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 16-06-27 draft
Select a size
Thakeham Parish Council
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING – Monday 27 June 2016, Village Hall
Meeting opened: 6.30 p.m.
Present Mrs C Hounslow Mrs C Instance Ms F McConnachie Mr R Taylor
In attendance Mr O Richards Clerk to the Council
Members of the public
147. Apologies for absence
Apologies were received from Cllrs Hunt, MacEachern and St Clair.
148. Interests of Members
Cllr McConnachie declared an interest in item 150 (DC/16/1176).
149. Minutes of the last meeting
Minutes of the last meeting held on 23 May 2016 were approved and signed.
150. Planning Applications for consideration
The Committee considered cases and agreed the following feedback to Horsham District Council:
DC/16/1171 (T/16/26) Little Paddocks, Crays Lane, Thakeham
Creation of disabled facilities including a 1.5 storey rear extension, single storey side extension and roof alterations to existing dormers
The Committee noted that although this application involved a proportionately large extension of the existing property, this appeared to be warranted by the disability needs that the proposal sought to address. Although the proposal would make the property more visible from certain vantage points on footpath 2475 and Crays Lane, the extension design was unobjectionable and, given existing screening, would be unlikely to have a materially intrusive impact.
DC/16/1226 (T/16/27) Upper Champions Farm Barn Dukes Hill Thakeham
Notification for Prior Approval for a Proposed Change of Use of Agricultural Building to a Dwellinghouse (Class C3), and for Associated Operational Development
NO OBJECTION SUBJECT TO PROPOSED CONDITIONS
The Committee noted that this application followed two previous refusals on this site, but that the current proposal was significantly revised to focus on conformance with relevant prior approval regulations in terms of remaining within the existing footprint, and with comparatively little change to the existing barn structure in terms of height/profile/roofline. The Committee considered a range of potential objections including how the proposal related to:
• Prior Approval regulations in terms of whether the location was ‘undesirable or impractical’, and whether the change of use would involve ‘substantial reconstruction’;
• HDPF policy 26 in terms of whether there would be detrimental impact on ‘the key features and characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located’; and
• the parish’s draft Neighbourhood Plan policy 9.
The Committee concluded that the site was not ‘undesirable’, and nor was there real conflict with HDPF policy 26. The location is not especially sensitive, as it cannot be seen from the B2139 and it is screened from neighbouring properties. Although visible from bridleway 2404, the design does not change the size/profile of the structure as seen from there. The Committee noted that draft Neighbourhood Plan policy 9 supports agricultural conversions in appropriate settings. It was felt that this is an ‘appropriate setting’, given the limited visual impact and because the dwelling would not be isolated, being relatively close to two groups of existing dwellings, but without having an amenity impact on them. The garden plot surrounding the dwelling was of modest size and did not intrude into the adjacent open field. The proposal was not considered to involve ‘substantial reconstruction’ because, although external materials and finishes would change, the underlying structural frame was being adapted. The site is not ‘impractical’ as there is a clear driveway route and bringing further utilities should not present issues for other residents. The Committee did however agree to recommend to officers that that approval should be subject to conditions relating to:
a) clarifying that there is no implied permission for further ancillary buildings, e.g. garage structures;
b) mitigating the visibility of extensive glass on the elevation facing bridleway 2404, a requirement that finishes/materials should be appropriate (e.g. non-reflective) and for some landscaping (screening/hedging) to help blend the structure into the treeline; and
c) there should be explicit protection for the mature trees surrounding the plot.
DC/16/1182 (T/16/28) 29 Hillside Road Storrington
Single storey side extension
The Committee noted that this small kitchen extension had fallen only very narrowly outside permitted development dimensions, and that it was visually screened from the street front and from neighbours.
DC/16/0836 (T/16/29) Rydon School House Rock Road Storrington West Sussex RH20 3AB
Change of Use for the disused caretaker’s house to office/training area
Although the application for change of use of this building to enable mentoring of students is well-intentioned, and no structural works are involved, the Committee felt obliged to question whether it was appropriate for such permission to be given until there is clarity about which organisation will be in charge of the Rydon CC site from mid-2017, and a related estate plan has emerged. The Committee felt that there was a need to reach that point before informed judgements could be made about the future capacity of the site to accommodate teaching support activities, and for processes around the procurement and licensing of such services to be agreed. This application therefore appeared to be premature, and the Committee recommended that HDC officers consult further with WSCC Education directorate and Rydon CC managers/governors.
DC/16/1176 (T/16/30) Holmwood The Street, Thakeham
Removal of old South Africa Veldgrass thatch; in stages to permit inspection of insect damaged and structurally weakened rafters and wall plates. Repair and or replacements of structurally unsound timber by selected new oak timbers, upgrading fire protection and thermal insulation of roof, lining chimney to permit safe use of wood burning stove, heightening current chimney by approximately 600 mm to attain height above ridge of 1.8 m, re-thatching using original comber wheat reed, re-ridging using combed wheat reed and sedge, and repairing damaged ceilings using traditional latch and lime plaster (Householder Planning)
The Committee welcomed this extensive and sympathetic conservation proposal to a Grade II listed building. The only externally visible impact would be an increase in chimney height to enable safe use of a wood-burning stove, which was considered acceptable in the context of securing the extended life of the building, and given commitments to re-use and match existing materials.
151. Abingworth development
The Committee noted the key points relating to the Abingworth development reported to TPC’s meeting of 20 June, i.e. progress of discussions relating to traffic-calming and the need for the parish to agree its position in relation to a further potential application to change phase 2 housing mix/numbers, and its priorities for further S106 discussions. The Committee noted that steps were in hand to temporarily re-route footpath 2480 (north edge of site) to enable safe construction on plot 1. Also, that the contractors had adopted an alternative plan for installing groundwater drainage tanks, which seemed to have obviated the previous suggestion of temporary diversion of access to the Village Hall (and replacement overflow parking) via the southern site compound.
152. Crest Nicholson development, Water Lane
Members noted the key points relating to this development reported to TPC’s meeting of 20 June, i.e. that Cllrs St Clair and Scott Kerr had recently met with the site manager to address issues including working hours. Cllr Scott Kerr and the Clerk had also been in liaison with three local residents, one of whom is pursuing with HDC officers a complaint relating to sight-lines between a house in Rother Close and one of the blocks of new flats.
153. Proposal for 8 houses at Land East of Threals Lane (DC-15-0193) – appeal process
Having noted the lodging of this appeal, the committee reviewed the comments it had submitted to HDC in March 2015 in opposing the application, and agreed that it could stand unchanged as a submission to this process.
154. Enforcement issues
The committee noted with concern continuing lack of progress by HDC Compliance team on long-standing issues. It was agreed to write to senior HDC management expressing the parish’s concern that the current situation emboldened those minded to ignore planning rules, and seeking a more robust approach. It was also noted that Bramble Barn should have been reinstated to the list of current enforcement monitoring cases, as previously agreed. (Actions: Clerk, Cllr Hunt).
155. 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.
56 Linfield Copse, Thakeham
DC/16/0699 (T/16/17) Surgery to 2 x Oak Trees T1, T2 (Tree Preservation Order)
Planning Committee 25 April 2016
Lynwood Threals Lane West Chiltington Pulborough West Sussex RH20 2RF
DC/15/1157 (T/15/22) Removal of condition The Occupancy Condition - believed to be Condition 1 (SG/4/48)
Planning Committee 22 June 2015
Braemar The Linfields Linfield Copse Thakeham Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3DT
DC/16/0768 (T/16/23) Erection of a single storey rear extension.
Planning Committee 23 May 2016
NO OBJECTION SUBJECT TO WITHDRAWAL OF 1ST FLOOR EXTENSION OVER GARAGE
Council 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.
Thakeham Manor Coolham Road Thakeham Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3EW
DC/16/0906 (T/16/ 22) Proposed tennis court enclosure.
Council objects 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. Council also notes 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, Council therefore requests 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.
1 The tennis court enclosure/building by virtue of its size and massing would be an unduly prominent structure in the landscape which would be detrimental to the character and visual amenities of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).
2 The tennis court enclosure/building by virtue of its size and massing would represent an addition which would compete with the existing dwellinghouse as the main building within the curtilage. The tennis court enclosure/building would not be considered to be grouped with the main dwellinghouse by virtue of its positioning and would therefore be contrary to policy 28 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).
DC/15/2600 (T/15/55) The occupation of Lynwood for in excess of 10 years in breach of the occupancy condition (Certificate of Lawful Development - Existing)
Planning Committee 18 December 2015
[Nb. withdrawn presumably because unnecessary, given permission to DC/15/1157, see above]
Patuca Bracken Lane Storrington Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3HS
DC/15/1679 (T/15/30) Erection one dwelling and creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access Appeal DISMISSED 31/05/2016
[Note that there may yet be a further appeal against HDC refusal of revised application DC/16/0684 (T/16/18)]
156. Upcoming Applications: agreement of visit allocations
The Committee noted the following visit allocations for new applications:
DC/16/1256 Surgery to trees in grounds of St Mary’s church (Cllr Prince leading);
DC/16/1318 Amended proposal for footpath at front of Crest Nicholson site (Cllrs Scott Kerr and Prince leading; site visit being arranged. In view of the likely need to provide a response before the next meeting, the Committee agreed to delegate action by circulation in this case.
157. Public participation session
No matters were raised.
158. Any other business for noting or inclusion on a future agenda
Meeting closed: 8.05 p.m.
Date of next meeting: Monday 25 July 2016 at 6.30pm JECTION SUBJECT TO WITHDRAWAL OF 1ST FLOOR EXTENSION OVER GARAGE
2 The tennis court enclosure/building by virtue of its size and massing would represent an addition which would compete with the existing dwellinghouse as the main building within the curtilage. The tennis court enclosure/building would not be considered to be grouped with the main dwellinghouse by virtue of its positioning and would therefore be contrary to policy 28 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (201