What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: Planning minute 16-05-23 draft
Select a size
Thakeham Parish Council
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING – Monday 23 May 2016, Village Hall
Meeting opened: 6.35 p.m.
Present Mr A Hunt Mrs C Hounslow Mrs C Instance
Mr D MacEachern Ms F McConnachie Mr R Taylor
In attendance Mr O Richards Clerk to the Council
Members of the public
129. Election of Chair
Cllr Taylor was elected as Chair of the Committee.
130. Election of Vice-Chair
Cllr MacEachern was re-elected as Vice-Chair of the Committee.
131. Apologies for absence
Apologies were received from Cllr St Clair.
132. Interests of Members
133. Minutes of the last meeting
Minutes of the last meeting held on 25 April 2016 were approved and signed.
134. Planning Applications for consideration
The Committee considered cases and agreed the following feedback to Horsham District Council:
DC/16/0871 (T/16/21) Abingworth Nurseries, Thakeham
Variation of Condition 1 of previously approved application DC/15/2547 to amend the design and layout of 17 dwellings (Plot 22 to 39). Division of plot 35 into 2 plots to allow an additional dwelling.
NO OBJECTION SUBJECT TO CHECKS ON MATERIALS/FINISHES
In relation to the proposed division of plot 35 into two plots, the committee noted that this made better use of the site without affecting the boundary of this phase of the development. The addition of a single dwelling is not in undue tension with Policy 4 relating to the Abingworth site in the Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan (currently under examination).
In relation to the house designs, the committee noted that they appear, as expected, to follow the models agreed under DC/15/2547. The committee requested that officers confirm that the designs also conform to previous agreements under DC/15/2547 in relation to detail of materials and finishes, e.g. relating to window styles, patio door specification, exterior tiling (height levels, finishing around windows) and chimney-pots.
DC/16/0768 (T/16/23) Braemar The Linfields Linfield Copse Thakeham
Erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor extension over existing garage
NO OBJECTION SUBJECT TO WITHDRAWAL OF 1ST FLOOR EXTENSION OVER GARAGE
The committee welcomed the withdrawal (notified 23/5/16) of the first-floor extension over garage element of this application, which had averted a strong objection from the owner of neighbouring property Mizpah, on grounds of loss of light amenity. Although the remaining single-storey rear extension element of the proposal will create the visual oddity of two different extension rooflines, this was not considered sufficient ground for objection.
DC/16/0906 (T/16/22) Thakeham Manor Coolham Road Thakeham
Proposed tennis court enclosure.
The committee agreed to object to this proposal on the grounds that it would create, outside the designated built-up area, a new structure of a type that is not normally appropriate to a countryside location, and of very substantial proportions and height. Replacing the visually unobtrusive current open-air tennis court with a large obtrusive structure at considerable distance from the main house, within clear view of the B2139 and neighbours to the south, constitutes overdevelopment. The committee also noted a lack of information in the application relating to services/utilities. While this may just be an oversight reflecting limited requirements, the lack of specificity (in conjunction with the building dimensions) creates concern about possible future change of use. Should officers be minded to recommend approval, the committee therefore requested that conditions be applied to:
a) restrict service connections to only what is essential for tennis (e.g. no water supply);
b) set limits on exterior lighting and light emission from the building to protect neighbours;
c) rule out commercial use – use restricted to family leisure;
d) rule out any future change of use to dwelling, B1 business etc.
DC/16/0922 (T/16/24) Crest Nicholson Development Water Lane Storrington
2 x flags and 1 x totem sign
NO OBJECTION BUT REQUEST RELATING TO DURATION OF PERMISSION
The committee did not object to the location or dimensions of the proposed sales signs, but requested that officers specify that the duration of the permission should be: five years or until the last house in the development is sold, whichever comes first.
DC/15/2338 (T/16/25) Land adjoining Little Paddocks, Crays Lane, Thakeham
Retention of existing field shelter application DC/12/0282 originally subject to Article 4
The committee noted that the parish had opposed the application for this field shelter when it was originally given temporary approval in 2012. The structure remained an unattractive design and unnecessarily sited in direct view of neighbours (The Rowans), affecting their amenity value. Significantly, the reason given by HDC officers for the temporary nature of approval of DC/12/0282 was that the structure was ‘not considered satisfactory as a permanent measure’. Since the condition of this ‘unsatisfactory’ structure had not improved in the intervening 4 years, and the current proposal did not include any improvement works, the committee’s view was that, logically, it could not now be given approval as a permanent measure. If officers were minded to find a way to resolve this long-running issue, the committee suggested a solution involving the shelter being moved to a less prominent position in the field; possibly (depending on position) with the addition of planted screening.
135. Abingworth Cricket Pavilion: proposed amends to construction method and materials
Having considered recently-received proposals from Oakford Homes, the committee agreed that it was open to continuing a discussion about a move to a timber-framed construction approach, which it recognised might offer potential benefits (environmental, speed of construction) while also seeking assurance in relation to building life-expectancy, fire risk, maintenance and insurance costs.The committee also agreed that this should not affect existing agreed outcomes in relation to external materials and finishes, and sought assurance on this. Action: Clerk to feed back to Oakford Homes, and seek relevant assurances.
136. WSCC consultation on updated Joint Minerals Local Plan
The committee noted that the updated JMLP did not refer to any sites/resources in the parish, which was not unexpected as the only local issue is the clay supply for the Ibstock brick operation, which had recently been confirmed beyond the 2031 timeline of this plan. Of the new developments envisaged by the JMLP, the closest was at Ham Farm near Steyning, which was not considered near enough to warrant the parish commenting.
137. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): HDC consultation on updates to CIL policy/plan
The committee noted HDC officers’ confirmation that omission of the list of priorities that the parish had submitted in July 2015 from the draft revised CIL policy/plan had been a clerical oversight. After review, the committee re-confirmed the 2015 list of priorities, subject to these minor amendments:
Addition of requested funding of £70k for facilities/staff resource for Youth Work;
Clarification of existing entry in relation to facilities/staff resource for work with the elderly, and increase in resource request to £70k;
Watercourse/drainage provision: to retain this item and include mention of: Greenhurst Lane, Rydon playing fields, Sproutes Lane.
Action: Clerk to make amends to CIL priority list and re-submit to HDC.
138. Proposal for 107 houses at Snapes Corner (DC-15-2374) – appeal process
Having noted the lodging of this appeal, the committee reviewed the comments it had submitted to HDC in November 2015 in opposing the application, and agreed that it could be re-submitted to the appeal process subject to very minor updates, e.g. to reflect developments relating to the Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan. (Action: Clerk)
139. Archaeology & planning developments update from Horsham District Archaeology Group
The committee noted this update on the regrettably dwindling archaeological resources for planning-related matters, and that the authors could be contacted for advice should the parish encounter a planning situation involving likely archaeological interest. It was noted that the authors might be suitable invitees to speak at a future Annual Parish Meeting.
140. Abingworth development
Members noted that work on site was progressing, with first houses including show home now well above-ground. In a recent mishap, the electric supply to the Village Hall had been lost for half a day, and issues had arisen relating to loss of overspill parking. Discussions were in hand regarding an imminent 4-6 week closure of the northern concrete access road to the Village Hall - to be replaced by access from the southern site entrance, including temporary overspill parking. After this phase access to the Village Hall from the north would be restored, as well as new parking spaces along the football fields. The need for information to be provided to affected residents and hall users was noted. Also the need for good pedestrian signage, particularly if works would prevent direct pedestrian access from the B2139 to the Village Hall during this period. Action: Clerk to confirm with the contractor.
141. Crest Nicholson development, Water Lane
Members noted that a further meeting of Cllrs Scott Kerr and St Clair with Crest Nicholson representatives was now arranged. That meeting would be asked to address a potential issue with road signage to site suppliers reported by a member of the public (action: Clerk to liaise with Cllr Scott Kerr).
142 Enforcement issues
The committee noted with concern the continuing slow progress that HDC Enforcement team were making with long-standing issues, particularly Falconers Farm and the area around Bramblefield and Dukes Copse. It was agreed to write to senior HDC management expressing the parish’s concern that the current situation had emboldened those minded to ignore planning rules, and seeking more resource and a more robust approach to be applied. It was also agreed that Bramble Barn be reinstated to the list of current enforcement monitoring cases. (Actions: Clerk, Cllr Hunt).
143. Planning Applications permitted/refused/withdrawn since the last meeting
The Committee noted the following District-level decisions, and that designated members should follow through with monitoring the progress of permitted applications.
DC/15/2253 (T/15/41) Abingworth Nurseries
Discharge of S106 conditions, public art, residential travel plan, affordable housing provider, surface water attenuation basin, footpaths (Clerk/All)
Planning Cttee 26/10/15
REQUESTED CLARIFICATIONS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
Public art/Penn Stone: while it has no objection to the proposed location of this feature, which reflects the current position of the Penn Stone, Council requests a condition that it will in due course have opportunity to comment on detailed design of the plinth on which the Stone will be mounted, any associated inscription, and specific layout of planting to screen this feature adequately from traffic noise on the B2139, in a way that will respect the Quaker emphasis on quiet contemplation.
DC/16/0252 (T/16/12) Crays Farm (Land at), Crays Lane, Thakeham
Agricultural building to service 25 acres of farmland. (RT)
Planning Cttee 21 March 2016
Council noted and supports the agricultural purpose of the proposal, to support sheep-farming in adjacent fields. The dimensions and design of the proposal are appropriate. The location of the plot near Cray’s Lane minimises intrusion in the landscape and existing tree and hedge cover will provide some screening for users of the adjacent footpath. There are no near residential neighbours.
4 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.
5 No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any that is installed with the permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.
Oak Farm, Goose Green Lane, Pulborough
DC/16/0573 (T/16/19) Construct a 20m x 60m equestrian arena. Works to include a small amount of cut and fill, new land drains, membrane, stone base, silica sand and fibre surface. (RT)
Planning Cttee 25 April 2016
Council notes that the proposed development is for private domestic use, which is ancillary to the main house, and that there should be no impact on neighbours. There are several recent nearby precedents for similar equestrian facilities. The application does not seek permission for floodlighting. Council suggests that officers consider applying conditions in relation to prevent burning of waste in a way that might affect neighbours or visibility on the adjacent B2133.
4 No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the
Local Planning Authority. Any lighting that is installed with the permission of the Local
Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).
5 The equestrian arena hereby permitted shall be used solely for private use incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the existing dwellinghouse and shall not be used for business/commercial purposes.
Patuca Bracken Lane Storrington Pulborough
DC/16/0684 (T/16/18) Erection one dwelling and creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access
- Revised scheme (CH)
NO OBJECTION SUBJECT TO PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Council notes as context that this revised proposal has been resubmitted while an appeal against refusal of the original proposal is still in progress, and has concerns about this procedural oddity, which has potential to create contradictory outcomes. However, in terms of the merits of the revised proposal Council noted that a number of changes had been made to address the grounds for its previous strong objection, including:
- Removal of the garage situates the dwelling more centrally in the plot and reduces the density of development;
- The removal of the top half-story and associated dormer windows creates a less bulky roofline and addresses issues of neighbours being overlooked;
- Adjustments to the existing Patuca property (removal of conservatory and windows overlooking the proposed new house) create a better relationship between the buildings;
- The house design is not at odds with the local vernacular.
Therefore the revised application addresses many of the main previous objections. In relation to the concern about the proposal creating a pattern of development out of character with the area, the applicant has also adduced a credible case that the new dwelling will not create a materially denser building pattern around the site than in the wider locality.
While accepting these material improvements in this proposal, Council does wish to make some points about its planning framework status, and also has a number of continuing concerns which may be addressed by appropriate conditions on any permission.
1. Planning framework issues
1.1 ‘Previously developed land’. In response to the applicant’s apparent assumption that site should be considered as ‘previously developed land’, Council would flag that the NPPF is clear that private residential gardens in built-up areas (which clearly characterises this site) cannot be considered ‘previously developed’.
1.2 Heath Common Design Statement (HCDS). In relation to the applicant’s assertion that the HCDS should no longer be considered applicable, Council would counter that, whatever its current status within the current HDPF, the HCDS is referenced in Policy 6 of the Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan which is currently under examination and could be ‘made’ as early as June 2016. Therefore Council regards the HCDS as still relevant to the application. In that context Council notes that the proposal continues to present these specific conflicts with HCDS clauses:
- (2) Existing hedgerows… must be retained. The proposal involves permanent removal of part of the hedgerow separating the front of site from Bracken Lane;
- (12) Any new single dwelling development must not create new access onto the Lanes network. The proposal involves creating a new separate access.
However, Council does recognise that drafting of these clauses creates a challenge for any new dwelling in this area, and therefore suggests that conditions may be applied requiring a new access to be created in a way that removes as little hedgerow as is possible, consistent with required splay lines, and protecting the remaining hedgerow from future removal.
2. Roof-line/height. Although the revised proposals indicate reduced roof bulk and lower ridgeline they do not provide clarity on the revised height in relation to neighbouring properties. Council therefore requests that officers seek further clarity on this point, and recommends that such concerns could be addressed by requiring that the ground level of the house should be lowered to align with the rear area of the property, which is around 1m lower than at the front.
3. Use of mechanical air extraction. There is concern that the proposal still does not rule out the use of mechanical extractor fans, which is in tension with HDPF Policy 37(2) regarding use of natural ventilation, and also creates the potential for noise disturbance for neighbours, conflicting with HDPF policies 33(2) and 24 (9.11). Council suggests the application of an appropriate condition to address these points.
4. Construction issues.
4.1 Hours of work. Council recommends that, in considering what conditions to apply to hours of construction work, officers take account of the traffic-related issues below by applying relatively narrow permitted hours (e.g. 9am to 4.00pm).
4.2 Construction traffic. It remains the case that construction access via Bracken Lane will pose serious challenges. Issues include the narrowness of the lane for delivery lorries, restricted parking space (posing the risk of contractor parking along Rock Road in a way that will affect sight-lines at the Bracken Lane junction) and general obstruction of access for other residents, waste collection and emergency services. Therefore in addition to hours-of-work restrictions, Council recommends a condition requiring efficient planning of activity likely to cause blockage of the lane, and prior notification to residents, refuse collection services, etc. and diversion signage.
4.3 Burning on site. Council notes that the proposal appears still to envisage burning of construction waste on site, and requests a condition either to rule this out, or at least to require minimal burning and provision for protection of neighbours.
Refused 18 May 2016
1 The proposed dwelling by reason of its size, and design would have an adverse impact on the landscape character and development pattern of the locality and would not relate sympathetically with its built surroundings. It is therefore considered that the proposal would represent an unsympathetic form of development out of character with the surrounding development contrary to the requirements of policy 32 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 and the design requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.
144. Upcoming Applications: agreement of visit allocations
There were no new applications to allocate.
145. Public participation session
No matters were raised.
146. Any other business for noting or inclusion on a future agenda
Meeting closed: 8.30 p.m.
Date of next meeting: Monday 27 June 2016 at 6.30pm at, whatever its current status within the current HDPF, the HCDS is referenced in Policy 6 of the Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan which is currently under examination and could be ‘made’ as early as June 2016. Therefore Council regards the HCDS as still relevant t