Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2020

(Note: If any Member wishes to propose an amendment to the minutes they should submit this in writing to committeeservices@horsham.gov.uk at least 24 hours before the meeting.  Where applicable, the audio recording of the meeting will be checked to ensure the accuracy of the proposed amendment.)

The minutes of the meeting of the committee held on 21 July were approved as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman at a later date.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/19/2524 – Councillor John Blackall declared a personal interest because he knew the applicant.  He therefore took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.

SDNP/20/01429/LIS and SDNP/20/01428/FUL – Councillor James Wright declared a personal interest in this item because he was a customer of the Frankland Arms.

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

There were no announcements.

The list of appeals lodged, appeals in progress and appeal decisions, as circulated, was noted.

Ward: Storrington and Washington

Applicant: Violeta Ltd

Item withdrawn from the agenda.

Ward: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead

Applicant: The Trustees of St Hugh’s Charterhouse

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling with off-street parking and new access onto Littleworth Lane.  Revenue generated from the proposal would facilitate the repair of the Guest House, a Grade II Listed Building to the northeast of the site. 

The application site was located in the countryside and formed the western part of St Hugh’s estate, with St Hugh’s Charterhouse further to the east towards the A281.  It was on the eastern side of Littleworth Lane close to residential properties.

The Parish Council raised no objections subject to conditions.  There had been 41 representations objecting to the application and three in support. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.  A representative of the applicant, the applicant’s agent and a structural engineer all addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.  

Members noted the planning history of the site and considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; character and appearance; impact on neighbouring amenity; and highway impacts.

In response to Members’ concerns, officers agreed that a condition requiring an ecology survey be included.  It was also agreed that acceptable visibility splays should be secured through an amendment to Condition 13 regarding access and parking.  It was noted that this amendment would render Condition 5 unnecessary.

Members discussed the applicant’s business case and it was agreed that this would be reviewed by Local Members with a view to confirming whether the scheme would help secure the future of the Grade II Listed Building. 

RESOLVED

(i)    That a legal agreement be entered into to ensure that no development takes place until Listed Building Consent has been submitted and obtained for repairs to the Guest House and that net proceeds from the development are not used for any other purpose than carrying out the Guest House repairs.

(ii)   That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/19/0678 be determined by the Head of Development with a view to approval, subject to:

a)    the conditions as set out in the report with the following amendments:

the deletion of Condition 5, and amendments to Condition 13 to include the requirement for details to be submitted showing that vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward gear and the submission of a plan detailing that acceptable visibility splays can be provided;

an additional condition requiring a Preliminary Ecology Survey to be submitted and any mitigation measures identified carried out.

b)    a review of the monastery’s business plan in consultation with Local Members.

Ward: Storrington and Washington

Applicant: Mr Matthew Shepard

The Head of Development reported that this application sought Listed Building Consent for alterations to the listed building to facilitate application SDNP/20/01428/FUL (item 9 on the agenda).

The application site was located in Washington village within the SDNP.  It included the Frankland Arms, a Grade II Listed Building.  The single storey outbuilding to be demolished was in a poor state of repair. 

The Parish Council supported the application in principle, but requested a number of stipulations.  There had been 18 representations from 11 households objecting to the application and two letters of support.

Members noted the planning context of the proposal, and considered the officer’s planning assessment and whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the historic environment and safeguard the heritage asset.

RESOLVED

That Listed Building application SDNP/20/01429/LIS be granted subject to the conditions as reported.

Ward: Storrington and Washington

Applicant: Mr Matthew Shepard

The Head of Development reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of an outbuilding and erection of an outbuilding for holiday accommodation, conversion of a garage into a convenience store, moving a timber gazebo and signage for the shop.  The holiday accommodation would not include cooking facilities.

The application site was located in Washington village within the SDNP.  It included the Frankland Arms, a Grade II Listed Building.   The single storey outbuilding to be demolished was in a poor state of repair. 

The Parish Council supported the application in principle, but requested a number of stipulations.  There had been 35 representations from 18 households objecting to the application, 11 letters of support, and three that commented on the proposal.   

Members noted the planning context of the proposal, and considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; the impact of the holiday accommodation and convenience store; heritage considerations, design and appearance;  landscape and trees; residential amenity; highways, access and parking; and impact on ecology, night skies and climate change.

Members discussed the provision of a convenience store and considered that the scheme would benefit the local economy.

RESOLVED

That planning application SDNP/20/01428/FUL be granted subject to the conditions as reported.

Ward: West Chiltington, Thakeham and Ashington

Applicant: Mr and Mrs A Kirby

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of a barn and the erection of a 3-bedroom detached dwelling 60 metres to the east. The barn benefited from extant permission for conversion to a 3-bedroom dwelling.  The proposed dwelling would be of similar size and footprint to the existing barn. 

The application site was located approximately 90 metres from the built-up area of West Chiltington at the southern end of Church Street. The barn was in a generous plot shared with Rose Barn Cottage.  The surrounding area was semi-rural with sporadic residential development.

The Parish Council objected to the application. No further representations to the public consultation had been received.   One member of the public, the applicant and the applicant’s agent all spoke in support of the application.  

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were:  the principle of development; the character of the dwelling and visual amenities of the countryside; residential amenity; residential environment for future occupiers; highways impacts; and ecology considerations. Members noted the sustainable design of the proposal.  

Members discussed the location of the proposed dwelling, which was within the curtilage of Rose Barn Cottage, and noted that, whilst the proposal was larger than the existing barn, it had a similar footprint. They discussed the scheme in the context of planning policy considerations and after careful consideration concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/19/2524 be granted subject to the conditions as reported.

Ward: West Chiltington, Thakeham and Washington

Applicant: Wates Developments Ltd

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the change of use of a redundant agricultural barn into a dwelling and the erection of a single storey linked side extension, which would have a similar footprint to a former agricultural building.

The application site was located outside the built-up area of Storrington. The closest dwelling was approximately 170 metres south.  The stone and brick barn was east of Northlands Lane.

Both Thakeham and Storrington Parish Councils objected to the application. Since publication of the report, Thakeham Parish Council had reiterated their concerns. There had been no further responses to the public consultation.  The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application and a representative of Thakeham Parish Council spoke in objection to it.     

Since publication of the report an addendum to the Structural Survey had been provided by the applicant, which considered the implications of the amended scheme and concluded that it would result in reduced loadings to the external walls and foundations.  The applicant had also submitted a flood risk assessment, which concluded that the risk of flooding from all sources within the application site was low.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; landscape character, design and heritage; the amenity of nearby users and occupiers; parking and highways; flood risk and drainage; and ecology and sustainability of design.

Members were concerned that the design of the proposal did not accord with Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan’s policy regarding conversions of existing countryside structures, and considered the design to be of excessive size and at odds with the agricultural character of the building.  It was therefore proposed and seconded that the application be refused.  The motion was carried.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/19/2331 be refused for the following reasons:

The proposed conversion and extension of the building would result in an unsympathetic conversion by reason of its excessive size and scale, which would not retain its agricultural character and would result in an inappropriate form of development in relation to its agricultural setting, contrary to Paragraph 79 of the NPPF and Policy 9 of the Thakeham Parish Neighbourhood Plan.