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 16-01-25
Select a size
Thakeham Parish Council
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING – Monday 25 January 2016, Village Hall
Meeting opened: 6.30 p.m.
Present Mrs C Hounslow Mr A Hunt Ms C Instance
Mr D MacEachern Mr N St-Clair Mr R Taylor
In attendance Mr O Richards Clerk to the Council
Mr E Linnell Councillor, for item 92
89. Apologies for absence
Apologies were received from Cllr McConnachie.
90. Interests of Members
In relation to item 92 Cllr St-Clair flagged that he was employed by ECE Architecture. As ECE Planning (part of ECE Architecture) were amongst respondents to the public consultation on the parish’s Neighbourhood Plan, Cllr St-Clair would not actively participate in that discussion.
91. Minutes of the last meeting
Minutes of the last meeting held on 23 November 2015 were approved and signed, and the feedback to HDC agreed by circulation on 21 December and 5 January was ratified.
92. Neighbourhood Plan
The Committee considered the responses to the recent Regulation 16 public consultation period received via HDC, with a view to providing the TNP Steering Group with the Council’s first thoughts towards further discussions with HDC. Members also received HDC’s own initial summary comments on the submissions. HDC’s earlier (autumn 2015) comments were shown (in black) for reference, their current comments were in blue. In a full discussion, the meeting concluded:
That the six developer responses (discounting the supportive comments of JMT/Thakeham Tiles), all sought inclusion of sites (or minor variations of sites) that were already known, considered and deliberately omitted in the current NP;
That the main criticisms of the NP that the developers put forward were likewise now new, e.g. the contention that the HDPF remains inadequate (which HDC robustly disagree, and is in any case not something the TNP can address); that the strategy/vision of the TNP is generally not open/positive enough about future housing growth (which TPC does not accept) and that the Abingworth & Water Lane developments should be discounted as already approved (which TPC & HDC also disagree).
Two developers (Gladman and Nexus) also contend that the HDPF designation of Storrington as a large village and therefore development ‘hub’ should require that proposed developments for Storrington suburbs be considered holistically and suggest that the current TNP cuts across this. In this regard TPC continues to consider the current NP to be aligned with the HDPF, and note that HDC’s recent refusal of the Gladman Snapes Corner proposal relied significantly on the principle of maintaining green gaps and resisting suburban coalescence between Thakeham and Storrington.
In summary, members’ view was that the submissions do not raise any new or persuasive case to materially change the thrust and principles of the current NP.
In any case, serious issues would arise if it was now suggested that one or more of the developer proposals should be included. Firstly there would be the issue of how one proposal could be singled-out without exposing the process to challenge from the others in terms of parity/criteria used. Secondly, any move to include further housing numbers of any significance would presumably require the process to be paused for a further pass of consultation with parish residents, which is highly undesirable. Amongst specifics it was noted that the signalled intention of the Abingworth developer to increase housing numbers/density on that site was subject to these points as much as any of the other proposals.
The Committee felt that the request from JMT/Thakeham Tiles for removal of reference to a figure (currently ‘approximately 50’) for the potential capacity of that site should be considered further by TNP Steering Group with HDC (whose advice had led to the inclusion of a specific figure).
Most members were willing, if available, to be part of a further meeting with HDC in mid-February.
93. Planning Applications for consideration
The Committee considered cases and agreed the following feedback to Horsham District Council:
93.1 Abingworth Nurseries
93.1.1 DISC/15/0330 (Abingworth development; re. condition 9 of DC/15/1242: Materials schedule)
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
Council is content with the proposed materials palette for the dwellings, but notes that the materials schedule for the community buildings has not yet been submitted due to ongoing discussions with key users. Council suggests application of a condition that a further materials schedule for the community buildings will be submitted, to reflect agreement between users and the developer, e.g. in relation to roofing and external cladding materials.
93.1.2 DC/15/2211 (Abingworth development) Specifications for changing rooms, cricket pavilion, village hall, buffer strip, pre-school play building and allotments as per S106 agreement
The Committee agreed the following comments, further to its response of October 2015.
1 Village Hall and Cricket Pavilion designs and specifications.
Dialogue between key building users and the developer has identified a number of very desirable minor improvements to both external and internal designs and specifications, which do not materially affect footprint or orientation of these buildings within the approved site layout. For example:
Roofline - adoption of more hipped and energy-efficient profile;
Change direction of raised walkway/disabled access ramp to side of building;
Removal of window to bar area and equipment store on Cricket Pavilion to improve security, externally windows to be replaced with dummy shutters;
Removal of 1No. WC within changing rooms and replacement with 2No. urinals;
Windows to Front Elevation fitted with toughened glass;
Security Shutters included to Bar and Kitchen hatches.
Larger central doors added to rear elevation onto terrace area (replacing the 3No. pairs of French casement doors currently shown);
Serving hatch added between hall and kitchen;
Baby Change unit added to Accessible WC;
838mm Internal Door added to refuse store;
External single door to Bin Store omitted.
Council suggests application of a condition that the current drawings are understood to be superseded and replacements will be submitted (either as part of this application or a new application) reflecting agreement between users and the developer on these and similar design improvements.
2 Changing Rooms.
Council does not expect further changes to external and internal designs of this building but does suggests the condition that there is an expectation that further detail of specification of materials and internal services (e.g. heating, security alarm) will be submitted, for consistency with equivalent specifications still being developed for the Village Hall and Cricket Pavilion.
Council notes that further drawings now submitted (January 2016) confirm its understanding of the position and layout of the 23 allotments. Council has no further comments on other specifications relating to the allotments.
4 Football and Cricket pitches.
The current specifications seem satisfactory as far as they go. However we have these further comments and requested conditions:
All pitches – drainage. Given the heavy soil conditions, we seek confirmation that specialist advice on sports field drainage has been (or will be) obtained and factored-into the ground preparation specification.
Cricket pitch orientation. We recommend that the square itself is turned slightly from its current orientation so that the north end does not directly face the pavilion because this would otherwise hinder viewing, especially if a sightscreen is used. It doesn’t need to be moved too much because an approximately N-S orientation is required, but just sufficient so the ends of the pitch strips point to the east side of the pavilion (Dept of Sport & Recreation recommended orientation around 15o east of north.)
Cricket pitch levels. Particular care should be taken to ensure that there are no significant changes in level between the square and surrounding outfield.
Cricket square. Although the current outline specification is satisfactory as far as it goes in relation to the outfield, we look for further detail in relation to the square itself (e.g. type of loam and seed mix to be used). After seeding the square should be adequately fenced to prevent damage by animals and humans.
Cricket pitch water supply. We seek confirmation that there will be an appropriate water supply for the square.
Cricket pitch - first growing season/handover. The contractor should be responsible for the maintenance of the square for the first growing season after germination of the sward; during this time the contractor should be responsible for cutting, fencing, fertilising, weed/fungicide/ worm deterrent etc. treatment as necessary and any necessary adjustment of levels, and, therefore, be responsible for ensuring that the cricket ground is suitable for club cricket use at handover.
Specialist consultant. An appropriate specialist consultant should be engaged with experience of producing good quality cricket grounds, to develop the detailed specification to ensure that the facility is fit for purpose, and to supervise the works.
5 Restrictive covenants.
Council also requests a condition that the developer should submit any proposed restrictive covenants relating to the development – both in the context of this specific application (i.e. any covenants intended to apply to the community buildings/amenities relating to fencing, commercial vehicle parking, satellite dishes etc.), and also any equivalent covenants relating to houses (e.g., in addition to previous examples, any restrictions relating to conservatories/sheds).
93.2 DC/15/2821 (T/16/2) The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Park Lane, Ashington
Repairs to chancel, nave and south porch roofs. (Listed Building Consent)
Council supports this conservation work to an important local building.
93.3 DC/16/0014 (T/16/03) The Old Rectory, The Street, Thakeham
Fell 3 x Sycamore (T2, T3, T7), 1 x Horse Chestnut (T8), 1 x Silver Birch (T9), 1 x Sophora (T11), 1 x Crab Apple (T12), 1 x Apple (T16). Surgery to 7 x Sycamore (T1, T6, T13), 2 x Oak (T4, T5), 1 x Bay (T14) and Treeline/Hedge/Roadside boundary (T15).
94. DC/15/2788 Land at Robell Way (Paula Rosa site, Storrington Parish)
Council noted that it had been invited to comment on this application, as this site although located in Storrington PC also abuts the Thakeham PC boundary. The following response was agreed:
Thakeham PC fully supports the objection, comments and reasoning of Storrington PC, which focus on the number/density of the proposed housing being excessive (and green space consequently inadequate), and the proposal therefore being out of line with that envisaged for this site under the near-finalised Storrington Neighbourhood Plan.
Notwithstanding any further iteration of the housing density issues, Thakeham PC also flags that appropriate conditions should be placed in relation to ensuring:
Safe vehicle traffic access to/from Water Lane (bearing in mind the additional traffic from the Crest Nicholson development nearly opposite), and in relation to improving the roundabout junction of Water Lane with Rock Road which is already problematic at peak times; and
Safe pedestrian access, both eastwards (from the site out to, southwards and across Water Lane – particularly for children walking to the Rydon school site), and also south-westwards, towards central Storrington.
95. Crest Nicholson development, Water Lane
The Committee noted that there had been little further recent liaison with the developer. The developer had been receptive to members’ advice around naming of roads. As well as access works, construction had begun on a new show home. Cllr St Clair undertook to arrange a further meeting with the developer and Cllr Scott Kerr. (Action: Cllr St Clair)
96. Enforcement issues
Current/ongoing cases were noted and the following actions agreed to press the HDC Enforcement team to take more robust action and to be more forthcoming in sharing information with the parish about the progress of cases with them to action. (Action: Clerk)
97. 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/15/2230 (T/15/39) 7 Heyshott House St Marys Close Thakeham
Surgery to a group of Hawthorn and Silver Birch Trees (NP)
Planning Cttee 26/10/15
Permitted 25 Nov 15
DC/15/2417 (T/15/43) Sussex Mushrooms, Storrington Road, Thakeham
Erection of a pump house and associated covered water storage tank (DME)
Planning Cttee 23/11/15
Council noted that this installation was a business necessity, that it should not be very visible due to a low ground level location, nor should it present any noise disturbance issues.
Permitted 27 Nov 2015
DC/14/2384 (T/14/37) 1 Raylands Picketty Corner Coolham Road RH20 2LT
Discharge of Section 106 obligation in respect of planning application reference T/45/03 (Clerk)
Planning Cttee 15 Dec 2014
OBJECTION. The reason why the District Council originally imposed these obligations is unclear but as there is no indication in the application that those reasons are no longer valid the Parish Council is unable to support a Discharge of those obligations.
1 July 2015: Obligations 1-3 above discharged by deed agreed with HDC & owners of Hawthorns. HDC legal ref: LI/PAG1119
Permitted: 11 December 2015
DC/15/1079 Anstey Greenhurst Lane Thakeham Pulborough West Sussex RH20 3HA
Demolition of existing bungalow, garage and out-buildings and replacement with a new sustainable dwelling. Affects the setting of a Listed Building (NS-C)
Planning Cttee 21 Sept 2015
DC/15/1079 (T/15/20) Substantially revised version of original proposal resubmitted, Sept 2015.
NO OBJECTION SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Noting that the revised proposal for the replacement dwelling had responded to most previous objections in terms of reduced footprint, lower roofline and a more sympathetic visual design for the rural setting, Council therefore withdrew its objection subject to requesting that officers apply conditions in relation to:
Use of high quality (and as far as possible traditional local) materials;
Re-instating some ecologically desirable parts of the original proposal (solar panels, bio-fuel system or similar);
A satisfactory drainage system design, particularly in relation to the proposed new basement, to avoid run-off from displaced groundwater affecting neighbours and Greenhurst Lane.
10 Full details of means of surface water drainage to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on development. The scheme agreed shall be implemented strictly in accordance with such agreement unless subsequent amendments have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority.11 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A B C D E F G and H of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwelling(s) unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.
12 The existing dwelling on the site known as 'Anstey' and as shown on drawing no's "1214 01E" and "1214 03C", shall be demolished and the debris removed from the site within a period of two months following the first occupation of the replacement dwelling hereby approved.
DC/15/2420 (T/15/44) Land at Threals Farm Threals Lane West Chiltington
Outline application for the demolition of redundant agricultural buildings and erection of 5no. dwellings with all matters reserved except access. (RT/FM)
The planning history of this site includes a previous refusal of a similar proposal in 2002. Council noted that the status of the site is part of a countryside area designated for agricultural use, and clearly not ‘brownfield’ - notwithstanding the poor condition of the existing buildings. The proposal conflicts generally with the new HDPF Countryside policy, which requires that there needs to be a specific reason for a development in the countryside. More specifically, the proposal directly conflicts with the designation of the site area within the parish’s Neighbourhood Plan (currently under s.16 consultation) as a green gap to prevent coalescence between Thakeham and West Chiltington. Council noted (and agrees with colleagues in West Chiltington) that the number and type of houses proposed does not address any locally identified need, and represents overdevelopment of the limited site. The site is also considered unsustainable in terms of travel to facilities. Residents would be wholly car-dependent with all journeys requiring use of the sunken farm track of Threals Lane which has inadequate passing places and no verge, and would be made even more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.
Council also notes the August 2015 recommendations of HDC’s Strategic Planning Team to refuse the closely parallel proposal DC/15/0193, which was a less intensive proposal for a site located slightly further north on Threals Lane.
If the Planning Officer considers the application should be permitted under delegated authority the Parish Council would like it referred to the Area South Committee to enable the Council to speak against the application.
1 The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside the defined built-up area boundary of West Chiltington, 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 scheme would be contrary to the overarching strategy and hierarchical approach of concentrating development within the main settlements. Furthermore the proposed development is not essential to its countryside location. Consequently it represents unsustainable development contrary to policies 1,2, 3, 4, and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).
2 Policy 16 of the Horsham District Planning Framework requires the provision of affordable housing on sites such as this, and must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure this Policy requirement. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 16 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50.
Patuca Bracken Lane Storrington Pulborough
DC/15/1679 (T/15/30) Erection one dwelling and creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access
Planning Committee 24 August 2015
The proposal would overdevelop the site. The large footprint of the (5 bedroom/2½ floor) dwelling requires that the new boundary fence will be within 1m of the existing property, and the proposed garage will directly abut this fence.
The proposal directly conflicts with a number of policies in the Heath Common Design Statement, which is linked (via Policy 6) to the near-finalised Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan. Specific conflicts with clauses of the Heath Common Guidance Criteria include:
- (2) Existing hedgerows… must be retained. The proposal involves permanent removal of the hedgerow separating the front of site from Bracken Lane. The scale of removal of tree cover in this stretch will change the character of the area;
- (8) Any new building…will not adversely affect neighbouring properties in any way and will not overlook or result in loss of light or privacy. The proposal will adversely affect the privacy of neighbouring properties, due to high overlooking rear windows;
- (9) Ridgelines of any new building...need to be at a height that will not dominate nearby dwellings thereby leading to a loss of amenity for neighbours. The exact ridgeline height of the proposed new dwelling is unclear in the proposals (which itself counts against them), but it is clearly higher than neighbouring properties, to an extent that may ‘dominate’;
- (12) Any new single dwelling development must not create new access onto the Lanes network. The proposal involves creating a new separate access.
Construction access via Bracken Lane will pose serious problems: the private lane is too narrow for lorries making bulk deliveries/removals and resulting obstruction/congestion will affect residents, waste collection and emergency services. Construction traffic is likely to damage the Lane.
Environmental/health objections include: (a) the proposal to burn waste on site, without provision for protection of neighbours (nb. disjunct between arboricultural and environment management plans in this regard). (b) likely future noise pollution for neighbours from air source heat pump and extractor fans.
Council also noted flaws in the suggested parallels with the nearby Yaffles development (DC/12/0317, permitted on appeal 2012), as there are different specific conflicts with design guidance criteria above. For instance in relation to loss of amenity privacy for neighbours: this proposal involves high overlooking rear dormer windows, unlike the other development.
1 Having regard to the siting, mass and scale of the proposed development and its relationship with site boundaries together with the pattern and character of the surrounding development, it is considered that the proposal represents an unsympathetic form of development out of character with the surrounding development contrary in particular with policies CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and Policy 32 and Policy 33 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework
Appeal Lodged 22/12/2015
98. Upcoming Applications: agreement of visit allocations
There were no new applications to allocate.
99. Any other business for noting or inclusion on a future agenda
The approach of a prospective resident for advice around permitted development to a bungalow was noted, and outline feedback agreed (action: Clerk).
Meeting closed: 8.00 p.m.
Date of next meeting: Monday 22 February 2016 at 6.30pm s this, and must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure this Policy requirement. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 16 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50.
- (8) Any new building…will not adversely affect neighbouring properties in any way and will not overlook or result in loss of light or privacy. The proposal will adversely affect the privacy of neighbouring pro