Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 15^th November 2016

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15^th November were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/16/2016 – Councillor Jonathan Chowen declared a personal interest because he knew the applicant.

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.  The Development Manager advised that the Council would formally challenge the decision to allow DC/15/0193 (land east of Threals Lane, West Chiltington).    

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the construction of a dementia care home for 32 residents in the grounds of Homelands Nursing Home.  This would replace an existing annex used as a dementia care unit for 15 residents.  The application had been deferred by the Committee in October so that additional information could be submitted by the applicant to justify the need for the facility in this location, and to allow for improvements to the design of the proposed building (Minute No. DMS/56 (18.10.16) refers).

The application site was located outside the built-up area and comprised Homelands Nursing Home which accommodated 35 residents plus the 15 residents in the annex. The site was about one kilometre north of Cowfold and was accessed from the A281 along a drive that was shared with five properties. 

Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of the location, relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the proposal, and the Director of the care home also spoke in support of it.

Members considered the consultation response from West Sussex County Council Care Services, which supported the proposal.

Members considered the applicant’s statement outlining justification for the development and the revised plans, together with the officers’ planning assessment and concluded that the applicant had not adequately addressed the concerns regarding design that had been expressed by the Committee in October. 

With regards to the need of such a facility, Members were satisfied that there was a need in principle, but were concerned that the amended design was overbearing and detrimental to the countryside setting outside the built-up area.

The Development Manager confirmed that he would be able to attend a meeting with the designer with a view to negotiating a more sympathetic design.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/0543 be determined by the Development Manager, with a view to approval, subject to an amended design to be agreed in consultation with Ward Members, and relevant conditions. 

The Development Manager reported that this application sought to remove Condition 15 attached to DC/13/0787 for the development of 160 dwellings, associated landscaping, open space and access. This condition related to the pre-commencement requirement for full construction details of a traffic calming scheme on West End Lane, adjacent to the site entrance, to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 

The Highway Authority had advised that Condition 15 should be withdrawn from the proposal and, in response to surveys and consultations regarding the need and scope for traffic calming, the applicant considered that traffic calming, as required under Condition 15, was no longer required; safe access could be achieved by an amended access design.

The application site was located outside the built-up area to the west of the village of Henfield on the northern side of West End Lane. Construction works had already commenced.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application.  Seven letters of objection and two letters of support had been received.   A further 11 letters either commenting on the scheme, or not material to this particular application, were also received

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of the proposal; landscape and townscape impact; and highway safety.

Members concluded that the proposal would limit the urbanising effect of the development on West End Lane without having a detrimental impact on highway safety in the vicinity. 

It was also noted that Condition 18 regarding Code Level 3 for Sustainable Homes was no longer relevant due to changes in legislation and would therefore also be removed.

RESOLVED

(i)        That a legal agreement, in the form of a Deed of Variation, be entered into to amend the legal agreement attached to DC/13/0787.

(ii)       That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/16/1877 be determined by the Development Manager.  

The Development Manager reported that this application sought a variation of Condition 1 to previously approved application DC/15/1547 for the erection of a 32 bed dementia care home on land to the rear of The Anchorage Residential Home.  The proposed variation related to amendments to the approved plans and included; changes to the design and height of the roof of the building to facilitate the creation of additional first floor space for three self-contained 2-bedroom staff accommodation units (to replace the approved five bedrooms with shared facilities); elevational alterations; changes to external finishing materials; and amendments to landscaping.

The application site was located to the north of Pulborough Railway Station, south-west of the Anchorage care home, which was within a Conservation Area.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Three letters of objection from two households had been received. One member of the public and a representative of the Parish Council both spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal was whether the proposed amendments were acceptable in terms of design, appearance and visual impact. 

Members considered aspects of the proposal, in particular the increased height, and discussed aspects of the approved scheme, including the Local Member’s concerns regarding parking on the site. Members concluded that the amendments did not significantly alter the approved scheme.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/1860 be granted, subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of a dwelling and the erection of two pairs of 4-bedroom semi-detached dwellings, parking and landscaping.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Steyning to the west of Penlands Close and was accessed along a private lane that served a number of detached and semi-detached properties of various designs.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.  Members were advised that the widths of the proposed plots were 8.2 metres and 6.5 metres, rather than those as set out in the report.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  18 letters of objection, from 14 households, had been received.  Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.  The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. 

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 and appearance of the proposal; its impact on neighbouring amenity; and parking and traffic.

Members concluded that the proposal was of an acceptable scale and design for its plot and its siting would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.  It was noted that concerns regarding construction traffic would be addressed through Condition 5.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/1722 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for a temporary rural workers dwelling, the erection of an agricultural building and alterations to access.  A section of a public footpath would also be resurfaced where it crossed a culvert.

The building would have a variety of uses including a fodder and equipment store, farm workshop and for shearing/ veterinary attention when required.  The building would also be used in connection with a small vineyard that was proposed on part of the site.  The workers dwelling would be a 1-bedroom mobile home with temporary permission for three years.

The application site was located in a rural location on the northern side of Haglands Lane, where it was a country lane with hedgerow and trees.  A Grade II Listed Building, Old Haglands, was to the west, and a public footpath ran along the western boundary.  To the north were open views across grassland.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.  It was reported at the meeting that the Council’s Ecologist raised no objection to the proposal.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  A total of 74 letters of objection had been received, and there had been three letters of support.  The applicant’s agent had written two letters abutting assertions that the business plan was flawed.  Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application, and a representative of the Parish Council also spoke in objection to it.  The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

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 suitability of the proposed barn and its impact on the amenity of nearby properties and countryside views from the site; whether the workers dwelling was essential to its location; highways; and ecology.

Members considered aspects of the proposal, in particular the proposed location of the barn and the viability of the proposed business and concluded that the application should be deferred so that clarification could be sought from the applicant.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/1866 be deferred to allow for additional information to be submitted by the applicant in relation to:

(i)        justification for the particular location within the site chosen for the agricultural barn;

(ii)       further information and clarification on the business plan.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a 3-bedroom detached dwelling with attached garage on the south side of New Hall Lane. It would be T shaped and incorporate a cat-slide roof with an overall height of eight metres. There would be a number of dormer windows on the front and rear elevations. 

The application site was located within the designated built-up area of Small Dole within a ribbon of residential development, with a single storey dwelling to the east, separated by mature hedging, and a two storey dwelling to the west.   There was post and rail fencing around the perimeter of the site and open agricultural fields to the south.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  

The responses from statutory external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application.  Sixteen letters of objection, from eleven households, had been received.  The Local Member had raised no objection though had commented that the proposed structure was large. The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.  

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 and appearance of the proposal; its impact on neighbouring amenity; highways;

Members concluded that the proposed dwelling was of a scale and design that would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area or surrounding landscape and that the proposal was acceptable

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2151 be granted, subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a polytunnel and storage building for agricultural aquaponics.  The polytunnel would be 12 metres long with an overall height of 3.6 metres and be just to the north of the proposed timber clad storage building.  The aquaponics business would grow the root vegetable wasabi, and farm trout in a symbiotic relationship.   The proposal was part of a farm diversification programme. 

The application site was located in the open countryside western of Horsham Road, between Ashurst and Steyning. The wider farm was accessed off Horsham Road via a private track shared with the adjoining residential property at Calcot Bungalow. Other dwellings were approximately 100 metres north of the site.  

The site formed part of a larger farming enterprise across three sites: Calcot Farm; New Wharf Farm; and Northover Farm, and was to the north of Calcot Farm adjacent to a number of agricultural buildings.

Details of relevant government and council policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  Relevant planning history, including buildings on land adjacent to the site, was also noted.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.  It was noted that Condition 4, as printed in the report, should be amended to read “There shall be no delivery or dispatch occurring at the site outside the hours of:”

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Letters of objection from three households had been received.  One member of the public spoke in objection to the application.  The applicant and the applicant’s agent both addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.  

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; amenity of adjoining properties; and parking and highway safety.

Members noted that the applicant had agreed to move the polytunnel five metres further south from the northern boundary, and that the proposal would result in a minimal increase in activity.

Members concluded that the farm diversification programme was a sustainable form of development which would not cause material harm to the character of the surrounding area or neighbouring amenity, and was therefore acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2016 be granted, subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.