Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2018

(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 18 September 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/18/0584 – Councillors Philip Circus, John Blackall and Brian Donnelly each declared a personal interest in this item because they were acquainted with one of the objectors.

Councillors Kate Rowbottom, Lynn Lambert and Brian Donnelly each declared a personal interest in this item because they were acquainted with the applicant.

Councillors Nigel Jupp and Gordon Lindsay both declared a person interest in this item because they knew the applicant well.  They both chose to leave the room and took no part in the determination of this item.

TPO/1508 – Councillor Gordon Lindsay declared a personal interest in this item because he was acquainted with the owner of the land adjacent to the tree.

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: Chantry

Applicant: Storrington Squash Club

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of a squash club and erection of a three storey building comprising six 2-bedroom and two 1-bedroom flats with 14 car parking spaces and landscaping.  Matters for consideration under this outline application were the principle of the development, access and layout.  The current proposal had been amended by reducing the number of flats from 10 to eight to address concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed building to the north and east boundaries.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Storrington and included a private members squash club with changing facilities, gym and club room. Storrington Community Centre and Museum were to the north, Storrington Tennis Club to the west, three Grade II Listed Buildings to the east, and a car park used by the squash club and tennis club to the south. 

Details of relevant government and council policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  Members noted details of DC/15/1992 for nine flats with 10 parking spaces, which had been refused by the Committee in May 2017 (Minute No. PCS/126 (16.5.17) refers).  It was noted that the reason for refusal (lack of sufficient on-site parking spaces) had been overcome in the current application. 

Members were advised that Condition 3 should be amended to ensure a very robust Construction Method Statement by adding additional requirements: details of the access to the site for construction vehicles and the type of vehicles to be used. It was also noted that any arrangement made between the applicant and the tennis club that might be agreed to allow the access and egress to encroach beyond the site’s boundaries was a private matter. 

The Parish Council had objected to the original application and to the amended scheme.  Seven objections had been received, with a further two objections received in response to the amended plans.  Storrington Tennis Club had raised a number of concerns to the original and amended plans. 

Since publication of the report a further objection from the tennis club had been received regarding: inadequate access without encroachment on their land; the boundary of the site; the safety of tennis club members during demolition and construction; and inadequate residential and visitor parking.

Two members of the public associated with the tennis club spoke in objection to the application.  The applicant and the manager of the squash club addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of the Parish Council 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 were:  the principle of development; affordable housing; character and appearance; impact on neighbouring amenity; highways; and the required Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). 

Members noted that since the previous refusal, the Storrington, Sullington & Washington Neighbourhood Plan had progressed. A draft plan had been submitted in July 2017.  The Inspector required the plan to be heard at a public hearing which  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCS/37

Ward: Pulborough & Coldwaltham

Applicant: Nick Wyatt

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for a variation of Condition 1 to approved application DC/16/1860 for the erection of a 32-bedroom dementia care home on land to the rear of The Anchorage Residential Home.  The variation would allow five new dormer windows and 12 new roof lights, in order to facilitate eight additional bedrooms with facilities within the approved roof space.   Members were advised that there was an error in the report, which referred to eight roof lights rather than 12.  

The application site was located outside but adjacent to the built-up of Pulborough, south west of The Anchorage.  Pulborough railway station was approximately 300 metres to the south, beyond an industrial development and station carpark. Approved access to the site ran along the western edge of a field north east of the site.  There was a field to the west with a footpath running through it.  Church Place, the main access route to the site from Pulborough, included a number of listed buildings.

Details of relevant government and council policies and 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.  Six objections from three households had been received.  A representative of the Parish Council 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 were:  the principle of development; design and appearance; drainage; and impact on highways.

Members discussed the proposed increase in capacity and the extent to which this would alter the nature of the approved development.  Members concluded the impact would not be significant in terms of traffic generation and that parking provision would be adequate. Members considered that any adverse impacts of the amendments to the scheme as previously approved would be outweighed by the fact that the facility will provide much needed accommodation for dementia patients.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/0584 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.

Ward: Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead

Applicant: Mr Anchor

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the change of use of an ancillary Warden’s 2-bedroom bungalow to an independent open market dwelling.  The permission granted in 1987 had been for 21 sheltered units, warden’s accommodation, ancillary rooms and car parking.  It was proposed that the parking area would be shared with residents and visitors to Godmans Court, with one unallocated space for the bungalow.  The bungalow had been vacant for a number of years.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Cowfold and was adjacent to Godman’s Court, a three-storey block of sheltered flats.  The wider site faced Bolney Road as well as Henfield Road.  The cottage was on the southern boundary of the site.  There were residential and business premises in the vicinity.

Details of relevant government and council policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  Planning permission CF/34/87, including details of the restrictive conditions, 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, but considered that allocated parking should be included.  Twenty representations had been received, 17 of which were from residents of Godmans Court and one from the Management Company. These raised no objection subject to the terms of the sale including the same age restriction of over 55 that applies to Godmans Court. Two members of the public spoke broadly in support of the application and 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; design and appearance; impact on heritage assets; neighbouring amenity; and highways impacts. 

Members noted the proposed condition that set out to address parking concerns and the regulatory condition to restrict occupation by persons over the age of 55 and concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/0902 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.

Ward: Bramber, Upper Beeding & Woodmancote

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Colton

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of outbuildings and the erection of a two storey dwelling with parking and a new access onto the lane west of Stockmans.

The application site was located in the countryside adjacent to the secondary settlement of Blackstone, to the rear of Stockmans, a Grade II Listed Building. It was just outside the conservation area. The dwellings of Blackstone were east, west and south of the site with open countryside to the north.

Details of relevant government and council policies, 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.

Eight representations in support of the proposal had been received.  One member of the public spoke in support of the application and 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: principle of development; its design and appearance; heritage impacts; amenity impacts; and highway impacts.

Members concluded that the proposal for a new dwelling in the countryside outside the settlement boundary was unacceptable.  

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/0902 be refused for the following reasons:

01     The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside of any defined built-up area boundary, on a site not allocated for development within the Horsham District Planning Framework or an adopted Neighbourhood Plan. The Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and consequently this proposed development would be contrary to the overarching strategy and hierarchy approach of concentrating development within the main settlements. Furthermore, the proposed development is not essential to its countryside location, and represents an isolated and unsustainable form of development. Consequently, it represents unsustainable development contrary to policies 1, 2, 3, 4, and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

02     The proposed dwelling would be of a scale, mass and design that would appear as an intrusive addition within the backland setting, and would detract from and diminish the rural character and ambience of the countryside setting. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policies 25, 32, and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

03     The proposed dwelling, due to its siting, scale, massing and design, is considered to detract from the special character and significance of the Listed Building and designated Conservation Area, resulting in the loss of important views through the wider surroundings, and the incremental erosion of the setting and connectedness that defines the historic character and ambience of the Grade II Listed Building, its setting, and the designated Conservation Area. The proposed development would be therefore be contrary to Policy 34 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) and paragraph 132 of the NPPF.

Ward: Billingshurst & Shipley

The Head of Development reported that agreement was sought from the Committee to confirm Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 1506, which had been served on a yew tree by the Council in May 2018. 

The tree was situated in the north-western corner of Cedars Byre, close to the boundary with Cedars Farmhouse to the west, and dwellings in Ostlers View to the north.

Two objections to the TPO had been received.    One member of the public spoke in support of confirming the TPO.

Members considered the arboricultural officer’s assessment which indicated that the yew tree was approximately 375 year old and in good condition.  It was considered to have a sufficient level of amenity value to justify its long-term protection.

RESOLVED

That TPO 1506 be confirmed as served.  

Ward: Chanctonbury

The Head of Development reported that agreement was sought from the Committee to confirm Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 1508, which had been served on a Corsican pine tree by the Council in May 2018. 

The tree was situated on the western boundary of Peat Moor, close to the boundary with the adjoining residence, Acorn House, to the west.

Members noted the planning history of the site, in particular application DC/17/2376 for a detached garage close to the tree.

One objection to the TPO had been received.  One member of the public spoke in support of confirming the TPO.  One member of the public spoke in objection to its confirmation and the officer confirmed that their written objection had been considered and summarised in the report.

Members considered the arboricultural officer’s assessment which indicated that the proposed garage could cause extensive and terminal harm to the tree.  The Corsican pine was a large specimen in need of some surgery to remove a dead stem.  It was larger than the nearby Douglas fir and Cypress tree, and considered to have a localised amenity value.   

RESOLVED

That TPO 1508 be confirmed as served.  

Ward: Chanctonbury

The Head of Development reported that agreement was sought from the Committee to confirm Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 1510, which had been served on an oak tree by the Council in June 2018. 

The tree was situated on the south-western corner of Highbanks, close to the boundary with the adjoining residence, Kensington Cottage to the south and Church Street to the west.  It was on land significantly higher than the roadway and there was a cutting about five metres from the tree to provide vehicular access to Kensington Cottage.

Members noted details of planning application DC/18/1006 for a new highway access to Highbanks, which had been refused.

One objection to the TPO had been received. 

Members considered the arboricultural officer’s assessment which indicated that the proposed access would cause extensive root severance from which the tree could not recover.   The oak tree was a healthy fully-crowned tree with a high level of amenity value.   

RESOLVED

That TPO 1510 be confirmed as served.