No other internal consultations have been received.
                                                                                APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3



          OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3       Slinfold Parish Council – No objections to the applications

3.4       West Sussex County Council – No highways concerns regarding this application.
          The only potential impact on Bridleway 1443 envisaged is traffic and materials
          obstructing the bridleway during development. Safe & convenient public access is
          to be available at all times across the full width of the bridleway. The path is not to
          be obstructed by vehicles, plant, scaffolding or the temporary storage of materials
          and/or chemicals. The future vehicle access along the bridleway by new residents
          is acceptable given the number of residential properties already on the lane.

          PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5       1 letter of support has been received from the neighbouring residential property,
          which provided the following comments and reasons for support:

         Using the building as a house will tidy it up and hence be beneficial to the street
          scene of the lane
         Parking area on site sufficient for a three bedroom property
         Commercial use would not be in keeping with the rest of the buildings in the lane

          2 letters of objection have been received which provided the following reasons for
          objection:

         Policy has changed since previous appeal decisions
         Contrary to policy DC1 and DC24
         No case has been made that commercial use is unacceptable in this location
         No information supplied regarding code for sustainable homes
         Adverse effects of agricultural use associated with conjoining barn
         Parking

3.6       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.
                                                                              APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4



6.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1   The main issues in the determination of this application are the principle of
      development and:

      a) the impact on the rural character of the area and its landscape setting
      b) the impact on visual amenity
      c) highway safety
      d) the impact on the grade II listed building

6.2   The application is for alterations to a previously approved application under ref
      SF/64/03 which was originally granted permission under ref SF/15/98. The
      application granted permission for the conversion of the barn adjoining Smithawe
      Farmhouse to residential use and the erection of a detached garage for Smithawe
      Farmhouse. The detached garage has been constructed. The driveway serving
      the property has also been constructed along with fencing and the re-building of a
      stone wall, parallel to the driveway.

6.3   As there has been no material change in circumstances since the previous
      approval, it is accepted that the principle of the barn conversion is in place. It is still
      considered that the close relationship of the barn to the established residential use
      of Smithawe Farmhouse and the potential disruption that could be caused by a
      business use in a building so nearby, would clearly be harmful to the amenities of
      the occupiers of Smithawe Farmhouse. Furthermore the limited provision of
      parking for staff, visitors etc on a narrow lane unsuited to additional business traffic,
      would further detract from the amenities of these and other occupiers in Nowhurst
      Lane. As previously, it is not considered that this barn would be suitable for a
      business use conversion, whilst its modest size and traditional form preclude it for
      use in conjunction with modern agricultural practice.

6.4   In terms of the proposals impact on the street scene, there were concerns
      regarding the number of openings proposed in the barn conversion. Amended
      plans have been received addressing this issue and it is considered the barn now
      successfully retains its agricultural character. Internally, alterations have also been
      made to the satisfaction of the design conservation officer.

6.5   There are no additional windows proposed in the flank (north eastern) elevation of
      the barn that faces directly onto Smithawe Farmhouse. It is considered that the
      property being used as a residential dwelling would have an acceptable relationship
      with the adjoining property.

6.6   Parking is to be provided in the form of two spaces to the front of the dwelling. The
      spaces would be positioned parallel to Nowhurst Lane. The County Surveyor has
      stated that the proposals are unlikely to have an adverse affect on the publicly
      maintainable highway and therefore there are no highways concerns regarding the
      application.

6.7   With regard to the proposals impact on the adjoining grade II listed farmhouse, the
      Conservation Officer is satisfied that the proposal is of an appropriate scale and
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5



        design and would have no adverse effect on the special architectural or historic
        character and appearance of the listed building and its setting.

6.8     In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would not harm the overall
        character and appearance of the locality, cause harm to the amenities of adjoining
        occupiers or have any adverse impact on the setting of the adjoining grade II listed
        building. It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with LDF policies.


7.      RECOMMENDATION

        It is recommended that planning permission be granted for application DC/09/0463
        and to include the following conditions:

        01      A2     Full Permission
        02      M1     Approval of Materials
        03      L1     Hard and Soft Landscaping
        04      O2     Burning of Materials
        05      G3     Parking, Turning and Access
        06      H4     On Site Parking
        07      J13    Removal of Permitted Development – windows

        It is recommended that listed building consent be granted for application
        DC/09/0464 and to include the following conditions:

        01      LB1 Listed Building Time Limit
        02      LB4 Protection from Damage
        03      LB5 Remedial Works
        04      LB13 Making Good
        05      No development shall be commenced unless and until precise details of the
                rooflights and timber framed doors and windows to be used have been
                submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all
                materials used shall conform to those approved.
                Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development
                in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of
                visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local
                Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).


      8. REASONS

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

        ICAB2         The proposal does not materially affect the amenity of neighbouring
                      occupiers or the character of the locality

        IPLB4         The proposal would safeguard the special architectural or historic
                      interest of the listed building
                                               APPENDIX A/ 7 - 6



Background Papers:   DC/09/0463 & DC/09/0464
Contact Officer:     David Taylor
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1




abcd
                                                DEVELOPMENT
                                                MANAGEMENT REPORT


TO:                     Development Management Committee North

BY:                     Head of Development

DATE:                   4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:            2-Storey side and single storey rear extension

SITE:                   179 New Street, Horsham

WARD:                   Horsham Park

APPLICATION:            DC/09/0875

APPLICANT:              Mr M Amarasekara

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                 Member Request: Cllr Burgess

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 two storey side extension, single storey rear
      extension, to a semi-detached dwelling located on the northwest side of New street
      in the built up area of Horsham

1.2   This revised application follows two refusals under DC/08/0756 and DC/08/1422
      considered at the February 2009 Development Management North Committee. The
      current application follows discussions with the agent to amend the scheme further.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3   The site comprises a semi-detached two-storey property with a detached single
      storey flat roof garage and a separate single storey pitch roof storage building close
      to (but not attached), to the rear elevation of the main house. The site is located on
      the north-west side of New Street in the built up area of Horsham. To the west of
      the site are the rear gardens of the properties in Winterton Gardens and the gaps
      between these properties allows for wider views of the site. Residential properties
      lie to the north, south and east of the site.



Contact:       Pauline Ollive                                     Extension: 5424
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2.


1.4   The area is characterised by two-storey residential properties with similar design
      characteristics, with some properties in the road having vehicular access to the side
      of the property, leading to single garages located at the rear.

1.5   Many of the properties on both sides of the road have undergone improvements
      resulting in single and two-storey extensions, but mainly these are to the rear of the
      building, as the road is mainly one of terraced properties with little opportunity for
      other types of development.

1.6   The rear gardens of the properties are bounded by differing height wooden fences
      or hedges. Of particular note are the semi-detached pitched roof storage buildings
      that are characteristic of some properties, although, many of these have either been
      removed completely or replaced with single storey extensions/conservatories.

      PLANNING HISTORY

1.6   DC/08/0756 - Two-storey side extension, single storey rear extension loft
      conversion with dormer window – Refused 28/05/2008

      DC/08/1422 - Two-storey side extension, single storey rear extension loft
      conversion with dormer windows – Refused at the February 2009 Planning
      Committee


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   Forest Neighbourhood Council – objects to this application on the grounds that it is:
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3.

                an over development of the site; and
                detrimental to the streetscene.

      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 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
      northwest side of New Street. Here the properties are two-storey Victorian
      residential dwellings with similar design characteristics. Further characterised by
      single storey rear storage buildings that are set approximately 0.5 metres away
      from the rear elevation of the house (reducing the impact on habitable room
      windows located adjacent to the common boundary). These outbuildings extend
      into the rear garden by some 5 metres with a mono pitch roof. Many of the
      properties in the immediate vicinity, have undergone single and two-storey rear
      extensions to provide further habitable living space and have removed these
      existing storage buildings and the resultant buildings have significantly reduced the
      overall depth of the extensions. Thus reducing the overall material effect on
      neighbouring properties.

6.3   Whilst the current application seeks permission for a two-storey side extension and
      a single storey rear extension, it no longer seeks permission for a loft conversion
      (as shown on the previous applications) and therefore the roof lights on the front
      roof slope of the building and the rear dormer window have been omitted from the
      current plans.

6.4   While there have been some further changes made to the current scheme, from the
      previous applications, in particular, a set back from the side boundary with No179 to
      the north and a ponded (faux pitch) roof is shown on the proposed single storey
      rear extension. The overall depth of the extension has not changed.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4.


6.5   The Councils Design Guidance Leaflet No.1 - House Extensions confirms regarding
      single storey rear extensions; “a single storey rear extension to a semi-detached or
      terraced property over 3 metres deep will normally only be permitted where it does
      not protrude beyond a 45 degree line drawn in a horizontal plane from the centre
      line of any window of a habitable room of an adjoining property”. It further states
      that extensions should have a pitched roof and that flat roofs should be avoided.
      This is to ensure that extensions have a satisfactory appearance that relates to the
      main dwelling.

6.6   In view of the changes that have taken place, in particular the pitch roof design and
      the set back from the side boundary to the north with No179. Whilst the single
      storey rear extension would extend further into the rear garden, (contrary to the
      Councils design guidance), given that that are existing buildings on both side
      boundaries, it is considered in light of recent appeal decisions that there is
      insufficient reason to warrant a further refusal in this case.

6.7   In conclusion, it is therefore considered that the proposed two-storey side and single
       storey rear extensions will not materially affect the character of the existing house,
       the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the streetscene. The proposal therefore
       accords with policies of the General Development Control Policies and the guidance
       set out in the design guidance advice leaflet on house extensions


7.    RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1   It is recommended the application be permitted subject to the following conditions:

              1.    A2   Full Permission
              2.    M4   Matching Materials
              3.    D5   No Windows above ground floor level in the north elevation


8.    REASON

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




Background Papers:            DC/09/0875
Contact Officer:              Pauline Ollive
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1.




abcd
                                                      DEVELOPMENT
                                                   MANAGEMENT REPORT


TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Replacement of boundary fence

SITE:                    19 The Crescent, Horsham

WARD:                    Denne

APPLICATION:             DC/09/0753

APPLICANT:               Mr I Dollery

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 partial retention and partial replacement of
        a boundary fence situated adjacent to Riverside on the south side of
        19 The Crescent.

1.2     The ‘proposed’ fence is 37m in length and consists of various elements. The first
        5.9m at the west end of the fence run closest to The Crescent consists of a post
        and rail fence 1.2m in height. The next 5.8m is a close boarded fence which
        consists of two sections increasing in height from 1.2m to 1.8m. The third element
        (5.8m in length) consists of two sections of 1.8m high fencing (as existing). The
        fourth element (8.7m in length) consists of three sections of close boarded fence
        set back 0.5m from the back edge of the pavement in Riverside to accommodate
        landscaping. The next three panels (8.7m in length) are as existing with the last
        element of the fence line (2.5m in length) being splayed at a position adjacent to
        the garages and hardstandings of the applicant and occupiers at no. 1 Riverside.




Contact:      Peter Harwood                                  Extension:      5167
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2




      DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3   No.19 The Crescent represents a detached dwelling which is located on the west
      side of Horsham town and is within the urban area. The application site is situated
      on the corner of The Crescent and Riverside, is triangular in shape with the narrow
      frontage forming a pedestrian and vehicular access off The Crescent.

1.4   The Crescent is characterised by detached dwellings of various ages and designs
      on mainly rectangular-shaped plots. Riverside is a modern development consisting
      of 20 detached dwellings constructed in the early 1990`s.

      PLANNING HISTORY

1.5   A complaint was received concerning the erection of this fence without the benefit
      of planning permission (EN/08/0486 refers).

      DC/08/1998 - An application was submitted to regularise the situation and was
      subsequently refused on the 3rd November 2008 for the following reasons:

              “The retention of this fence is considered unacceptable by reason of its
              height, position, extended linear form and loss of open amenity space, and
              thereby causes material harm to the visual amenities and open character of
              the area and also detrimental to highway safety contrary to the aims of
              policies within the Development Plan, in particular Policies DC9 and DC40
              of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General
              Development Control Policies (2007).”

      Following further discussions, the applicant submitted the current amended
      application with a view to overcoming the previous reasons for refusal.

      Any enforcement action to secure the removal of this fence, following the earlier
      refusal, was held in abeyance following the submission of a further application, the
      subject of this report.


2.    INTRODUCTION


      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1 and PPS3.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3




      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 is DC9.

2.5   The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1 and CC4.



3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   No internal consultations have been received.

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2   Denne Neighbourhood Council reiterated that it objected to the previous application
      to retain this fence .With regard to the current application it has stated that:-

             “We defer to Planning Department decision on this application. We do still
             have concerns over visibility for motorists with the fence replacing the
             original hedge. It does look a bit stark, but we notice there are similar fences
             in Riverside, so it is not out of keeping. Possible staining the fence or
             growing climbing plants might help it blend in better.”

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3   Four letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of adjoining
      properties on the following grounds:-

         Fence would be an eyesore and detrimental to the character of the area.
         Concern at lack of maintenance of any future landscaping planted.
         Highway safety issues.
         Concern at the proposed set back panels for landscaping as this will result in a
          trap for rubbish.
         Stark appearance of fence which is detrimental to residential amenities and
          character of the area.
         Open character of the modern development not restored by this amended
          proposal and does not address reasons for previous refused application
         Need to set fence back to previous position and retain strip of land adjacent to
          footpath.
                                                                             APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4



         Fence unsightly by reason of design, appearance and materials.
         Loss of open space.
         Over-shadowing of adjacent property.
         Precedent caused.


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 is an integral part of the planning
      assessment set out in Section 6 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, its effect on the
      visual amenities and character of the locality and highway safety implications.

6.2   The existing fence erected on site is unacceptable and inappropriate in this form
      and in this location and was subsequently refused planning permission under
      application DC/08/1998. The applicant has submitted the current amended
      proposal with a view to overcoming the previous concerns.

6.3   The current application proposes to vary the form and height of the fence with a
      view to reducing its stark and conspicuous impact on the streetscape. The
      proposed fence now incorporates a post and rail element at the prominent west end
      of the site and, together with a graded increase in height from 1.2m to 1.8m, the
      fence would provide a much softer visual appearance at the junction of The
      Crescent and Riverside. By setting back the central 8.7m section of the fence
      (three panels) by 0.5m in order to provide an area for planting; this will significantly
      reduce the impact of the fence on the visual amenities of the area. Furthermore,
      the most easterly fence panel, adjacent to driveways, is to be splayed to provide
      visibility across the corner, which will also allow for further, albeit limited, planting.

6.4   It is considered that the proposed post and rail element of the fence at the
      prominent west end and the splayed fence panel at the east end will result in a
      significant improvement to highway safety. The views of the County Surveyor will
      be reported verbally at the meeting.

6.5   The current proposal results in five of the existing 12 panels being retained in their
      present form with the remainder of the panels being changed in terms of height and
                                                                         APPENDIX A/ 9 - 5



      form and these works are considered sufficient to overcome the previous reasons
      for refusal. The amendments, including the provision for planting, will considerably
      soften and improve the detrimental impact the existing stark fence currently has on
      the visual amenities and character of this urban area.


6.6   In conclusion, the proposed fence, by reason of its amended form and appearance,
      should, on balance, not cause such material harm to the amenities of adjacent
      occupiers or harm the visual amenities/character of the area to justify a refusal of
      planning permission in this case. It is considered therefore that the proposal
      complies with Development Plan policies, which aim to control development within
      the urban areas, in particular policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework
      General Development Control Policies 2007.


7.    RECOMMENDATIONS

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

      01    Within three months from the date of this Decision Notice, the existing fence
            on site shall be amended and replaced in accordance with the approved plan
            received on the 29th June 2009 and thereafter retained in accordance with
            the approved details.
            Reason: In the interests of amenity and to accord with the requirements of
            the Development Plan, in particular Policy DC9 of the Local Development
            Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

      02    Within one month from the date of this planning permission precise details of
            planting adjacent to the fence, including species and numbers of plants and
            their position, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
            Authority in writing and thereafter implemented and maintained in
            accordance with the approved details.
            Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character of the area and
            to accord with the aims of policies within the Development Plan, in particular
            Policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework General Development
            Control Policies (2007).

      03    Within one month of the date of this planning permission precise detail for the
            staining of the fence ,hereby approved,shall be submitted to and approved
            by the Local Planning Authority in writing and thereafter the fence shall be
            stained and retained in accordance with the approved details.
            Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character of the area and
            to accord with the aims of policies within the Development Plan ,in particular
            Policy DC9 of the LDF General Development Control Policies (2007.l
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 9 - 6




8.       REASONS

        IDP1      The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Development Plan.

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




Background Papers:           DC/08/1998 & DC/09/0753
Contact Officer:             Peter Harwood


Ph2pink/wk2/jlt
                                                                           APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1.




abcd
                                                  DEVELOPMENT
                                                  MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Detached Car Port

SITE:                    Wild Harrys, Hayes Lane, Slinfold

WARD:                    Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham

APPLICATION:             DC/09/0731

APPLICANT:               Mr and Mrs Aldridge


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 seeks permission for a detached car port to the south west of the main
        dwelling.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2.1 The application site is located on the eastern side of Hayes Lane, near the village
      of Slinfold. The property along with the associated barns, are grade II listed
      buildings. The barns are utilised as ancillary accommodation to the main house
      and provide guest bedrooms with a self contained annex, study space and storage
      and are located to the south east of the main dwelling. The property is accessed
      via a road that runs off Hayes Lane.




Contact:      David Taylor                                              Extension: 5166
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2



      PLANNING HISTORY

      SF/24/70      Planning Permission granted for alterations and additions to provide
                    new wing of 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 2 reception rooms and hall on
                    24/07/1970

      SF/16/74      Planning Permission granted for additions to form study and library on
                    19/03/1974

      SF/27/75      Planning Permission granted for extension at first floor level above
                    existing pantry on 15/08/1975

      DC/08/0693 Planning Permission granted for alterations to existing garage roof
                 and north east wall on 21/05/2008

      DC/08/2259 Planning Permission granted for reconstruction of fire damaged barns
                 on 19/12/2008

      DC/08/2261 Planning Permission granted for single storey extension to provide a
                 garden room to main house and rebuild link between house and
                 ancillary accommodation within barns on 23/12/2008

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, PPS3, PPG13, PPG15.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1,
      CP3 and CP15.

2.4   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies Document are DC1, DC9 and DC13.

2.5   The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1 and CC4.
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3



3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   HDC Conservation Officer - There is no objection to the general architectural
      design of the car port. The timber framed building is in keeping with the wider rural
      character of the area.

      However, the location of the car port sits at odds with the layout of the site and
      would have a compromising effect on the setting of the listed building.

      There are two distinct building groups on the site - the semi-industrial farmyard
      buildings to the east, enclosed around a courtyard, and the domestic setting of the
      main farmhouse. By proposing to locate the car port in front of the main
      farmhouse, would not only crowd the listed building, but would merge the two
      distinct areas of the site. This would be to the listed building’s detriment as it would
      compromise its setting. Furthermore, the listed building is viewed from the
      driveway, and the proposed car port would block this view.

      An alternative site, closer to the farmyard buildings could be a compromise, or set
      back away from the front garden of the listed building. However, at present, refusal
      is recommended.

3.2   No other internal consultations have been received.

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3   Slinfold Parish Council – No Objection

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4   No public consultation responses have been received

3.5   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.
                                                                            APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4



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 character of the area and its impact on the setting of
      the grade II listed buildings on the site.

6.2   The proposed detached car port would be sited in front of the dwelling to the south
      west in a grassed area of the garden, currently occupied by numerous trees and
      shrubs. The proposal is a sizeable structure measuring 9.3m in width, 5.7m in
      depth and 4.6m in height and would provide parking for three cars. The open side
      of the building is orientated towards the house. Two Fir trees and a Holly tree
      would be removed as part of the scheme.

6.3   There is no objection to the principle of providing a car port for the dwelling.
      Parking provision for vehicles is currently available on the driveway of the property
      but there is no covered parking available. The main objection to the proposal is the
      siting of the proposed car port, in front of the grade II listed building.

6.4   It is considered that the location of the car port is at odds with the layout of the site
      and would have a compromising effect on the setting of the listed building. The
      main property is viewed from the driveway on arrival to the site. By positioning the
      carport in the proposed location, the view of the listed building from the driveway
      would be almost lost completely. Views of the listed barns on arrival to the site
      would also suffer due to the proposed location of the carport.

6.5   The Conservation Officer has also highlighted specific concerns regarding the
      resultant layout of the site. The site currently has two distinct building groups; the
      semi-industrial farmyard buildings to the east, enclosed around a courtyard and the
      domestic setting of the main farmhouse. It is considered that due to the location of
      the proposed structure, the two distinct areas of the site would merge, much to the
      listed buildings detriment as it would compromise its setting. Policy DC13 of the
      General Development Control Policies Document 2007 states that development
      affecting a listed building or its setting will not be permitted unless the proposal has
      no adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character and appearance
      of the building or its setting. It is considered that the proposal does not accord with
      the adopted policy.

6.6   In conclusion, the proposed detached carport by reason of its scale and siting
      would cause material harm to the character of the area and in particular, the setting
      of the grade II listed building and barns. It is considered that the proposal fails to
      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 detached carport by reason of its scale and siting would cause
      material harm to the character of the area and the setting of the grade II listed
      building and barns. It is considered that the proposal fails to comply with the aims of
                                                                   APPENDIX A/ 10 - 5



     the Local Development Framework, in particular, policies CP1 and CP15 of the
     Core Strategy and policies DC9 and DC13 of the General Development Control
     Policies Document 2007.




Background Papers:             DC/09/0731
Contact Officer:               David Taylor
                                                                       APPENDIX A/ 11 - 1.




abcd
                                                     DEVELOPMENT
                                                  MANAGEMENT REPORT


TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Proposed classroom

SITE:                    Muntham House School, Barns Green

WARD:                    Itchingfield

APPLICATION:             DC/09/0828

APPLICANT:               Mr R Boyle

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development.

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 single classroom (11.4m by
        7.7m) in weatherboarding under a pitched slate roof to a height of 3.6m.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2     The application relates to Muntham House School which is located in the
        countryside to the north-west of Barns Green. The established school is accessed
        via a private driveway off Muntham Drive. The premises have extensive grounds
        providing a park-like setting. The school complex comprises the main Edwardian
        three storey property with extensive two storey flat roof ancillary buildings,
        outbuildings, together with temporary classrooms etc.




Contact:         Peter Harwood                               Extension: 5167
                                                                      APPENDIX A/ 11 - 2.




      PLANNING HISTORY

1.3   I/8/53       Change of use from dwelling to Special Needs School – permitted.

      DC/07/2558 Installation of temporary classroom unit – 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 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 DC1 and DC9.

2.5   The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1 and CC6.



3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   No internal consultations.

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2   Itchingfield Parish Council –recommends for approval.

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3   No letters of representation have been received.
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 11 - 3.




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 is an integral part of the planning
      assessment set out in Section 6 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 the principle of the
      development and its effect on the character and amenities of its countryside
      location.

6.2   The proposal is for a modest size classroom constructed of appropriate materials
      and design which is to be sited adjacent to a similar classroom surrounded on two
      sides by a 2.9m high brick wall. Although on the west side of this wall runs a
      bridlepath (ROW1597/1), it is considered that the low profile classroom sited behind
      this wall would not cause any material detriment to the visual amenities and
      character of the area.

6.3   The applicant has confirmed that the current planning application relates to an
      additional classroom to cater for the increase in pupil numbers that is ancillary to
      the main school buildings at Muntham House School. It is considered that the
      proposed classroom is acceptable for use of the premises as a school and that it is
      located in an appropriate position which would not cause material harm to the
      character of the area, or be contrary to the aims of policies within the Development
      Plan.



7.    RECOMMENDATIONS

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

      01     A2     Full permission
      02     M1     Approval of materials
                                                                   APPENDIX A/ 11 - 4.




8.   REASONS

     IDP1        The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Development
                 Plan.

     ICAB3       The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character
                 and appearance of the street scene or locality.




Background Papers:     DC/09/0828
Contact Officer:       Peter Harwood                           ph3pink/wk2/jlt
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 12 - 1.




abcd
                                                 DEVELOPMENT
                                                 MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Retention of Close Boarded Fence

SITE:                    Badgers Wood, Five Oaks Road, Slinfold

WARD:                    Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham

APPLICATION:             DC/09/0250

APPLICANT:               Mr David Rennie



REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                 Officer Referral

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 retention of a close boarded fence along
        the northern boundary of the site. The fence is 2m in height and extends for a
        distance in excess of 55m on the south side of the Five Oaks Road.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2     The application site is located approximately 1 kilometre north west of the
        settlement of Itchingfield. The site consists of a detached house and a large
        garden area to the east of the property. The dwelling fronts onto the Five Oaks
        Road.

        PLANNING HISTORY

        I/2/54 Proposed dwelling and vehicular access permitted on 10/02/1954.




Contact:      David Taylor                                            Extension: 5166
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 12 - 2.



      I/2/59 New garage and access permitted on 11/03/1959


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,
      CP2, CP3, CP13 and CP15.

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

2.5   The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1 and CC4.


3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   No internal consultations have been requested or received.

      OUTSIDE AGENCIES

      Itchingfield Parish Council – Recommends for approval.

      West Sussex County Council – It would be preferable, if possible, for the new fence
      to be set back another metre from the highway in order for larger visibility splays to
      be achieved, and therefore increase highway safety at this point of access.
      However, WSCC has no highway objections regarding this application in its current
      form.

      PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2   No representations or consultation responses have been received at the time of
      writing this report.
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 12 - 3.



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 visual amenities and character of the locality.

6.2   The fence has been erected along the northern boundary of the site, to the front of
      the property, along the Five Oaks Road. The fence is 2m in height and extends for
      a distance in excess of 55m on the south side of the Five Oaks Road. It is a typical
      close boarded style fence with no painting or staining applied. The fence has
      replaced a fence that according to the applicant, extended a similar distance to the
      current fence and is positioned in the same location.

6.3   The site is located outside any defined built up area boundary and therefore lies
      within the countryside when applying planning policy. Policy DC1 of the General
      Development Control Policies Document concerns countryside protection and
      enhancement, the main thrust of which is to protect and enhance the natural beauty
      and amenity of the District’s countryside for its own sake. There is a concern
      whether the fence sits comfortably in the built surroundings and therefore has an
      adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area. However, the applicant has
      indicated the new fence replaces a similar fence on this frontage.

6.4   Policy DC9 requires development to be of a high quality of design, massing and
      appearance. Although the appearance of the fence in this countryside location is
      not ideal, it is noted that it is a replacement fence and therefore a similar structure
      has been in this position for an extended period of time. It is considered the fence,
      has quite a stark appearance, but once weathered, will have a much reduced visual
      impact on the character of the area than its current appearance. It is therefore
      considered that on balance, the retention of the fence should be permitted.

6.5   It is noted that as the fence is in the same position as the previous fence, there are
      no objections to the proposal from West Sussex County Council Highways
      Department. It was evident from the site visit that the fence panel closest to the
      entrance has been splayed inwards slightly in order to achieve greater levels of
      visibility than the previous fence.
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 12 - 4.



6.6   In conclusion, it is considered on balance, the fence by reason of its size, scale and
      positioning, would not cause such material harm to the visual amenities and
      character of the locality to refuse retention in this instance.


7.    RECOMMENDATION

      It is recommended that planning permission for retention be granted.


8.    REASONS

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

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




Background Papers:               DC/09/0250
Contact Officer:                 David Taylor
                                                                          APPENDIX A/ 13 - 1.




abcd
                                                 DEVELOPMENT
                                                 MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO:                      Development Management Committee North

BY:                      Head of Development

DATE:                    4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:             Alterations to main entrance with automated door and improved
                         level egress externally to fire escape to improve access and
                         egress for disabled people

SITE:                    Park House, North Street, Horsham

WARD:                    Horsham Park

APPLICATION:             DC/09/1049 & DC/09/1050

APPLICANT:               Horsham District Council



REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA:                 HDC Application

RECOMMENDATION:            To grant planning permission and listed building consent (subject
to reference to GOSE)


1.      THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

        To consider the planning and listed building consent applications.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1     The application seeks planning permission and listed building consent for
        alterations to the main entrance of Park House with automated door and improved
        level egress externally to fire escape to improve access and egress for disabled
        people.

        DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2     The application site is located within the built up area boundary of Horsham. The
        property is a grade II star listed building. Horsham Park is located to the north of
        the building with car parking to the south east, to the front of the building.




Contact:      David Taylor                                              Extension: 5166
                                                                      APPENDIX A/ 13 - 2.



      PLANNING HISTORY

      HU/264/89          Planning permission granted for construction of garden wall
                         with gates and conservatory on 06/09/1989

      DC/04/2489         Planning permission granted for alterations to existing
                         basement level window to provide extract ventilation and
                         provision of external staircase and railings on 05/04/2005


2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1, PPG15.

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1,
      CP2, CP3 and CP13.

2.4   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development
      Control Policies Document are DC3, DC9 and DC13.

2.5   The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1 and CC4.


3.    OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

      INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1   HDC Design and Conservation Officer - No objection. The design of the door and
      ramp preserve the character of the listed building. Please attach a condition
      requiring the brick for the ramp to match the existing.

      Public Health and Licensing – No comments to make

      No other internal consultations have been requested or received.

3.2   OUTSIDE AGENCIES

      No outside agency consultations have been received.
                                                                        APPENDIX A/ 13 - 3.



3.3   PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4   No other representations or consultation responses have been received at the time
      of writing this report.


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 issue in the determination of this application is considered to be the
      impact of the proposal on the character of the area and the impact on the grade II
      star listed building.

6.2   The application seeks alterations to the main entrance of Park House with
      automated door and improved level egress externally to fire escape to improve
      access and egress for disabled people. A draught lobby would be created in the
      reception area of the building, an internal door would be removed and a new
      external ramp would be constructed on the northern elevation of the building to
      provide access/egress from an existing door.

6.3   The works proposed are relatively minor in nature and are of an appropriate scale
      and appearance. The works would successfully retain the character of the listed
      building. It would also ensure the continued preservation and use of the building.

6.4   The proposed external ramp would have a gentle gradient of 1:23 and would match
      in colour those ramps to the east and west of the building. The brick to be used for
      the ramps would be controlled by condition, at the request of the conservation
      officer.

6.5   It is considered that the proposal would have no adverse effect on the special
      architectural or historic character and appearance of the building or its setting and
      the proposal complies with the aims of the Local Development Framework.
                                                                       APPENDIX A/ 13 - 4.




7.    RECOMMENDATION

7.1   It is recommended that planning permission be granted for application DC/09/1049
      and to include the following conditions:

      01    A2     Full Permission
      02    M6     Prescribed Materials


      It is recommended that listed building consent be granted for application
      DC/09/1050 and to include the following conditions, subject to reference to
      G.O.S.E:

      01    LB1    Listed Building Time Limit
      02    LB4    Protection from Damage
      03    LB5    Remedial Works
      04    LB13   Making Good


8.    REASONS

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

      IPLB4 The proposal would safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of
            the listed building




Background Papers:               DC/09/1049 & DC/09/1050
Contact Officer:                 David Taylor
                                                            APPENDIX A/ 14 - 1




abcd
                                              DEVELOPMENT
                                              MANAGEMENT
                                              REPORT
TO:                     Development Management Committee North

BY:                     Head of Development

DATE:                   4th August 2009

DEVELOPMENT:            Erection of 13 dwellings (4 x 3-bed, 5 x 4-bed, 4 x 5-bed), access,
                        associated garaging and parking

SITE:                   Land North West of The Corner House (The Paddock), Farthings
                        Walk, Farthings Hill, Horsham
WARD:                   Denne

APPLICATION             DC/07/1198
REFERENCES:             Legal Agreement Section 106 - 1608
APPLICANT:              Berkeley Homes (Southern) Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: For Decision on Proposed
Variation of S106 Agreement

1.      BACKGROUND

1.1     In April 2008 planning permission was granted for the development of 13 houses
        at The Paddock, Farthings Walk under reference DC/07/1198. The planning
        permission was subject to a legal agreement (Section 106 -1608), which contains
        amongst other matters a requirement for contributions totalling £846,489 towards
        affordable housing provision and other facilities or services. The affordable
        housing contribution, required by virtue of the size of the site rather than the
        number of dwellings proposed on the site, represents the largest proportion of
        the contributions at £700,000. The S106 Agreement details that the contributions
        are to be index linked by the General Index of Retail Prices and paid on
        commencement of development. The indexation clause is upwards only and
        currently attracts an additional £400 bringing the current commitment to
        £846,885.

1.2     The developer which has acquired the site, Berkeley Homes (Southern) Limited
        is currently reviewing the potential to commence development on a number of
        small sites where viability permits. It has been explained that the company
        purchased the site at the height of the housing market and the S106

Contact: Stephen Booth                                                 Extension: 5169
                                                              APPENDIX A/ 14 - 2
      commitments that accompanied the planning consent were concluded at that
      time. Given the substantial fall in property values since April 2008, the company
      has indicated that the current consent does not meet its minimum viability criteria
      and has written to the Council seeking assistance in this regard. It considers that,
      in order to aid the viability of developing the scheme, a strong enabling case
      could be presented to justify a reduction in the contributions payable, given that
      sales values have fallen approaching 20% in the period since April 2008 (18.89%
      for West Sussex from Land Registry records).

1.3   Notwithstanding this position, given the desire by the company to make an early
      commencement during the summer months on the site, Berkeley Homes has as
      an alternative formally requested that the Council considers favourably the
      deferment of the affordable housing contribution of £700,000 until the completion
      of the last unit or for 18 months from commencement, rather than pursue a
      reduction in the financial sums payable. Such a revision in timing of the payment
      would result in reduced up front costs and a more favourable cash flow which will
      enable the development to proceed in the short term.

2.    INTRODUCTION

      STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1   Town and Country Planning Act 1990

      RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2   PPS1, PPS3

      RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3   The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are
      considered to be CP12 and CP13, including as supported by the reasoned
      justification text and by the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning
      Document (SPD).

2.4   The relevant policies of the South East Plan are considered to be H2 (Managing
      the Delivery of the Regional Housing Provision) and H3 (Affordable Housing).

      PLANNING HISTORY

2.5   In 1997 planning permission was granted for the erection of six dwellings on the
      site of the former agricultural buildings at Farthings Farm (now known as
      Farthings Walk – HU/183/98) and in 1998 further permission was granted for an
      extension of the new access road into adjoining agricultural land, i.e. the site for
      this scheme of 13 dwellings (HU/307/99).

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

3.1   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
      the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning
      assessment below.
                                                              APPENDIX A/ 14 - 3


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

4.1   It is not considered that the proposal will directly give rise to any implications for
      crime and disorder.

5.    PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1   The proposed variation of the legal agreement seeks to defer the payment of
      the affordable housing contribution of £700,000 until completion of the last unit
      on the site or for 18 months from commencement. Although it is believed by the
      developers that a reduction in the affordable housing contribution could be
      justified, this is not being sought in this instance.

5.2   It is considered that the variation of the legal agreement, as proposed, is
      reasonable as it maintains the overall level of contribution towards affordable
      housing provision but recognises the need for flexibility in the context of the
      changed housing market circumstances and the fall in sales values. Existing
      planning policies in both the adopted Core Strategy and in the South East Plan
      recognise the need for such flexibility and the need to have regard to an
      assessment of economic viability, scale of need and impacts on overall levels
      of housing delivery. It is important to enable approved schemes such as this to
      be able to proceed so as to contribute to the housing provision in the District
      and for the Council to be able to demonstrate that it has sufficient deliverable
      sites to meet its housing land supply requirement, not just sites which are
      suitable and achievable as is the case with the site at present, where
      development is not currently viable on the basis of the requirements of the
      S106 agreement.

5.3   The Housing Development and Strategy Manager has confirmed that an 18
      month deferral from start on site in the payment of the affordable housing
      contribution is acceptable in the circumstances. There are currently adequate
      funds already received to be able to support affordable housing provision in the
      District; the deferment would not jeopardise any projects and may even assist
      with a better ‘spread’ of the funding opportunities.

5.4   The principle of exploring altering the timing of payments required by S106
      agreements, rather than seeking reductions in those payments (other than in
      exceptional circumstances), is one which it is considered should be supported
      in the current difficult market conditions. It is considered, therefore, that the
      proposed variation to the legal agreement in this case is acceptable.

6.    RECOMMENDATION

6.1   That the principle of the variation of the legal agreement as proposed be
      agreed.
Background Papers:          DC/07/1198
                            Letter from Land & Planning Director, Berkeley Homes
                            (Southern) Limited, dated 16th July 2009
Contact Officer:            Steve Booth

								
To top