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, which the author will be aware of.
Embed code for: Planning minute 16-09-26
Select a size
Thakeham Parish Council
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING – Monday 26 September 2016, Village Hall
Meeting opened: 6.30 p.m.
Present Mr R Taylor (Chair) Mrs C Hounslow Mrs C Instance
Mr D MacEachern Ms F McConnachie Mr D Scott Kerr
In attendance Mr O Richards Clerk to the Council
Members of the public
170. Apologies for absence
Apologies were received from Cllrs Hunt and St Clair.
171. Interests of Members
No interests declared.
172. Minutes of the last meeting
Members noted that minutes the meeting held on 27 June had been circulated with the agenda in error; the minutes of the meeting of 25 July 2016 had, however, been previously seen by circulation and the committee were content for the Chair to sign them at the next available opportunity.
The Committee also ratified responses to HDC agreed by delegated action since the last meeting:
Responses agreed by circulation 20 September
DC/16/1881 Land North of Brook Close, Storrington (Crest Nicholson Meadowbrook development)
Non material amendment to previously approved DC/15/2126 ... Comprising changes to planting and boundary treatments
OBJECTION – AMENDMENTS SOUGHT IN LINE WITH HDC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT’S COMMENTS
In light of comments from the HDC Landscape Architect and Mr I Burman of 14 Brook Close, Council objects and/or seeks clarifications in relation to these elements of the amended proposals:
Boundary treatment plan
Water Lane frontage: objection to adding a cleft wood fence along the entrance of the development as this will enclose and will give the appearance of a private gated development. This is not desirable as the play area is intended to serve the wider community. Also in relation to this frontage:
a) While we agree with the landscape architect in relation to cleft wood fencing across the Water Lane frontage generally, there does need to be some fencing on both sides of the roadway across the stream simply for safety reasons. Surely metal railings are required (cleft wood not being fit for purpose and with relatively short replacement cycle)? Council seeks confirmation that railings on the sides of the roadway over the stream are provided-for elsewhere in the specifications.
b) The drawing shows a knee rail along the edge of the path at the Water Lane boundary, and continuing right across the road junction – presumably the drawing needs correction in this regard.
Clarification required: the line indicating the presence of existing hedgerows has disappeared in places – we seek reassurance that hedges have not been removed and that this is just an omission on the drawings.
Clarification is also required in relation to Mr Burman’s points:
a) that the revised plan seems to be in tension with works already in place, e.g. in relation to the brick wall to the side boundary of plot 34;
b) that there seems to be confusion about the ground levels inside vs outside the site boundary in this area, making it unclear what is the correct height of the timber panel fence.
Open Space and Green Corridor Planting
Tree rootballs: Council objects to the proposed reduction in sizes of planting tree rootballs, implying that trees will be considerably smaller than originally intended. Rootball sizes should remain as originally indicated, with root barriers used to protect buildings where necessary.
Council supports these Landscape Architect’s comments:
The amended proposal to use single species will be repetitive and prefer retention of original specification of Acers as per landscape strategy;
location of Amelanchier would be better at the front of either plot 43/44 or 41/42.
Rear of plots 35-38 – in the light of comments by Mr I Burman of 14 Brook Close, clarification is needed with regard to how the developer will secure the original agreement to maintain/reinforce the existing hedging along these rear gardens, as it appears that this hedge is actually located in adjacent gardens outside the site boundary.
Plot 1: the amended proposal for a retaining wall and grass lawn does not seem compatible with the previously specified retention/enhancement of the existing hedgerow.
DC/15/2211 (Discharge of obligations, Changing Rooms, Cricket Pavilion, Village Hall, Pre-School Playground Building, Allotments, Buffer strip) and DISC/15/0330 (Re. condition 9 of DC/15/1242: Materials schedule)
Sign-off of these applications/conditions has been subject to delay relating to issues of specification of colour of window frames and rainwater goods for the community buildings within the Abingworth development. Please note that, having now received and inspected the requested samples/ photographs Council confirms that it is satisfied with the proposed colouring of window frames and rainwater goods for the community buildings, i.e. Grey RAL 7015.
Response agreed by circulation 12 September
DC/16/2051 Prior Notification to install high speed broadband cabinet - Land Opposite Thakeham County Primary School The Street Thakeham Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3EP
Council welcomes new application DC/16/2051 for broadband cabinet opposite Thakeham First School, The Street, Thakeham, on the understanding that it will supersede DC/16/1589 – the difference being that the revised application proposes a more compact cabinet box which is more in sympathy with the Conservation Area location.
However the parish needs also to flag that there is a discrepancy (carried-over from original application DC/16/1589) between the proposed location of the broadband box shown in the application photographs - which is sensible (next to an existing telephone pole where the bank is less steep), as opposed to the map in the application which places the installation 35m further north-west at a narrower/steeper and much more visually intrusive point. Therefore Council would add to its support for this application the proviso that the proposed location is confirmed as the one proposed in the applicants’ photos and marked as ‘supported location’ in the map below.
173. Planning Applications for consideration
The Committee considered cases and agreed the following feedback to Horsham District Council:
DC/16/0905 The Platt Apsley Farm Coolham Road West Chiltington West Sussex RH20 2LJ
Erection of single storey side and rear extensions and a front porch
Council has no objection to the minor amendments that this application seeks to make to existing permissions under DC/13/1973.
DC/16/1925 Anstey Greenhurst Lane Thakeham Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3HA
Demolition of existing bungalow, garage and outbuildings and replacement with a new sustainable dwelling and detached garage
NO OBJECTION SUBJECT TO SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
Council welcomed the generally reduced scale of this revised proposal (as compared to those previously approved via DC/15/1079), including removal of the basement, and has no objection to the proposed design except in relation to the height of the new double garage, which concerns the neighbouring owners of Sunshine. Council understands that the applicant is willing to address this by halving the angle of the main roof span to reduce the ridge line height of the garage from 5.9m to 4.6m. Officers are asked to assist with resolving this issue, and also to re-impose conditions 4-13 relating to DC/15/1079 as appropriate.
DC/16/2005 Wentworth High Bar Lane Thakeham Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3EH
Surgery to Several Leylandii Trees
174. Abingworth development
174.1 The Clerk updated on the current situation. In relation to phase 1 (plots 1-21) the full sales launch was scheduled for 1 October (including permanent sales tent). Construction was proceeding with a view to completion by the end of 2016, with possibility of first occupancies in December. Work on plots 22-39 would follow. Following initial tree clearance, groundwork for the 20 keyworker units was due to start in early October. Roadworks to both north and south access junctions would be ongoing through to December. There had been some contact but no further proposals emerging in relation to phase 2 housing mix.
174.2 In response to a question from a member of the public, the Clerk confirmed that the parish had been given assurance that traffic calming measures (road treatments, upgrade of pedestrian crossing near High Bar Lane, signage and speed-warning signs) would follow the main roadworks. Action: Clerk to chase confirmation and timings.
174.3 Naming of the keyworker housing cul-de-sac. Members agreed that they were not keen on the developer suggestion of ‘Abingworth Close’, and there were mixed feelings about ‘Chesswood’. Action: Clerk to review historical maps again for further options, with a view to delegated response to HDC.
175. Crest Nicholson development, Water Lane
Cllr Scott Kerr reported that there had been a change of site manager for the Crest Nicholson development. House sales were continuing to lag behind expectations, but first house occupations were due in October. A set of proposed amendments to the boundary/planting arrangements for the scheme had been reviewed and comments to HDC had been agreed by circulation.
176. Other major planning proposals
The Chair reported that the HDC Development South meeting of 20 September had rejected the revised application from Gladmans Developments for 60 homes at the Snapes Corner site. In addition to standard planning considerations, some weight had been given to existing pressures on local infrastructure, including education and GP capacity.
177. Enforcement issues
Progress with current/ongoing cases were noted. Members welcomed news of a compliance order being issued in relation to Plot 3 Bramblefield, and it was agreed follow up other items. (Action: Clerk)
178. 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/16/0922 (T/16/10) Crest Nicholson Development Water Lane Storrington West Sussex
4 x flags and 2 x totem signs
Planning Cttee 23 May 2016
NO OBJECTION BUT REQUEST RELATING TO DURATION OF PERMISSION
Council does not object to the location or dimensions of this proposal, but asks officers to specify that the duration of the permission should be: five years or until the last house in the development is sold, whichever comes first.
4 The advertisement signs hereby permitted shall be removed before the 20 April 2021.
DC/15/2338 (T/16/25) Land Adjoining Little Paddocks Crays Lane Thakeham West Sussex
Retention of existing field shelter application DC/12/0282 originally subject to Article 4
Council does not oppose animal field shelters where they are appropriately sited and designed, but notes that it opposed the application for this field shelter when it was originally given temporary approval in 2012. The structure is of an unattractive design and is 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 has not improved in the intervening 4 years, and this proposal does not include any improvement works, Council’s view is that, logically, it cannot now be given approval as a permanent measure. If officers are minded to find a way to resolve this long-running issue, Council suggests a solution that requires the shelter being moved to a less prominent position in the field; possibly (depending on that position) with the addition of planted screening. Permitted: 09/08/2016
The HDC officer noted the parish’s objections but concluded that there was no adverse material harm to the current situation and extension of temporary permission could not be justified.
DC/16/0175 (T/16/9) Merrywood Farm Merrywood Lane Thakeham
Erection of a barn with attached lean-to and creation of an access track (DME/FM)
Planning Cttee 22 February 2016
SUPPORT SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENTS
Council supports the applicant’s aim to expand/diversify agricultural activity on the site, and agrees that a barn structure of the proposed dimensions/features is appropriate to that activity. However, as the first green space beyond the northern edge of the suburban built-up boundary at Merrywood Lane, and visible from footpaths, the site is visually sensitive in the countryside, and the proposed location of the large new barn within the field is considered unnecessarily prominent and intrusive. The development does however have Council’s support, subject to the location of the barn being moved as far as possible towards the north-west corner of the field, and being screened on both north and south sides with trees. We understand that the applicant is amenable to these adjustments. This change of location should remain compatible with using the existing field entrance to access the B2139.
1 July 2016 Revisions to plans submitted, including change of location proposed above.
3. The use of the access/driveway shall not commence until the vehicular access serving the development has been constructed (including a bound material from the back edge of the Highway boundary to prevent gravel overspill) in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This will include the gate being set back 10 m from the carriageway edge and the gate opening into the site.
4 No part of the development shall be first occupied until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 150 metres to the south and 2.4 metres by 160 metres to the north have been provided at the proposed site vehicular access onto Storrington Road in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once provided the splays shall thereafter be maintained and kept free of all obstructions over a height of 0.9 metre above adjoining carriageway level or as otherwise agreed.
5 In the event of the building(s) hereby permitted ceasing to be used for agricultural purposes as defined by Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 it/they shall be demolished (to include the removal of foundations) and all resultant materials removed from the site and the land reinstated to its former condition within 6 months of the cessation of such use or within such extended time as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
6 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.
7 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.
DC/16/1488 (T/16/36) Wheelwrights Hillside Walk Storrington Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3HL
First floor extension and new dormer within existing roof (FMc)
Planning Cttee 25 July 2016
Council noted that this was a modest 6’ 1st floor extension with no objectionable visual or amenity impact, and that there were no objections from neighbours. Officers were asked to consider applying conditions in relation to considerate working hours during construction.
DC/16/1487 (T/16/37) Touchwood, Coolham Road, West Chiltington
Erection of new stables with concrete pad to the front (Clerk)
DC/16/1705 Cumberland House Crays Lane Thakeham Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3ER
Repair of timber framed barn, placing on new base and plinth, re roofing and re cladding (Listed Building Consent) (RT)
DC/16/0240 (T/16/11) Paddock Green Farm Goose Green Lane Goose Green West Sussex
Erection of a single storey dwelling
Planning Cttee 21 March 2016
Council noted the desirability of resolving the long-running planning uncertainty regarding this site. The revised proposal presents the same footprint, external profile and materials previously approved by HDC. The change of use from B1 to residential is considered acceptable: the B1 use was a previous focus of parish concerns, the site originally included a dwelling, and is in the middle of an existing row of detached houses in substantial plots along the B2133.
1 The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside the defined built-up area boundary of any settlements, on a site which has not been 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 scheme would be contrary to the overarching strategy and hierarchical approach of concentrating development within the main settlements. Furthermore, the proposed development has not been demonstrated as being essential to its countryside location and the introduction of a residential dwelling, and the accumulation of additional ancillary domestic paraphernalia, would harm the character of the rural setting. Consequently, the proposal represents unsustainable development contrary to policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) and would fail to meet the definition of sustainable development within the National
Planning Policy Framework.
DC/16/1171 (T/16/26) Little Paddocks Crays Lane Thakeham Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3ER
Creation of disabled facilities including a 1.5 storey rear extension, single storey side extension and roof alterations to existing dormers
Council 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.
1 The proposed rear extension, by virtue of its scale and massing, would represent a dominant, and inappropriately scaled addition to the site, which would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling within the wider surrounding area, and is therefore considered inappropriately designed and unsympathetic in character, contrary to Policies 28 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework, and Paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework [nb. this proposal has now been resubmitted as DC/16/1702]
DC/16/1226 (T/16/27) Upper Champions Farm Barn Dukes Hill Thakeham West Sussex
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
Council noted that this application followed of 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. Council 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.
Council 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. Council 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. Council 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) to mitigate 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.
1 The application building is subject to Condition 4 of T/27/92 which states that, "Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1988, or orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, the building hereby approved shall only be used for agricultural purposes, as defined in Section 336 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, excluding use for the accommodation of livestock or for the storage of slurry or sewerage sludge." This condition removes the permitted development right conveyed under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and as such planning permission would be required for the proposed development.
2 Notwithstanding the above, the proposed use of the building due to its remote location and siting would be impractical in terms of having no power source or services. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Q.2. 1(a) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
DC/16/1638 (T/16/38) Plot 1 40 Crescent Rise Thakeham Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3NB
Amended proposal for previously approved application DC/15/2084 (Demolition of dwelling and erection of 2 detached dwellings with integral garages) to include a revised design for plot 1
Planning Cttee 25 July 2016 – action by circulation
Subject to noting that the gap between the houses at their nearest point is rather narrow, and asking officers to consider whether this could be widened by minor further adjustment (e.g. staggering the two units slightly).
1 The proposed development by reason of its size and design would result in overlooking and appear overbearing to existing properties (namely 42 Crescent Drive) to an extent that it would adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework
DC/16/1702 Little Paddocks Crays Lane Thakeham Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3ER
Description: Revised proposal for creation of disabled facilities including a 1.5 storey rear extension, single storey side extension and roof alterations to existing dormers following refusal of application DC/16/1171 (CI)
DC/15/0193 (T/15/04)Land East of Threals Lane, Threals Lane, West Chiltington
Erection of 8 new dwellings, comprising 6 detached and 2 semi-detached houses with related accesses, garaging and car parking.
The Committee noted that the appeal against refusal of the application above would be heard by HDC on 25 October 2016. Cllr Taylor was in liaison with colleagues at West Chiltington PC regarding possible presence/representations to the appeal.
179. Upcoming applications
There were no new applications to allocate.
180. Public participation session
No matters were raised under this item.
181. Any other business for noting or inclusion on a future agenda
181.1 In response to a query from Cllr Hounslow, the status of DC/16/0175 (T/16/9) Merrywood Farm (see item 178) was recapped. Members agreed the need to monitor that the new organic produce enterprise remained in business.
181.2 Cllr McConnachie flagged for further discussion at the next meeting the issue of varying current approaches to bank consolidation via planting and hard landscaping in The Street conservation area, in the context of the Neighbourhood Plan, and Parish Design Statement. Advice might be sought from the district Conservation Officer. (Action: Clerk/Chair)
181.3 Cllr MacEachern flagged the ongoing problem with bamboo outgrowth on Greenhurst Lane. The Clerk confirmed that this had been reported recently and undertook to check for WSCC action. (Action: Clerk)
181.4 Cllr Instance asked for information about rules around permission for roadside signage. Action: Clerk to obtain and circulate.
Meeting closed: 7.45 p.m.
Date of next meeting: Monday 24 October 2016 at 6.30pmondition 4 of T/27/92 which states that, "Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1988, or orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, the building hereby approved shall only be used for agricultural purposes, as defined in Section 336 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, excluding use for the accommodation of livestock or for the storage of slurry or sewerage sludge." This condition removes the permitted development right conveyed under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and as such planning permission would be required for the proposed development.
Erection of 8 new dwellings, comprising 6 detached and 2 semi-detached houses with related accesses