Agenda and minutes

Venue: Conference Room, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham

Contact: Email: CommitteeServices@horsham.gov.uk  Direct Line: 01403 215465

Items
No. Item

PCN/23

Minutes pdf icon PDF 93 KB

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 3 July 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.)

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3 July were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

PCN/24

Declarations of Members' Interests

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

Minutes:

DC/17/2605 – The Chairman of the Committee stated that she had a personal interest in this item, along with all members of the Committee because the applicant was also a District Councillor.  Councillors Peter Burgess, Elizabeth Kitchen, Toni Bradnum and Leonard Crosbie each stated that they had visited the application site prior to the meeting to help them in determining the application.

PCN/25

Announcements

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

Minutes:

There were no announcements.

PCN/26

Appeals pdf icon PDF 66 KB

Minutes:

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

PCN/27

DC/18/1046 - Micklepage, Nuthurst Street, Nuthurst pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Ward: Nuthurst

Applicant: Green Plan

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Head of Development reported that this retrospective application sought permission for a variation to Condition 1 of permission DC/15/2493 for the erection of three two-storey houses.  The proposed amendments would allow minor material amendments to the permitted form and footprint to reflect how the dwellings, which were almost completed, had been built.  The proposal also included some alterations that were required following the refusal of previous application DC/17/2524 to vary Condition 1 (Minute No. PCN/100 (06.03.18) refers).

 

The application site was located in the countryside and had been a paddock to the east of Nuthurst Street.  A private access to the north led to adjoining development north and east of the site.  There was linear residential development along Nuthurst Street in a rural setting. 

 

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning and enforcement history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.    Since publication of the report the new National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) had been published, which superseded the previous NPPF (2012).  An addendum to the report outlined changes to the relevant paragraphs of the old NPPF and advised that it was not considered that these raised any new material considerations relevant to the application.  The addendum also advised Members of details of two additional objections received since publication of the report.

 

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.  In addition to the two objections detailed in the addendum, there had been 64 objections from 50 households.  Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.  Three speakers, comprising the applicant, the applicant’s agent and a chartered town planner, 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 reason for refusal of DC/17/2524; character and appearance; the amenities of neighbouring properties and occupiers of land; and traffic and parking.

 

Members were mindful of the local opposition to the application and discussed the proposed alterations and how they compared to the refused DC/17/2524, in particular regarding changes to the roof over garage.   After careful consideration Members concluded that the impact of the proposal would not be significant enough to cause harm to the character of the area or neighbouring amenity.   

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning application DC/18/1046 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.

PCN/28

DC/18/0572 - 39 Rookwood Park, Horsham pdf icon PDF 87 KB

Ward: Trafalgar

Applicant: Ms Anna Sterling

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a single bay, detached garage with a pitched roof in the front garden. The garage would be 4.5 metres from the front boundary and constructed to match the materials used on the house.  A timber access gate and hedging between the garage and the front of the house was also proposed.  In response to officer concerns, the garage has been reduced in size and set further back from the boundary, with hedging instead of a brick wall.

 

The application site was located within the western edge of the built-up area of Horsham, close to Farthings Hill Roundabout, on the north-west side of Rookwood Park. Rockwood Park was characterised by large modern houses in generous plots.  

 

Planning permission DC/17/2143 for a single storey side extension was noted.Details of relevant government and council policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  Since publication of the report the new National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) had been published, which superseded the previous NPPF (2012).  An addendum to the report advised that it was not considered that these raised any new material considerations relevant to the application.  

 

The Neighbourhood Council objected to the application.  Fourteen objections from five households had been received.  The Local Member had raised concerns because of the potential impact on the neighbouring property. The addendum to the report advised that two other Members of the Committee had also requested the application be determined by the Committee because of its impact on neighbouring amenity and the locality. Three members of the public 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; character of the dwelling and the visual amenities of the street scene; and the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties.

 

Members discussed the scale of the garage and considered it to be an imposing addition out of keeping with the character of the street scene.   Its proximity to 40 Rockwood Park was also discussed and Members concluded that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.  

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning application DC/18/0572 be refused for the following reason:

 

The proposed garage, by reason of its forward position and scale, would represent an imposing addition out of character with the open character of the street, and would result in a harmful loss of outlook for occupants of 40 Rookwood Park.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 32 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

 

PCN/29

DC/18/1127 - Warnham Nature Reserve, Warnham Road, Horsham pdf icon PDF 111 KB

Ward: Holbrook West

Applicant: Horsham District Council

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a single storey timber viewing hide and discovery hub at Warnham Nature Reserve.  It would be constructed primarily of wood with steel supports and a large one-way glass window overlooking the Mill Pond.  In addition to access from the visitor centre, a new entrance gateway and garden with accessible paths was proposed.  The proposed footprint was 112 square metres with a height of nearly four metres, compared to the visitor centre that was 151 square metres with a height of 5.7 metres. 

 

The application site was located north west of Horsham and was a Local Nature Reserve and SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Importance).  Warnham Mill, to the east between the Mill Pond and Warnham Road, was a Grade II Listed Building. 

 

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  Since publication of the report the new National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) had been published, which superseded the previous NPPF (2012).  An addendum to the report outlined changes to the relevant paragraphs of the old NPPF and advised that it was not considered that these raised any new material considerations relevant to the application.  

 

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.  Horsham Society had commented on the application, which they supported. 

 

Members 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 landscape; impact on the setting of the listed building; ecology; flood risk; and highways.

 

Members welcomed the proposal, which would improve facilities and increase the number of visitors to Warnham Nature Reserve without any significant adverse impact on the landscape character of the locality, or on the setting of Warnham Mill. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning application DC/18/1127 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.

PCN/30

DC/17/2605 - Windacres Farm, Church Street, Rudgwick pdf icon PDF 120 KB

Ward: Rudgwick

Applicant: Mr John Bailey

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Head of Development reported that this application sought retrospective permission for the siting of a container as temporary accommodation for 36 months. The container was eight metres by three metres with a height of 2.5 metres. It had two windows and was coloured olive green to match an adjacent agricultural building. There were concrete paving slabs outside the front elevation of the unit. An addendum to the report advised that paragraph 1.1 should read the application is for ‘the siting of a temporary unit’ rather than for ‘the erection of a temporary unit’.

 

The application site was located north-east of Rudgwick, 100 metres outside the built up area at the northern end of a field.  It was approximately 170 metres east of the Rudgwick Metals redevelopment site (DC/16/2917) which was in the early stages of construction.   Church Street was approximately 400 metres west.  There were some dwellings in large plots along Church Land and Highcroft Drive. 

 

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  Since publication of the report the new National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) had been published, which superseded the previous NPPF (2012).  The addendum to the report outlined changes to the relevant paragraphs of the old NPPF and advised that it was not considered that these raised any new material considerations relevant to the application.  

 

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.  Five objections had been received.  One member of the public 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 the development and its impact on the character of the surrounding area and adjoining landscape.  

 

Members discussed the location of the container outside the built-up area boundary and concluded that there was no justification for this temporary accommodation that was not essential to its countryside location.

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning application DC/17/2605 be refused for the following reasons:

 

01     The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the temporary residential dwelling is essential to this countryside location, or reasonably required for the period of time proposed. The proposal therefore fails to represent the sustainable development of the countryside contrary to Policy 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

 

02     The temporary residential dwelling has introduced an inappropriate, incongruous and obtrusive built form into a sensitive countryside location which fails to relate sympathetically to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding landscape, contrary to Policies 25 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

PCN/31

ADDENDUM TO ITEMS 6 - 9 pdf icon PDF 74 KB