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: Thakeham Subdivison of fields TNP
Select a size
Subdivison of Fields
Produced by the Thakeham
Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee
Thakeham - Subdivison of Fields
Since 2010, agricultural land in Thakeham has been sold off in small plots and used as allotments or for hobby farming. Enclosure has led to the erection of a large number of sheds and greenhouses, the majority without planning permission. Horsham District Council (HDC) has required planning permission for the larger structures and the subsequent applications for these have been refused. Many smaller structures remain and have a harmful impact on the landscape and open countryside. (see photographs...)
An Article 4 direction was placed on some of the land in question in 2010. This removed permitted development rights and permission for enclosure was therefore required by HDC. HDC has permitted stock fencing despite strong objections from Thakeham Parish Council (TPC). Research carried out by TPC showed that district councils with similar problems, have successfully used Article 4 directions to prevent enclosure. Lack of enclosure discourages the erection of sheds, greenhouses etc.
A planning history is shown in Appendix 1.
TPC have strongly objected to all development on small plots.
TPC will obtain 23 allotments under DC/14/2161. Open countryside with poor access is not considered a suitable location for allotments by TPC. Allotments should be near to residential areas so that walking and cycling to allotments is possible and access is not dependent on cars. The new allotments will be adjacent to housing and will not be in a visibly prominent location. Some car parking will be provided so that heavy tools and other equipment can be delivered.
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Part 6 describes permitted development allowed for agricultural buildings and operations on plots of 5 hectares, plots between 0.4 and 5 hectares and 0.4 hectares and below. The development that has taken place does not accord with the permitted development as outlined in this Act.
A planning history for small plots not covered by an Article 4 direction is shown in Appendix 2.
The Inspectors’ comments on dismissing the appeals are shown as Appendix 3.
Their findings are summarised below:
As the site is elevated above the surrounding countryside, it is highly visible from Thakeham’s Conservation Area and public footpaths. There is a significant impact on the skyline and important views in the local area from the proliferation of small structures erected on the small plots.
Although a shed on its own would not be unduly inappropriate, together with many other similar structures on adjacent plots, there is a detrimental effect on open and exposed countryside.
If considered as allotments, then they are too far from the village, creating access problems from muddy tracks leading from The Street or from a dangerous access on the B2139.
The plots are artificially small and do not therefore constitute agricultural units. They are not ‘essential’ to the ‘countryside location’ and do not ‘support the needs of agriculture’ (as required by the General Development Control Policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
Small plots with Article 4 direction
Permit/Refused by HDC
Land south of little Garns
Plots 5&6 Bramblefield
Plot 3 Bramblefield
Plot 2 Bramblefield
Plot 4 Bramblefield
Plot 1 Bramblefield
Open fronted shed
Shed not permittted
Fencing & pens
Change of use, hardstanding
Fencing permitted only
Small plots not covered by an Article 4 direction
Land off Falconers
Land off Little Paddocks
3 year temporary permission
APP/Z3825/A/12/2177646 for Plot 1 Bramblefield
From the Inspector’s report:
4. The appeal site forms part of a sub-divided field located in countryside to the north of the village of Thakeham. The field, which is visible from footpaths, contains a number of sheds, field shelters and informal buildings. However, the shed that is the subject of this appeal has a significantly greater built footprint than these structures, which are characteristically of a modest scale. This creates an awkward contrast, as well as causing the development to appear out of proportion with the modest plot within which it is sited (which on the appellant’s measurement is some 54 metres by 47 metres). As a result, the structure appears both incongruous and overly large, thereby adding materially and harmfully to the already cluttered appearance of the locality.
5. Outside built-up area boundaries, policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (GDCP) resists development that is not considered essential to its countryside location. Additional criteria relate to matters such as supporting the needs of agriculture or forestry.
6. The appellant states that the new shed is needed to house a tractor, trailer, implements and a potting area in association with the site’s use for the growing of vegetables, fruit and flowers. However, given the plot’s modest dimensions, the size of the structure appears significantly larger than is required to accommodate such items and activities. Indeed, I saw on my visit that a tractor and some other items were located within another smaller shed within the plot, the lawfulness of which is queried by the Council. On the evidence, the appeal scheme fails the test of necessity required by policy GDCP DC1.
7. For these reasons, I conclude that the development unacceptably harms the area’s character and appearance, contrary to policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and GDCP policies DC1 and DC9. I have considered all the other matters raised, but none change my overall conclusion that the appeal should not succeed.”
APP/Z3825/A/12/2179966 for Plots 5 & 6 Bramblefield
“Statutory development plan policy is contained in the Core Strategy and in the General Development Control Policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework. In contributing to the proliferation of buildings on the surrounding network of small plots, the appeal proposal would fail to protect or conserve the landscape in the terms of Core Strategy Policy CP 1 which states that activities which may influence [landscape] character should only take place where ... the landscape character is protected, conserved or enhanced, taking into account key landscape and settlement characteristics. Though the activities carried out on site are in essence agricultural, the site itself is artificially small and does not constitute an agricultural unit in planning terms: so that the proposal is not essential to its countryside location and does not support the needs of agriculture in the terms of Policy DC 1. Nor does the disputed building relate sympathetically with the built surroundings, open spaces and routes within and adjoining the site, including any impact on the skyline and important views as Policy DC 9 requires.”
Small Plots at Bramblefield looking NW
Small Plots at Bramblefield looking North to South
Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan Subdivision of Fields Supporting Document January 2015
Page 8 of 8
“Statutory development plan policy is contained in the Core Strategy and in the General Development Control Policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework. In contributing to the proliferation of buildings on the surrounding network of small plots, the appeal proposal would fail to protect or conserve the landscape in the terms of Core Strategy Policy CP 1 which states that activities which may influence [landscape] character should only take place where ... the landscape character is protected, conserved or enhanced, taking into account key landscape and settlement characteristics. Though the activities carried out on site are in essence agricultural, the site itself is artificially small and does not constitute an agricultural unit in planning terms: so that the proposal is not essential to its countryside location and does not support the needs of agriculture in the terms of Policy DC 1. Nor does the disputed building relate sympathetica