Development Control (North) Committee · E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Line:...

Park North, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1RL Tel: (01403) 215100 (calls may be recorded) Fax: (01403) 262985 DX 57609 HORSHAM 6 www.horsham.gov.uk Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation

E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Line: 01403 215465

Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 7TH AUGUST 2012 AT 5.30p.m.

COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman)

Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman) John Bailey

Andrew Baldwin Peter Burgess John Chidlow Christine Costin Helena Croft Leonard Crosbie Malcolm Curnock Laurence Deakins Duncan England Frances Haigh David Holmes

Ian Howard David Jenkins Christian Mitchell Josh Murphy Godfrey Newman Jim Rae Stuart Ritchie David Sheldon David Skipp Simon Torn Claire Vickers Tricia Youtan

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 3rd July

2012 (attached)

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

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

5. To consider the reports of the following officers and to take such action thereon as may be necessary:

Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Applications for determination by Committee – Appendix A

Item No.

Ward Reference Number

Site

A1 Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

DC/11/2688 Plot 3 The Business Park Maydwell Avenue Slinfold

A2 Roffey South DC/12/0764 158 Crawley Road Horsham A3 Rusper and

Colgate DC/11/0710 Forest Heights Springfield Lane Colgate

A4 Southwater DC/12/0924 15 Fletchers Southwater A5 Holbrook East DC/12/1034 All Saints Church of England Primary School Tylden

Way Horsham A6 Denne EN/11/0592 26 Carfax, Horsham

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.

DCN120703

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 3RD JULY 2012

Present: Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman), Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman),

John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Peter Burgess, John Chidlow, Leonard Crosbie, Malcolm Curnock, Laurence Deakins, Duncan England, Frances Haigh, Ian Howard, David Jenkins, Christian Mitchell, Josh Murphy, Godfrey Newman, Stuart Ritchie, David Sheldon, David Skipp, Simon Torn, Claire Vickers

Apologies: Councillors: Christine Costin, Helena Croft, David Holmes, Jim

Rae, Tricia Youtan Also present: Councillor DCN/13 MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12th June 2012 were

approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCN/14 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member

Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Peter Burgess

DC/12/0744 Personal – he was a member of North Horsham Parish Council

Councillor Roy Cornell

DC/12/0744 Personal & prejudicial – he was a near neighbour



Councillor Duncan England

DC/12/0856 Personal – he was a member of Nuthurst Parish Council, where he had listened to the debate on the application but taken no part and he did not consider himself to be predetermined

Councillor David Sheldon

DC/12/0767 Personal – he was a member of West Sussex County Council



DCN/15 ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements.

Development Control (North) Committee 3rd July 2012

2

DCN/16 APPEALS Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No

Site Appellant(s)

DC/11/1846 30 Rusper Road, Horsham Rookwood Homes Ltd DC/12/0299 Ashton Grange Nursing Home, 3

Richmond Road, Horsham Mr and Mrs G Ragunathan

Informal Hearing

DC/11/2105 Waterland Chalet, Guildford Road, Slinfold

Mr Mark De La Pole

Appeal Decisions:

Ref No

Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/11/2606 5 Kingfisher Way, Horsham

Mr Mark Feltham

Dismissed

DCN/17 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0744 - DEMOLITION OF 2A

LITTLEHAVEN LANE, 105, 105A, 109, 111 AND 113 CRAWLEY ROAD AND ANCILLARY BUILDINGS AND THE ERECTION OF 14 DWELLINGS (2 X 1-BED AND 12 X 2-BED) WITH NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS, ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING SITE: LITTLEHAVEN LANE (ON THE CORNER OF CRAWLEY ROAD)

APPLICANT: GUINNESS DEVELOPMENTS LTD (Councillor Roy Cornell declared a personal & prejudicial interest in this application as he was a near neighbour. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the consideration of the item.) (Councillor Peter Burgess declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of North Horsham Parish Council.)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of existing vacant one and two storey buildings within the site and the erection of fourteen residential units. Eight of the units were proposed to be two-storey 2-bed houses fronting onto Littlehaven Lane, and the remainder of units would be provided in a two-storey block of flats which would turn the corner between Littlehaven Lane and Crawley Road. This block would provide four 2-bed flats and two 1-bed flats.


3

DCN/17 Planning Application: DC/12/0744 (cont.) The application site was located within the built up area of Horsham, at the corner of Littlehaven Lane and Crawley Road. The site currently contained a number of vacant buildings, some of which were in a poor state of repair.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18, DC19 and DC40; and South East Plan Policies CC1, CC2, CC6 and C4, together with the Horsham Town Design Statement Supplementary Planning Document 2008, were relevant to the determination of this application. There was no relevant planning history in respect of this site. Building Control, the Landscape Architect and the Highway Authority raised no objections and their comments were noted. The comments of Public Health & Licensing, the Conservation & Design Officer, Crime Prevention Design Advisor and the Parish Council were noted. One letter of objection had been received. The applicant spoke in support of the application. It was noted that the applicants had made amendments to the scheme to seek to address some of the concerns raised through the consultation process. The proposed density of 67 dwellings per hectare was considered to result in an efficient use of land, whilst considering the site constraints and seeking to provide a well designed scheme. The scheme, being two storeys in height throughout, would reflect the predominately two storey character of the surrounding development. Due to the constraints of the site, it was considered that a rear parking court was the most acceptable parking solution and the provision of suitable rear fencing and a gate would mitigate potential safety concerns. The proposed mix of units was considered acceptable and would provide additional smaller dwellings in the area. It was considered that the configuration of the proposed units on site had been designed in such a way that there would be no direct overlooking from the flatted units to the houses. Whilst a proportion of the rear gardens of Nos.115 and 117 Crawley Road would now form part of the application site, their gardens would remain in excess of 20 metres deep, which was considered to be sufficient in terms of outside amenity space. It was also noted that the access and parking area would run along the boundary of No.115 Crawley Road, but it was not considered that this would cause sufficient noise and disturbance so as to merit objection in this regard.


4

DCN/17 Planning Application: DC/12/0744 (cont.) It was considered that further information was required regarding the technicalities of demolition and construction works, given the constraints of the site and the surrounding area. It was therefore proposed that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) was secured by condition, which would fully consider the processes involved in building out the site. It was also recommended that, if permission were granted, an additional condition to those set out in the report should be imposed to ensure that the end wall of the remaining dwelling was made good following the demolition of the adjoining attached property. A detailed Transport Statement has been submitted in support of the planning application and, given the site’s access to local amenities, public transport and its location within Horsham, it was considered to be in a sustainable location. Some concern was expressed in respect of the proposed new access from Crawley Road, particularly in view of its proximity to the nearby controlled pedestrian crossing and the volume of traffic using the road. Members therefore considered that the application was acceptable in principle, subject to the completion of a planning agreement to secure the required infrastructure contributions and further consideration of the location of the new access onto Crawley Road.

RESOLVED (i) That a planning agreement be entered into to

secure the infrastructure contributions generated by the development.

(ii) That, subject to the completion of the agreement

in (i) above; the framing of an additional condition in respect of the making good of the end wall of the remaining dwelling following demolition of the attached property; and further consideration of the location of the new access onto Crawley Road, application DC/12/0744 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted


5

DCN/18 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0784 – REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING BUILDERS YARD AND ERECTION OF ONE DETACHED 4-BED DWELLING SITE: BUILDERS YARD, MEAD FARM, STANE STREET, SLINFOLD

APPLICANT: SLINFOLD LLP Deleted from the agenda. DCN/19 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: DC/11/0796 - CHANGE OF USE TO

PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR SIX CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

DC/11/0802 - TEMPORARY CONSENT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FOR RETENTION OF THE SITING OF FIVE PORTAKABINS WITHIN AN EXISTING BARN, TOGETHER WITH ONE PORTAKABIN SITED EXTERNALLY, TO PROVIDE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS AND USE OF AN EXISTING OUTBUILDING AS A RECEPTION WING SITE: RAPKYNS COTTAGE, GUILDFORD ROAD, BROADBRIDGE HEATH APPLICANT: SUSSEX EDUCARE LTD The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that these applications sought permission for the change of use of an existing two-storey detached dwelling, for use as residential accommodation for six children with special needs, and temporary consent for a period of two years for the retention of the siting of five portakabins within an existing barn, together with one portakabin sited externally, to provide education for children with special needs and the use of an existing outbuilding as a reception wing. The submitted planning statements indicated that the need for the current applications had arisen from the sudden closure of Crawley Forest School in 2011 and the absence of any suitable alternative facilities. The applicant had provided an outline business plan, which set out the vision for the site in the long term should the business prove viable over the initial temporary period. It was noted that the applicant had clearly indicated their intention to provide permanent teaching facilities, should the business prove viable. The application site was located outside any built up area, 2.5 miles to the west of Horsham Town Centre and one mile to the west of Broadbridge Health. The site was a large former equestrian complex and dwelling and was one of a number of properties accessed via the Rapkyns Care Centre entrance from the A281 Guildford Road. The site comprised a detached dwelling, small outbuilding, a number of disused stables, sandschool, large hard-standing area, a large barn and a smaller open-ended barn. The site was adjoined by a number of agricultural fields, with Rapkyns Care Centre to the west. There were a number of additional dwellings to the south of the property, also in the ownership of the applicant.


6

DCN/19 Planning Applications: DC/11/0796 & DC/11/0802 (cont.)

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3 and CP16; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC9, DC17, DC31 and DC40; and South East Plan Policies CC1, CC4 and CC6 were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant planning history included: SF/36/93 Erection of replacement house

incorporating grooms quarters Granted

SF/51/02 Erection of a barn Granted DC/08/1454 Single-storey extension Granted

There was also a planning agreement in respect of the property, which limited the use of Rapkyns Cottage as a single dwellinghouse with ancillary grooms quarters. The comments of the Equalities Officer, West Sussex Highways and Building Control were noted. Public Health & Licensing and the Parish Council raised no objections to the application. With regard to application DC/11/0796, both Rapkyns Cottage and The Clockhouse were currently used as residential accommodation for four children with special needs. The use of these dwellings for this purpose fell within the permitted use class C3 (dwelling houses) and, therefore, did not require planning permission. However, the proposed use of Rapkyns Cottage was for the provision of residential care for six children, for which planning permission was required. This proposed change of use would retain the existing configuration of the dwelling, providing adequate living arrangements for the prospective inhabitants, and no external alterations to the property were required. The application site, whilst currently an independent residential plot, was located adjacent to the Rapkyns Care Centre property, which provided residential care to both young adults and more elderly patients. It was therefore considered that, in terms of the nature and character of the proposed residential use and that of the immediate vicinity, the scheme would accord with policy DC17 of the Local Development Framework. The proposal would also meet a need for this type of facility, in accordance with policy DC31 of the Local Development Framework. It was noted that the applicant had indicated that, if the proposed educational use proved viable over the two-year temporary period, it was their intention to pursue similar changes of use for a number of other houses in the immediate environs to allow for expansion of the educational facility. Any such applications would need to be considered on their own merits at that time.


7

DCN/19 Planning Applications: DC/11/0796 & DC/11/0802 (cont.) In respect of application DC/11/0802, the applicant had stated that the educational facility had been in operation for some time, providing education for the eight children at Rapkyns Cottage and The Clockhouse, on an unauthorised basis. Approval was therefore now sought to regularise the development and, in addition, to extend the use to provide education for a total of 11 students. In the context of the adjoining residential care accommodation for 10 of the 11 students, it was considered that the proposed temporary use would not lead to a significant increase in the level of activity in the area and that it would also provide an independent educational service to meet an identified need. As such, the proposal would lend itself toward the sustainable development of this rural area and would accord with the overarching aims of policies DC1 and CP15. In addressing possible longer term needs, the applicant had included an outline business plan which indicated that, should the business prove viable over the duration of the two-year temporary period, there would be a need to increase student numbers (both on and off site) and to provide a more permanent educational facility/building. It was noted that any intensification of the level of day-student use, which would lead to a substantial increase in the level of activity in this rural area, would require close scrutiny as part of any future application. The use of the detached outbuilding to the rear of Rapkyns Cottage as a reception wing related to the operation of the school was considered acceptable as a temporary measure. However, if there was an application in the future for the expansion or continuation of the educational facility, more appropriate proposals for reception facilities would be expected. The existing planning agreement (S106/636) controlled a number of aspects of development on the site pursuant to the granting of planning permission SF/36/93. In particular, the agreement required the dwelling to be maintained as a single dwellinghouse with ancillary grooms quarters, not to be sold or conveyed otherwise. It was clear that the overall property was no longer in use for equestrian purposes and it was therefore recommended that the planning agreement should be revoked in order to facilitate the change of use of the dwelling, to allow its use for residential care purposes. Members expressed some concern regarding the use of portacabins within a barn to provide classroom accommodation but accepted that this was a temporary situation to enable the future viability of the business to be assessed. It was therefore considered that the applications were acceptable in principle, subject to the revocation of the existing planning agreement.


8

DCN/19 Planning Applications: DC/11/0796 & DC/11/0802 (cont.) RESOLVED (i) That planning agreement S106/636 dated 26th

May 2011 between (1) Sachedina and Sachedina, (2) Sussex Health Care, (3) Horsham District Council and (4) Bank of Scotland PLC be revoked.

(ii) That, subject to (i) above, applications

DC/11/0796 and DC/11/0802 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the applications should be granted, subject to the conditions reported.

DCN/20 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0453 - STABLES AND SAND SCHOOL

SITE: UPPER SWAYNES BARN, GUILDFORD ROAD, RUDGWICK APPLICANT: MR J HASWELL The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of stables and a sand school within an agricultural field. The proposed stable building would comprise eight loose boxes, a tack room, barn, two walkways and an open-ended wash-down/solarium area, together with a sandschool measuring 60 metres by 20 metres. The proposed development would be located in the southwest corner of the field, adjacent to an existing hedgerow along the edge of the public highway and a number of mature trees. The application site was located in an area of countryside, outside the built-up area of Rudgwick, on the north side of the A281 Guildford Road. The site sloped significantly, rising towards the north. Woodland and agricultural land adjoining lands the site to the west, agricultural land to the north and ancient woodland to the east, together with a number of residential properties on the south side of the A281 Guildford Road. The applicant’s place of residence was situated approximately 150 metres west of the application site. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC6, DC9, DC29 and DC40; and South East Plan Policies CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4 were relevant to the determination of this application. There was no relevant planning history in respect of this site.


9

DCN/20 Planning Application: DC/12/0453 (cont.) The comments of West Sussex County Council Highways and Public Health & Licensing were noted. Rudgwick Preservation Society and the Parish Council objected to the application and 16 letters of objection had been received from eight individual objectors. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the two applicants and a member of the public spoke in support. The proposal would constitute development in the countryside, which Policy DC1 stated would not be permitted unless it was considered essential to its countryside location. This policy also stated that any such development permitted must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and must not lead, either individually or cumulatively, to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside. the Council’s equestrian development policy, DC29, stated that planning permission would be granted for equestrian related development if it could be demonstrated that the re-use of existing buildings on site for any related equestrian use was not appropriate before new or replacement buildings are considered; the proposal was appropriate in scale and level of activity, and in keeping with its location and surroundings; and, it did not result in sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the countryside. However, the proposed development would not be in the immediate vicinity of, or associated with, the applicant’s primary residence and the extent of the proposal would be a substantial development in a rural location, given the site’s current layout as an undeveloped field. In this regard, with a ridge height of approximately three metres adjacent to the highway, the proposed u-shaped stable block and, given the north sloping topography of the site, the proposed sandschool would both become significant features within the streetscene view. Also, the Highways Department had indicated that the applicant would be required to carry out substantial works to a large section of hedgerow in both east and west directions at the site entrance to ensure a safe and satisfactory means of access and exit, resulting in a more elaborate and prominent feature. It was also considered that significant cut and/or fill engineering works would be required in order to provide a level surface within the sandschool and West Sussex Highways had indicated that a total of 16 parking would be required, together with adequate turning areas. Members therefore considered that the proposed development was unacceptable as it would have a significant effect on this rural locality, would be out of character with the established pattern of development and, by reason of its isolated location, would result in sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the countryside.


10

DCN/20 Planning Application: DC/12/0453 (cont.)

RESOLVED That application DC/12/0453 be refused for the following reason: 01 The proposed development by reason of its

nature, scale and design, providing a significant built form of noticeable appearance, would be a highly prominent feature in this rural area, out of character with the established pattern of development. Furthermore, by reason of its isolated location, the proposal would result in sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the countryside. The proposal is thus contrary in particular to the requirements of policies DC1 and DC29 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

DCN/21 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0473 - REPLACEMENT DWELLING

SITE: DOWNIE COTTAGE SANDHILLS ROAD BARNS GREEN APPLICANT: BUCHANAN TRADING INC The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for a 3-bed detached replacement dwelling with accommodation in the roof. The Built-up Area Boundary of Barns Green was approximately 95 metres south of the application site but the application site itself was located wholly outside the defined boundary. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1,CP3, CP5, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC8, DC9 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1, CC2, CC4 and CC6 were relevant to the determination of this application. There was no relevant planning history in respect of this site. The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal. One letter of objection had been received. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application. The proposal was for a replacement dwelling in the countrside on a ‘one for one’ basis. Policy stated that applications for replacement dwellings should


11

DCN/21 Planning Application: DC/12/0473 (cont.) not be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling and that all development must protect and reflect the rural and landscape character of the area. The principle of a replacement dwelling was therefore considered acceptable, provided that the details of the scheme were also acceptable. The proposal involved the squaring-up of the original cruciform building with a gable/barn hipped roof and the addition of roof lights in order to allow additional accommodation within the roof, resulting in an increase in the footprint of approximately 10%. The height of the dwelling would be increased from the existing 4.6 metres to 7.1 metres. All fenestration would face towards Sandhills Road, to the rear of the dwelling and to the north and the proposed replacement dwelling would be set no further back into the site than the building line to the rear of the existing bungalow. It was therefore not considered that there would be any adverse impact with regards to the private amenities of neighbouring residents. Members considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

RESOLVED That application DC/12/0473 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, following the framing of appropriate conditions. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCN/22 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0864 - REPLACEMENT DWELLING

SITE: 44 RUSPER ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR JOHN ELLIOT (Councillor Peter Burgess declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of North Horsham Parish Council.) The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a three bedroom dwelling with integral garage. The three bedrooms would be provided in the roofspace of the dwelling. The application site was located within the built up area boundary of Horsham, on the eastern side of Rusper Road. The existing single storey bungalow was set back from Rusper Road by approximately 10 metres and formed part of a uniform building line on this side of the road. The area was


12

DCN/22 Planning Application: DC/12/0864 (cont.) characterised by a mix of property styles with detached bungalows, detached two storey properties and semi detached properties on the eastern side of the road. The application site was bounded to the north and south by two storey detached properties. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC8, DC9 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1 and CC4 were relevant to the determination of this application. There was no relevant planning history in respect of this site. The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal and their comments were noted. The comments of Southern Water were noted. Three letters of objection had been received, two of which were from the owner of a neighbouring property and the third was from the prospective purchaser of the same neighbouring property. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application. Development Plan policies encouraged new development to take place on previously developed land and within defined built-up areas. As the site was situated centrally within the built-up area boundary of Horsham, a category 1 settlement with good access to local facilities and a range of services within the town centre, together with good links to public transport, it was considered to be in a sustainable location. Also, as the proposal was for a replacement dwelling, the principle of residential development was considered acceptable. The existing property was a single storey dwelling and the maximum ridge height of 6.4 metres was significantly below that of the two adjoining properties, which were two storey. The ridge height of the proposed dwelling would be the same as that of the existing property but would be a gable style pitched roof, with two pitched roof dormer windows on the front elevation. The dwelling would be constructed on a similar footprint to the existing property although it would abut the northern boundary. A distance of approximately 1.5 metres would be retained to the dwelling to the north, which was not an uncommon characteristic of properties on this side of the road and in the area. Given the mix of dwelling styles and sizes along the road and the separation distances between properties in the immediate vicinity, it was considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would have no material adverse impact on the character of the area or the visual amenities of the streetscene. Also, the relationship between the proposed dwelling and the adjoining properties was not untypical of residential development in the area and would have an acceptable impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers.


13

DCN/22 Planning Application: DC/12/0864 (cont.) Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED That application DC/12/0864 be granted, subject to the following conditions: 01 A2 Full Permission 02 M1 Approval of Materials 03 H10 Cycling Provision 04 O1 Hours of Working 05 L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping 06 D6 Finished Floor Levels 07 G5 Recycling 08 H4b Construction Material Storage 09 G3 Parking 10 E3 Fencing 11 M8 Sustainable Development (Residential

Development) 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

DCN/23 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0856 - ERECTION OF "NISSEN HUT"

BUILDING FOR STORAGE OF FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING ORCHARD SITE: NUTHURST ORCHARD, NUTHURST ROAD, MONKS GATE APPLICANT: MR TOM SCANLON (Councillor Duncan England declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of Nuthurst Parish Council, where he had listened to the debate on the application but taken no part and he did not consider himself to be predetermined.) The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a “Nissen hut” building for storage of farm machinery and equipment associated with an existing orchard. The application site was located outside any defined built up area boundary and was therefore sited in the countryside for planning purposes.


14

DCN/23 Planning Application: DC/12/0856 (cont.) The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP13, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC23, DC25 and DC40; and South East Plan policies CC1 and CC4 were relevant to the determination of this application. Relevant planning history included: DC/04/0283 Erection of field shelter and covered yard

and extension to field track Granted

DC/06/0457 Retention of hardstanding and earth bund Granted DC/08/1453 Erection of building to contain existing

containers (3) currently not under cover and used for feed etc for pigs and deer

Granted

DC/12/0150 Proposed barn for storage and processing of fruit

Refused

West Sussex County Council Highways raised no objection to the proposal. The Parish Council objected to the proposal. The applicant spoke in support of the application. The applicant had provided details of the operation of the orchard, which comprised over 300 trees and was in its third year with a reasonable crop expected in the fourth year of production. The proposed building was to be used to store tools and equipment including a tractor, trailer, boxes and juicing equipment, as well as a storage area for fruit, fruit juice and cider. A supporting letter had been submitted with the application from the Farm Advisory Services Team, which outlined that an orchard of this size would be unlikely to achieve successful production without sufficient on site storage space. The proposed storage building would be sited in the south east corner of the site and would be 15 metres by 7 metres. The structure would be arch shaped with a maximum height of 3.6 metres. Additional planting was indicated to the southern elevation of the building. However, should planning permission be granted, it was considered that a condition to secure a more detailed planting scheme would be necessary. The scale and level of permanence of the proposed structure had been reduced significantly from that previously refused and it would be sited on the lowest part of the site. The closest residential property was located approximately 160 metres to the south east of the proposed building and it was therefore considered that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of any nearby residential properties.


15

DCN/23 Planning Application: DC/12/0856 (cont.) Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED That application DC/12/0856 be granted, subject to the following conditions: 01 A2 Full Permission 02 The buildings hereby permitted shall be used for

agricultural purposes only, as defined in Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

03 In the event of the building hereby permitted ceasing to be used for agricultural purposes as defined by Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 it shall be demolished and all resultant materials removed from the site and the land reinstated to its original condition or a condition which has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the cessation of such use or within such extended time as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

04 No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or 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.

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


16

DCN/24 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0767 - SURGERY TO ONE OAK TREE SITE: COMPTONS 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 Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for light surgery to an oak tree. The tree was situated on County Council owned land on the verge opposite 178 Comptons Lane, close to a lay-by and was protected individually as T1 of Tree Preservation Order number 663, confirmed on 8th May 1990. Members were advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000). One member of the public spoke in support of the proposed works. The tree in question was a large impressive roadside specimen in fair health and of very high amenity value. The works proposed involved the removal of epicormic growth around the main trunk and the lifting of the crown to six metres above ground level over both the highway and the adjacent residential dwelling to the west, in order to meet the statutory requirements for carriageway clearance to the east, to address the low-level property overhang to the west and to improve the lower crown profile aesthetics. The proposed works were minor and would not result in any harm to the tree or any amenity loss.

RESOLVED That application DC/12/0767 be granted, subject to the following conditions: 01 TR2 Time limit 02 TR3 Treeworks limit: Undertake surgery

exactly as set out in works schedule appended to the application as submitted

03 TR4 Surgery standards


17

DCN/24 Planning Application: DC/12/0767 (cont.) REASON ITRE1(a) The proposal is unlikely to have an

adverse impact either on the health of the tree or the character and amenities of the local area

DCN/25 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0775 - SURGERY TO TWO OAK

TREES SITE: OPEN SPACE BETWEEN 71 AMBERLEY ROAD AND 5 EARLES MEADOW, HORSHAM APPLICANT: NORTH HORSHAM PARISH COUNCIL (Councillor Peter Burgess declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of North Horsham Parish Council.) The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for light surgery to two oak trees. The trees were situated on public open space to the north-east of 71 Amberley Road and were protected by virtue of their position within the area designated as A1 of Tree Preservation Order number 36, confirmed on 10th April 1973. Members were advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000). North Horsham Parish Council, as the applicant, had no objection to the proposals. The trees in question were single standing specimens of considerable amenity value and appeared to be in generally good health and condition. The works proposed involved minor surgery to crown lift both trees to two metres above ground level (to allow mower access) and to trim back T1 laterally by 1.5 metres to reduce the overhang into 71 Amberley Road. The proposed works were minor and would not result in any harm to the trees or any amenity loss.

RESOLVED That application DC/12/0775 be granted, subject to the following conditions:


18

DCN/25 Planning Application: DC/12/0775 (cont.) 01 TR2 Time limit 02 TR3 Treeworks limit: Undertake surgery

exactly as set out in works schedule appended to the application as submitted

03 TR4 Surgery standards REASON ITRE1(b) The proposal is unlikely to have an

adverse impact either on the health of the trees or the character and amenities of the local area

DCN/26 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/2243 - ERECTION OF 35 DWELLINGS

(27 X 3-BED AND 8 X 4-BED) PHASE 1A OF OUTLINE PERMISSION DC/09/2138 (1044 DWELLINGS) ON LAND WEST OF WINDRUM CLOSE, HORSHAM (APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS) SITE: LAND EAST OF A24 WORTHING ROAD HORSHAM APPLICANT: BERKELEY HOMES (SOUTHERN) LTD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reminded Members that this application had previously been considered by the Committee on 20th March 2012 when consideration had been deferred to secure a Design Brief that considered alternative options for the layout and design of the proposed dwellings and issues relating to landscaping, access and parking, prior to reconsideration by the Committee. The applicant had also been requested to consider comments made by a local resident in respect of access and highway safety. Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of initial consultations and a planning assessment of the previous proposal. Following the receipt of amended information and plans, further consultation responses had been received from the Landscape Architect, the Design & Conservation Officer, West Sussex County Council Highways, Southern Water, Horsham Society and the Neighbourhood Council, which were noted. Following informal discussions, the applicant had submitted a Design Brief which presented two alternative options for the site which sought to incorporate the comments made by Officers and the issues raised at committee. Option A included a proposed increase in the site by two metres to the western and southern boundaries together with a further two metres landscape buffer around these boundaries; an increase in parking provision


19

DCN/26 Planning Application: DC/11/2243 (cont.) by two spaces; an increase in front gardens; increase in amenity landscaping to allow for further street planting; and amendments to the detailing and proposed palette of materials for the dwellings. Option B included the changes as noted above but excluded the additional two parking spaces. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee, the local Members and the Neighbourhood Council had confirmed that their preference was Option A. The applicant had amended the detailing of a number of dwellings within Option A, with all roof pitches now increased; the detailing of porch canopies/gallows brackets had been improved providing more variety; the quantum of boarding and tiling to a number of plots had been increased to provide more variety and interest; and additional brick detailing had been introduced to windows in rendered elevations. This option also proposed two additional parking spaces, giving a total of 48 spaces. It was considered that, having regard to the constraints set out within the S106 planning agreement, on balance the additional spaces together with the allocation of one space per dwelling that was acceptable for the development proposed. Issues in respect of recycling and refuse storage and collections had also been discussed and could be addressed by the imposition of suitable conditions. A Transport Statement and Stage 1 Safety Audit had been submitted in support of the current application and the submission of a Construction Management Plan would also be required if permission were granted. In light of the increase in size of the site, the proposed development would not strictly accord with the area as shown on the plans within the principal planning agreement and a variation to the agreement would therefore be required in the event planning permission was agreed. Members considered that, having regard to the constraints which influenced the proposed development, the current proposal was acceptable in principle.

RESOLVED That application DC/11/2243 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, subject to the prior completion of a deed of variation to the planning agreement S106/1825; the expiry of the consultation period; further consideration of recycling/refuse issues; and any conditions additional to those reported as a


20

DCN/26 Planning Application: DC/11/2243 (cont.) result of consultation responses, including those recommended by Southern Water. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCN/27 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/09/2138 - VARIATION TO LEGAL AGREEMENT S106/1825 TO REPLACE PLAN 7 AND PLAN 11 SITE: LAND EAST OF A24 WORTHING ROAD HORSHAM APPLICANT: BERKELEY HOMES (SOUTHERN) LTD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that, in August 2010, outline planning permission had been granted (DC/09/2138) for the development of up to 1044 dwellings including the provision of employment floor space, fire station, community centre and expanded school facilities together with the construction of a principal vehicular access from A24 (southbound), secondary bus/cycle/pedestrian accesses from Hills Farm Lane, internal highway network, diversion of existing public footpaths and a replacement footbridge over A24. The application also included the formation of associated landscape works including playing fields, allotments, recreation facilities and construction of acoustic bund/fence alongside A24. The outline permission had been subject to a planning agreement (Section 106/1825) (the Principal Agreement), which secured a number of benefits. In January 2011, a Reserved Matters application for the first phase had been granted (DC/10/0006) for 196 dwellings, creation of a new vehicular/pedestrian/ cycle access from Hills Farm Lane, together with the internal highway network, footpaths, and drainage works; formation of the related landscaping, open space and recreation facilities, including additional facilities for Tanbridge House School. This Reserved Matters application had required a Deed of Variation to the Principal Agreement (known as First Supplementary Agreement), amending the definitions of a number of specifications required to be brought forward as part of the overall development. In February 2012, a further variation to the Principal Agreement (the Second Supplementary Agreement) had been agreed for an amendment to the definition of ‘Application’ and ‘Planning Permission’ to ensure benefits already secured within the planning agreement did not fall away in the event applications DC/11/1608, DC/11/1807, DC/11/2004 and DC/11/2304 were implemented; to allow for the relocation of a fence around the perimeter of land to be transferred to Tanbridge House School; and to replace Plan 6 showing the location of two bus stops/shelters close to the northern access of the site on Hills Farm Lane. In April 2012, another variation to the Principal Agreement (the Third


21

DCN/27 Planning Application: DC/09/2138 (cont.) Supplementary Agreement) had also been agreed for an amendment to the definition of ‘Application’ and ‘Planning Permission’ to capture more recent amendments during the course of construction considered under planning application DC/11/2697. Details of relevant policies and planning history were submitted. The need for a further variation to the Principal Agreement (S106/1825) had arisen as planning application DC/11/2243 for Phase 1a of the wider strategic development, which sought planning permission for the construction of 35 affordable dwellings, had been amended by increasing the site area to take account of Members’ comments and to allow additional parking and landscaping to be provided. Consequently, the application site no longer accorded with the area as shown on Plan 7 and Plan 11 within the Principal Agreement. In the event planning permission for application DC/11/2243 was granted with the enlarged site boundary, it would not comply with the area defined within the Principal Agreement and the benefits secured within the Principal Agreement could potentially fall away. Members considered that the variation of the planning agreement, as proposed, was reasonable as it would maintain the overall level of contributions and provision of facilities etc but recognised the need for flexibility in the context of amendments during the course of considering individual Reserved Matters applications.

RESOLVED That planning agreement S106/1825 be varied to allow for the replacement of Plan 7 and Plan 11. REASON To ensure benefits already secured within the planning agreement do not fall away in the event planning permission for application DC/11/2243 is granted.

The meeting closed at 7.49pm having commenced at 5.30pm. CHAIRMAN

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 7TH AUGUST 2012

REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES APPEALS 1. Appeal Decisions

I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:- DC/11/0673 Construction of a single storey end of terrace bungalow facing Peary

Close, use of part of existing extension on northern boundary as part of new bungalow. 14 Peary Close, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 5GD. For: Ms Shelley Vickers Appeal: ALLOWED (Committee)

DC/11/2326 Erection of detached stable building.

Chesworth House, Denne Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1JR. For: Mr Joao Pita Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/11/0797 Retention of use of land for valeting cars

Little Park Farm, Charlwood Road, Ifield, Crawley, West Sussex, RH11 0JZ. For: Mr Mark Vickers Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1.

Contact: Barry O’Donnell Extension: 5174

abcd DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (North)

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 7th August 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing offices and proposed erection of a mobile

crane workshop and storage with surrounding bund and associated car parking

SITE: Plot 3, The Business Park, Maydwell Avenue, Slinfold

WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

APPLICATION: DC/11/2688

APPLICANT: Southern Cranes and Access Ltd REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Scale 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 redevelopment of an existing commercial site, comprising

part demolition of existing office units, associated with the previous use of the site as an ink manufacturing facility (B2), and construction of a mobile crane workshop (sui generis) together with associated storage and car parking and a surrounding bund. The proposed development would allow the applicant to provide improved working and training facilities on those currently in use elsewhere within the District.

1.2 One of the existing office units, measuring approximately 567sq.m, would be

demolished in order to accommodate the development. This building would be replaced by the crane workshop, measuring approximately 500sq.m, whilst the other existing office block would be retained for use within the proposed development.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

1.3 The applicant also proposes the construction of a large earthen bund, to match that which is already in situ adjacent to the site boundary. With landscape planting, this would screen the development from view along the Downs Link public bridleway, which abuts the application site.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The 1.2ha application site comprises part of an established multi-unit industrial site

situated outside the village of Slinfold. The eastern boundary of the site adjoins the built-up area boundary of the village. Formerly a large ink manufacturing plant occupied by the Flint Group, the submitted Design and Access Statement confirms the site has been divided and sold as four individual plots, of which the current applicant has purchased plot 3. The site is identified as an employment site in the Northern West Sussex, Employment Land Review Part II, Final Draft Report (October 2010) however it is not formally designated as an employment protection zone.

1.5 The plot is situated in the northeast corner of the site, adjacent to both the Downs

Link public bridleway and a large headquarters development currently under construction pursuant to planning permission Ref. DC/10/2551. Existing buildings consist of flat-roofed two-storey offices, in the north and east corners.

1.6 The topography of the site is consistent with that of the surrounding lands,

comprising large concrete slabs as the primary hard surface. There is a slight camber towards the northeast corner of the site, which allows surface water to run-off into this area. Whilst there are physical barriers along the north and east boundaries, the application site is generally open, with no physical barriers along the south and west property boundaries. In this regard, the estate road delineates the southern boundary, whilst the construction barriers on the adjoining property delineate to the west. At the time of inspection it was apparent there was a large mound of earth in the northeast corner.

1.7 The site’s principal access is off the A29 (Stane Street), via Maydwell Avenue,

which is a private road. Adjacent to the north boundary is the Downs Link, a public bridleway accessed by pathways, both to the north and south of the site. There is also a restricted vehicle access to the site from Hayes Lane to the east.

1.8 There are a number of residential properties to the east of the site, fronting onto

Hayes Lane, which form the built-up area of boundary for Slinfold. In this regard, whilst the built-up area boundary is within approximately 75m of the application site, the existing dwellings are approximately 110m from the site boundary.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant South East Plan (2009) policies are: CC1, CC4, CC6, RE3 2.4 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy (2007) are: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10,

CP13 and CP15. 2.5 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) are: DC1,

DC2, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC25, DC26 and DC40. 2.6 PLANNING HISTORY

The site has an extensive planning history, which predominantly relates to its former industrial use under BASF printing systems. None are of particular relevance to the current application. Recent permission DC/10/2551 Proposed new headquarters facility comprising B8

warehouse and B1 offices with associated parking. Permitted 22/7/2011

There have been a number of non-material amendment applications approved, subsequent to this grant of permission; however, none have materially affected the overall nature and character of the permitted development on this site.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Strategic Planning – The proposal seeks the demolition of existing offices and

proposed erection of a mobile crane workshop and storage with surrounding bund and associated car parking. The application needs to be considered against the Local Development Framework particularly the Core Strategy 2007 and the General Development Control Policies 2007.

Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy 2007 sets out that a range of locations, types and sizes of employment premises and sites will be provided to meet the needs of the local economy. It makes specific reference to making more use of existing sites and premises which are not fully used because they are unsuited to modern needs. As the proposal makes use of a vacant, existing employment site, it is considered an appropriate location in principle for further employment use.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4

Further to this, the Employment Land Review 2010 identifies that the site is a good quality employment site with good quality and well maintained modern space; although the previous operations have now shut down. The Employment Land Review 2010 goes on to recommend that Horsham District Council should retain the following site for employment development and that the prospective suitable uses are B2 or B8.

It is noted that the proposal is for Sui Generis use which does not strictly comply with the recommendation of B2 or B8 uses set out within the Employment Land Review 2010, however, as the site is identified for the retention of employment use, Sui Generis use on this site, in the form of a mobile crane workshop and storage, is considered acceptable in principle. With regard to the proposed replacement building, Policy DC26 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 aims to encourage the re-use of existing buildings, where possible, over replacement buildings; however it is acknowledged that in some cases, replacement buildings can be more appropriate. I am satisfied that the applicant has given consideration of the existing commercial site by stating that the landlord’s intention is to place the site on the market with commercial agents and re-let the site; and also that the existing office building is not capable of being re-used due to its previous use as an office and staff welfare / recreation facilities, but more importantly, has now been re-orientated to run along the sites eastern boundary to offer some additional acoustic benefits to the residential properties facing Hayes Lane on request of the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

It should be noted that there are known local highways issues with Stane Street (A29) and Maydwell Avenue, however the proposal appears to comply with DC40 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. The access to the site along Maydwell Avenue appears to provide a safe and adequate means of access as it was used for the previous employment site. If this access is still considered adequate for the proposed function, no concerns are raised. I would suggest seeking the views of the Highways Authority on this matter. The proposal appears to include sufficient parking and cycle provision, therefore making adequate provision for all users and is accompanied by a Transport Assessment.

Further policies to be taken into account are Policy DC8 of the General Development Control Policies 2007, which favours developments that ensure measures are incorporated to reduce the impact of climate change and carbon dioxide emissions; and also Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 which sets out various development principles which permissions need to take account of.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5

In conclusion, the department does not raise a strategic policy objection to the principle of this proposal and the continued use of this site for employment uses; however, concern is raised over the future use of the existing site, if you are minded to grant permission to this application and the need for a replacement building over the re-use of the existing building. We therefore suggest that you request further information from the applicant regarding the future use of the existing site and also that the applicant demonstrates the need for a replacement building over re-use of the existing building.

We suggest that you are mindful of the aims of the relevant policies and the above comments. The site specific matters raised above are best judged by you as a case officer after a site visit, however, I would be happy to offer further guidance if necessary.

3.2 Public Health and Licensing - The following comments are made with reference to the reports submitted with the application in particular the Noise Assessment prepared by RPS project number JAL6379. There is no mention or assessment of impacts during the demolition and construction phases. During these activities it would be necessary to control adverse environmental impacts by means of a construction environmental management plan (CEMP). The CEMP should have regard to best practice measures to control noise, dust and waste. Useful guidance for appropriate noise controls can be found in the British Standard BS 5228-1: 2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites; and guidance for dust control is found in the BRE publication Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Sites (2003). It is likely that a site waste management plan will be necessary due to the project cost of the development and this would be sufficient to cover controls on wastes arising from construction and demolition activities. It would be expected that construction/demolition hours are restricted to 0800-1800 Monday – Friday; 0800-1300 Saturdays and no activities on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The CEMP could be made a requirement by a suitable condition. A condition should be included prohibiting the open burning of waste. This should apply to the demolition, construction and operational phases of any development. The Noise Assessment report makes some assumptions about the sound insulation performance of the maintenance workshop building and acoustic fence. Details of these have been alluded to in the report but more detail is required to ensure the noise attenuation predictions are realised on completion of the development. A condition could be included requiring a scheme for sound insulation measures to be submitted, approved, implemented and maintained in relation to the acoustic fence/bund and the structure of the maintenance building. It is noted that the maintenance building is to be used during daytime only. I recommend that a condition is included stating that maintenance activities are restricted to 0700-1900 Monday to Friday; 0800-1300 Saturdays and no activities on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6

One significant source of intrusive noise from vehicles arises from single tone reversing bleepers. The report states that there will be no need for cranes to reverse in the early morning as they will be parked to enable them to leave site in a forward direction. I recommend that reversing bleepers on vehicles are prohibited until after 0700. There are alternative means to ensure reversing is undertaken in a safe manner for example the use of banksmen, excluding pedestrians, ensuring adequate visibility for drivers etc. Further information can be found in the HSE publication INDG 199 (rev1) Workplace Transport Safety - an Overview. Further comments received 7/3/12 - The noise assessment has considered the impact of cranes leaving the site in the early hours on the nearest receptors at Gatefield Cottages, 11 Hayes Lane, Cherry Tree Farm and Railway Cottages. This part of the assessment has assumed 13 crane movements leaving between 0600 and 0700 and has been described as a worst-case scenario for assessment purposes. The assessment concludes that there will be an increase in ambient noise levels at the receptors of less than 1dB for all but Railway Cottages where there is predicted to be an increase of 1.1dB. This is of negligible significance. The sleep disturbance assessment, which is based on Lamax levels and WHO guidelines, also concludes that sleep disturbance is not expected to occur from the crane movements.

The assessment is based on the acoustic bund and fence being installed and providing a predicted noise attenuation level and there being no reversing of cranes in the early hours (before 0700). This is the reason for my recommendation that details of the acoustic barriers are submitted for approval and that reversing of vehicles prior to 0700 if carried out is done so without using reversing bleepers.

3.3 Landscape Officer - Please condition the application to secure details of hard and soft landscaping and a landscape management and maintenance plan

3.4 Slinfold Parish Council - Object to this application for the following reasons:

1. Noise and disturbance - Working hours applied for are from 0530 hours when cranes would be moved from the site. This is considerably outside normal working hours and it will affect many of the surrounding homes in Hayes Lane, Six Acres and near to Maydwell Avenue. Most affected will be Railway Cottages when the diesel engines of very large mobile cranes will be heard for a considerable distance as they drive over the nearby hump at the bottom of the up the slope in Maydwell Avenue and then accelerate up the slope to access the A29. It is noted that the assessment of the noise created by the existing cranes to judge the impact on Slinfold was measured at the existing site in Southwater and that this is not relevant to the noise they will make when they are adjacent to Railway Cottages and the cranes negotiate a speed hump and then accelerate up the hill. Thus all activity outside the normal working hours of 0730 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0730 to noon on Saturdays must be prohibited. The application for 24/7 movements in non-defined emergencies must also be prohibited.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7

2. Highway safety, traffic - The larger mobile cranes are totally unsuited to access

on to the non-trunk road system of the A29 leading to the other non-trunk road, the A281. They would also have to negotiate the two roundabouts on the A29 - one immediately to the north and the other immediately to the south. The application demonstrates that in order to access the A29 at Maydwell Avenue the larger mobile cranes would have to make use of more than the road width in each direction and thus presenting a safety hazard on this 60mph limit road. A similar situation would occur at the two roundabouts to the north and the south of the A29. Many serious accidents have occurred in this stretch of the A29 and thus making it more dangerous is not acceptable. At present the facility is located adjacent to the trunk road dual carriageway A24 where this problem does not occur.

Further comments received 8/2/12 - In addition to our letter of objection Slinfold Parish Council would request HDC’s comment or clarification on the following: 1. Please confirm that any new building will have a reduced visual impact from

Hayes Lane if the proposed bund and trees are in place. 2. Please indicate what safety provisions will be made at the junction of Maydwell

Avenue and the A29 to ensure that safety is not compromised if cranes are entering and exiting the site. In particular please indicate if these will include a 40mph speed limit on the A29 with a speed camera, and possibly traffic lights.

3. As the present location of this applicant is in Southwater and if moved to Slinfold

it will increase the number of employee’s cars through the village. Please confirm that Slinfold will receive a financial contribution to make the village streets safer to cover the cost of installing a 20mph speed limit in the conservation area and traffic calming on all the three affected village roads. This is despite clause 3.21 of the Design and Access Statement stating as follows: ‘Having assessed the application proposals it is not anticipated that the proposed development triggers the need for any financial contribution’.

4. Please clarify the apparent contradiction between the Application form Section

25 where it states AJW and Slinfold LLP own the site (copy on the next page) and the Design and Access Statement clause 2.5 where it states Southern Cranes has recently acquired the site.

5. Please clarify if grants would be available for sound proofing of affected

properties if this application were to be permitted. 6. If this application were to be permitted please confirm that a condition similar to

that used for Plot1 regarding the office building not being sold separately from the workshop would be incorporated.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 Environment Agency – No comment

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8

3.6 West Sussex Highways – The highway authority initially objected to the

application on the grounds of inadequate highways and transport information; inadequate turning facilities; and, inappropriate access to a principal road

Following receipt of the supplementary transport information and further assessment the County Council has no objection to the application, subject to imposition of conditions. The County Council remains concerned, however, that the level and nature of information provided with the application has been barely adequate to enable a thorough review of the highway and transport impacts of the proposed development. The application mainly impacts on the junction of the A29 Stane Street and Maydwell Avenue. The main issue arising during the County Council's consideration of this application was the ability of large, slow-moving vehicles to negotiate the junction without compromising road safety. A meeting took place between the applicants, their agents and the County Council which clarified the types and characteristics of the vehicles proposed to be based at the application site. The applicants' agent has provided details of how these vehicles are proposed to manoeuvre at the junction, consisting of swept path diagrams. The swept path diagrams show that the applicants' largest mobile cranes would impinge upon areas of the carriageway where there could be opposing traffic (eg the right turn lane). The applicants' agent estimates that between 4 and 6 cranes would move in or out of the site per hour between 05:30 and 07:30 and between 16:00 and 17:30. It is assumed that there would be minimal movement of cranes outside these periods. The risks to road safety associated with this level of movement, given the manoeuvrability of the mobile cranes, is therefore low and unlikely to be higher than the risk posed by other vehicles currently moving into and out of Maydwell Avenue. County Council records do not indicate a current accident problem at the junction. The junction appears to have been designed to a standard which accommodates industrial traffic, with adequate visibility and adequate width, both on the A29 and on Maydwell Avenue. The County Council therefore considers that the junction is adequate to accommodate the proposed level of use. Any intensification of use above that proposed would need further consideration of the road safety implications and a condition restricting the level of parking on the site in accordance with the details on the application form is therefore proposed. The applicant will therefore not be required to produce a road safety audit/speed survey unless the level of usage of the application site increases above that currently proposed. The requested conditions relate to; parking and turning; restriction on location of access; a construction management plan; and, the control movement of large vehicles

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.4 A total of eight letters of objection have been received, on the following grounds:

Noise Highway Access Highway Safety Hours of operation Light pollution Size of proposed workshop Privacy

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 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 5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact

on safety and security issues. 6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the

principle of the development on the site, its impact on the character of the area, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, highway safety, access and parking, and existing trees and vegetation.

Principle

6.2 This existing industrial site has an established industrial use as a result of the

former Flint Group ink manufacturing operations. The planning history indicates the extent of this use, dating back almost 50 years. More recently, planning permission Ref. DC/10/2551 has approved B1 (Business) in association with further B8 (warehouse) adjacent to the application site.

6.3 The Councils Strategic Planning Department make the following comments in

respect of the current application

“The Employment Land Review 2010 identifies that the site is a good quality employment site with good quality and well maintained modern space; although the previous operations have now shut down. The Employment Land Review 2010 goes on to recommend that Horsham District Council should retain the following

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10

site for employment development and that the prospective suitable uses are B2 or B8.

It is noted that the proposal is for Sui Generis use which does not strictly comply with the recommendation of B2 or B8 uses set out within the Employment Land Review 2010, however, as the site is identified for the retention of employment use, Sui Generis use on this site, in the form of a mobile crane workshop and storage, is considered acceptable in principle.

6.4 Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy 2007 sets out that a range of locations, types and sizes of employment premises and sites will be provided to meet the needs of the local economy. It makes specific reference to making more use of existing sites and premises which are not fully used because they are unsuited to modern needs. Having regard to the site’s location within the previously developed area, the Business Park’s identification as an employment site in the Northern West Sussex, Employment Land Review Part II, Final Draft Report, and taken in conjunction with the Local Planning Authority’s recent decision to grant a large-scale redevelopment proposal on the west adjoining site, it is considered an appropriate location in principle for further employment use.

6.5 Demolition of the existing 567sq m office building would not raise any significant

concerns as it is clearly unsuitable for retention in conjunction with the proposed use and is of no architectural merit.

Visual impact, Design and Siting

6.6 With an overall ridge height of approximately 10.5m and occupying an area of 500

sq m, the proposed warehouse would be marginally taller than the existing building, occupying a footprint of approximately 60sq m less. In the context of the established pattern of development on the site, where the warehouse building approved on an adjoining site under application DC/10/2551 has a ridge height of approximately 13.9m and occupies an area of over 11,000 sq m it is considered the proposal would not be out of character. Indeed, in terms of appearance, it is considered the proposed steel cladding would be in keeping with the style and appearance of other buildings within The Business Park.

6.7 The Planning, Design and Access Statement discusses the rationale underpinning

the site layout, where the workshop would be sited adjacent to the eastern boundary in order to act as an additional screening barrier for neighbouring properties along Hayes Lane. This would have the effect of substantially ‘filling’ the eastern area of the site, ensuring the office building and workshop are situated between the external yard area and the adjoining sensitive receptors. In terms of containment of noise emanating from the yard and from within the warehouse, Public Health and Licensing’s comments consider the submitted noise assessment makes some assumptions about the sound insulation performance of the maintenance workshop building and acoustic fence. In order to ensure a satisfactory outcome, it is suggested a condition be included which requires a scheme for sound insulation measures to be submitted, approved, implemented and maintained in relation to the acoustic fence/bund and the structure of the maintenance building

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11

6.8 Throughout the assessment of application DC/10/2551 there was ongoing

consultation and negotiation between the Landscape Officer and the applicant’s design team, pursuant to which a range of mitigation measures were agreed. In the context of the current application, the applicant has indicated they are willing to compliment and extend the landscaping arrangements in particular through the extension of the screening bund along north and eastern boundaries. This would have the effect of screening the site from public view from both nearby properties and the adjoining Downs Link public bridleway, when supplemented with landscape planting. In this regard, the Landscape Officer has expressed no objection to the proposal, rather requesting specific landscaping arrangements are controlled by suitable condition. It should be noted the landscaping works associated with the development would involve removal of a number of trees along the northern boundary of the site, the bulk of which are Leylandii, adjacent to the Downs Link. These trees do not benefit from any form of protection order, and could, in any case, be removed by the applicant without Local Authority approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the area in question would be transformed, as part of the landscaping proposals, to provide a more robust screening barrier to/from the site.

Residential amenities 6.9 Key concerns in terms of residential amenities, as identified in neighbour

representation letters, relate to noise; hours of operation; and light pollution. The visual impacts of the proposed warehouse on neighbouring occupiers have been previously considered in this report and found to be acceptable.

6.10 A number of the letters of representation received identify noise associated with

heavy vehicle movements in the early hours as key points of objection. Discussing the impact of such vehicle movements on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, Public Health and Licensing’s consultation comments state “The noise assessment has considered the impact of cranes leaving the site in the early hours on the nearest receptors at Gatefield Cottages, 11 Hayes Lane, Cherry Tree Farm and Railway Cottages. This part of the assessment has assumed 13 crane movements leaving between 0600 and 0700 and has been described as a worst-case scenario for assessment purposes. The assessment concludes that there will be an increase in ambient noise levels at the receptors of less than 1dB for all but Railway Cottages where there is predicted to be an increase of 1.1dB. This is of negligible significance. The sleep disturbance assessment, which is based on Lamax levels and WHO guidelines, also concludes that sleep disturbance is not expected to occur from the crane movements”. As such it is not considered travel arrangements associated with the use of the premises would have a significant adverse impact on adjoining or nearby residential properties.

6.11 In addition to the foregoing, the applicant has submitted swept path analysis plans

which indicate all heavy vehicles stationed on the site can achieve a satisfactory turn on-site, thus ensuring satisfactory exit in a forward gear. In this regard, notwithstanding submission of these plans, Public Health and Licensing has recommended the use of a condition to ensure all reversing undertaken prior to 7am is undertaken without the use of reversing beepers.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12

6.12 The Planning, Design and Access Statement outlines that the mobile cranes would

typically exit the site between 05.30 - 07.30 and would return between 16.00 and 17.30. The on-site business operations would be carried out as follows; (a) workshop between 7.30 - 18.30 Monday to Friday and 07.30 -13.30 on Saturdays, and, (b) offices between 07.00 – 18.00 Monday to Friday and occasionally as may be necessary on weekends.

6.13 In general, these operating hours are considered acceptable, in the context of the

established pattern of development on the business park site. Public Health and Licensing has expressed no substantive objections to the proposals, but has recommended a number of conditions, to be discharged prior to the commencement of development, to ensure there are no material adverse impacts for nearby occupiers.

6.14 The applicant has indicated the existing external lighting arrangement meets the

needs of the proposed use (although no details have been provided) and that it will not be necessary to propose a new lighting scheme. It should also be noted that legal agreement S106/954 requires that no external lighting or floodlighting can be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. In the circumstances, and having regard to the content of a number of letters of objection, it is considered the applicant should be requested to submit details of the existing external lighting arrangements, for approval, in order to ensure there are no adverse impacts for adjoining residential properties.

Highway safety, access and parking

6.15 The applicant has undertaken significant consultation with West Sussex Highways

in order to demonstrate a safe means of access and egress from the adjoining A29 and the site access, Maydwell Avenue. In this regard, the consultation comments from the Highways department state “The main issue arising during the County Council's consideration of this application was the ability of large, slow-moving vehicles to negotiate the junction without compromising road safety”. The applicant has submitted swept path analysis plans, for the junction of Maydwell Avenue and the A29, which indicate the travel path for the largest cranes operated by the applicant (approximately 13m in length).

6.16 The swept path analysis plans outline these vehicles may impinge upon areas of

the carriageway where there could be opposing traffic (eg the right turn lane). However, on the basis that between 4 and 6 cranes would move in or out of the site per hour between 05:30 and 07:30 and between 16:00 and 17:30 with minimal movement of cranes outside these periods, the Highways Department considers the risks to road safety associated with this level of movement to be low and unlikely to be higher than the risk posed by other vehicles currently moving into and out of Maydwell Avenue.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13

6.17 In terms of the design and layout of the A29 / Maydwell Avenue junction, the

Highways Department considers the junction appears to have been designed to a standard which accommodates industrial traffic, with adequate visibility and adequate width, both on the A29 and on Maydwell Avenue and therefore considers that the junction is adequate to accommodate the proposed level of use. It should be noted, however, any intensification of the use of the site would require further consideration in terms of highway safety. It is recommended a condition be imposed to limit the level of parking on the site to that outlined in the application documents (i.e. for a maximum of 15 mobile cranes).

6.18 The Highways Department has expressed no objections in terms of vehicular

parking or cycles storage provisions.

Other matters 6.19 There is a legal agreement S106/0240 on the site which states “no development

whatsoever whether or not planning permission is required therefore shall be commenced or carried out on the Land shown coloured pink and coloured pink hatched green on Plan B annexed hereto unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council...”. Members are advised that a small area of the proposed application site falls within the pink land. The current proposal would therefore require works in contravention of the obligations outlined in the legal agreement. However, the agreement allows for written approval to be given by the Council for development contrary to the obligation and if written approval is given there will be no requirement to vary the legal agreement. Therefore, in the event that permission is given, members are requested to delegate to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services the authority to provide the written approval in accordance with paragraph 2(i) of the 1982 agreement (S106/0240) in relation to the current application.

6.20 The proposal being commercial in nature does not give rise to District Council

infrastructure requirements as these relate to open space and community facilities which would be associated with residential development. West Sussex County Council has not requested contributions.

6.21 The Parish Council has made an additional submission, raising a number of

questions in relation to the project. The bulk of these issues have been addressed elsewhere in this report, however, in terms of protection of neighbouring properties from noise, it should be noted Public Health and Licensing has requested submission of details relating to both workshop and acoustic fence materials, prior to the commencement of development, in order to ensure a satisfactory arrangement is in place to protect neighbouring properties from noise.

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

i) It is recommended that the Head of Planning and Environmental Services be authorised to provide written approval under clause 2(i) of planning agreement ref Sec 106/0240 dated 10 September 1982 to allow the land to be developed in so far as permission DC/11/2688 allows and in accordance with that permission, and any subsequent approved amendments.

ii) It is recommended that subject to (i) above, application DC/11/2688 be granted, subject to conditions as set out below Conditions 01 A2 Full permission 02 D6 Finished floor levels 03 M1 Approval of materials 04 O1 Hours of working (during construction) 05 02 Burning of materials 06 Operation Management Plan

Before the development hereby permitted commences a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. The approved scheme shall include details of the external materials on the proposed workshop and the proposed acoustic fence. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent changes must be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 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).

707 During the demolition and construction phase, in order to prevent pollution a construction environmental management plan should be submitted, approved and implemented. This should have regard to best practice measures to control noise, dust and waste. Useful guidance for appropriate noise controls can be found in the British Standard BS 5228-1:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites; and guidance for dust control is found in the BRE publication Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Sites (2003). It is likely that a site waste management plan will be necessary due to the project cost of the development and this would be sufficient to cover controls on wastes arising from construction and demolition activities. Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15

08 Construction management Plan No development shall take place, including any works of demolition,

until a construction Method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for:

(a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials used in the constructing of the

development (d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including

decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate

(e) Wheel washing facilities (f) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during

construction (g) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from

demolition and construction works. Reason(s): In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

09 Movement of large vehicles Prior to commencement of development a scheme specifying arrangements for vehicle movements to and from the site, to include details of: (a) Specification of types of vehicles and hours of operation (b) The restriction of the average number of mobile crane

movements to no more than 28 per day (on a 90 day average) (c) Records of mobile crane movement to and from the site,

maintained for up to 5 years and to be made available to the Local Planning Authority on request

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented. Reason(s): In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 16

10 The workshop and office buildings premises shall not be open except

between the hours of 07.00 – 19.00 Monday to Friday and 08.00 – 13.00 Saturday and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11 Hard and soft landscaping (Major Development)

Notwithstanding the already submitted landscape proposals shown on drawing Nos. 1506/SL-30A, L003.01, L003.02, L003.03 and L003.04, prior to the commencement of development full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:

· A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and

re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice

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

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

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

· Existing and proposed levels, contours and cross / long sections for all earthworks

· Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels

· Walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials

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

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 17

Any plants which within a period of 5 years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or 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. Reason : To ensure a satisfactory development in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

12 Landscape Management and Maintenance plan (Major Development) Prior to the commencement of development a detailed long term Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for all landscape areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

The plan shall include: · Aims and Objectives · A description of Landscape Components · Management Prescriptions · Details of maintenance operations and their timing · Details of the parties/organisations who will maintain and

manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for

The plan shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations. The areas of planting shall thereafter be retained and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan, unless any variation is approved in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity and nature conservation in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

13 D10 Floodlighting 14 G3 Parking, turning and access 15 H10 Cycle parking 16 V5 No extensions 17 M8 Sustainable construction

18 The means of access to the development hereby approved shall be from A29 Stane Street via Maydwell Avenue only. Reason: In the interests of road safety and in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 18

19 The applicant shall ensure that there are at no time more than 14 mobile cranes stationed on the site.

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)

20 Foul and surface water drainage Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed

means of foul and surface water disposal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The associated works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the development is properly drained

Note to applicant: The applicant is advised to contact the Council’s Landscape Officer in relation to landscaping requirements.

Background Papers: DC/11/2688 Contact Officer: Barry O’Donnell

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1

Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North



DEVELOPMENT: Conversion of vacant office building into 6 x 2-bed and 4 x 1-bed flats (10 in total)

SITE: 158 Crawley Road Horsham West Sussex RH12 4EU

WARD: Roffey South


APPLICANT: Mr A Ash

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for

approval subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans and then completion of a satisfactory S106 agreement

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the conversion of a vacant office building to provide 6 x 2 bed and 4 x 1 bed flats (10 total), with associated bin store and includes the reuse of the existing access and 12 car parking spaces to the rear.


1.2 The application site is located on the south side of Crawley Road and comprises a 1980’s

two storey building with mansard roof accommodation, which has red brick elevations under a tiled roof. The building has an existing vehicular access via an under croft through to the rear parking area which currently provides parking for 18 vehicles. The building is currently vacant and was previously used for purposes of offices (B1 use).

1.3 The application site is located within an area predominantly characterised by residential

properties comprising semi detached properties to the north, east and west of the application site and flats to the south, with local neighbourhood shops located close by. Nos 154 and 156 Crawley Road to the front of the application site are in commercial use.

1.4 The car parking area to the rear of the application site is set at a higher level than the land

to the east of the site which falls sharply away. The rear of the site (eastern and southern

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2

boundaries) is bounded by a small retaining wall with a 2 metre close boarded fence erected on land adjoining the application site that provides additional screening above the retaining wall. There is a two metre close boarded fence to the western boundary of the site with mature landscaping behind.

1.5 The application site is located within the Built up Area Boundary of Horsham identified as a

Category 1 settlement area within the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 Document.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1,

CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19. 2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document are DC1, DC2, DC9, DC13, DC18, DC19 and DC40. 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4, CC6 and C4.

PLANNING HISTORY 2.6 The following history is considered to be relevant to the application;

Reference Decision Date

DecisionProposal

HU/221/84 PER 5 Sept 1984

Use of the building as shop area with office area

HU/268/85 PER 11 Dec 1985

Erection of an office block

NH /141/95 PER 29 Mar 1996

Change of Use from offices to educational establishment

NH/2/96 PER 7 Feb 1996

Change of Use from offices to educational establishment

DC/05/2807 PER 1 Feb 2006

Insertion of windows in east and west elevations and creation of disabled access in undercroft.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Public Health and Licensing – No objections

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3

I have no objections to this proposal. However, if you are minded to approve the application I suggest the following conditions in relation to the works to implement the development:

Hours of work, which includes deliveries, loading and unloading, to be restricted to 0800-1800 Monday – Friday; 0800-1300 Saturdays and no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

No burning of waste on site. 3.2 Building Control: Commented that:

Separating walls and floors will need to meet building regulation requirements for sound insulation

Stairway and lobbies should be provided with smoke ventilation

Need to ensure Fire Brigade access through security gates

3.3 Strategic Planning: No objections

The proposal seeks the conversion of vacant office building for 10 flats. The application needs to be considered against the Local Development Framework particularly the Core Strategy 2007, the General Development Control Policies 2007.

The site is located within the built up area boundary of Horsham, a Category 1 settlement and therefore the proposal complies with Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy which sets out that priority will be given to locating new development within areas which have defined built up areas.

Policy DC19 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 sets out that redevelopment of commercial land within the built up area boundary will be permitted as long as the Council is satisfied that the commercial unit(s) are not longer needed and / or viable for employment use and evidence shows that the unit(s) have been marketed at the current market value for at least 12 months prior to the application. Considering the evidence submitted by Crickmay Chartered Surveyors, Strategic Planning is satisfied that the unit has been marketed for the required amount of time and is no longer needed and / or viable for employment use. No policy objection is raised, therefore, in principle to this part of the policy.

The policy also requires that adequate access exists or can be achieved to serve the proposed development; and the proposal would result in significant environmental improvements, enhancements to the character of the area and improved relationship with nearby residential occupiers. It appears the views of West Sussex County Council have been sought regarding the access and that they have no objections, therefore no policy objection is raised, in principle to this part of the policy. I would suggest seeking the views of the Design and Conservation Officer regarding the impact the proposed development would have on the character of the surrounding area. There would be no policy objection raised in principle to this proposal if the Design and Conservation Officer is satisfied that the proposal would result in significant environmental improvements, enhancements to the character of the area and improved relationship with nearby residential occupiers.

Policy DC18 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 sets out that for development of 5 or more homes, which applies to the proposal, permission will be granted in appropriate locations provided that the housing mix and type meets the identified need

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4

for smaller homes (1 and 2 bed properties) and the percentage of smaller homes should generally be taken to mean at least 64%. All 10 of the dwellings proposed are 1 and 2 bed properties which equate to 100% of smaller homes and therefore are well above the 64% requirement. It is recognised in this policy, however, that this situation may change so I suggest seeking the views of the Housing Development and Strategy Manager on the above matter.

In conclusion, Strategic Planning suggests you talk to the relevant departments and officers as stated above, however no policy objection is raised, in principle, to this proposal.

3.4 Housing Development and Strategy Manager: No comments to make as under specified affordable housing threshold of 15 units or more. (Verbal comment).

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 West Sussex County Council: No Objections (summary of comments below)

WSCC, as the highway authority, has been consulted on planning application DC/12/0764, to convert the vacant office building at no 158 Crawley Road into 6 x 2 bed and 4 x 1 bed flats. In principal there are no highway objections; subject to any conditions.

The exisiting access will be retained and there is good visibility in both directions. It is expected that the change of use to residential will result in a decrease in traffic generation from its original use as an office building. An interrogation of the Traffic Collision Database demonstrates that there have been no accidents in the past 36 months.

There is a reduction in car parking spaces on the site from 18 spaces to 13 spaces, and this would be considered a suitable provision in accordance with the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator. Similarly, the provison of covered cycle parking for 5 bicycles is also in accordance with WSCC cycle parking standards.

The site is considered to be in a sustainable location and is located on a principal bus route to local amenities. Horsham and Littlehaven Train Stations are a mile from the site which can be considered a reasonable walking distance. These conform to Chartered Institue of Highways and Transport guidance.

In summary it is considered that the conversion of this vacant office building into flats will not materially impact the highway capacity. It could even be deemed a positive impact on travel demand for Crawley Road; due to the long term reduction in traffic generated from its conversion from a B1 - Buisness use to a C3 - dwelling house use.

Conditions relating to construction plant and materials, cycle parking and car parking are recommended.

Contributions are required pursuant to s106 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.

Infrastructure contributions sought include Education Contributions of £3,580 (Primary) and £3,854 (Secondary), Libraries £1,342, Fire and Rescue £630 with the level and need for Hydrants to be confirmed.

3.6 Southern Water: Commented that (summary)

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5

Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public foul and surface water sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. Informative required: 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, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, SO23 9EH (01962 858688). Southern Water current sewerage records do not show any public sewers to be crossing the site. However due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found to during construction works an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served and potential means of access before any further works commence on site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, SO23 9EH (01962 858688).

3.7 North Horsham Parish Council: No objection

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.8 Neighbour Notifications: No letters of objections received. Two letters of comment

received. one regarding balconies to the rear and the rear boundary treatment, and one regarding parking and cycle storage provision.

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 ASSESSMENTS 6.1 The issues in this case are considered to be the principle of the development in this

location; the impact of the development on the character and visual amenities of the area, the amenities of neighbour and future occupiers, parking and highway safety issues, together with sustainability.

Principle of the development 6.2 The site is situated within the built-up area boundary of Horsham. The Local Development

Framework policies encourage new development to take place on previously developed land and within defined built-up areas. It is considered that the site is situated within a sustainable location with good access to local facilities and the range of services locally in Roffey and within the town centre, with good links to public transport. As such the scheme should be assessed against the usual development control policy criteria contained within

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6

the current adopted Local Development Framework and to the overarching principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.3 With regard to the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes, the site is located

within a sustainable location within the Horsham Town which is identified as a category 1 settlement area.

6.4 The site has a history of commercial use, and the original building has been vacant for

more than eighteen months following the vacation of the premises by the former tenant. 6.5 The site does not fall within an identified employment protection zone, as set out by the

Head of Strategic and Community Planning. In accordance with Policy DC19 of the LDF General Development Framework, evidence of marketing strategies for alternative commercial use is normally required, and as such the applicants have submitted marketing evidence from Crickmays to support their application.

6.6 The supporting information states that the building has a total floor area of 664.3sqm, and

is stated as being of basic specification, having a mix of open plan and cellular accommodation on each floor with suspended ceilings, and carpeting throughout. Floors are raised with access panels for power and communications and there is a stair and lift access to each floor.

6.7 The site has been marketed on both a leasehold and freehold basis since June 2012 when

the existing premises were vacated. A board was erected at the front of the site confirming its availability and details of the site were circulated and periodically re-circulated to agents both locally and nationally in addition to various online property listings in order to ensure maximum exposure.

6.8 Crikmays advise that despite extensive marketing, there was no interest from office

occupiers received on either a freehold or leasehold basis. The current application has been born from interest received out of enquiries received for residential use of the property. Crickmays have also advised that the neighbouring property at 154-156 Crawley Road was also placed on the market for the same period of time but has since been withdrawn from the market due to lack of interest.

6.9 In respect of the housing mix of development, CP12 states that development should

provide a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of the District communities and provision should be made for smaller homes to meet the needs of new and existing households. The requirements of this policy are amplified by Policy DC18 which relates to smaller homes and housing mix and states that for development of 5 or more, planning permission will be granted in appropriate locations provided that the housing mix and type meets an identified need for smaller homes (1 and 2 bed properties). Policy DC18 also states that all proposals will be expected to make efficient use of land (over 50 dwellings per hectare for town and village centres, in some cases) however, it also states that development must respect the local character into which it is placed.

6.10 Having regard to the character and nature of development in the surrounding area, the

impact of the proposed dwellings on the character of the surrounding area is considered acceptable. The application is for a conversion and as such there a re no amendments to the footprint of the development or to the size of the existing building envelope.

6.11 With regards to the National Planning Policy Framework document, this states in

paragraph 51 that Local Planning Authorities should normally approve planning applications for buildings (currently in B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7 6.12 In view of the local and national policy context as set out above, it is considered in this

case that the loss of the B1 office use (which last occurred approximately two years ago), given the marketing activity carried out and as set out in the supporting that the continued use of the application building for office use is no longer considered appropriate given its location within a predominantly residential area away from the town centre and established business parks.

Details of Proposal

6.13 With regards to the details of the scheme, the proposal is for 6 x 2 bed and 4 x 1 bed flats (10 total), with associated bin store and includes the reuse of the existing access and 12 car parking spaces to the rear.

6.14 The proposal involves the conversion of the building comprising two x 2 bed flats to the

ground floor, four x 4 bed flats to the first floor and four x 4 bed units to the second floor. Internal stacking arrangements are considered to be acceptable. The building has a gross floor area of 827sqm, the flats range from 57sqm for a typical one bed flat increasing to 92sqm for a larger two bed flat.

6.15 The proposal involves some minor alterations to the elevations with the replacement of the

two roof lights with balcony roof lights and additional windows inserted in the east, west and south elevations, including the removal of the existing disabled ramp. It is also proposed to introduce new gates to the under croft entrance. In all other respects the building remains unchanged in its physical appearance.

Residential Amenities

6.16 It is considered that there is an adequate relationship between the proposed residential accommodation and the existing residential units surrounding the site. The proposed new windows to the east elevation look directly over the parking area located between residential properties to the east of the application site and as such there are no concerns regarding overlooking or loss of private amenity in this respect.

6.17 The proposed windows to the west elevation raises concerns with regards overlooking of

the rear garden areas to residential properties fronting Crawley Road, specifically the garden area to the rear of 152 Crawley Road. The applicants have been advised to address this issue which your officers consider could be overcome by appropriate mitigation measures such as obscure glazing to the 1st floor kitchen window and Oriel windows to the first floor bedroom windows in order to restrict overlooking of private amenity areas of the neighbouring residential properties. At the time of writing this has yet to be confirmed by the applicant and as such could be dealt with during the period of delegation.

6.18 The applicant has also been advised to delete balconies to the rear elevations from the

scheme and replace with Juliette Balconies given concerns regarding potential disturbance to the private amenity of neighbouring properties.

6.19 The area to both the front and rear of the application site is hard surfaced and provides

parking and turning areas associated with the previous B1 office use. The area to the rear of the application site is shown to be retained and used for parking for the proposed residential use. The car parking area shown outside of the red line area to the front of the application site is shown to be retained for four vehicles in relation to the existing commercial uses at 154 and 156 Crawley Road. A small communal garden area / patio area is indicated to the rear of the site as well as a small area of planting along the

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8

southern side of the building. Details relating to boundary treatment and landscaping can be controlled through the implementation of a suitable condition.

Highways

6.20 West Sussex County Council Highways have advised that the reduction in car parking

spaces on the site from 18 spaces to 13 spaces is considered a suitable provision in accordance with the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator. Similarly, the provision of covered cycle parking for 5 bicycles is also in accordance with WSCC cycle parking standards.

6.21 West Sussex County Council Highways also confirm that they consider the conversion of

this vacant office building into flats will not materially impact the highway capacity. Contributions

6.22 West Sussex County Council contributions of £9,406 are sought and comprise Education

Contributions of £3,580 (Primary) and £3,854 (Secondary), Libraries £1,342, Fire and Rescue £630 with the level and need for Hydrants to be confirmed.

6.23 Horsham District Council would require contributions of £11,942 comprising Community

Centres and Halls £2,268 and Open Space and Recreation £9,674, and Refuse and Recycling £1,134.

6.24 The applicants have confirmed that they agree in principal to enter into an agreement but

are currently seeking justification for the contributions requested. At the time of writing this report there is no S106 agreement in place but this could be resolved during the delegation period.

Conclusion

6.25 The principle of residential use is considered to be acceptable. With regards to the details

of the proposal, satisfactory measures in respect of potential overlooking from first floor windows to no 152 being submitted, it is considered that the proposed residential use of the property would complement the existing character of the area which is predominantly residential in nature. Thus the proposal complies with the adopted policies within the Local Development Framework 2007.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Delegate to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for receipt of plans relating

to window details and approval subject to completion of a satisfactory S106 agreement and subject to the following conditions:

1. A2 Full Permission (3 years) 2. Details of all new windows and window including design, glazing and method of

opening shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9 3. E4 Fencing (1m) (east and south)

4. G2 Parking Provision 4.8 x 2.4m 5. G6 Recycling

6 H4a On site parking

7 H4b Construction Material Storage

8 H10 Cycling Provision

9. L1 Hard and soft landscaping

10. L2a Protection of trees – not inspected 11. O1 Hours of Working Note to Applicant

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, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, SO23 9EH (01962 858688).

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the

character and visual amenities of the locality. 2. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan. Background Papers: DC/12/0764 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1.

Contact: Peter Harwood Extension: 5167




DEVELOPMENT: Change of use of an agricultural building to storage of furniture in conjunction with those permitted under reference CG/3/00

SITE: Forest Heights, Springfield Lane, Colgate

WARD: Rusper and Colgate


APPLICANT: Mr J Verbeeten REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: - Applicants request to vary terms of previous committee resolution, relating to precise requirements of proposed legal agreement in respect of lorry movements associated with the use. RECOMMENDATION: To refuse. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 This application for a change of use of Building No. 3 from agricultural use to long

term storage of furniture for a local firm was presented to Committee on 5th July 2011 and again on the 7th Feb 2012 (previous reports attached) where it was resolved:

i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure a restriction in lorry

movements associated with the use of the building to two in two weeks. ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in i) above, application DC/11/0710

be determined by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services. 1.2 The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

However, if the applicant was not willing to enter into such an agreement, the application was to be resubmitted to Committee for determination based on the merits of the proposal without the benefit of a planning agreement.


APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2.

2. CURRENT POSITION 2.1 The applicant has reiterated that he is not willing to enter into a legal agreement in

order to control the amount of lorry movements to this site. Instead the applicant considers that these lorry movements proposed can be controlled adequately by a condition imposed on the development.

2.2 The applicant's reason for not wishing to enter into a legal agreement is that “he

was concerned at his age to sign such a legal agreement when he would not be in control of the business that was using the buildings and he would not wish to pass that liability onto any one of his children who may wish to live at the property after he had passed away”. The applicant has also confirmed he requires some flexibility to cover any margin of error on the operator's use of the building.

2.3 With regard to the current application, he now proposes to limit the traffic

movements to this building to two movements in and out per week with no more than eight per calendar month.

2.4 As the previous Committee resolution was made on the basis of the information

previously provided, it is necessary for the Committee to consider the application in the context of the revised information.

3. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 3.1 The current undetermined application is for a change of use of Building No. 3 from

agricultural store to use as a long term furniture storage facility, which already takes place within Buildings 1 and 2 on this site (CG/3/00 refers).

3.2 The application was originally presented to the July 2011 Committee (Item A9

refers) on the basis that one additional lorry per week would be required, in connection with the subject building on the site being used for furniture storage. Members resolved the proposal was acceptable on this basis subject to a legal agreement controlling lorry movements to those specified.

3.3 The application was then presented to the February 2012 Committee (Item A4

refers) to reconsider the application as the applicant considered the limitation too restrictive and the application was revised to lorry movements of two visiting the site in two weeks in connection with the use of the building. Essentially this variation did not increase the overall number of lorry movements, but enables the user to have a degree of flexibility enabling 2 lorries to serve the building in one week, but without any the following week. However at the meeting the applicant advised that he did not wish to sign a 106 Legal Agreement and this has been subsequently confirmed by the agent in writing.

3.4 In addition the current proposal now is to limit the traffic movements to Building 3 to

2 movements in and out per week with no more than 8 per calendar month. 3.5 The site lies in an AONB and is accessed via a narrow trackway and therefore

concern would be expressed at an overall intensification of a low key use on this site. Although, the change to lorry movements to the site now proposed is modest

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3.

and would give the storage company more flexibility in the operation of the site, it is considered that the use should be controlled by way of a legal agreement to ensure enforceability, should the terms of the legal agreement be breached.

3.6 It is considered that the modest change in the pattern of lorry movements from ‘one

in one week’ or 2 lorries in two weeks to ‘two in one week’ is acceptable and would not cause material harm to the amenities of residents along the lane, the character of the area or cause highway safety concerns in this case provided that the applicant enters into a legal agreement. However without the safeguard of a legal agreement your officers consider that the proposal should be refused.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Therefore it is recommended that the application as proposed ,without the benefit

of a legal agreement to control lorry movements in this sensitive location, be refused for the following reason:-

01 The proposed use of building No.3, as identified on the submitted block plan

No.330/2, would by reason of the activity generated including vehicular movements be harmful to the character and amenity of this quiet rural locality within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The expansion of the use would consolidate unsustainable travel patterns in this relatively isolated location. The development would therefore conflict with Development Plan policies and in particular Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 policies CP15 and CP19 and Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document 2007 policies DC1, DC3, DC4 and DC25 and together with the overarching principles contained within the NPPF

Background Papers: DC/11/0710 Contact Officer: Peter Harwood pgh12pink/wk3/jlt

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1

Contact Officer: Lorraine Rogers Tel: 5435





DEVELOPMENT:

Minor material amendment to previous permission DC/11/1678 (Ground floor infill lobby and store between house and garage, first floor extension over garage and conversion of garage to gym) for reduction in size of bedroom window and swapped positions of rear windows to bedroom/en suite at first floor.

SITE: 15 Fletchers, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex

WARD: Southwater


APPLICANT: Mr G Mortley

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT


1.1 The application seeks a minor material amendment to the previous permission

DC/11/1678 which related to a ground floor infill lobby and store between the house and garage, a first floor extension over the garage and the conversion of the garage to a gym. The extension has been constructed.

1.2 The amendments comprise of the following: the en-suite for bedroom 2 has been

relocated within the extension, which has resulted in the windows for bedroom 2 and its en-suite swapping position in the rear elevation and the size of the bedroom window is smaller. There is no change to the front elevation.

1.3 The side (southern) boundary of the application site with the rear of number 17

Fletchers was incorrectly shown on the approved site plan. However, the position and dimensions of the extension have not changed and therefore nothing requiring the Council’s approval arises from this aspect.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

Background Papers: DC/12/0924 Contact: Lorraine Rogers

2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.4 15 Fletchers is a large detached property with a double detached garage located to

the south of the property. 1.5 Fletchers is a cul-de-sac of 16 detached properties located off the Worthing Road

and is within the Built Up area of Southwater. 1.6 Part of the southern boundary of the site with number 16 consists of the side wall of

the existing double garage and a section of the rear wall of the double garage forms part of the eastern boundary with number 17.

2. INTRODUCTION


RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1

and CP3. 2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document are DC3 and DC9 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan 2009 are CC1 and CC4

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY HR/23/87 – Erection 12 houses and garages – Permitted SQ/30/87 – Erection 16 houses outline – Permitted SQ/74/87 – Erection 16 houses with garages & estate roads (a.r.m.) – Permitted DC/11/1145 – Infill lobby and store between house and garage at ground floor level, extension over part-garage to provide bedroom/en-suite at first floor level and convert garage to gym – Withdrawn

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3


3

DC/11/1146 – Single storey extension to front to provide enlarged dining room – Permitted DC/11/1678 – Ground floor infill lobby and store between house and garage, first floor extension over garage and conversion of garage to gym – Permitted


OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3.1 Southwater Parish Council – No objection.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.2 2 letters of objection have been received from number 17 Fletchers relating to:-

Overshadowing Loss of privacy Blatant disregard to the planning permission granted Overdevelopment Design

3.3 No other representations or consultation responses have been received. 4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN

RIGHTS 4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First

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

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 in the determination of this application include the impact of the

changed proposal on the character of the area and on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers, given the approved scheme DC/11/1678.

6.2 During the construction of the extension a discrepancy was highlighted regarding

the location of the boundary as shown on the plans. However the actual boundary on the site has not changed.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4


4

6.3 The southern boundary of the site, which forms the rear boundary for numbers 16

and 17, is staggered. It wraps around the existing garage, so that for number 17 it is formed by and runs along half of the rear wall of the garage and it then runs to the east to Worthing Road, being a 1.8m close boarded fence.

6.4 The plan submitted with DC/11/1678 showed the boundary (red line) set some

0.6m further to the south towards number 17. However this was incorrect and the current block plan shows the line of the existing boundary in its correct location.

6.5 There are no changes to the dimensions or location of the extension in relation to

the existing garage and dwellinghouse on the site or the neighbouring buildings. The position of the boundary on the site plan has been amended for clarity and to reflect the true position. The actual boundary line has not changed. Thus the matters for determination under this application relate to changes to the extension only. The principal of the development has already been established with the grant of DC/11/1678. It is considered that the proposed alterations would not result in any over development above that approved on the previous scheme. The scale and massing of the extensions remains unaltered.

6.6 The position of the en-suite within bedroom 2 has been amended and has resulted

in the re-positioning of the bedroom and en-suite windows in the rear elevation. The bedroom window is now located closest to the boundary with number 17.

6.7 The revised bedroom window has been reduced from 1.8 wide and 1m deep to

1m in width and 1.1m in depth to assist in the reduction of the impact on the neighbouring properties and views to and from.

6.8 It is accepted that the bedroom window is closer to the boundary and there would

be oblique views into the rear amenity space of number 17. However there would have been similar views from the approved arrangement and there are already limited views to/from the existing bedroom 4 into the garden for number 17. It should also be noted that the rear first floor windows of number 17 overlook the rear garden of number 15.

6.9 Condition 4, attached to approval numbered DC/11/1678, required the submission

of the glazing and opening details for the first floor en-suite window prior to installation. The first floor en-suite window has been glazed with obscured glass with an opening fan light, the details of which are acceptable.

6.10 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would not materially affect the

character of the existing house, adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers or the visual amenities of the street scene, such to warrant refusal of planning permission and is considered acceptable.

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5


5

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following

conditions: 01 A2 Full permission 02 M4 Matching Materials 03 D3 No Windows – South elevation 04 The obscure glazing and opening details of the window in the first floor en-

suite within the first floor extension shall at all times correspond to the details submitted on 25.7.2012 and thereafter re retained.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1

Contact Officer: Lorraine Rogers Tel: 01403 215435





DEVELOPMENT: Erection of two covered play areas/canopies

SITE: All Saints Church of England Primary School, Tylden Way Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 5JB

WARD: Holbrook East


APPLICANT: Mrs Sarah Edgington

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT


1.1 The application seeks permission for the erection two canopies to provide cover for

external play/learning areas immediately adjacent to the existing classrooms in the school.

1.2 Canopy A would be located on the south elevation of the school building and would

measure 22.35m in length, 3.2m in height and project 2.0m beyond the existing canopy, which is a continuation of the existing roof.

1.3 Canopy B would be located on the west elevation of the school building and would

measure 26.45m in length, 3.2m in height and project 2.5m beyond the existing canopy. The canopies would be constructed of 10mm twin walled polycarbonate (opal White) with U V protection roofing and the frameworks would be manufactured from aluminium finished in Signal Blue polyester powder coat. The canopies would be sited over the existing paved areas which are immediately outside the classrooms.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2

2

1.4 The Design and Access statement submitted with the application says that ‘The

Department for Education and Skills have issued guidance notes to schools regarding the provision of a suitable ‘Outdoor Learning Environment’. One of their key messages is that outdoor learning has a positive impact on children’s well being and has an equal value to indoor learning. To put this message into effective practise, they suggest that both adults and children need to have protection from extreme weather conditions through provision of shade and shelter.’


1.5 The school is located on the west side of Tylden Way within the Built Up area of

Horsham. The majority of the school grounds are sited to the south of the school. 1.6 The school is a modern contemporary single storey building which was granted

permission in 2000. Access to the school is from Tylden Way. The existing design of the roof incorporates existing canopies which project approximately 1m over the existing paved areas.

2. INTRODUCTION


RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY 2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1

and CP3. 2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document are DC3 and DC9 2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan 2009 are CC1 and CC4

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY NH/69/00 – Erection of a 1 form entry single-storey primary school Site: Land Adjacent To Tylden Way Horsham – Permitted DC/05/1858 – Installation of a covered cycle rack – Permitted DC/06/0320 – Single storey group room extension and extension to existing staff room, store and special education needs room – Permitted

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3

3


OUTSIDE AGENCIES 3.1 North Horsham Parish Council – No objection to ‘canopy A’ but consider that

‘canopy B’ extends too close to the boundary with residential properties. It also considers that the excessive height of ‘canopy B’ causes it to be too dominant and intrusive for adjacent residential properties and thereby has an adverse impact on these properties.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2 3 letters of objection have been received from 19, 20 & 21 Sloughbrook Close,

on the grounds of

One canopy will be in full view of property Canopy too close to the boundary Increase in noise levels Could result in children entering prohibited areas Sports balls in garden Will obscure/close a gap ruining view to the far side of the playground Will not provide shelter in cold weather, wind, rain, sleet and snow Existing structures in full view Maintaining hedge


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 in the determination of this application include the impact of the

proposal on the character of the existing building, the surrounding area and on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers.

6.2 This application seeks permission for the erection of two canopies to the rear of the

classrooms to provide shade and shelter to enable learning to be undertaken beyond the classrooms.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4

4

6.3 Whilst it is accepted that the proposed canopies are of a significant length with

canopy A being 22.35m in length and Canopy B being 26.45m in length, the projection from the face of the building is modest being 2.0m for Canopy A and 2.5m for Canopy B. The height and length of the canopies are determined by the height and sizes of the existing classrooms. It is considered that the scale of the canopies and the design would be in-keeping with the existing building, in particular the overall size and scale of the school building as a whole.

6.4 The proposed canopies are open sided and fronted and therefore a relatively

lightweight structure which is not overbearing on the design of the school building or on the amenities of the adjoining properties.

6.5 There are currently paved areas with a canopy outside the classrooms so these

areas are already used for outside activities, the proposal would not be creating any additional areas. The proposal would enable these spaces to be used more widely as an ‘Outdoor Learning Environment’ as encouraged by the Department for Education and Skills.

6.6 The proposed canopy B would be approximately 4m from the side boundary to

Sloughbrook Close, which is slightly closer than the existing side wall of the school. It is considered that given the nature of the structure and that there is a garage compound in this area closest to the proposed canopy, the impact on the neighbouring occupiers is limited and would be acceptable. The boundary to the properties in Sloughbrook Close comprises of fencing and planting.

6.7 Given the current use of the site as a school there would already be increases in

noise levels during times when outdoor teaching activities are undertaken and at break times when the children are at play. It is considered that as the canopies are covering existing paved areas that the pupils/teachers currently have access to, the proposal would not generate any material increase in noise levels or activity.

6.8 Comments have been received regarding pupils entering areas that are supposedly

restricted, maintenance of hedges, balls in gardens and existing structures on the site, these are not issues are not considered to be planning issues relating to this application and therefore do not form part of this determination process.

6.9 In conclusion it is considered that the proposal would not materially affect the

character of the existing building, adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers or the visual amenities of the area and is considered acceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following

conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission 02 M6 Prescribed Materials

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5

5

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers

or the character and visual amenities of the locality. Background Papers: DC/12/1034

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1

Contact: Joanna Searle Extension: 5075




DEVELOPMENT: Unauthorised painting of Grade II Listed Building

SITE: 26 Carfax, Horsham

WARD: Denne

COMPLIANCE REFERENCE:

EN/11/0592

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: To gain Member view on decision to take no

further action RECOMMENDATION: To take no further action. 1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the Compliance Team’s decision to take no further action against the painting of the Grade II Listed Building.

DESCRIPTION OF THE WORKS

1.1 26 The Carfax is a Grade II Listed Building which has been painted a

burgundy/maroon colour. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.2 26 The Carfax is a Grade II Listed Building, located within the Horsham

Conservation Area. 26, 26a & 27 Carfax originally was a 17th century Wealden house and still retains much of its significant timber frame and Horsham stone roof. . Originally one building, over time it has been divided into different units, 26, 26a and 27. Each individual unit has a different shop front, entrance and upper window design. No 26 has a large projected shop front at ground floor, off centre door and smaller shop window to the left, plus two large casement windows at first floor, a hanging sign, and centrally placed signage. Immediately prior to the burgundy


APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2

painting at number 26, this unit was a dark cream, different from the main white facade colour of numbers 26a & 27.

PLANNING HISTORY 1.3 The most relevant planning history relating to the site is as follows:

DC/12/0906 - Retrospective application for re-decoration of frontage of existing building (Listed Building Consent) – Application Invalid on Receipt.

EN/11/0592 - Alleged unauthorised painting of Listed Building

1.4 On 2nd November 2011, a complaint was received that 26 The Carfax had been

painted a burgundy/maroon colour. On the 3rd November 2011 a site visit was conducted by the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, whose opinion was that although the change of colour affected the character of the building, and therefore required listed building consent under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, officers were unlikely to successfully justify a refusal should an application be submitted for the unauthorised works. Therefore it was not considered expedient to pursue (reasons set out below). On the 3rd Nov 2011, the compliance case was closed & the complainant informed of the reason for closure.

1.5 In late November, the complainant challenged this decision through the Council’s

complaints procedure and in the interest of democracy officers decided to invite a listed building consent application to regularise the works. Listed Building Consent application DC/12/0906 was received on 5th May 2012. However, the application was invalid, due to limited information being provided. The applicant has been asked for further information to make the application valid however, to date, this has not been received.

1.6 In June 2012 the complainant’s complaint was escalated through the Council’s

complaints procedure. Recognising the unique issues in the case, the Chief Executive decided that a departure from normal procedure was warranted by bringing this report to the committee.

2. INTRODUCTION STATUTORY BACKGROUND 2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 2.2 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY 2.3 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3

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

2.5 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development

Control Policies Document are DC9, DC12 and DC13. 2.6 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1, CC4, CC6 and BE6. 3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Design and Conservation Officer –Listed building consent is required for an

alteration that affects the character of a listed building and this can include paint colour. If a different paint colour from the existing is proposed, the local planning authority should make a decision as to whether the character of the building is affected. For example, changing paint colour from a white to a cream would normally be viewed as minor change not affecting the character of the building and unless there is a particular historically significant reason why the white paint is important to the preservation and enhancement of the character of the building, the alteration would be unlikely to attract an application. Some changes in paint colour can be more obvious on some buildings than it is on others where consistency is important. For example, in the rendered Georgian townhouses in London Road, Horsham, where uniformity is key to the buildings character and the characters of the conservation area, the LPA would be likely to resist an application for a colour which did not blend with lighter shades the terrace. There are also occasions where a “bright” colour (such a cerise or luminous green) its self is out of character. As with all planning decisions, the decision is made on its own merits.

The painting of 26 Carfax, Horsham:

26, 26a & 27 Carfax is a 17th century Wealden house. Originally the property would have been one building, but, over time it has been divided into different units, 26, 26a and 27 which probably correspond with the timber bay structure inside. It was floored over later and extended in the Victorian period - probably divided into three shop units about the same time also.

Each of the three individual units has a unique shop front, entrance and upper window design giving vertical as well as horizontal emphasis on the character of the building. For example Scissor Sisters at 27 has a equally proportioned double front shop front with a central door, plus a single casement window above; Hamptons at 26a in the centre has one large window a timber door, and a smaller shop window to the left, plus a large central Georgian paned sash half dormer, protruding above the eaves line; Mallards at 26 has a projected shop front at ground floor, off centre door and smaller shop window to the left, plus two large casement windows at first floor, a hanging sign, and centrally placed signage.

Immediately prior to the maroon painting at number 26, this unit was a dark cream colour, and a photograph from this date shows this was different from the facade colour of numbers 26a & 27. Thus as the paint colour is markedly different, it could

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4

be argued that the character of the building has been altered and this alteration would require listed building consent. In the black and white 1907 photo, all the units in the building appear to be a dark colour; in the book Horsham Houses (Hughes 1986) the photo on page 47 shows a slight difference in colour between this unit and the others; photos from the 1980s show a minor difference in colour between all the shop units.

Turning to the maroon colour itself, this type of colour, is reminiscent of the dark Victorian hues used over the year and although is an obvious change from the previous cream paint, owing to the changes in the building’s history and character over the years, especially as its use as three units, there is a case for a different colour to reflect these changes. With the conservation area, the maroon colour also doesn't, in my opinion, jar visually in the context of the surrounding buildings, especially as there are a variety of colours on the terrace at 18-24 Carfax and in other buildings in the area. These are most notable at the Crown Public House, plus the pink, green and grey painted render colours of a number of listed buildings (including the II* Horsham Museum and Art Gallery) in the Causeway. Taking into account these issues, recognising the factors of the changed character of the property and the other painted render colours in the town centre, as well as the significance of the building as a listed 17th century hall house, on balance there is no objection to the painting of 27 Carfax”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None consulted

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.3 The occupiers of the building make the following comments:

Mansell McTaggart acquired Mallards last November. We have refurbished a very dated building and brought it up to modern day standards. We have spent a great deal of money and thought on the refurbishment and have had a very positive response from every person we have come into contact with. Within this we have been very sympathetic to the buildings heritage and have not altered the structure of the building in any way. We have painted the outside of the building with a very regal colour on the back of researching the history of the building. A photograph supplied to the Council clearly depicts that in 1907 the colour of our section of the building was of a dark shade and not of a white or cream colour. Furthermore there are other photographs of the building in the 1960’s and 1970’s that the Council have which confirms that the colour has never stayed the same. We have only had a negative response from one lady and it is quite obvious we have cared for this building and brought it back to it’s original roots.

3.4 The Horsham Society made the following comments:

In Autumn 2011 Mansell McTaggart/Mallards repainted the frontage of their premises which form part of a single building comprising 26, 26A and 27 Carfax,

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5

which is a Grade 2 Listed Building within the Horsham Town Conservation Area. The colour used was a striking dark maroon which has destroyed the unity of the Listed Building and is completely out of keeping with the building colours in the rest of Carfax.

It is incontrovertible that this dramatic change in colour has had a significant effect on the character of the building as a whole and therefore required Listed Building Consent (LBC). No application was made prior to the work being undertaken and no retrospective application has been made despite Mansell McTaggart/Mallards being informed by officers of the Council that one was required.

Undertaking works on a Listed Building without consent is a criminal offence carrying a penalty of up to six months imprisonment.

HDC and its members have a general duty of care under legislation to enforce planning law and where appropriate to issue enforcement proceedings to require any changes to be reversed and/or to prosecute the offenders.

HDC officers have asserted that because in their view it would be unlikely that the Council would refuse LBC such action would be inappropriate in this case. The Horsham Society strongly disagrees and considers this approach to be unacceptable for two reasons.

First, HDC has a legal duty to ensure that the law relating to the protection of our heritage assets is upheld. Mansell McTaggart/Mallards is not in the position of an uninformed citizen who has made a genuine mistake. It is a major chain of estate agents which purport to exercise appropriate professional standards and presumably in the course of their business have occasion to advise clients in relation to listed buildings. Their cavalier approach in this case, and their apparent disregard for the law, cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. To do so would set an unacceptable precedent.

Second, the assertion that if an application were lodged the Council would be unlikely to refuse permission is simply unproved. On receiving an application the Council must advertise it and in determining it “shall take into account any representations”. Therefore the Council is unable in advance to determine its probable response before the public has had the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary.

It is both forms part of a larger Listed Building and part of a Conservation Area. The Council therefore has a duty to ensure both that the building itself is protected from inappropriate development and that any proposed change protects or enhances the character of the Conservation Area as a whole.

26, 26A and 27 Carfax is a 15th Century Wealden house (not 17th Century as shown in the English Heritage register). It is divided into four units or bays: a floored single bay solar (Scissor Sisters) a two-bay unfloored open hall (Hamptons) and a floored two bay service (Mansell McTaggart/Mallards). As a Wealden, each of the floored ends was jettied at the first floor, and brackets for this jettying are still definable. It is the largest of only three of this type within the Conservation Area.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 6

Within living (and photographic) memory there has never been a stark visible division of this historically single dwelling. In this case the change of colour has been significant. The objection is not just to the colour but to the way in which it has erroneously divided the building with its stark contrast. This may be commercially satisfactory to the occupants, but shows no regard for the status of the building.

It is very important that the paint that is used on medieval buildings is suitable otherwise significant damage may be caused to the fabric. There is no evidence to show whether the paint applied by Mansell McTaggart/Mallards was appropriate or properly applied.

There is recent precedent in the case of Dulcima House, Carfax for the Council taking action to require an inappropriate colour treatment and cladding to a building to be changed. This was a modern office building conversion. The Council needs to be seen to take unapproved changes to a 15th Century building at least as seriously.

We ask that the Council give Mansell McTaggart/Mallards 28 days notice within which to submit a retrospective application for Listed Building Consent or else commence enforcement proceedings.


RIGHTS

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 to be considered is whether it is considered expedient to take

further formal action against the painting of this Grade II Listed Building. 6.2 Listed Building Consent is required for any alteration which affects the character of

a Listed Building. Paint colour can affect this character and if this is the case an application for listed building consent would be required. As with all planning decisions the decision is made on its own merits.

6.3 Unauthorised work to a Listed Building is a criminal offence under S9 of the

Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. However, the decision to take enforcement action is discretionary and should only be taken when harm justifies formal action.

6.4 The importance of development respecting the character of an area and being of a

high quality design underpins Polices CP1, CP3 of Horsham’s Core Strategy and

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 7

DC9 of Horsham General Development Control Policies. Policy DC13 relates specifically to Listed Buildings and is clear 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. Further, Policy DC12 also indicates that within Conservation Areas, development will not be permitted unless the proposal is of a design and scale that preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the area, and is compatible with neighbouring buildings and spaces.

6.5 Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework indicates that local

planning authorities should consider: “the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets

and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to

sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local

character and distinctiveness.” 6.6 The National Planning Policy Framework also states at Paragraph 207:

“Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.”

6.7 The building is a 15th Century Wealden house, which has been sub-divided into different units (26, 26a and 27) and floored over internally and extended. The Conservation Officer notes the individuality of each of the three units, which gives both vertical and horizontal emphasis to the character of the building (full comments above).

6.8 It the Design and Conservation Officer’s view that the burgundy / maroon paint

used “is reminiscent of the dark Victorian hues used over the years”, and her opinion that the colour does not “jar visually especially as there are a variety of colours on the terrace at 18-24 Carfax and in other buildings in the area, notably the Crown Public House, plus the pink, green and grey render colours of a number of listed buildings in the Causeway. “

6.9 The Design and Conservation Officer therefore concludes “Taking into account

these issues, recognising the factors of the changed character of the property and the other painted render colours in the town centre, as well as the significance of the building as a listed 15th century hall house, on balance there is no objection to the painting of 27 Carfax”.

6.10 The comments of the Horsham Society have been considered. However, it is felt

that after due consideration of all matters, including criteria set out in the Local Development Framework and NPPF, on balance it would not be expedient to pursue further formal action against the painting of the building.

6.11 As such, is it recommended that, on this occasion, no further formal action be taken.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 8

7. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 That no further formal action be taken against the unauthorised painting of 26 The

Carfax, Horsham Background Papers: EN/11/0592 Contact Officer: Joanna Searle

Development Control (North) Committee · E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Line:...

Documents

Transcript of Development Control (North) Committee · E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Line:...