AGENDA ITEM 05

Chichester District Council

Planning Committee

Wednesday 25 June 2014

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

THE BACKGROUND PAPERS RELATING TO THIS REPORT CONSIST OF REPRESENTATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES,

REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND OBSERVATIONS FROM STATUTORY AND OTHER CONSULTEES

RECOMMENDATIONS APPEAR IN CODED FORM.

THE FULL TEXT OF CONDITIONS OR REASONS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST AT THE COUNCIL OFFICES OR CAN BE VIEWED ONLINE AT

WWW.CHICHESTER.GOV.UK QUOTING THE APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER

How applications are referenced

a) First 2 Digits = Parish

b) Next 2 Digits = Year c) Next 5 Digits = Application Number d) Final Letters = Application Type

Application Type

ADV Advert Application AGR Agricultural Application (following PNO) CMA County Matter Application (eg Minerals) CAC Conservation Area Consent COU Change of Use CPO Consultation with County Planning (REG3) DEM Demolition Application DOM Domestic Application (Householder) ELD Existing Lawful Development FUL Full Application GVT Government Department Application HSC Hazardous Substance Consent LBC Listed Building Consent OHL Overhead Electricity Line OUT Outline Application PLD Proposed Lawful Development PNO Prior Notification (Agr, Dem, Tel) REG3 District Application – Reg 3 REG4 District Application – Reg 4 REM Approval of Reserved Matters REN Renewal (of Temporary Permission) TCA Tree in Conservation Area TEL Telecommunication Application (After PNO) TPA Works to tree subject of a TPO

CONACC Accesses CONADV Adverts CONAGR Agricultural CONBC Breach of Conditions CONCD Coastal CONCMA County matters CONCOM Commercial/Industrial/Business CONDWE Unauthorised dwellings CONENG Engineering operations CONHDG Hedgerows CONHH Householders CONLB Listed Buildings CONMHC Mobile homes / caravans CONREC Recreation / sports CONSH Stables / horses CONT Trees CONTEM Temporary uses – markets/shooting/ motorbikes CONTRV Travellers CONWST Wasteland

Committee report changes appear in bold text. Application Status ALLOW Appeal Allowed APP Appeal in Progress APPRET Invalid Application Returned APPWDN Appeal Withdrawn BCO Building Work Complete BST Building Work Started CLOSED Case Closed CRTACT Court Action Agreed CRTDEC Hearing Decision Made CSS Called in by Secretary of State DEC Decided DECDET Decline to determine DEFCH Defer – Chairman DISMIS Appeal Dismissed HOLD Application Clock Stopped INV Application Invalid on Receipt LEG Defer – Legal Agreement LIC Licence Issued NFA No Further Action NODEC No Decision NONDET Never to be determined NOOBJ No Objection NOTICE Notice Issued NOTPRO Not to Prepare a Tree Preservation Order OBJ Objection PCNENF PCN Served, Enforcement Pending PCO Pending Consideration PD Permitted Development PDE Pending Decision PER Application Permitted PLNREC DC Application Submitted PPNR Planning Permission Required S64 PPNREQ Planning Permission Not Required REC Application Received REF Application Refused REVOKE Permission Revoked S32 Section 32 Notice SPLIT Split Decision STPSRV Stop Notice Served STPWTH Stop Notice Withdrawn VAL Valid Application Received WDN Application Withdrawn YESTPO Prepare a Tree Preservation Order

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chichester District Council Planning Applications

Item No

Application No Site Address/Proposal Page No

1 CC/14/01017/ADV Various Roundabouts Chichester West Sussex 3 no signs on Portfield Roundabout, 4 no signs on Stockbridge Roundabout, 5 no signs on Fishbourne Roundabout, 4 no signs on Whyke Roundabout and 5 no signs on Bognor Roundabout

5

2 EWB/14/00457/OUT Land South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex Erection of 160 residential dwellings, new vehicular access, open space, and other ancillary works

13

3 HN/13/04020/FUL Barn North of Hunston Dairy Farm Hunston West Sussex Change of use from agricultural barn to automobile repair business

87

4 LX/13/03809/OUT Land South of Loxwood Farm Place High Street Loxwood West Sussex Erection of 25 no residential dwellings comprising of 14 no private residential dwellings and 11 no affordable residential dwellings, associated private amenity space and parking

95

5 PS/14/00799/FUL Strudgwick Farm Plaistow Road Loxwood Billingshurst RH14 0TZ Application for retrospective planning permission under section 73A for the extension of roof on piggery

124

6 PS/14/00927/FUL Staddle Stones The Drive Loxwood Billingshurst RH14 0TD Single dwelling to rear of Staddle Stones

130

7 SI/14/00884/FUL Littleacre Keynor Lane Sidlesham Chichester PO20 7NL The proposed re-siting of existing mobile home, proposed additional 6 pitch site including the provision of utility buildings for settled gypsy accommodation, re-positioning and widening of existing access following removal of existing stables and hay barn

138

8 TG/14/00797/FUL Land to North East of Tangmere Military Aviation Museum Gamecock Terrace Tangmere West Sussex Variation of condition 11 (mix of dwellings) and 13 (layout and siting) to planning permission TG/11/00640/EXT for mixed-use redevelopment with access from Meadow Way and including land for community use, 160 dwellings and ancillary car parking, open space and landscaping

151

9 TG/14/01117/DOM 64 Churchwood Drive Tangmere Chichester West Sussex PO20 2GS Single storey rear extension

164

10 WW/14/00786/DOM Hesperus Roman Landing West Wittering Chichester West Sussex PO20 8AL New swimming pool installation with associated HW decking. Installation of new and replacement fencing in matching HW

170

South Downs National Park Authority Planning Applications

11 SDNP/14/01657/CND Popple Meadows Graffham Petworth 185

GU28 0QF Application for the removal of condition 2 and the variation of condition 3 of planning application number: SDNP/13/01674/FUL – condition 2 to be removed as it is considered

that the specified mitigation works proposed are no longer necessary as existing landscaping to the front (north-west) of the approved dwelling already secures a satisfactory form of development that is in keeping with the amenities and character of the area. Condition 3 to be varied to state: ‘Existing landscaping to the front (north-west) of the approved dwelling shall remain in place in perpetuity and no alterations or changes to shall be made unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority’

Parish: Chichester

Ward: Chichester West

1 CC/14/01017/ADV

Proposal 3 no signs on Portfield Roundabout, 4 no signs on Stockbridge Roundabout,

5 no signs on Fishbourne Roundabout, 4 no signs on Whyke Roundabout and 5 no signs on Bognor Roundabout.

Site Various Roundabouts Chichester West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 484651 (N) 104433

Applicant Economic Development Service

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral City Council Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1. The application relates to 5 separate roundabouts along Chichester's A27(T), Portfield Roundabout, Stockbridge Roundabout, Fishbourne Roundabout, Whyke Roundabout and Bognor Roundabout. All the roundabouts except the Stockbridge Roundabout are sited within the rural area. All the roundabouts are slightly raised in the centre and have various degrees of landscaping. The roundabouts have some form of highway signage at present. Currently, there is existing sponsorship signage on 4 of the roundabouts excluding Bognor Roundabout. The signs are identical in size, measuring 800mm in height supported by timber posts measuring 500mm from the ground to the bottom of the sign which is 300mm in height and 900mm in width. There are 3no. signs on the Roundabout, 4no. signs on the Stockbridge Roundabout, 2no signs on the Whyke Roundabout and 2no signs on the Portfield Roundabout. The existing signage is all sited outside Areas of Advertisement Control. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application seeks to replace the existing signage and provide additional signage on several of the 5 separate roundabouts. 2no. additional signs are proposed on the Fishbourne Roundabout, no additional signage is proposed on Stockbridge Roundabout, 2no. additional signs are proposed on Whyke Roundabout, 1no. additional sign is proposed on the Portfield Roundabout, and there are 5no. new signs proposed on the Bognor Roundabout. The signs would measure the same as the existing signage and would be displayed when a sponsor comes forward. 4.0 History 08/03320/PE REC Proposed signage on various

roundabouts throughout Chichester

08/05173/ADV PER 2 no. signs on Portfield

Roundabout, 4 no. signs on Stockbridge Roundabout, 3 no. signs on Tesco Roundabout and 2 no. signs on Whyke Roundabout.

14/01017/ADV PDE 3 no. signs on Portfield

Roundabout, 4 no. signs on Stockbridge Roundabout, 5 no. signs on Fishbourne Roundabout, 4 no. signs on Whyke Roundabout and 5 no. signs on Bognor Roundabout.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area YES

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 City and Parish Councils Chichester City Council - Objection on the grounds of insufficient information being supplied with the application and the additional signs would result in a visual clutter on the roundabouts No responses have been received from Fishbourne Parish Council, North Mundham Parish Council, Oving Parish Council or Donnington Parish Council. 6.2 WSCC - Local Development Division No comments - require Highways Agency's response. 6.3 Highways Agency The HA will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact the safe and efficient operation of the Strategic Road Network. As such I attach the Agency's Guidance Note on sponsorship signage and landscaping schemes that needs to be taken into account and accorded with during the design and installation of the signs. There are particular aspects of the application that are not in accordance with the attached guidance and could lead to drivers being distracted. In addition, a driver losing control of his/her vehicle when entering the roundabout could be at risk of colliding with the signs when they are positioned to the left of the chevron signs on the central, circular island on each roundabout. We therefore request that you ensure that:- 1. No sponsorship sign is installed within 2 metres of the 'Sharp Change of Direction' chevron signs on the central island of the roundabout, so that the risk of drivers being distracted by the sponsorship sign is minimised and to minimise the risk of a sponsorship sign obstructing visibility to the chevron signs 2. No sponsorship sign is installed to the left of the 'Sharp Change of Direction' chevron signs (when facing the chevron signs from the road entering the roundabout), so that a vehicle losing control when entering the roundabout is unlikely to collide with the sponsorship sign and risk injury to the driver, or risk the sign being catapulted into the path of other road users. They should therefore be installed to the right of the chevron signs

3. No sponsorship sign has a total height (above the adjacent carriageway) of more than 800mm, in order to minimise the risk of obstructing visibility to highway signs and obstructing visibility between vehicles moving around the roundabout's circulatory carriageway 4. No sponsorship sign is installed within 1 metre of the edge of the carriageway to safeguard against collision with the overhang from a circulating vehicle 5. All sponsorship sign posts will be of rigid construction and not 'free standing' as stated on the application form (although the planning application forms indicates that signs will be 'free standing', it is assumed that their posts will be inserted into the ground to a depth suitable to ensure that the signs have adequate support in windy conditions) 6. The potential locations of all sponsorship signs are checked, using a portable electronic scanner, for the presence of buried statutory undertakers plant (utilities) prior to the support posts being installed 7. The 21 sponsorship sign locations are the subject of a road safety audit, to be carried out in accordance with the DfT's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges standard HD 19/03, and that all recommendations from such an audit are accorded with prior to installation of the signs. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE9 Advertisements 7.3 At Council on 24 April 2014 it was resolved to formally submit the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications to the Secretary of State for Examination at the end of May 2014. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.4 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: A1 - A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow

B1 - Managing a changing environment National Policy and Guidance 7.5 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), and paragraph 56. 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) The appearance of the signage on the surrounding area and effect on visual amenity; ii) Highway safety; Assessment i) The appearance of the signage on the surrounding area and effect on visual amenity 8.1 The Stockbridge Roundabout is sited within the Settlement Policy Area and as a result the signage is considered acceptable in the urban area. There is no additional signage proposed on this roundabout. The existing signage should be removed prior to any new signage being installed and this would be controlled by a condition. 8.2 The other roundabouts are sited within the rural area, on the edge of the Settlement Policy Areas. Areas of Special Advertisement Control bisect the Fishbourne Roundabout, Whyke Roundabout, Portfield Roundabout and Bognor Roundabout. Having regard to Policy BE9, although the Area of Advertisement Control bisects these roundabouts, there is not considered to be a definitive line on site, and the area should be read as a whole. It is not considered that it would be reasonable to reject signage on another part of the same roundabout because it is within an Area of Advertisement Control as there are no significant differences in the physical nature of the roundabouts as a whole. 8.3 Given the size of the roundabouts, it is considered that the scale of the proposed signage which is reasonably restrained in nature, respects the general character of its immediate surroundings and as such would not detract from the character of the surrounding area or result in demonstrable harm to visual amenity. The Fisbourne, Bognor and Portfield roundabouts are associated with nearby commercial development and signage associated with it will not be seen out of context with those areas. The comments from the City Council

are noted, however the sign shown is an example only and the logos will change depending upon the sponsor and this display requirement would be controlled by condition. With reference to the City Council's comments realting to visual clutter, the advertisements would be well spaced on the roundabout and of small scale. On approach to the roundabout from each direction only one sign would be seen by road users. The colour format and design will be strictly controlled to ensure that the signage remains restrained in its appearance. ii) Highway safety 8.4 The Highways Agency have responded generally to all the signage proposed on the roundabouts. There are several conditions which have been attached to their response which are necessary to implement for the purposes of ensuring an appropriate level of highway safety. These are included in the significant conditions set out below. Provided these are adhered to, the Highway Agency would have no objection to the proposed works. Significant Conditions 1) Prior to the display of each sign, full details of the advertisement proposed shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter any change in signage must first be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and for the purposes of clarification. 2) Prior to the installation of any of the new signs on each roundabout all existing signs controlled by Chichester District Council on that roundabout shall be removed and the ground made good. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 3) No sponsorship sign should be installed within 2 metres of the 'Sharp Change of Direction' chevron signs on the central island of the roundabout. Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety to ensure that the risk of drivers being distracted by the sponsorship sign is minimised and to minimise the risk of a sponsorship sign obstructing visibility to the chevron signs 45) All sponsorship signs should be installed to the right of chevron signs and no sponsorship sign shall be installed to the left of the 'Sharp Change of Direction' chevron signs (when facing the chevron signs from the road entering the roundabout). Reason: In the interests of highway safety to ensure that a vehicle losing control when entering the roundabout is unlikely to collide with the sponsorship sign and risk injury to the driver, or risk the sign being catapulted into the path of other road users. 5) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no sponsorship sign shall have a total height (above the adjacent carriageway) of more than 800mm. Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in order to minimise the risk of obstructing visibility to highway signs and obstructing visibility between vehicles moving around the roundabout's circulatory carriageway. 6) No sponsorship sign shall be installed within 1 metre of the edge of the carriageway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to safeguard against collision with the overhang from a circulating vehicle. 7) Prior to the installation of the signage, the 21 sponsorship sign locations shall be the subject of a road safety audit, to be carried out in accordance with the DfT's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges standard HD 19/03, and that all recommendations from such an audit are accorded with prior to installation of the signs. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Conclusion The proposed signage is of an appropriate design which would not result in harm to the visual amenity of their surroundings not to highway safety provided the conditions relating to this aspect are adhered to. The size of the advertisements is acceptable however further details of the signage will be required when a sponsor comes forward. Therefore, based on the above it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies BE9, BE11 and RE1. The application is therefore recommended for approval. Human Rights In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 U86019 U86019 - Plans 2 U86017 U86017 - Sign details 3 U86018 U86018 - Installation 4 U86020 U86020 - Position of signs 5 U86021 U86021 - Position of signs 6 U86022 U86022 - Height 7 U86023 U86023 - Position of signage 8 U86025 U86025 - Road safety audit INFORMATIVE 9 U86024 U86024 - INF - Utilities check For further information on this application please contact Sophie Locke on 01243 534734

Parish: East Wittering And Bracklesham

Ward: East Wittering

2 EWB/14/00457/OUT

Proposal Erection of 160 residential dwellings, new vehicular access, open space, and

other ancillary works

Site Land South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 481021 (N) 96831

Applicant Wates Development Ltd RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPEAL BE CONTESTED AS THE APPLICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN REFUSED PERMISSION

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Exceptional level of public interest 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site comprises an open, broadly level grade 3A arable field of approximately 5.59 hectares, located to the north-east of Bracklesham village centre. The site is not subject to any specific landscape designation. It is approximately 280 metres west of Earnley Conservation Area along Clappers Lane. The northern boundary of the site with Clappers Lane is defined for the major part by a semi-mature tree belt approximately 12 metres deep, a field access in the NW corner and a roadside ditch. To the west the site is bounded by the rear gardens of existing housing at Grayswood Avenue and Barton Way comprising predominantly bungalows. The west site boundary forms the SPA boundary for Bracklesham. The eastern boundary comprises a continuous, dense and substantial tree belt/hedgerow east of which is further arable land. To the south, beyond a robust field hedgerow and ditch the site adjoins another arable field which following a successful appeal benefits from full planning permission for a development of 50 dwellings. To the south of this is the Bracklesham Barn Community Centre and recreation area. In physical and visual terms the application site is considered to be well-defined and contained within existing man-made and natural landscape features. 2.2 Bracklesham village is approximately 11km from Chichester City, linked by the B2198 and A286. Local village facilities including a convenience store, post office, shops, pubs and a childrens nursery are around 450m from the southern boundary of the site and would be accessed through the 50 dwelling development to the south and along Beech Avenue. These services and facilities supplement the wider range available in East Wittering centre some 1.5km to the west. The good accessibility and range of facilities within walking distance together with the available bus service combine to ensure the site must be considered as in a relatively sustainable location. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 'The applicant has lodged an appeal against the failure of the Local Planning Authority to determine the outline planning application within the prescribed 13 week period for a major application. The appeal is to be held by way of a Public Inquiry. The final decision on the planning application now therefore rests with the Planning Inspectorate rather than the Local Planning Authority which must now resolve how it would have determined the planning application had an appeal against non-determination not been lodged. ' 3.2 The application is submitted in outline form with all matters apart from access reserved for consideration as part of a later application. It proposes the erection of 160 dwellings with a new vehicular access onto Clappers Lane at the northern boundary. The proposed housing mix is:

No. of bedrooms Affordable Private (Market)

1 10 9

2 29 24

3 23 53

4 2 10

Total 64 96

3.3 Although 'layout' is a reserved matter, the application is accompanied by an illustrative block parameters plan which shows the main vehicular access road running north-south through the site and linking through to the approved 50 dwelling scheme on the adjoining land to the south. It also shows secondary access routes, an area of open space in the north-east corner and a smaller area adjacent to the south boundary as well as a large area of open space on the peninsula of land which extends south adjacent to the existing playing fields. Although 'scale' is also a reserved matter, the illustrative plan shows a development of predominantly 2 storey dwellings with pockets of up to 2.5 storeys. The existing landscape buffers on the east and north boundary with Clappers Lane are retained. A second plan - the indicative landscape strategy plan - builds on the parameters plan and shows how the proposed housing could be laid out on the site without committing the developer to that layout. 4.0 History 13/03817/EIA PCO 220 dwellings together with

associated roads, parking on approximatley 4.55ha. Open space on approximately 0.68ha. 132 open maket units with a mix of 1,2,3 and 4 be3d units to be agreed amd 88 affordable units (40%) with a mix of 1,2,3 and 4 bed units to be agreed. Adequate car parking for around 376 spaces.

1 4/00457/OUT PDE Erection of 160 residential

dwellings, new vehicular access, open space, and other ancillary works.

14/01806/OUT REC Erection of 140 residential

dwellings, new vehicular access, open space, and other ancillary works.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area NO

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO

- Flood Zone 2 YES (part)

- Flood Zone 3 YES (part)

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations Index of Parish Council Representations Page East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council 17 Earnley Parish Council First Letter 46 Second Letter 54 Third Letter 59 Fourth Letter 60 West Wittering Parish Council 62 West Itchenor Parish Council 63 Birdham Parish Council 64 Donnington Parish Council 70 Consultees and Other Representations Pages 71 to 76 6.1 East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council The Parish Council objects strongly to this development, as it would to any one of this type. There are many reasons for this objection to the development of this greenfield site. There is no justification for building on this site when there are more appropriate and smaller sites within the village and others closer to Chichester which will not have many of the problems listed below. e.g. Land west of Tesco at Fishbourne roundabout. With the closure of Cobham Microwave in Stocks Lane, not only have local jobs been lost but the land could now available for housing and is likely to be proposed in the forthcoming East Wittering and Bracklesham Neighbourhood Plan. As no business is likely to wish to locate on that site due to its distance from the main road network, it could provide an ideal location for houses, closer to all the amenities and therefore more sustainable. This Parish Council firmly believes that the 160 dwellings proposal should be viewed quite separately from the 50 dwellings already approved just south of and contiguous with the 160 proposed site. At their public presentation, Genesis Town Planning, acting for the developers, gave the impression that the planning inspector for the 50 somehow gave a green light to the further 160 dwellings. However, a careful reading of the decision letter does not justify this conclusion: 1) In considering the question of sustainability, the inspector concluded on the 50 "that the appeal site, while perhaps sub optimal in terms of its transport sustainability is by no means unsustainable. In fact, I consider that it is sustainably located for a housing scheme of its size. Arguably, therefore, the scheme should benefit from the Framework's presumption in favour of sustainable development" (para 25, page 5 ) Earlier the Inspector stated that "sustainability in locational terms is relative to scale" (para 23, page 5). It follows that this application, which is a scheme nearly 4 and half times that size is unsustainable. 2) The second issue that the inspector considered is whether or not the 50 dwellings proposal contravened the CDC Interim Planning Document (the FAD) in terms of artificially subdividing a larger site. He concluded that because the 50 site had its own clear boundary, the FAD had not been contravened. He went on to say "That said, there is no obvious

physical reason why the adjoining land could not be developed at a future date, and be physically connected with the current appeal site" (para 29, page 6 ). At their presentation, Genesis quoted, out of context, only the first part of this quote, as if it gave a green light. The inspector rightly went on to say "But any further proposals are not a matter for me". It seems clear that the inspector only referred to the plans to build on the adjoining land in the context of denying that there was a contravention of the FAD. 1. Character of the area East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish is a rural area and seaside holiday destination. There are a very large number of holiday caravans and other holiday accommodation in the parish and adjoining parishes. Part of the area's character is that it does not have much in the way of industrial estates nor business parks. Many shops and food outlets only survive because of the very large number of holidaymakers. It is essential that this character is maintained for the economy of the area. East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish and Village is located in the south west area of Chichester District Council on the West Manhood Peninsular within the county of West Sussex. Close to the historical market town of Chichester itself, seven miles distant, the village is located in a relatively isolated and tranquil seaside rural area of the county, the nearest main roads being the B2198 and A286 with main line railway stations being located some 8 miles distant at Chichester. East Wittering is normally reached via seven mile "cul de sac" country road as it is not on any through road to any other place of significance. East Wittering has official recognition as a tourist area of peace and tranquillity. It is inappropriate to build a large housing development in this location which will be detrimental to the rural aspect which is so important to our tourism economy. 2. Coalescence Earnley Parish is separated on the south from East Wittering by the Broad Rife, except at one point where it crosses that stream to reach the sea coast. Most of the eastern boundary, adjoining Sidlesham, is formed by another small stream which joins the Broad Rife; but the northern portion, representing the former parish of Almodington, is bounded by a road from Bachmere's Farm, just in Birdham parish. Here an 18th-century octagonal tapering windmill, covered with weather-boarding, is now disused but was still in active use in 1939. On the west, near Hundredsteddle Farm, the bounds of Earnley are curiously intermixed with those of the Witterings. The church, Manor Farm, and a few cottages are grouped at the centre of the parish round the junction of three lanes. CDC Interim Policy Statement on Housing - Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) states: "New housing development may be acceptable outside of existing Settlement Policy Areas providing the following criteria, where relevant to the development, have been satisfactorily addressed:" Criteria 7 states: "The likely impact of the development individually, or cumulatively, around the edges of a settlement does not result in the actual or perceived coalescence of Settlement Policy Areas (as defined by a SPA boundary identified in the Saved Policies of the Local Plan)".

Although the development is said to be outside the SPA, this Parish Council believes that while Earnley is closely allied to East Wittering and Bracklesham, it is an entirely separate entity and should be treated as if it is outside of the SPA, in which case the proposed development would lead to a very real coalescence with the village of Earnley and therefore would be in breach of the CDC's criteria 7of the FAD requirement The National Planning Policy Framework States: "The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:……protecting and enhancing valued landscapes … ,preventing developments contributing to … unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution.." (para 109, pages 25,26) "Planning policies and decisions should aim to: - avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development - identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason" (para 123, page 29) Earnley Conservation Area - Character Appraisal & Management Proposals - Approved by Chichester District Council in May 2013 "The village is surrounded by open countryside, providing an attractive setting on all sides, apart from the west, where some limited modern development has impinged" (section 2.3, page 5) "There is no street lighting …. There is a 30 mph limit throughout the conservation area" (section 5.5 page 12) "At certain times of the year there can be increased traffic through the village which is detrimental to the amenity of the area" (section 6.3, page 13) "Recommendation: As opportunities arise the Parish Council, District Council & County Council will continue to seek ways of improving pedestrian safety and reducing traffic in Earnley whilst protecting the special character of the Conservation Area" (section 2.3 page 15). "The revised document has been approved by Chichester District Council for development control purposes on 7 May 2013 and will be a material consideration when making decisions about applications for development within, or on the edges of, the Earnley Conservation Area". (Appendix 2, page 21) 3. Employment Under the previous application on the adjacent site (EWB/12/02461/FUL,Wates Development Ltd. Land North East Of Beech Avenue Bracklesham. Construction of 50 residential dwellings, new vehicular access, open space and other ancillary works), Wates inaccurately made much of the fact that Cobham Microwave formerly known as Credowans, Stocks Lane, were expanding and taking on additional staff, thus providing ample employment opportunities nearby. This Parish Council stated quite clearly that the opposite was the case and in fact the company was relocating elsewhere. This fact was ignored by the CDC Planning Officers and indeed by the planning Inspector. Cobham have now issued redundancy notices to their staff as the workload is being relocated in France. Therefore employment opportunities in the area are now reduced. A search for other job vacancies in a 4 kilometre area of Bracklesham yielded two vacancies, both female care assistants. A later review yielded none. Hilton Park in East Wittering has vacant lots. Businesses do not wish to locate to this area, which is effectively at the end of a

7 mile cul-de-sac, because of the continually increasing expense of travelling and problems of transport. Not only does the road to the West Manhood suffer from congestion during the working week, but in the summer, when the weather is hot, the traffic to West Wittering Beach Car Park can increase delays considerably. There are seasonal jobs in the area but these are largely taken by students and are clearly not suitable as main income employment and with our changeable weather the prosperity of this employment sector is very erratic. Therefore there is very little chance of newcomers finding a job locally and seemingly no prospect of the situation changing. In relation to Manhood Peninsula planning challenges The Emerging CDC Local Plan 2014-29 states: "The local economy is heavily dependent on tourism, agriculture and horticulture, resulting in a relative lack of employment opportunities with many local jobs seasonal and poorly paid." (section 13.1, page 127) and However, there are concerns about the accessibility to employment and facilities and the potential impact of further traffic increases on local roads" (section 13.12, page 134) This is not an appropriate site to build more housing in an area where job opportunities have been reduced and other jobs are a considerable commute away. 4 Primary School Wates have made much of the fact that the local Primary School is able to able to cope with the additional 160 houses in Clappers Lane. East Wittering School, which has better performance than West Wittering, Birdham, and Sidlesham in terms of pupil attainment currently, has the capacity to accept in the region of a further 75 pupils without the need to add any new buildings. Many parents who live in East Wittering and Bracklesham choose to send their children to schools outside of the area, an example being mini buses leaving the area daily with children who are of a catholic faith. In recent years East Wittering School's capacity had been increased to service the demand of Selsey's rampant house building programme, mini buses and taxis ferried children from Selsey and back each day. However further possible impact upon the school will obviously arise when the cumulative effect of housing on the Manhood is taken into account because all of the other schools on the Manhood are full. They are completely full and they have little or no space on their sites to expand for the erection of temporary buildings. The result will be that no spaces will be available at any of these other schools for parents resident in our parish who would prefer not to use East Wittering School. This will obviously also apply to parents resident elsewhere on the Manhood peninsular. They face funding and arranging their own transport to another school which will most certainly be off of the peninsular, or have to accept a place at East Wittering School. It is obvious therefore that this application and every other planning application in our surrounding parishes will impact on East Wittering School because the surrounding schools are already full. See Chart below:

Location Parish Houses Bell Lane Tawney 30 Bell Lane Rowan Birdham 27 Birdham Road Apuldram 9 Crooked Lane Birdham 15 Main Road-Longmeadow Birdham 28 Southfield Close Donnington 112 Stockbridge Road-Pesketts Donnington 22 The Nurseries-Queens Avenue Donnington 5 Beech Avenue East Wittering & Bracklesham 50 Piggery Hall Lane East Wittering & Bracklesham 18 Boughtons East Wittering & Bracklesham 5 Stockbridge Garage Apuldram 10 Park Farm Lane Selsey 50 Coop Selsey 50 Sessions House Selsey 5 School House Sidlesham 5 North of Chaucer Drive West Wittering 50 West of Summerfield Road West Wittering 15 Clappers Lane East Wittering & Bracklesham 160 Total 506 If 20% of those 506 households produce one child each that is an additional 100 children looking for places in the primary school. Admittedly the birth rate will be spread and some older children may move in the increased pressure on the schools is obvious.

It will obviously impact on transport as extra children being brought into the school will have an adverse effect on parking. Stocks Lane and Church Road are fully congested at School opening and closing times leading to traffic hazards and possible accidents. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states: "Where practical, particularly with large-scale developments, key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties" (para 38, page 10) It also states: "Planning permission will be refused for proposals which would adversely affect highway safety, including in relation to access arrangements, internal road design, cycle facilities and footpaths. Proposals will also be refused if they result in the generation of traffic, which by its amount or type would overload the highway network" (TR6 page 133) It is not appropriate to expand the number of family houses in an area with few primary school opportunities. What is walking distance? To get to the primary school a fast main road must be crossed and the distance is approximately ¾ mile - somewhat excessive for a primary school child. 5. Secondary Schools There is no secondary school in the West Manhood. All secondary age children have to travel at least to Chichester or Selsey. School buses have to leave this Parish before 8am to

arrive in time for school at 9, with young children spending considerable time on the school bus sitting in traffic jams. It is not appropriate to expand the number of family houses in an area with no secondary school. 6. Roads to and from Bracklesham There are two proposed routes to exit this development - Beech Avenue and Clappers Lane. The main exit is likely to be Clappers Lane as the alternative will take you down a road with speed bumps. The impact of the proposed development on the narrow country lanes with no pavements to the east, through the Earnley Conservation Area, is critical both in terms of the quiet character of the area but also the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, groups who regularly use these roads. This is also the main access lane to the new Medmerry entrance at Earnley for these groups. A significant proportion of any new residents on the Clappers Lane site will opt to regularly use these country lanes and this will increase during the congested summer period. The summer roads on the Manhood can reach gridlock and many residents already use the country lanes. Use of these roads will lead to congestion at the junction of Sidlesham Lane and Main Road, Birdham. For convenience, much of the traffic will continue on these country lanes leading to further congestion at the Hunston Whyke roundabout or more likely at the Donnington roundabout (at the old Selsey Tram site) which has priority over the normal traffic of the Witterings. This will lead to further congestion and even longer tailbacks to well beyond Dell Quay Lane. The Earnley Conservation Area - Character Appraisal & Management Proposals document- Approved by Chichester District Council in May 2013 recommends: "As opportunities arise the Parish Council, District Council & County Council will continue to seek ways of improving pedestrian safety and reducing traffic in Earnley whilst protecting the special character of the Conservation Area" (section 2.3 page 15)." The CDC Local Plan 2014-29 (not yet approved) states: "Poor road accessibility and problems of traffic congestion resulting from the limited road connections to the north, the junctions on the A27 Chichester Bypass and the impacts of summer holiday traffic". Because of Bracklesham's position as a peninsula seaside village, the transport issues relating to it are magnified because there is only one viable way out - North. All commuters, visitors, schoolchildren, shoppers and travellers will either be going northwards on their way out, or southwards on their way in. The nearest significant route going East or West is the A27 which is the destination for the remainder of the travellers who are not en route to Chichester. (Commuting within the peninsula should be regarded as negligible due to the lack of industry on the West Manhood). Shortcuts across to the Selsey Road are pointless because that has a similar traffic problem to the A286. The shortcut to the Fishbourne roundabout via Dell Quay causes backed-up traffic at peak times which is totally unacceptable to the residents of this dangerously narrow and winding rural road used by desperate commuters attempting to escape the peninsula in a reasonable time. Chichester and the A27 are six miles away from Bracklesham along the B2198 and the A286. The natural egress for the West Manhood is the notorious Stockbridge Roundabout. Long delays are a daily occurrence with traffic queues often stretching back almost as far as

the Dell Quay turn off at peak times. No matter what improvements are implemented to improve the roads within the West Manhood, the problem with the bottleneck at Stockbridge still remains. It has been made quite clear by the Highways Agency in 2010 that any improvements to the A27 have been shelved. There is therefore no likelihood of an improvement for commuters from the West Manhood to Chichester and beyond. Every addition to the population in this area increases the problem. There are also other significant developments on the West Manhood peninsula that require movement through Stockbridge roundabout that are either actually being built or are planned. See chart below Location Parish Parking Spaces (Cars) Bell Lane Tawney 44 Bell Lane Rowan Birdham 60 Church Lane Birdham 112 Crooked Lane Birdham 30 Main Road-Longmeadow Birdham 42 Southfield Close Donnington 275 Stockbridge Road-Pesketts Donnington 48 The Nurseries-Queens Avenue Donnington 12 Beech Avenue East Wittering & Bracklesham 121 Piggery Hall Lane East Wittering & Bracklesham 36 Boughtons East Wittering & Bracklesham 5 Drift Road Selsey 224 Park Farm Lane Selsey 102 Coop Selsey 10 Sessions House Selsey 9 School House Sidlesham 10 North of Chaucer Drive West Wittering 109 West of Summerfield Road West Wittering 29 Stockbridge Garage Apuldram 12 Birdham Road Apuldram 18 Clappers Lane East Wittering & Bracklesham 376 Total 1460 As is evident from the above table, the cumulative effect on the traffic will be dramatic and the knock on implications for the West Manhood/A27 access will be unacceptable. As each development is taken on its own merit, the additional load of each smaller development is deemed to be acceptable, but does nothing to help improve the road surface or network as a whole. The capacity of the road is already frequently exceeded due to the cumulative effect of 'smaller' developments which have been built in recent years, yet there is no significant improvement planned. The Highways Authority has not been viewing the cumulative effect but only what they perceive to be the additional load on a road from individual small developments. Wates have stated that there will be minimal impact on the A27 junction at Stockbridge. No consideration has been given to the Selsey Tram junction (Donnington roundabout) and the additional traffic resulting from the vast developments at Selsey.

Wates Transport Document 03, Wates have produced over 60 pages of information relating to traffic volumes and traffic flows along the various "Highways Network". Unfortunately they have restricted their assessments to the main routes, ie Stocks Lane, Bracklesham Lane, the B2196 and the A286. There a number of statistics relating to: Beech Avenue/Stocks Lane junction Elm Close/Bracklesham Lane junction Clappers Lane/Bracklesham Lane junction There are numerous traffic flow assessments allocated to Stocks Lane and Bracklesham Lane. However there are no statistics mentioned for the Somerley bends on the B2198 from Bracklesham to Birdham. In this location between 1999-2013 there were 32 accidents, 46 injuries and 2 fatalities which must be considered when assessing the traffic information. There are no figures relating to traffic flowing eastwards on Clappers Lane and hence to either Booker Lane, Earnley Lane or Almodington Lane! A significant proportion of any new residents on this development will opt to regularly use these country roads and this will not only increase traffic during the congested summer period but will also have an adverse effect the quality of life of the residents living in Earnley itself and the village of Almodington. Those residents moved to those locations for a peaceful life and this will no longer be available to them. The roads are narrow and unsuitable for large volumes of traffic and due to lack of pavements will undoubtedly lead to accidents and possible loss of life. The impact of noise, light pollution and the loss of value to property and tranquility is significant. Much of this being the reason why they purchased houses in the area in the first place. The rural and tranquil nature of the area is what attracts holiday makes to the area and sustains the local economy. Destroy this and the whole infrastructure will collapse. This will also impact on the economy of Chichester as many tourist visit and make use of the facilities in Chichester. This will become a bigger issue with the opening of the Medmerry Realignment Scheme which is designated an EU Compensatory Site which is comparable to an SSSI site. Central to the scheme is a large nature reserve that has provided the opportunity to create more than 180 hectares of important new wildlife habitat which compensates for the loss of similar conservation areas in and around the Solent.There will be a car park at the end of Clappers Lane providing access to the recreational facilities provided by the Scheme. This will lead to an increase in vehicular, pedestrian, cycling and equestrian traffic. The plans show no proposal to accommodate a bridgeway for equestrian access past the site. It is also noted that it is proposed to provide a through road from South to North through both developments increasing the likelihood of other locals using the route to bypass traffic and as a short cut to the main road. A traffic Survey of drivers from the current dwellings in Clappers Lane carried out by Earnley Parish Council revealed the following results: Current Travel Current use of Clappers Lane 31% travel West 69% travel East Of those who join from Barton Way 79% travel West 21% travel East

This shows that the further west of the proposed development, most driver travel west to join Bracklesham Lane. However those living to the east end of Clappers Lane travel East. Continuing the survey in relation to the proposed development shows the following results. Of those who live west of the proposed exit from the development 53% will travel East, 47% will travel West Of those living to the east of the proposed exit from the development 94% will travel East, 6% will travel West If the development goes ahead, it is likely that most drivers will travel East, particularly if they see three or more cars waiting to exit Clappers Lane onto Bracklesham Lane. This means that over 1,500 additional driver could be travelling East onto unsuitable roads without pavements and in a tourist and Conservation area. This is likely to have an adverse effect on tourism on which this area relies for financial security. We are trying to promote tourism, not destroy it. NPPF in paragraph 14 states: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking." With regard to determining planning applications, paragraph 14 goes on to state: "For decision-taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted." Furthermore, The Chichester District Council Local Plan First Review (April 1999) - Saved Policies States in Policy TR6 which concerns safety: "Planning permission will be refused for proposals which would adversely affect highway safety including in relation to access arrangements, internal road design, cycle facilities and footpaths. Proposals will also be refused if they result in the generation of Traffic, which by its amount or type, would overload the highway network." Policy TR8 relates to walking and cycling. Developments must provide cycle parking in line with relevant parking standards and must "include safe access for cyclists and pedestrians and, where appropriate, accommodate the provision of and access to the safe cycle route network."

In support of the proposal, Wates quote selectively from the Inspector's decision on the original 50 dwellings just to the south of the proposed site. However, other quotes can be found which do not give such as clear cut view:

In section 23 the Inspector states that "sustainability in locational terms is relative to scale" . Section 25 ,, he states: "I conclude that the appeal site, while perhaps sub optimal in terms of its transport sustainability, is by no means "unsustainable". In fact I consider that it is sustainably located for a housing scheme of its size. Arguably, therefore, the scheme should benefit from the Framework's presumption in favour of sustainable development". The inspector quite rightly does not draw any conclusions about future proposals for a larger scheme adjacent to the permitted 50 dwellings ("any further proposals are not a matter for me" section 29). We believe that the much larger scheme now being proposed with an exit on to Clappers Lane (which, if the scheme is approved, residents of the permitted 50 dwellings can also use) raises new issues, the outcome of which should not be pre determined or even influenced by the earlier decision. Wates Transport document 03 also states on page 36 in Table 6.3: Summary of Traffic Distribution that: For East Wittering 12.8% of traffic will be commuting and 21.2% will be non-commuting. This is clearly wrong and there are very few full time employment opportunities in East Wittering. Most of traffic will be commuting to Chichester and beyond where the jobs are located. Because of the adverse impacts of traffic flow through Earnley and Almodington, this application should be refused. Wates makes the following statement: "It should be noted that 60% of traffic approaching the Stockbridge Roundabout is expected to travel to/from Chichester. Therefore the majority of the vehicles included in the above analysis will only pass through the Stockbridge Roundabout and will not impact on the link flows on the A27". This is an unhelpful comment which implies that, because the traffic is not going onto the A27, there will be no significant impact on the traffic. It totally ignores the main problem faced by motorists exiting or entering the West Manhood which is that traffic from the Manhood Peninsula cannot easily "only pass through the Stockbridge Roundabout". The traffic has to queue in Stockbridge Road and wait for a gap in the A27 traffic. While waiting for such a gap, the queue gets longer and longer. Every additional development increases the length of this queue, adding to considerable environmental impact for the people of Donnington and the road users themselves. Allowing further development on the peninsula not only increases the traffic local to the development but knocks on further up the peninsula, to the detriment of all the residents, wherever they live on the West Manhood. Planning should look to the future and see the whole picture, rather than concentrating on the specifics of each small development with no regard to the further effects. Most jobs are for West Manhood residents are to be found in Chichester and Portsmouth which are extremely difficult to reach at peak times. Vehicles are the main means of transport from Bracklesham rather than bicycle due to the dangerous nature of the A286, the length of the alternative cycle route, the time required to cycle, the variable weather conditions and the lack of changing facilities in most workplaces. Therefore, most workers in Bracklesham have to rely on a car or bus to get to work and there is no foreseeable change to this.

How many more houses can the peninsula take before the transport system reaches meltdown? Other comments in Wates Transport assessment include: Section 3 3.2.2 Local Accessibility

"There is a variety of local retail, employment and leisure and health facilities within comfortable walking distance of the site…" Wates then refer to figure 3.1 to apparently approve this assertion. Figure 3.1 is, however, about bus routes and nothing whatsoever to do with any facilities of walking! In regards to bus routes Wates mention buses arriving four times an hour but neglect to mention the times that they stop in the evening which 9.15 pm from Chichester. A later bus does not stop at Bracklesham. People employed late in the evenings are unable to return by bus and therefore forced to use their cars

3.2.4 "There is a wide and varied range of facilities that can be easily accessed by non-car modes" We would dispute the "wide and varied" part of that statement. Just because people can potentially leave cars at home doesn't mean they will. People have cars and will use them. There are far too many assumptions being made in this whole report. 3.4 Existing Travel Characteristics Table 3.3 shows 77% of all journeys (within East Wittering) are by car and yet Wates go on to say how easy it is walk everywhere. Apparently this particular new development will be full of people who have been "re-educated" to leave their cars at home. 4.2 "WSCC have a travel plan that aims to reduce vehicle trips at peak hours by 10%. This target has been "front-loaded" (4.4.4) into the figures for this new development". We can only presume this means that they are assumed to have been achieved before they have even been implemented and therefore these figures cannot be relied on. 4.3.2 "This development will not have any noticeable impact on local or wider highway network". Clearly, once again, the cumulative effects of other developments in the area and on the Manhood have not been taken into account. 5.3.3 "Pedestrian Crossing improvement are on Bracklesham Lane and the vicinity of East Wittering primary school, Stocks lane/Bracklesham lane junction. Plus Medmerry cycle improvements."

These are vague promises and we would like to see the actual plans rather than such promises. 5.4.1 "A new cantilever bus stop and real time passenger info are proposed to encourage bus use". There is already an excellent bus stop in existence but the problem is the limited time table and the cost of use. 6.1.1 "New residents travel pack will include advice on how to walk and bicycle and new residents will be given up to £250 in vouchers against train and bus use". This is one item (the vouchers) that may make only a short term change to residents travel behaviour. 7. Local Road and Transport Issues 1. Roads in the new estate are too narrow, without pavements. They are the same width as the roads in Tideway which cause major problems to all that live there. 2. One of the access/exit roads is at end of Beech Avenue which is adjacent to an under 12's children's playground. 3. The main route by children, including those from Mere Close and Shalbourne Close, who are going and coming to schools necessitates crossing the new access road, especially at peak times when traffic could be at its heaviest. This route is also used by the local nursery group on a regular basis to access the play area. This road is unsuitable for both the increased traffic from the development and for construction traffic. 4. The bend into the new estate will cause a blind spot to users of the road, especially pedestrians and those accessing Bracklesham Barn. 5. Traffic calming is in place in Beech Avenue and must be continued into this new development. 6. In the report by WSCC Highways submitted for the Bracklesham Barn community centre planning application (23.9.2007 application no. EWB/04/00273/FUL) it states "the visibility from the junction of Beech Avenue on to the junction at Bracklesham Lane is poor. This has partly been helped by extending double yellow lines. The speed survey data recorded opposite Holly Cottage measured the 85% i.e. Of the speed in a northerly direction as 31-32 mph and 28 mph in a southerly direction. This dictated a level of visibility beyond that which is achievable at the junction due to the land constraints, particular the south. However prepared to accept the visibility to the north as it only falls marginally below the required standard." When the new community centre was built a roundabout was considered to cater for the increased traffic however there was not enough information on the increase in traffic levels that this community centre would generate at that time. This needs to be re-investigated urgently. Serious consideration must now be given to improving the junction of Beech Avenue, Bracklesham Lane and Stocks Lane.

7. The Bus stop on corner of Beech Avenue blocks the view for motorists exiting Beech Avenue, particularly when a bus is stationary at the stop. 8. Bracklesham Lane is already and will further become an extremely busy road with limited pavements, no cycleways and inadequate parking arrangements for shops. 9. Due to the straight nature of Bracklesham Lane speeding is an issue and continually monitored by the Police. 10. Children from the large estates in eastern Bracklesham use Bracklesham Park and Beech Avenue as their route to the bus stop on Bracklesham Lane to get to school. Those who don't go on the bus or walk to the primary school are driven by their parents to school which causes an enormous increase in traffic at school times. In order to get to the bus stop and the primary school, the children have to cross Bracklesham Lane which is already dangerous and will become even more so with the increase in traffic and pedestrian use. The Parish Council asked WSCC to investigate providing a pedestrian crossing on Bracklesham Lane but it was told after research that there was no suitable area to locate such a crossing. Chichester Area Strategy Development Plan (The Halcrow Report) 2002 "The general traffic situation in the Manhood Peninsula is regarded as being increasingly inadequate" (section 6.1.2 page 23). "This is resulting in the capacity of the existing transportation infrastructure being exceeded at certain times of the day and in particular, long traffic queues forming during the peak hour on the northbound approaches to the roundabouts on the A27" (section 6.3.2 page Towards Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) 2011 This document for the Manhood recognises the area as a fragile environment in need of an ICZM. According to the document, which was adopted by CDC on 20 September 2011, and has been endorsed as a significant material planning document by a Government Planning Inspector (in the Madestein glasshouse appeal), a SWOT analysis of the Manhood recognises the main strengths of the peninsula to be its environment, coastal landscapes and opportunities for year round tourism. Weaknesses include poor infrastructure particularly roads while opportunities include provision for horse riding, cycling and walking. p 37. It also notes that "poor transport links onto the peninsula makes access for residents, visitors and the business sector difficult at peak times." p 10. The Manhood Peninsular is an area of great beauty as is evidenced by the special status given to it by both the British government (AONB) and European legislation (ICMZ). Yet, if we permit continued development on this proposed scale, the wild life (the Manhood is a Ramsar protected area) and other attractions of the Peninsular will be destroyed. This is surely not the government's policy. With so many local issues to address, this is not a suitable location for development. 8. Pollution

According to CDC's Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) 2008: Para 5.1 "Chichester District Council has a responsibility under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to monitor and identify sources of air pollution within its area. In particular it should consider locations where receptors are present. These are largely where people are living

and where air quality standards are not being met. Where these standards are not being met the local authority must designate an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and produce an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) to tackle the pollution identified in these areas. Chichester District Council has declared three AQMAs in the following locations - A27/A286 Stockbridge roundabout junction, Chichester. - St Pancras, Chichester. - Orchard Street, Chichester"

It is not just residents who are affected - it should include all road users who have to suffer the congestion in this area every day in order to get to school and work. Para 6.1 (AQMA) Note vehicle movements in 2008 according to Air Quality statistics: A27 50,000/day A286 12,000/day across Stockbridge junction Note it (AQAP) states that the Stockbridge junction is seen to be at capacity during peak hours despite junction improvements made by Highways in 2006. In news items (Appendix 1a and 1b) there is an article on dangerous levels of vehicle movements being 10,000/day and the possibility of Brighton being fined for exceeding levels, as indeed could Chichester. Para 8.1 (AQAP) 'Planning should maximise the way in which air quality can influence the planning process. WSCC and CDC are working together to ensure policy framework will minimise impact from additional housing.' Should we be building more houses when we know what the effects on air quality will be? 9. Jobs/Transport consequence The Wates development is for 160 units. Wates says (as yet unconfirmed by CDC) that 64 of the social housing units will be for locals, i.e. but only for the initial occupancy. The vast majority of the properties are likely to be occupied by new residents to the area. Virtually all the employed people and all secondary school age children and college students will be commuting to Chichester or beyond, less a few of the children commuting to Selsey. Not only will this increase problems at Stockbridge but it goes against resolutions to reduce travel and thereby pollution. The aim is "low carbon". Those new families in the social housing will find it particularly difficult. As lower earners they will also have to travel to Chichester or beyond meaning either buying a car or having to pay bus fares. Late shift work for those without private transport would be impossible because buses from Chichester now stop soon after eight o'clock. People tied to lower paid jobs have to take into account the cost of travelling to work before taking a job as they are often better off on benefits. Placing such people in this area where commuting costs are high can only be seen as encouraging them to be amongst the long-term unemployed - exactly the group of people the government is trying to reduce. It is morally wrong to create social housing for working age people where there are no job prospects within a reasonable and inexpensive commute. 10. Sewerage For years residents here have complained about the sewerage system. In recent years tankers have transported sewage on four different occasions from the pumping station in

Church Road to the pumping station in East Bracklesham Drive. A local resident, who had been in correspondence with Southern Water for some time about the problem, received an email dated 20th July 2012 from them (Southern Water's ref. CCMS 220575), part of which is quoted below: "The main did burst over the weekend and is now in the top five for replacement. We are currently evaluating the costs and the feasibility in comparison to other prioritised work." On Friday 13th July 2012 at about four o'clock in the morning raw sewage began to run out of a is of insufficient diameter and thus capacity, Waste water will not arrive fast enough to the Sidlesham Wastewater Treatment Works. Back pressure will build up and lead to flooding. Increasing the number of houses will only exacerbate the problem. 11. Sustainability One would imagine that the word 'sustainability' would mean a community that is self sufficient and does not need to rely on resources from other areas in order to survive. East Wittering and Bracklesham form a seaside community which is heavily reliant on seasonal trade, the weather and its unique setting as a largely unbuilt up area surrounded by farmland to the North and the sea to the south where tourists are eager to spend their holidays. It depends on its location for its success, particularly as there is no industry in the area. Past developments have already led to an unnaturally large conurbation regardless of the lack of resources in the area. pipe in Charlmead, East Wittering, into Hale Farm Rife and subsequently, through an outfall pipe, into the sea. There was a distinct smell of sewage in Charlmead and on the beach - a blue flag beach vital to the local economy. The Parish Council reported this to the Environment Agency (reference no. 1014351) and to Chichester District Council who had not been informed by Southern Water. The Environment Agency and CDC contacted Southern Water and the flow was turned off on the 16 July. But by then it had been running for four days. The rainfall over this period had been only moderate. It is clear that the sewerage system is, at present, unable to cope properly with the current load it is expected to take. While it is acknowledged that the proposed development is at the other end of the parish and that Wates has mentioned redoing a sewer, it is all, nevertheless, part of the same system. With the release of sewage into the rife and then to the sea at the busiest time for people using the sea, without any notification, it demonstrates that Southern Water has a totally unacceptable attitude to its responsibilities and to public health. It is, therefore, very difficult to believe any assurances that they may give. An unreferenced statement in Wates' Design and Access Statement Document 02, Page 13 para 2.6 states "The foul drainage from the new homes would go to Sidlesham Wastewater Treatment Works. This treatment works could accommodate the new homes". This does not tell the whole story. Although the sewage and waste water pipes in East Wittering and Bracklesham have recently been renewed/replaced, the capacity has not been increased as the pipe diameter is unchanged. So although "The treatment works could accommodate the new homes",the pipework cannot. The problem is getting the waste to the treatment works. A the letter from Southern Water concerning original development of 50 houses dated 20 July 2012 states: "Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result." See full letter Appendix 2.

Bracklesham Caravan and Boat Club in East Bracklesham Drive and Richardson's South Down Holiday Village both suffer severe problems with sewage and the pipework not coping with the demand put upon it - Southern Water are aware but have not done anything to improve the system. Because the pipe network

With the closure of Cobham Microwave in Stocks Lane, not only have local jobs been lost but the land could now be available for housing as likely to be proposed in the forthcoming East Wittering and Bracklesham Neighbourhood Plan. As no business is likely to want to locate on that site, it provides an ideal location for houses, closer to all the amenities and therefore more sustainable. The National Planning Policy Framework on Page 2 Achieving sustainable development states: "International and national bodies have set out broad principles of sustainable development. Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The UK Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future set out five 'guiding principles' of sustainable development: living within the planet's environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly. 6. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government's view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. 7. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: - an economic role - contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; This application Fails on all the above it fails to support growth and innovation and particularly fails to take account of the poor infrastructure - a social role - supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and - an environmental role - contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy. Achieving sustainable development | 3

This application fails on these points because it fails to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; 8. These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions. 9. Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people's quality of life, including (but not limited to): - making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages; - moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature;6 - replacing poor design with better design; - improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and - widening the choice of high quality homes. 10. Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that they respond to the different opportunites for achieving sustainable development in different areas." This application fails on the above because it fails to take the local circumstances into account particularly the fact that the one major employer in the area has closed! Therefore the application is unsustainable. The South East Plan Two of the bullet points from the South East Plan on p5 are: "Focusing development on regional hubs" and "Supporting the vitality and character of rural areas whilst protecting valuable natural and historic assets" This area is a rural - despite its official designation - seaside area that attracts tourists for the very reasons noted above. It is not a development hub and never can be. A hub indicates being at the centre of an area, yet Bracklesham only has one side - North. The more development there is here the more it detracts from the "vitality and character" of the area. Part of the National Policy on page four is: "Social progress that recognises the needs of everyone" "Effective protection of the environment" "Prudent use of natural resources" and The Interim Statement on Planning and Climate Change on p6 mentions: "reducing the need to travel". It will undoubtedly be the case that nearly all new residents between the ages of 11 and 60 will be commuting to Chichester, or, in a few cases, Selsey. Encouraging more people to live here will therefore increase the need to travel, increase the use of natural resources, generate more pollutants including carbon dioxide and adversely affect those who already

live on the peninsula by creating yet more traffic on heavily used roads. "Low carbon" is the frequently used phrase. Most people living here will have a high carbon footprint. How can an area where residents need to travel to work and supplies need to be delivered, requiring a 12-mile round trip, be sustainable? 12. Agricultural Value Wates Agricultural Assessment Agricultural Assessment Report 09 The report states that the soil on the site is grades 2 and 3a - very good quality and good quality - and that the agricultural grade is not limited by climate. In fact in comparison with the main arable areas of the country this area is superior climatically. There is considerably more rainfall: Met Office 1971 - 2000 rainfall averages (mm) Bognor 717 King's Lynn 621 Waddington, Lincs 599 Sutton Bonnington, Midlands 606. There are considerably more sunshine hours: Met Office 1971 - 2000 sunshine hours Bognor 1902 King's Lynn 1536 Waddington, Lincs 1537 Sutton Bonnington, Midlands 1388. The government is trying to make this country more self-sufficient with its food supply. High quality growing areas are therefore a national asset that needs to be guarded. An extremely good case needs to be made to build on such land. Many other factors make it clear that houses should not be built here. The destruction of this agricultural land should also be a major consideration. While this site may be graded subgrade 3a it is clearly at present near the top of being the best agricultural land in the country. With the likely effect of climate change the agricultural value of this land should improve. Recently the government stated that it wanted to make this country more self-sufficient with regard to food. The National Planning Policy Framework states: "112. Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality." There no good reason to take such productive land out of agriculture. 13. Fauna and Flora The flora on the site consists of common plants. Of the animals, apart from bats, the species that is of most concern is the water vole. It is known to be present in the area but the survey

found no evidence of water vole activity in any of the ditches on the site during the survey. The ditches were dry at the time! The proposed site is currently an arable field. It is acknowledged that the fauna and flora on the actual site are not special. However, the site is close to the Medmerry area which has a very important water vole population. The water vole is a protected species and this area has a very large population. Bracklesham is surrounded by areas with wildlife designations: The hope must be that water voles will increase in number and spread. The ditches on this site, when wet, will provide corridors to move across the peninsula. If the houses are built, however much is done to encourage water voles to use the ditches, the disturbance caused by the people and, worse, the presence of domestic cats, will have an adverse effect. This will apply to other mammals - bats, badgers - and birds. A badger sett has been found on the site. It would be very unlikely that badgers would live on the site again. The report contains many suggestions for encouraging wildlife in the area. It is to be hoped that if the development goes ahead these measures will be implemented. Although the area is undesignated, is it wise to build upon the last stretch of undeveloped coast in the area? 14. Flooding The field proposed for development frequent suffers from surface water flooding. Currently not a problem as it is arable and drains over a period without implications other than to the farmer and crops. However extensive building and road works will generate a significant surface water problem. The water table is very high in this area and runoff at the end of the line for water coming from the Downs and surrounding area. Indeed severe flooding in 2013 has led to significant and expensive flood relief schemes in other areas adjacent to the current proposal. It is proposed to use holding ponds in the open spaces to manage runoff. This will present a significant attraction to children with all the inherent risks associated with it. It is our strong opinion that with all the other objections it seems inappropriate to build on land adjacent to an established flood plain when the success of Medmerry realignment has yet to be ascertained. The Environment Agency (EA) has commissioned a peer review of its Medmerry coastal realignment scheme following the floods of 10 and 11 Jun 2012. From the minutes of the Peninsula Community Forum held on 9 July 2012 Gordon Wilson of the Environment Agency in a response to the question: "If the peer review points out that something in the design should have been done differently at Medmerry, is it too late to make changes?" Said: "If an expert says the scheme will not work we will have to look at making changes, but if the issues are around why the EA did things in a certain way we will look into this but it is unlikely changes will be made".

Wates' Flood Risk Assessment 04 states: Section 1.0.5 states "the site was found to be at low risk of surface water, ground water and artificial sources of flooding" However they did note in 1.0.4 that the southern end of the site was not being developed due to it being situated in a higher flood zone! In Section 1.0.4 Wates also note that house levels and even road levels will be raised if necessary to minimum heights, which one presumes will encourange more surface water run off, which they state in 1.0.6 to discharge into "an adjacent watercourse". This will then raise the water levels in the southern ditch which runs east-west and will thus affect the watervole habitat! Wates appear to be unaware that this year the water level was almost at the base of the bridge in the far eastern corner of the Bracklesham park. Section 3.3.1 states the "River Rife" at approx 400m to the east, but it is not a river, it is just a rife. We must assume that they are referencing Earnley Rife. Obviously they have not done their homework! Section 3.6.7 states "no sewer flooding has previously occurred within or adjacent to the site" This is misleading as the site is in an area with no development around it. Wates again appear to be unaware that some of the Earnley residents in Clappers Lane experienced serious flooding. This is obviously adjacent to the development site. Following heavy rains on 10 June 2012 and the recent rains of 2014, several properties and roads were flooded in the immediate locality: Cliffords Cottage, Bracklesham Lane Pond Barn, Farm Road The whole of Holdens Caravan Site, Bracklesham Lane Drift, Clappers Lane Bracklesham Barn The flooding caused major problems to more local roads in the area including Bracklesham Barn Community Centre as the flood waters entered the sewerage system. Sewerage backed up in the houses along Garden Avenue which is adjacent to this site and whose back gardens were flooded. Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Document 04 states Section 4.2.3 (page8) says that "as the development will provide much needed residential properties within West Sussex the first criterion of the exception test is deemed to have been passed " Technical guidance to the NPPF, in order for the Exception Test to be passed the development must meet the following criteria: "It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and a site specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall". yet Section 4.3.4 recommends a flood management and evacuation plan is prepared and the site to be signed up to the EAs flood warning system! Section 4.7.1 recommends discharge of surface water run off into the ditch along the southern end of the site (east-west along the southern end of Bracklesham park - water vole habitat). This will inevitably lead to more chemicals/pollution etc in the water course, which

was almost flooded in recent rains. Therefore if it almost flooded it is likely to be completely flooded with the excess run off from this development as there will limited earth/soil to act as a soakaway. Section 4.8.4 states that Sidlesham works has capacity for an additional 900 houses. This is basically correct. Unfortunately as state above in this Parish Council's point 10, "Although the sewage and waste water pipes in East Wittering and Bracklesham have recently been renewed/replaced, the capacity has not been increased as the pipe diameter is unchanged. So although "The treatment works could accommodate the new homes",the pipework cannot. The problem is getting the waste to the treatment works". Section 5.1.2 states that because their report is so good, no further FRA is considered necessary for this scheme. This is interesting as Wates have included 5 pages of plans showing the route to the Sidlesham sewage works, they are obviously aware of sewage issues to include this. Following heavy rains on 10 June 2012 and the recent rains of 2014, several properties and roads were flooded in the immediate locality: Cliffords Cottage, Bracklesham Lane Pond Barn, Farm Road The whole of Holdens Caravan Site, Bracklesham Lane Drift, Clappers Lane Property in Clappers Lane The flooding caused major problems to more local roads in the area including Bracklesham Barn Community Centre as the flood waters entered the sewerage system. Sewerage backed up in the houses along Garden Avenue which is adjacent to this site and whose back gardens were flooded. With climate change we can expect more heavy rainfall and possible flooding, as we have just experienced. It seems highly likely that flooding will occur much more frequently than the 1 in 200 years that was forecast. We understand from Miller Homes that the 50 houses that have been permitted adjacent to this site that future responsibility for the whole development including roads, streetlights and drainage will be left with the residents to form a Management Company and that they have to fund it themselves. In the light of the above this should not be the financial responsibility of any future residents of this site. Is it therefore irresponsible to continue to build in this area at the present time? 15. Current availability of houses Private Housing According to a Rightmove property search within 5 miles of Chichester, currently on the market there are 700 houses and within 3 miles of East Wittering there are 118. Local estate agents confirmed that the most turnover is from retired people moving down here wanting bungalows, a close second is those who want to renovate ie. Builders. See Appendix 2. Houses adjacent to social housing do not hold their value, in fact can drop. Social Housing

The figures for those requiring urgent housing appear to contradict the perception within the Parish. It appears that many are currently in private accommodation with rent benefits and would like to move. Wates quoted that over 300 on the list were local priority need - this is obviously incorrect as this could represent around 1,000 people which equates to about 20% of our Parish. In an email from Linda Grange (CDC Housing Delivery Manager) we are told that EW&B has the 4th highest housing need in the District. But according to the Ward Profile carried out by CDC housing need in this Parish is ranked amongst the lowest. (See Appendix 2). When social housing is not available to those in need there is Local Housing allowance to assist those having to rent privately. The following Local Housing Allowance rates can be found on the CDC website; http://www.chichester.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=8163 Broad Rental Market Area: Chichester and Sussex Downs Property Local housing Allowance Rate pw 1 Bed shared £68.54 wk 1 Bed self contained £132.69 wk or 574.99 mth 2 Bedrooms £160.38 wk or 694.98 mth 3 Bedrooms £196.15 wk or 849.98.mth 4 Bedrooms £276.92 wk or 1199.98 mth Local estate agents have advised that it is not difficult to find private rentals within these margins. Can it be demonstrated that there is a major housing need in this Parish? 16. Changing demographic profile See Appendix 2. From the available statistics, it can be seen that there is a general outflow from the Parish of working age people and an inflow of older people. It is highly likely that the working population ages are decreasing due to the lack of jobs in the area and poor transport/road links together with the ever increasing costs involved in travelling.

Will this development really be catering for the correct demographic for the area? 17. Value to local shops One of Wates stated advantages of the development was that it would "help support existing businesses at Bracklesham". This is clearly true but gives the wrong impression. Bracklesham is not an out-of-the-way village with the residents relying on one shop so that a new development may determine whether the shop survives or not. There are two general stores in Bracklesham, both seemingly thriving, with a multitude of other shops, plus two supermarkets, in East Wittering less than a mile away on a frequent bus route. The other shops in Bracklesham are food outlets for holidaymakers and more specialist ones that cater for a wider area. Although the population of Bracklesham is twice that of East Wittering, it is a fact that East Wittering village has all the main facilities including banks, library, medical centre, dental practice, school, churches etc. East Wittering will continue to be the shopping centre for the area.

Is further development at Bracklesham only serving to exacerbate the parking issues at East Wittering? 18 Special Protected Area (SPA) and EU Compensatory Site Now the flood defences at Medmerry are complete work is ongoing to finish the 10km of new footpaths, cycleways and bridleways that cross the site. Central to the scheme is a large nature reserve that has provided the opportunity to create more than 180 hectares of important new wildlife habitat which compensates for the loss of similar conservation areas in and around the Solent. There is still more to be done to fully complete the project and the timing of the work is dependent on the weather, but public access will be allowed as soon as possible. Once the project is fully complete, the RSPB will manage the wildlife habitats and access with the Environment Agency continuing to manage the flood defences. There is still more to be done to fully complete the project and the timing of the work is dependent on the weather, but public access will be allowed as soon as possible. Updates will be provided by the Environment Agency and RSPB when new information becomes available. This will be designated as AONB or SPA and will have special protection. Wates document 07 SPA Assessment state in paragraph on page 8 paragraph 5.6 "Based on an expected fully-occupied development of 160 new homes, populated by families, it is accepted that the proposed development is likely to introduce increased disturbance to the protected bird species residing (seasonally and permanently) within Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and to a lesser extent within Pagham Harbour SPA. It is difficult to accurately predict the size and nature of the additional disturbance resulting from 160 homes being built; however, the effect is likely to be relatively minor when considering it in context with the present housing stock of 2,036 (an increase of 10% in housing stock) within East Wittering, and that the proposed development is situated on the eastern outskirts of the town (furthest from the SPAs)". This totally ignores the fact that the Medmerry scheme is just a short distance away and is an EU Compensatory Site, the equivalent of an SSSI. Therefore the effect is likely to be major, contrary to Wates claim. 19. Adherence to CDC's 18 Criteria for Facilitating Appropriate Development. This application relies on its adherence to CDC's Interim Policy Statement on Housing - Facilitating Appropriate Development to be a valid application. The 17 points required by this document are addressed by Wates in their Design and Access Statement Doc 02. This Parish Council argues that this development fails the requirements on several points which are addressed below, with additional references to Wates Planning Statement Doc 01 p10. 1 The site boundary is contiguous with a Settlement Policy Area [SPA] as identified in the Saved Policies of the Local Plan PASS 2 The townscape and landscape character is conserved or enhanced, especially where the character of an area is specifically recognised, such as Chichester Harbour AONB and the South Downs National Park. There should be no adverse impact on the setting of the South Downs National Park or AONB or the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park. FAIL

This development is the second phase of a 'master plan' by Wates, which includes the development of houses extending to the rear gardens of the houses in Clappers Lane. This clearly results in the perceived coalescence of the two settlements of Bracklesham and Earnley. Wates state: "development of the site does not cause coalescence with East Wittering or the Strategic Gap to the east which has been designated to prevent coalescence." This is a play on words and is misleading. This area may not be specifically designated, but the fact remains that Bracklesham is a seaside holiday destination in a rural location, not a large town. The success of the local tourist industry which is the driving force of the local economy relies on this fact. If tourists stop coming to the area because it becomes too built-up and the traffic queues are too unbearable, then the economy will fail to thrive. 3 Archaeological sites, ancient monuments, listed buildings and other Heritage Assets (as defined in the glossary) and their settings are protected, in accordance with national guidelines and saved policies of the Local Plan. PASS 4 Biodiversity and protected species are conserved and enhanced in accordance with national guidelines, saved policies in the Local Plan, and the Sussex Biodiversity Action Plan, especially within Pagham and Chichester Harbours (and other Special Areas of Conservation Areas; Special Protect/on Areas,' Sites of Spec/a/ Scientific Interest and Sites of Nature Conservation Importance) and the Medmerry Managed Realignment Scheme FAIL Water voles (a protected species) also live less than 200m away from this development. The area forms part of a wildlife corridor in between Medmerry and Chichester Harbour and should be protected from development. According to the letter from the Environment Agency dated 16 July 2012 (Appendix 4): "Since the SPA report was commissioned in July 2012, the NPPF has now been introduced and within this it states that the Potential Medmerry site should be given the space protection as European sites including possible Special Protection Areas (para 118). Due to this change following the NPPF the impact the development has with relation to recreational disturbance on Medmerry will need to be addressed." 5 Existing natural features, such as watercourses, woodland, trees and hedgerows, which contribute to the existing landscape character, are retained wherever possible. PASS 6 The site and proposed development are sustainable in transport terms. Sites where it is possible to walk easily to a range of facilities will be considered preferable to sites that are further away which would make car journeys into town/village centres more likely. FAIL Bracklesham does have two convenience stores and a few smaller shops, cafes and takeaways. However East Wittering, which is out of easy walking distance is the centre where the main facilities (doctors, dentist, library, banks, school, church etc) are located. It should be noted that parking in East Wittering is an on-going problem. Wates description of the site as "a sustainable location close to shops and facilities at Bracklesham and East Wittering" does not address the fact that these facilities are a car journey away. Many of the residents will not be sufficiently fit and agile and the inspector negligently failed to take this into account

7 The likely impact of the development individually, or cumulatively, around the edges of a settlement does not result in the actual or perceived coalescence of Settlement Policy Areas (as defined by a SPA boundary identified in the Saved Policies of the Local Plan). FAIL This development is the second phase of a 'master plan' by Wates, which includes the development of houses extending to the rear gardens of the houses in Clappers Lane. This clearly results in the perceived coalescence of the two settlements of Bracklesham and Earnley. Wates state: "development of the site does not cause coalescence with East Wittering or the Strategic Gap to the east which has been designated to prevent coalescence." This is a play on words and is misleading. This area may not be specifically designated, but the fact remains that Bracklesham is a seaside holiday destination in a rural location, not a large town. The success of the local tourist industry which is the driving force of the local economy relies on this fact. If tourists stop coming to the area because it becomes too built-up and the traffic queues are too unbearable, then the economy will fail to thrive. 8 The development is of a high quality, including its layout and design, and it properly addresses issues such as access, flooding, drainage, water quality, pollutants including noise and light, and should integrate successfully in design terms into the existing settlement character. FAIL Although the Parish Council are sure that the actual design and construction of this development will be of the highest standard, it does not believe that access, flooding and drainage issues have been addressed. Although the construction will be of sustainable materials, the carbon footprint involved in bringing in the materials down onto the peninsula, together with the huge subsequent requirements on the transport infrastructure to support the increased population at the end of the peninsula will vastly outweigh the benefit of sustainable construction. Wates only mentions that the development should be of "high quality, sustainability construction and design" with no mention of the serious matters of access, flooding and drainage. 9 There is a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures in accordance with the saved policies of the Local Plan and the Council's Interim Statement on Affordable Housing. PASS 10 Land should be used efficiently. Arbitrarily low density development in order to comply with the criterion 17 will not be acceptable. The density of housing should avoid harming the established character of the settlement FAIL The density does not match the small number of houses already located in the village of Earnley which have large plots and spacious gardens. 11 The proposal does not result in the material net loss of existing sport, recreational or open space including that in private ownership, PASS 12 Sites that have been artificially subdivided to limit the proposal to a first phase of a larger development in order to comply with criterion 17 will not be acceptable. FAIL

This Parish Council believes that the development was originally artificially sub-devided in order to influence the decision on the original 50 houses. Having obtained such permission Wates are now going for the full deal. 13 The proposal is not constrained by the needs for significant off-site infrastructure (as defined in the glossary) which may not be forthcoming but makes suitable provision for meeting needs in accordance with the Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 'The Provision of Service Infrastructure Related to New Development in Chichester District - Part 2' (December 2004). FAIL An unreferenced statement in Wates' Design and Access Statement Document 02, Page 13 para 2.6 states "The foul drainage from the new homes would go to Sidlesham Wastewater Treatment Works. This treatment works could accommodate the new homes". This does not tell the whole story. Although the sewage and waste water pipes in East Wittering and Bracklesham have recently been renewed/replaced, the capacity has not been increased as the pipe diameter is unchanged. So although "The treatment works could accommodate the new homes" the pipework cannot. The problem is getting the waste to the pumping station. A letter from Southern Water concerning original development of 50 houses dated 20 July 2012 states: "Following initial investigations, there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result." If this development goes ahead there will need to be significant upgrading of the sewerage system and the road system in order for the development not to have a detrimental impact on the existing settlement. The letter from Southern Water, dated 20 July 2012 (Appendix 2) states: "The applicant/developer should enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure required to service this development." 14 Environmental quality is not compromised and high standards of sustainable construction are expected as well as the inclusion of the highest feasible levels of renewable and low carbon energy generation; and water and energy efficiency in accordance with the Council's Interim Policy Statement on Planning and Climate Change. PASS 15 The proposal complies with the provisions of any other Interim Policy Statements adopted by the Council and the Environment Agency. PASS 16 Demonstration of deliverability and the intention to develop will be required to support planning applications and to help enable the Council to resist applications for less suitable sites. Applicants must be prepared to accept time limited permissions of two years from granting of planning permission. Where a planning permission is not implemented within the time limit, it should not be presumed that the permission will be renewed. PASS 17 The scale of the development should be appropriate to the Settlement Policy Area. As a guide, this is likely to mean sites of up to about 100 units adjoining Chichester City; up to about 50 units adjoining the settlement hubs of East Wittering & Bracklesham, Selsey, Southbourne and Tangmere; and up to about 25 units adjoining other settlement Policy

Areas. In deciding whether the scale is appropriate, account will be taken of extant unimplemented permissions for the Settlement Policy Area concerned. FAIL It is totally inappropriate to build a large scale development in an area with no jobs and a long and expensive commute to the nearest large town. As it says above:" up to about 50 units adjoining the settlement hubs of East Wittering & Bracklesham", Wates already have permission for those 50 units. The CDC Local Plan 2014-29 (not yet approved) suggests: "100 houses for the Parish of East Wittering and Bracklesham" We already have 74 houses permitted in various areas of the parish, namely: Piggery Hall Lane 17 Permitted Woodstock, Shore Road 4 Permitted Farm Road 2 Permitted First Avenue 1 Permitted Beech Avenue 50 Permitted Total 74 Permitted This means that we only have to permit a further 26 houses. The 160 house application by Wates is far too excessive. 18 The impact of the development individually, or cumulatively, does not prejudice comprehensive long term development, such as may be set out in the emerging Local Plan." PASS This development should not even be considered when it fails to meet half of the criteria required by CDC's Facilitating Appropriate Development. Wates Statement of Community Involvement A core part of the National Planning Policy Framework is to encourage community involvement in the planning process. In the Ministerial Statement at the start of the document, the Minister for Planning specifically highlights the importance of public involvement. Wates have carried out this exercise and produced some interesting results: Question 3 Do you think new homes are important for the future of Bracklesham and East Wittering? Yes 18% No 82% Question 4 Do you think new homes could help support businesses and shops in the local area? Yes 28% No 72% Question 6 If allotments were provided would be interested in one? Yes 8% No 92%

Question 8 What do you like about the draft proposals? Like Allotments Dislike Too many houses for a area of this size Adds pressure on local infrastructure Congestion on local roads Question 9 Do you support the draft proposals? No 86% Yes 14% Other Comments Congestion/Accessibility Too many houses for the area Flooding concerns Lack of employment Environmental concerns These questions were asked in relation to the original 220 houses. As can be seen the great majority of residents overwhelmingly rejected the proposal to build 220 houses on this site. Thus it is unlikely that the proposal to reduce the number of houses to be built by just over a quarter to 160 would lead to any increase in the resident support for this proposal. Therefore on the above evidence, this application should be refused. Conclusion The proposal by Wates for 160 additional houses on the land to the South of Clappers Lane and East of Bell Lane is in contravention of a number of planning regulations and recommendations. It is a piecemeal development on agriculture land impacting on the rural nature of the community. It is outside the settlement plan and disproportional in size and density of dwellings. There are major consideration on the environmental impact to the area regarding flooding, road safety, traffic, sewage, economy and landscapes of historical significance. The approval of 50 houses to the South of this proposal, on appeal, is based on several fallacious arguments in my view. Sustainability is difficult to justify given the rural nature of the location, particularly given the large number of houses being made available to first time buyers and those on low incomes. By implications needing work locally. Another 160 will not be sustainable. The major issue however is the impact on the peninsular overall. The lack of facilities such as overburdened Doctors, dentist, school, transport access and parking, sewage, flooding and the impact on tourism. There are a large number of developments proposed and in progress over all and the combined effect on the local environment is now significant. It is time to have an overall plan taking these factors into consideration and there should be no further development until these matters have been fully investigated and the impact assessed. This Parish Council urges you to reject this development until a clear development plan is made taking all the subsidiary elements into account having been fully investigated, agreed and implemented.

6.2 Earnley Parish Council FIRST LETTER The contents of this letter reflect the views of all the members of Earnley Parish Council. Throughout the letter references to "we" or "our" should be taken to mean Earnley Parish Council. Earnley Parish Council have unanimously resolved to strongly object to the above planning application on Clappers Lane. We reached this decision at an extraordinary general meeting held on the 24th March 2014, at which we fully discussed all the issues and took into account the views of residents who attended the meeting. It was the unanimous view of all parish councillors that Earnley Parish was most adversely affected by the proposed development; the site is no more than 300 metres from the Earnley Village Conservation Area, and Clappers Lane and the houses bordering the lane to the north are in the parish. The main exit on to Clappers Lane is in the parish of Earnley. We would like to point out that this proximity and impact on Earnley has not been taken into account by the developers and their agents. Apart from the houses facing the proposed development, no residents of Earnley village or the parish received an invitation letter to the developer's consultation event on 11th December 2013; those who did attend only found out about it on the day or day before. At the event the chairman of Earnley Parish Council stressed the proximity of Earnley and its Conservation Area to representatives of both Genesis Town Planning and i-Transport, but this appears to have been discounted; crucially no account is taken of this in the Transport Assessment produced by i-Transport. Specifically, we would like to register our objection to the planning application on the following grounds: 1. Traffic Congestion on the Manhood: 1.1 There is evidence from a variety of sources to show that traffic congestion on the Manhood Peninsula is reaching a critical point and in particular at the main exit onto the A27 via the B2198 and the A286, the Stockbridge Road roundabout. This regular congestion is causing distortions in traffic patterns, where local residents find other ways across and on and off the peninsula, using the country lanes around the villages in the centre of the Manhood, including through Earnley, and taking the B2145 to exit on the alternative roundabout to the east of the Stockbridge Road roundabout. 1.2 West Sussex County Council Strategic Planning Department's consultation document on the permitted 50 dwelling development just south of the proposed site, appears to state that the A286 at Stockbridge Road is already at 90% capacity. There is good reason to believe that if one takes into account just under 500 dwellings already permitted (over 1,000 parking spaces) for the Manhood but not yet built and the over 200 at appeal stage, in the emerging Local Plan or deferred, then this capacity will be exceeded. Accompanying this document is an appendix which itemises all these developments. 1.3 We have some serious concerns about the Transport Assessment document produced by the developer's consultant; in particular, we are questioning some of the assumptions about traffic distribution, assumptions which we believe lead to an underestimation of the increase in congestion and a misunderstanding of the most likely routes taken by any new residents to and from the proposed development. In raising some of these points advice has been taken from an independent transport consultant.

1.4 On the 18th March, councillors from Earnley Parish Council, representatives of other local parishes and our District Councillor met with Strategic Planning officers of the County Council to discuss the Transport Assessment. The officers have agreed to address the issues we have raised and to request further information and opinion from the developer's transport consultants. The full minutes of this meeting will shortly be available. 1.5 The developer's Transport Assessment states that there is a good quality bus service in the area and it is referring to the bus route 52/53. However, the last hourly bus leaves Chichester at 10.18pm on Friday and Saturday, with no buses in the evening during the week after 8.18pm and very limited service on Sundays with no evening service. The main planning document submitted by Genesis refers to the popularity of Chichester Gate (including a cinema) especially with young people; however people can get there by bus but not get back - they generally won't want to leave at 10.00 on a Friday or Saturday evening. The result will be more car traffic to and from Chichester. The report's statement about good public transport contradicts the Local Plan and the County Council's own Transport Plan. The bus service is not good for people working in Chichester's restaurants, bars and hotels and is virtually non-existent on fine summer days when the main roads are clogged with tourist traffic, particularly day trippers heading for West Wittering beach with its 5,000 parking spaces. 1.6 The District Council's own emerging Local Plan states clearly that transport is one of the "planning challenges" faced by the Manhood. It goes on to say that this is due to "Poor road accessibility and problems of traffic congestion resulting from the limited road connections to the north, the junctions on the A27 Chichester Bypass and the impacts of summer holiday traffic" (page 127). The County Council's Transport Plan 2011-16 refers to "pressure being placed on the highway network as many use the car to commute causing congestion during peak hours" (page 53). Finally the Halcrow Group Ltd report of 2002 referred to the "capacity of the existing transportation infrastructure being exceeded at certain times of the day and in particular, long traffic queues forming during peak hours on the northbound approaches to the roundabouts on the A27" (page 24). We understand the definitions of "capacity" have been relaxed since that report, nevertheless it is indicative of the traffic problems the Manhood faces, problems which on warm summer days can bring the whole network to a standstill. 2. Environmental & Safety Impact of additional traffic through Earnley Parish and its Conservation Area: 2.1 It is important to recognise that because the proposed development has its main access road half way down Clappers Lane, the impact on Earnley Parish and its Conservation Area could be severe. What particularly concerns us is that the developer's Transport Assessment, as it currently stands, appears to totally discount the contention that traffic will exit the development site and turn eastwards and travel through the Earnley Conservation Area, and then on to Bookers Lane or Almodington and beyond. This is especially disappointing, given that the chairman of the Parish Council raised this concern with a director of Genesis Town Planning at the public consultation held on December 11th 2013. 2.2 At our meeting with the County Council Strategic Planning Officers we specifically raised this point and officers agreed to refer the issue back to the transport consultants. We produced many good reasons to believe that traffic will take these rural roads to the east, which are un-pavemented, winding, narrow in places with dangerous pinch points and offer limited visibility.

2.3 These lanes are regularly used by vulnerable groups such as walkers (including elderly people from the care home at the far eastern end of Clappers Lane and dog walkers), cyclists and horse-riders, activities which will only increase when the Medmerry Nature Reserve opens this summer. There will be very attractive bridleways in the Medmerry Reserve and, of course, horses and their riders still need to reach this area. There are a number of stables in the Earnley parish who regularly use the local lanes. We are particularly

concerned for the safety of horses and their riders. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents

(RoSPA) on their website point out that "more than a half of all road accidents involving horses

happen on minor roads".

2.4 As well as the proposed 160 dwellings, the previously approved 50 can also access the Clappers Lane exit, which means a total of 412 car parking spaces will be available. If only 40 or 50 vehicles per peak hour exit or enter the proposed new Clappers Lane access road using the eastern route, early calculations show that this may well lead to a 50% or more increase in traffic volumes through the Earnley Conservation Area and beyond. In effect, the exit on Clappers Lane creates a coalescence of the two communities of Bracklesham and Earnley. 2.5 Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, published by the Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), make clear that if the increase in traffic is greater than 30%, then this is significant and requires a careful assessment of the impact on the environment (noise, air quality and general character), but that this significance threshold for "sensitive areas" is only 10% and this includes Conservation Areas. 2.6 We are also concerned that larger commercial vehicles, including HGVs, delivering and providing services to the proposed development, will pose a danger and adversely affect the quiet rural character of the area. Any deliveries coming off the peninsula from the trading and industrial estates to the east of Chichester and from further east along the A27 may take the B2145 and travel south through the parish of Earnley. In the Almodington Glasshouses appeal the Inspector concluded that larger commercial vehicles, including HGVs, would present a road safety issue and detract from the rural character of the area. 2.7 The Earnley Conservation Area Character Appraisal & Management Proposals document, approved by the Cabinet of the District Council on 7 May 2013, refers to the rural and peaceful qualities of the area and concludes that "At certain times of the year there can be increased traffic through the village which is detrimental to the amenity of the area" (page 13). Under the heading of Recommendations the report states that "As opportunities arise the Parish Council, District Council and County Council will continue to seek ways of improving pedestrian safety and reducing traffic in Earnley whilst protecting the special character of the Conservation Area" (page 15). 2.8 Because of its special character, the Earnley Conservation Area is subject to Article 4, which requires that all changes to buildings and land (including roads) require planning permission. It is also worth pointing out that the Conservation Area has documented "significant views", one of which is from the western edge of the Conservation Area looking across the field towards the site of the proposed new development. The Appraisal document refers to this western side "where limited modern development has impinged" (page 5). The proposed development will only increase this impingement, including at nights, when additional street lighting will detract from the unlit area of Earnley. 2.9 The evidence for the impact of increased traffic on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders in this area and on the special peaceful quiet character of Earnley Village, its Conservation Area and its environs (including Almodington and Bookers Lane) is, we

believe, sufficient grounds on its own for refusing the application. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning policies and decisions should aim to "identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason" (section 123, page29). 2.10 It is significant to note that the developers in their public presentation and subsequent documents have made much of the comparison with the successful application, following appeal, for the 50 houses off Beech Avenue immediately south of the proposed 160 unit development. However, of course, that much smaller development did not materially impact on Clappers Lane and therefore provide a ready traffic route to Earnley and beyond. It is worth emphasising that the Inspector did conclude that the Beech Avenue site was "sustainably located for a housing scheme of its size" and was "perhaps sub-optimal in terms of transport sustainability" (page 5, section 25). The Inspector is surely correct in stating "sustainability, in locational terms, is relative to scale" (page5, section 23). 2.11 A more appropriate comparison is with the outcome of the Almodington Glasshouses appeal, where the inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the site, and in particular the associated traffic, would damage the tranquil rural character of the Almodington area and its environs and pose a real danger to walkers, cyclists and horse riders. She stated that "I felt vulnerable walking along the lane and would not have chosen to do so for recreational walking" (section 55, page 11). 2.12 As part of our evidence, a local residents' group have conducted a survey of the driving patterns of existing residents in Clappers Lane (21 houses). The result show that a majority of residents regularly use the eastern route through the Conservation Area to reach Chichester, Selsey, Pagham, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, as well as other villages such as Sidlesham and Runcton. The evidence shows that this majority will be even greater in summer months when the main roads are congested with day trippers going to the beaches, particularly at West Wittering. A copy of the survey form, the methodology used and the detailed results are available should you wish to examine them. 2.13 It would be a serious mistake to predict the driving habits of new residents simply by looking at a map; the psychology of drivers and local knowledge and habits matters. Some respondents even stated that they preferred the eastern lanes because they were pretty and more relaxing than the main roads. Many drivers on the proposed development may well travel to the central hub of Chichester and further east, by going through Earnley and Almodington and then taking the B2145 and exiting on to the A27 at the roundabout east of the regularly congested Stockbridge Road roundabout. 3.0 The Adverse Economic Impact 3.1 Putting aside the temporary, and therefore not sustainable, boost to the building trade, it is tempting to accept that any new housing development will always benefit the local economy. However, there are good grounds to believe that any short term gain will be more than offset by medium and longer term damage to the local economy of the Manhood. 3.2 The developers make a case for there being a good number of reasonably well paid jobs in the local area and, in modelling driving patterns, make the assumption that marginally more people will travel to East Wittering for work than Chichester. However this flies in the face of evidence collected by statutory bodies. The emerging Chichester Local Plan states that "The local economy is heavily dependent on tourism, agriculture and horticulture, resulting in a relative lack of employment opportunities with many local jobs seasonal and poorly paid" (page 127). In examining the pressure on the highway network on the Manhood,

the County Council's Transport Plan concludes that "a great reliance is placed upon the City of Chichester for services and employment" (page 53). 3.3 As with the transport issue, it needs to be born in mind that, as was stated earlier, there are just under 500 unbuilt homes on the Manhood already with planning approval (although admittedly some are nearer Chichester, such as the Southfield Close development) as well as over 200 at other stages, including appeal; all of which means that the number of jobs on the Manhood for this further proposed development will be very limited. The cumulative impact argument applies equally to employment as to traffic. 3.4 The dwellings proposed are mainly family homes where the breadwinners will require secure and reasonably well paid employment. It would be very unreasonable to argue that over the next 5 years enough well paid jobs will be created to sustain over 700 new households, before the proposed 160, particularly where more than one member of a household will have to find paid employment. A significant number of the current residents of the Manhood are retired people. The most likely outcome for the proposed development is that the great majority its residents would travel off the Manhood for work, or we end up with a relatively deprived area dependent on welfare benefits, a situation which would be socially as well as economically undesirable. The former outcome will in effect be a "dormitory" settlement, defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as a "suburban or country district of city worker residences". This outcome we also consider to be socially and economically undesirable. 3.5 In their Transport Assessment on page 25, i-Transport talk about local employment opportunities and specifically highlight a company called Cobham Aerospace and Security, which is within 800 metres of the site. Unfortunately, Cobham Aerospace have recently announced redundancies for all its staff at this site and are closing down their business on the Manhood. 3.6 On the very justifiable assumption that a large majority will commute to work off the Manhood, then this means that the impact of traffic on general congestion is greater than envisaged in the Transport Assessment produced on behalf of the developers and that the environmental and safety implications for Earnley parishioners will be very significant. 3.7 The developer's Transport Assessment assumes that nearly three times as many trips will be made to East Wittering for shopping, leisure and other purposes than Chichester. This is surprising and not borne out by the evidence. Again the emerging Local Plan and the County Council's Transport plan correctly stress that the Manhood "relies strongly on Chichester City for employment, shopping, entertainment, and other key facilities, which increases the need to travel" ( Local Plan, page 127). 3.8 It is significant to note that Genesis Town Planning's own report, following their Community Involvement, disclosed that 72% of the local residents surveyed chose to shop in Chichester rather than East Wittering. This will apply particularly for a community where many residents commute off the Manhood for work. It is important to appreciate how much the shops, restaurants, cafes and pubs in the local area are reliant on tourism, the great majority of which is self-catering. For tourists, including many in caravans and mobile homes with their long season, using the local shops and other services is part of the holiday experience; they are generally not looking to feed a family for a week on a limited budget, buy clothes or make major household or other purchases. 3.9 Given these facts about employment, shopping and leisure (and not forgetting that there is no secondary school within walking or cycling distance), we firmly believe that the economic benefit to the local economy of the proposed development is significantly

overstated and therefore could be more than offset by the potential environmental damage and safety concerns that we have already outlined. 3.10 There is good reason to believe that the proposed development, given it location and size, may be actually harmful to the economy of the Manhood, greatly reliant as it is on tourism. There are many businesses in the surrounding area that attract a clientele who value the rural tranquillity of Earnley parish and the other parishes to the east and north. This includes caravan parks, holiday homes, camp sites and stables. Owners and managers of these businesses tell us that their customers complain about the increasing problems of traffic congestion and the unreliable bus service with its limited evening schedule. Their customers also relay to them the concerns they have about increasing development; they appreciate the tranquil rural environment, particularly because many come from urban centres, especially London. For these businesses the market is mainly mature and older people. These visitors value country pursuits such as walking, cycling, horse-riding and bird watching. 3.11 Most of the businesses we are referring to are within easy walking or cycling distance of Earnley and their customers will use the new Medmerry Nature Reserve when it opens this summer. Some other non-tourist based businesses we have spoken to have talked about the difficulties many of their customers have in reaching them because of the congested roads. Many of these points are echoed by the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Report, Towards ICZM. 3.12 Given the preponderance of tourism in the economy of the Manhood, we believe that a full survey of businesses in this area should be carried out before the planning application is considered and decided upon. 3.13 The Medmerry Nature Reserve represents a major investment of public money and Earnley is in many ways (particularly for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders) its gateway. It would be short sighted to damage the rural character of the surrounding area. It is worth emphasising that Medmerry is a compensatory habitat site and a designated Special Protection Area (SPA) and therefore, under section 118 of the NPPF, is given equal protection as European sites and registered SPAs, such as Pagham and Chichester Harbours. It therefore follows that its zone of influence should be similar, particularly taking into account protected bird species that are now moving into Medmerry. 3.14 In conclusion there are good reasons to believe that any short term economic benefit will be limited and that there could well be medium to longer term economic harm to the local economy, the effects of which would be difficult to reverse. The NPPF talks about the importance of supporting a prosperous rural economy: specifically it states that planners should "support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside" (section 28, page 9). 4.0 Policing and Community Support 4.1 We note that Sussex Police have commented on the planning application and are seeking Section 106 funds to pay for additional infrastructure; specifically 2 ANPR cameras, a CCTV camera (the first for Bracklesham), a neighbourhood policing office and the provision of an additional patrol car based in Selsey. In their letter they refer to the isolated nature of this southern part of the Manhood Peninsula and they further stress that the proposed site will be 7 miles from the nearest police station in Selsey.

4.2 The Police express concern that Youth Disorderly Anti-Social Behaviour is a type of crime that has a higher incidence in East Wittering and Bracklesham than the Chichester District average. They state: "Based on crime types within the East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish, Sussex Police data (2008-2013) identifies that this crime is likely to include a high rate of anti-social behaviour, criminal damage and burglary as the most frequent crime types" (page 7). Such crimes are already having an impact on Earnley Village: over the last 6 months, valuable coping stones were stolen from the wall of the medieval listed church and the old post box was badly vandalised and had to be replaced. 4.3 It should be borne in mind that the extra crimes the police anticipate needs to take into account that just over 37% (2011 census) of the residents of East Wittering and Bracklesham are 60 years of age or over, a proportion significantly greater than the national or even district average These percentages will certainly not be reflected in the proposed development and therefore the incidence of crime could well be greater. 4.4 We are concerned that because the extra funds sought from this large development (which as an estate will include the permitted 50 dwellings) will be a fairly modest one-off payment, this will not fund a significant additional police presence in the area. The letter rightly points out that there is only one dedicated Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) but this is a recent change; a year ago there were 2 dedicated PCSOs but, due to Police revenue funding cuts, the budget was halved. The Police have no plans to increase this local presence. 4.5 Given the proximity of the villages and quiet country lanes in the Earnley parish to the proposed Clappers Lane development, there is a real fear in the community that crime will increase further in this area. There is some evidence to suggest that criminal elements may move to poorly lit areas and areas where there are no CCTV cameras. There is no street lighting in Earnley Village (nor is it appropriate that there should be), only one street light in Bookers Lane and only one along the long stretches of Almodington Lane and Batchmere Lane. The Police letter refers to the "challenge of policing a rural isolated parish" (page 7). 4.6 There is good reason to believe that increased crime, and in particular anti-social behaviour, will negatively impact on tourism to the area; it certainly is not in accord with the image of traditional rural and seaside communities, an image that has been identified as one of the major strengths of the Manhood. Our early survey results of local businesses, particularly in the tourist sector, indicate that increased crime and anti-social behaviour will deter the largely older clientele who visit this area and stay in the caravans, holiday homes and camp sites. 4.7 The NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should "create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion" (section 58, page 15 - our underlining). In this case crime and the fear of crime may well also have a negative impact on the economy. The comments of the Police simply appear to reinforce the argument that the proposed development is too large and in an inappropriate location. 5.0 Foul and Surface Water Sewage 5.1 For some time it has been well known and documented that the flat area of the Manhood peninsula suffers from severe sewage and waste water disposal issues, issues which can pose a serious health risk. Earnley parish is no exception to this; we have documented cases, including in the neighbourhood of Clappers Lane. In particular, severe problems have occurred at the small pumping station on Clappers Lane, where it is not unusual for residents to have problems flushing toilets and using downstairs baths and showers. It is also not

unusual to see tankers taking sewage away to the main waste water treatment works. A not uncommon event in this vicinity, when the water table is particularly high following rainfall, is for surface and ground water to inundate the sewer system causing an overflow of raw sewage, often into residents' gardens. 5.2 Southern Water have committed to present a full report on the history of incidents on the peninsula to the Manhood Peninsula Forum. 5.3 We note from Southern Water's comments on the proposed Clappers Lane development that, following investigations, they conclude "there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul and surface water sewage disposal to service the proposed development". They also state that, without significant improvements, existing homes could be put at risk and flooding may result. 5.4 We would urge that the planning authority does not decide on this application until there is absolute assurance in place that there is no added risk to existing or future homes. This assurance should include detailed design proposals and a comprehensive implementation plan. We note that similar comments were made by Southern Water on the planning application 13/03286/FUL in Chaucer Drive, West Wittering, an application which the planning committee wisely agreed to defer. 6.0 Planning Conditions 6.1 In the event that this application is approved, then Earnley Parish Council would require the following two condition to be put in place: a) Traffic calming measures to be implemented for the eastern end of Clappers Lane where it enters Earnley village over a small bridge, and also for the area around the junction of Bookers Lane and Almodington Lane, including on both roads. This is in light of the commitment in the Earnley Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposal document to reduce traffic through the Conservation Area. b) All site traffic during the building of the development should use the main roads along the A286 and B2198 and avoid going through Almodington village, Bookers lane and Earnley village. To limit the disturbance to homes on Clappers Lane, all works traffic should be confined to normal working hours. 6.2 We would like to stress that these conditions do not in any way negate the reasons and evidence given above in support of refusing this application. In particular, it is not at all clear that traffic calming measures would provide an adequate solution to the traffic using the eastern lanes. 6.3 In addition to these planning conditions, we would also respectfully request that the consultation period for this planning application be extended. As was stated earlier we are awaiting further information from WSCC Strategic Planning department on the crucial transport issues and may therefore wish to comment further. 7. Conclusions and Summary 7.1 This planning application for Clappers Lane is clearly not in accordance with either the Council's Interim Policy Statement on Housing - Facilitating Appropriate Development (the FAD) - or with the emerging Local Plan 2014 -29. Firstly, the application makes claims about the availability of local jobs and the use of local shops and other facilities, which contradict the statements made in the FAD and the emerging Local Plan; secondly, it therefore greatly underestimates the number of journeys off and onto the Manhood, which the FAD and emerging Local Plan do not, and overestimates the adequacy and quality of the bus service.

7.2 Given the developments already permitted, the number of new dwellings proposed clearly significantly contravenes the numbers set in both planning documents. 7.3 In the appeal hearing for the 50 dwellings adjacent to the proposed development, the inspector stated that he gave "significant weight" (section 18, page 4) to the FAD. Given that the emerging Local Plan has been through public consultation and is now nearing formal approval and adoption, there is no reason to believe that this document should not carry equal weight. 7.4 The National Planning Policy Framework states there are three dimensions to sustainable development: Economic, Social and Environmental. We believe that the balance of evidence shows that the proposed development will lead to more economic, social and environmental harm than benefit. The impact on the lives of local residents, businesses and visitors alike will be detrimental. 7.5 Many studies and reports recognise the delicate balance to be achieved on the Manhood between the natural and historic environment on the one hand and the pressures of further development on the other. Given the developments already permitted, and given the location and size of this proposed development and its negative environmental, social and economic implications, we believe that a tipping point has been reached and therefore this planning application should be refused. SECOND LETTER We note that Mr Paul White of Genesis Town Planning has written a letter (dated 8 April) in part responding to the objection letter of Earnley Parish Council. We appreciate his response. However, in turn, we would like to respond to Mr White, pointing out areas of misunderstanding and where we believe Mr White's response is inadequate. We would also like to respond to the attachment to Mr White's letter, an Addendum to the Transport Assessment, although we would point out that this Addendum fails to address a number of new points that we raised in a meeting we had with West Sussex County Council Strategic Planning. The minutes of this meeting, held on the 18th of March, are now on the planning website. 1. Character of the Area, including Coalescence: Mr White's comments here fail to take account of the crucial point that this is a large development running alongside Clappers Lane and with a main traffic exit onto the lane. Clappers Lane is now primarily a quiet country road which leads into the village of Earnley and the Conservation Area. In other words the development would, we believe, significantly change the character of what is now a tranquil, and at nights, unlit rural area. The Clappers Lane exit in effect creates a coalescence with Earnley village.

2. Employment and the Economy: In this section, after accepting that a significant proportion (we would argue a significant majority) must work off the Manhood, Mr White goes on the say that: "Additional development will help to strengthen the local economy anyway offering the prospect of more permanent jobs…"(Section 3). However, Mr White fails to provide any reason why this should be so. All the evidence (including Genesis's own Community Involvement survey, which showed that 72% of the sample chose to shop off the Manhood) shows that the increase in local demand for goods and services will be limited. In addition, the argument

fails to take into account the real danger that this large development will negatively impact on local tourism, a danger highlighted by our discussions with local businesses, including caravan parks, camping sites, holiday camps and horse stables. It is the self-catering tourists who sustain the shops, pubs and restaurants in the East Wittering and Bracklesham area. These visitors are looking for quiet rural and seaside villages. No evidence is presented for a growth in local employment. Indeed, this area has lost jobs: Earnley Concourse has closed and Cobham Aerospace is about to close. This is a much larger development that the 50 already consented to and therefore the employment pressures are much greater. Besides, there are over 500 other approved but not yet constructed developments that will be competing for a limited number of jobs. 3. Sewerage: We note the point that the foul water from the proposed site will connect to the new pumping station on the consented site just to the south and will not connect to the Church Road pumping station or the pumping station on Clappers lane. However, we still have concerns about this serious potential public health issue: a) The letter refers to the Sidlesham treatment works which has capacity for 900 homes. However this capacity is in effect "dry" capacity; our concern is when the system is overwhelmed by ground and surface water. This problem is well documented in the East Wittering/Bracklesham and Earnley areas, with residents unable to use downstairs toilets and baths and sewage coming up into gardens and driveways. It may well be the case in law that Southern Water are not responsible for ground and surface water getting into the sewage system, but this should not detract from what is a serious and common issue. These problems can only get worse as climate change leads to more prolonged and severe rainfall events. b) The area south of the proposed development has documented cases of sewage overflow. In particular we refer to the objection letter from the directors of the Bracklesham Caravan & Boat Club, where they describe the serious problems they have experienced with sewage overflow, problems that have led to the closure of the club on a number of occasions. The plans in Appendix 2 clearly show the route of the foul drainage to be in this direction. It may be that the sewage issues can be overcome but we would repeat our request that this be demonstrated in detail and beyond doubt. Given the problems we currently experience in this low lying area prone to flooding, this is imperative. 4. Special Protection Area and EU Compensatory Site Mr White points out that Medmerry is not an SPA. However, section 118 of the NPPF gives equal weight to EU compensatory sites and to designated SPAs, of which Medmerry is both. This fact has been confirmed by both the Environment Agency as owners of Medmerry and by the RSPB who will be managing its habitat. Moving on to the attachment to Mr White's letter, a Transport Assessment Addendum 5. Local Roads as Rat Runs: i-Transport conclude that rat running will not take place because there is no congestion on Bracklesham Lane and that the back routes are less direct. However, Bracklesham Lane can get very busy and it is people's perceptions that matter: our evidence shows that many

along Clappers Lane will opt for the eastern route. We base this on a survey of the current 15 or so properties along the northern side of Clappers Lane, where even a majority of residents to the west of the proposed new exit choose to take the eastern lanes. i-Transport point out that there is currently a low traffic flow along Clappers Lane and that, moreover, ATC data shows the flow is fairly consistent during the day and this is evidence that rat running is not taking place. However, we are not suggesting that residents in Bracklesham Lane or Stocks Lane are now regularly rat-running down Clappers Lane (although they do during the summer congestion period). What we are suggesting is that if the new development is constructed with a new main access road halfway down Clappers Lane, then rat running will take place. From our survey of local residents' driving habits, there is no doubt that this is a real danger. We would accept the point that the potential rat run route along Bookers Lane will take longer that the equidistant route on the main road, an extra 46 seconds according to i-Transport (although, given the distance and average speed, it should be 34 seconds). However, our survey shows that there is benefit to residents in using this route: Clappers Lane existing residents perceive the Bookers Lane route as being quieter, safer and generally more pleasant. In particular, it avoids the notorious double bends on the main B2198. The Bookers Lane route is especially appealing on the way back to Clappers Lane, where the northern entrance to Bookers Lane is virtually straight off the main road and therefore there is no need to negotiate the double bends or indeed even to slow down. 6. The Alternative Route to the A27 via Almodington and the B2145 Whilst making some valid points, i-Transport's assessment of this route ignores the following: a) The eastern route might well attract commuters working at the industrial and trading estates to the east of Chichester as well as shoppers to the large retailers situated there. b) The Transport Distribution table in the main Transport Assessment (Table 6.3) shows just under 10% of all the proposed site's traffic going to Selsey, Sidlesham, Pagham, North Mundham, Runcton and Hunston. We think there is little doubt that virtually all this traffic would take the road through Almodington. In addition, a significant number of the journeys to Bognor Regis and Littlehampton would also opt for this route. c) As stated before, these country lanes are quiet, attractive and less stressful than the main road. This will particularly apply during the summer, when the main road is congested with tourists and day trippers heading for the beaches. We are therefore still very concerned about the potential environmental impact of the proposed development on the country lanes to the east and on the safety of vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. i-Transport appear to accept that the number of these road users will increase when Medmerry opens this summer. 7. Traffic Growth and Committed Development: We would point out that the extra 477 homes permitted but not yet developed is now 527, with the recent approval of the Chaucer Drive scheme in West Wittering. The Guidance to Transport Assessments also makes clear that one should include developments that are in the Local Plan but not yet approved. In this case a further 100 homes in Selsey should be included, taking the total to 627, or a growth of 5.6% on the base number of households on the Manhood. It is also pertinent to point out that the new developments will generate proportionately greater commuting traffic. This is because all the new developments

(including the Clappers Lane proposal) are mainly for family homes, whereas a significant number of residents on the Manhood currently are retired; a significantly higher proportion than the national average. The correct method would therefore be to reduce the base number of households to account for the significantly higher number of retired people; this will mean a greater percentage increase in commuters than envisaged by i-Transport. In modelling local traffic movements, i-Transport make the assumption that all traffic heading west along Stocks Lane or south along Bracklesham Lane will use Beech Avenue. However, this does not seem reasonable. We believe that a higher proportion will use the Clappers Lane exit, which is the main exit for the proposed 160 dwellings and will also be used by residents on the permitted 50 dwellings. Beech Avenue is not easy to negotiate, with its many speed bumps and double parking. 8. The Bus Service: We note that i-Transport do not deny our contention that the evening bus service is very limited. They make a point of the service being "successful" (it may be commercially, but that's not the point) and not subsidised. However, a subsidy would help to improve the service for local residents; it is precisely because the subsidy was withdrawn that the evening and Sunday services were substantially cut. We would repeat that the emerging Local Plan and the West Sussex County Council Transport Plan do not conclude that the bus service is "good"; in fact the Local Plan agrees that the service is "limited in terms of evening and weekend services" (section 13.1, page 127). 9. Clarification and Potential Amendments to Access We note that i-Transport are proposing a possible amendment to the access design on Clappers Lane, "such that it would become a right-in/left-out only access" (section 3.6.2 page 12). Without a detailed proposal and some plans, we are unable at this stage to comment upon this. On page 33 (section 7.6.1) of the Transport Addendum, i-transport state that two points of vehicular access are proposed for the site, but then go on to state that besides the Clappers Lane access road, Beech Avenue and Elm Close can be used for vehicular access. This is not at all clear. The plans seem to show that Elm Close is blocked off. 10. Selective Quotations from the Inspector's Report on the 50: We think it preferable to stop making selective quotations from the Inspector's report on the 50 dwellings adjacent to the proposed development. The proposed development is much larger in scale and crucially has its access road onto Clappers Lane; let the development proposal stand or fall on its own merits. 11. Areas not covered by the Transport Assessment Addendum: The Addendum to the Transport Assessment fails to address the additional points made by parish councillors at their meeting with West Sussex County Council Strategic Planning on 18 March. The detailed points raised at this meeting have been minuted and followed in part from discussions with an independent transport consultant. The points raised at this meeting but not yet addressed are as follows: i) Base traffic counts along Clappers Lane should exclude local traffic. This is required in order to ascertain the potential impact of additional traffic from the proposed development using the eastern lanes. The Institute for Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA)

guidelines state that an increase in traffic of over 30% or more (10% or more through Conservation Areas) should trigger a full environmental assessment. ii) The traffic distribution assumptions in Table 6.3 of the TA were considered to be dubious and not in accordance with the evidence, evidence that was used to inform the emerging Local Plan and West Sussex County Council's Transport Strategy. This matters because these assumptions underpin all the modelling, including the impact on traffic congestion on the Manhood up to the A27. iii) The assumptions underlying tables 7.1 and 7.4 were also questioned, given the strong commuting flows on the A286 approaching the Stockbridge Rd roundabout. This includes the questionable assumption that a 60/40 split should be used in order to derive one way traffic volumes as percentage of two way. iv) The County Council's comments on the permitted 50 dwellings seems to state that the road capacity at the A286 Stockbridge Road is already 90%, in which case the approved but unbuilt developments on the Manhood plus the Clappers Lane 160 dwellings would take the total to over 100%. v) The survey of the driving habits of existing Clappers Lane residents has not been taken into consideration when considering the traffic impact on the country lanes to the east of the proposed development. vi) The Addendum does not explain a very odd result in Table 3.3 of the original Assessment, where an ATC count on Clappers Lane appears to be inconsistent with a classified turning count. 12. In Conclusion: Mr White concludes his letter by accepting that the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) planning document is a material consideration for the Clappers Lane application. He goes on to rightly state that different planning inspectors have given it varying weights, although it is worth pointing out that the inspector on the Beech Avenue 50 dwellings appeal accorded the FAD "significant weight" (section 18, page 4). It is also worth pointing out that the emerging Local Plan is now more advanced and crucially has gone through the public consultation stage. There have been several appeal cases nationally where the inspector has given a more significant weight to an emerging Local Plan that has reached a similarly advanced stage. The emerging Local Plan specifically addresses the need to boost the supply of housing. With 67 dwellings already approved for Bracklesham/East Wittering, the additional 160 dwellings proposed would well exceed the numbers recommended in both the FAD and the emerging Local Plan. We have taken into consideration the points Mr White has raised, but our view remains unchanged. Given the very limited employment opportunities locally, the potentially negative impact on tourism and on the quiet country areas of Earnley and its Conservation Area, including the safety of walkers, cyclists and horse riders, we believe that this application should be refused. Thank you for your attention. As we think we have made clear, further questions need to be answered, particularly on the crucial issue of transport. THIRD LETTER

We note that Mr Paul White of Genesis Town Planning has written another letter (dated 23 May 2014) accompanying further reports, information and plans provided by the developer, including an Air Quality Assessment, a new Clappers Lane junction plan and a revised Drainage Strategy. Air Quality Assessment: We welcome Chichester District Council's requirement that the developer commission an Air Quality Assessment, partly in response to concerns raised by parish councils and local residents. We would however like to make the following points about the report written by Resource & Environmental Consultants (REC): 1. We note the potential high impact of dust and other pollutants during any construction phase and measures that might be put in place to mitigate this. If the scheme were to be permitted, given the rural and sensitive nature of the area, then these measures would need to be fully implemented. This is not only to protect local residents living nearby but it also recognises the ecologically sensitive area of Medmerry (a designated SPA), the boundary of which is no more than 400 metres from the site. 2. The REC report recognises the potential impact, once the development is built and occupied ("the operational phase"), on the Stockbridge Road Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). However crucially, it does not make clear the traffic distribution assumptions used. We can only surmise that the assumptions are those used by i-Transport in their Transport Assessment, assumptions which we and an independent transport consultant have already criticised as totally unrealistic. The result is that the number of vehicles reaching the Stockbridge Road roundabout from the development on a daily basis (both for work and shopping/leisure) is greatly underestimated. This of course means that the pollution impact of the proposed development on the Stockbridge Road AQMA is significantly underestimated. 3. The REC report concludes that by 2019 (projected date for the scheme opening) levels of pollution at the Stockbridge Road AQMA will regularly exceed recommended levels. However, it also states that this would have occurred whether or not the 160 units on Clappers Lane are built and that the incremental effect of the proposed development is small, indeed negligible (but see point 2 above). To our mind this seems a perverse argument: if you have a pollution problem, why make it worse. If the proposal were for a scheme of 1,600 dwellings, i.e. 10 times the size, then the incremental pollution impact would clearly be significant. However, the cumulative impact of 10 schemes of 160 dwellings each would be the same. 4. The point being made here is that at some stage you have to consider drawing a line. The REC report on page 26 rightly points out that there are a number of already permitted developments which have not yet been built, although the list omits Chaucer Drive in West Wittering (recently approved) and a number of other smaller infill schemes. It also omits 100 unbuilt dwellings in Selsey, which are in the Local Plan. Our calculations show that these unbuilt permitted or approved developments total over 600 new dwellings and over 1,350 parking spaces. Clappers Lane Junction: One of the documents accompanying Mr White's letter is a revised plan of the Clappers Lane exit/entrance road. The plan makes clear that, if approved, there would be a "No Right Turn" sign on exit from the estate and a "No Left Turn" for traffic coming from the east towards the

estate. However, we are not clear whether any other physical measures are proposed; signs alone may well not be effective. Mr White states that, in his opinion, the fears of local residents about "rat running" and extra traffic on the quiet and narrow county lanes to the east of the Clappers Lane development is "unfounded". However, given our local knowledge and our survey of the driving habits of existing Clappers Lane residents, we firmly believe that the environmental threat is real. Besides the issue of extra emissions pollution, we are concerned about the noise generated by additional traffic and the safety of walkers, cyclists and horse riders. As stated previously, when Medmerry Nature Reserve fully opens, these country pursuits will inevitable increase. We are also of course concerned to preserve the recognised special tranquil nature of the Earnley Conservation Area. Drainage & Sewage: We note that Wates the developer has agreed to fund an upgrade to just over 200 metres of sewage pipe in the vicinity of the proposed development, specifically to increase the diameter of the pipe by 5 centimetres. This is all well and good but fails to address the wider problem of ground and surface water ingress into the sewage system, a problem which is well documented throughout the route of the foul sewage from the proposed site to the Sidlesham Treatment Works, both to the East Bracklesham Pumping Station and beyond. Significant inconvenience, misery and costs is incurred by both residents and businesses when water overwhelms the sewage system. FOURTH LETTER We note that the developer has submitted an appeal to the planning inspectorate on the basis that the district planning authority has failed in its duty to reach a decision on the application within the required timescale. However, we would like to respectfully point out that a significant reason for the delay has been due to the incomplete, inaccurate and therefore unconvincing Transport Assessment (TA) submitted by i-Transport on behalf of the developer. Members of Earnley Parish Council and other affected Parish Councils on the Manhood therefore had to spend a lot of time digesting and understanding this lengthy report, gathering evidence, speaking with an independent transport consultant, organising meetings with West Sussex County Council (WSCC) Strategic Planning (Highways) and district and county councillors, and finally writing detailed responses. Specifically, we would like to make the following points: 1. At the initial public consultation event held by Genesis Town Planning (11 December 2013), residents pointed out that drivers would use the quiet unpavemented country lanes to the east of the proposed development, lanes that go through the Earnley Conservation Area some 300 metres from the proposed site. The i-Transport TA report briefly dismisses this concern. It is worth pointing out that, apart from residents of Clappers Lane itself, no residents of Earnley were invited to the public consultation event and that Earnley parish councillors only found out about it a day or two beforehand. 2. A great deal of time was spent conducting a proper survey of the driving habits of the existing 20 or so households living along Clappers Lane, the results of which showed that a significant number of journeys would be along the country lanes to the east of the proposed development.

3. No evidence was presented by i-Transport for the crucial traffic distribution flows from and to the proposed development. What we got was a series of assumption (contained in Table 6.3 of the report) covering the areas of work, shopping, school trips and leisure. The crucial assumption was that over 40% of all work commutes would be within the Manhood, with two thirds of these to and from the village of East Wittering, marginally more than the city of Chichester itself. Assuming an employment rate of 1.3 jobs per household (the national average) and 5% unemployment, this means the assumption is that 54 people living on the proposed development would get jobs in East Wittering village alone (compared to 50 jobs in Chichester). 4. We had to gather and analyse detailed job statistics from a variety of sources (over 500 jobs in total) in order to demonstrate that this assumption was totally unrealistic. Our evidence showed that there were very few job vacancies in the local area but hundreds in Chichester and its vicinity, i.e. off the Manhood Peninsula. This took time and the evidence was presented to Strategic Planning (Highways) at West Sussex County Council. 5. It was clearly pointed out to Genesis that the local area does not have growing job opportunities. In fact, the area has lost some significant businesses: Earnley Concourse closed down a couple of years ago and Cobham Aerospace are about to close their premises in East Wittering. 6. We and others also had to question the assumptions about shopping, leisure and school trips, where 71% of all such trips were assumed by i-Transport to be to within the Manhood Peninsula, an assumption which flies in the face of the preponderance of Chichester for such activities (as well as job opportunities), a point stressed in the Local Plan. It also appears to contradict Genesis Town Planning's own report, following the public consultation held in December 2013, which disclosed that 72% of the residents who responded stated that they preferred to shop in Chichester. Where Chichester was seen to be a prime destination for evening leisure activities, i-Transport appeared to suggest that the bus service would be adequate, ignoring the cuts to the evening service which occurred two years ago. 7. The results of all of this research and work were passed to WSCC Strategic Planning (Highways), who we understand requested further answers and clarification from i-Transport. Clearly this is going to take time, as it rightly should. An Addendum was issued by i-Transport covering some of the issues raised by residents, but it failed to address the crucial highly questionable traffic distribution flow assumptions referred to above. Until these issues are resolved, it is difficult to see how WSCC, as statutory consultees, can respond to the planning application. Without this response the Planning Department of the District Council cannot make a proper recommendation. To conclude, had Genesis Town Planning and i-Transport spent more time listening to residents' concerns and properly researching the transport implications of the proposed development, then the application could well have been submitted to the district planning committee in the appropriate timescale. Instead we got a report that appeared to be rushed and not properly evidenced based. 6.3 West Wittering Parish Council West Wittering Parish Council objects to this application by resolution dated 3rd April 2014. The Parish Council concurs with the concerns already submitted by the Parishes of West Itchenor, Birdham, East Wittering & Bracklesham, Earnley and Donnington relating to

this application and will not therefore reiterate these comments. However we would like to present three additional reasons for an objection. 1. The proposed site is less than 3km from Chichester Harbour AONB. This is within its designated area of influence. The primary purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area (Natural England Protected Landscapes June 2010). The development proposed for Clapper Lane does not meet this criterion (see NPPF Guideline 115). The cumulative effect of this proposed development and other recent smaller developments will bring unsustainable recreational disturbance to the AONB. Furthermore the destruction of the natural beauty of the area will reduce the appeal of the area to visitors and holiday makers that are vital to sustaining the local economy. 2. Chichester District Councils so called Emerging Local Plan which is scheduled to be completed this year calls for 100 new dwellings in East Wittering and Bracklesham over 15 years. This is regarded as the sustainable level with regard to local needs and to the local facilities and infrastructure. The Clappers Lane development would deliver 160 houses over 3 years. That is completely outside the scale of development in the Emerging Local Plan and is not sustainable for the many reasons spelt out in the objections from the Parish Councils cited in the opening paragraph. 3. Since the publication of the Transport Assessment Addendum dated 8 April 2014, the letter from Paul White of the same date and the recent letter from Earnley Parish Council of 11 April 2014 we would like to expand on the comments submitted by Earnley Parish Council: a. Far more emphasis should be placed on the emerging Special Protection Area of Medmerry. For this application Medmerry must be afforded the same status as an SPA. With such status a Zone of Influence of 3.5 km would be appropriate (NPPF para 118). b. Employment opportunities within 5 km of the application site are extremely limited with only a couple of vacancies currently being advertised. c. The increase in the number of commercial vehicles has not been fully addressed. d. On Application WW/10/03356/FUL (Northfields) a development of 15 units, the developer in an email dated 13 October 2010 from Robert Wilson of Upton McGougan to Mike Goodwin Atkins Ltd stated the sewage flow rate from the 15 units was estimated at 0.69l/s. Considering the total discharge from the approved 50 units at Beech Avenue plus the 160 in this application giving a total number of new connections to the public sewer in Beech Avenue of 210. In para 10 of Paul Whites letter it states the increase in the peak flow rate is 2.5 l/s. The number of units has increased by 14-fold but the relative flow rate has only increased by 3.6. e. In paragraph 12 of Paul Whites letter it refers to good and very good quality agricultural land. NPPF 112 states Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. In this case there is no significant justification to use this prime agricultural land. f. In paragraph 15 of Paul Whites letter the number of priority applicants on the housing register for the Parish is 45. More than 37 of these will be satisfied by the already approved developments in the Parish. Some applicants are already in affordable housing which they will release. For all of the above reasons West Wittering Parish Council wishes to object to the Planning Application EWB/14/00457/OUT for 160 Dwellings on Clappers Lane. 6.4 West Itchenor Parish Council West Itchenor Parish Council strongly objects to the above application. It is noted that the number of properties has been graciously reduced from 220 to 160, however even this still constitutes a major development in an area that has woefully inadequate infrastructure to

support the current population. What S106 and Community Infrastructure Levy is the developer offering towards additional schools, medical services and local public transport? Yet again, this past winter the residents of the Manhood Peninsular have experienced the consequences of the inadequate surface and foul water drainage systems. To put additional pressure on the creaking system that exists at present will compound the problems already being experienced. It is not just the water and sewage systems that are failing the residents but other aspects of the infrastructure, in particular the road system. There is only one substantial road from Chichester through the Peninsular, the A286, which in the summer months sees traffic jams frequently tailing back 7 miles to the A27 at Chichester. The resulting traffic chaos makes life difficult for residents, severely restricts access for emergency service vehicles and frustrates the many visitors who wish to take advantage of the facilities and beauty of the area. The Parish Council notes that planning permission has been granted for a substantial number of properties within the Chichester District and Manhood Peninsular which have yet to be executed. The Parish Council would ask that no planning consents are granted for further developments until existing planning permissions are implemented and the Officers have conducted a thorough impact assessment on these. Such impact assessment should take into account permitted properties remaining un-built or unsold through lack of demand, together with a peninsular wide flood risk assessment and an employment survey. The Manhood Peninsula is an area of great beauty as is evidenced by the special status given to it by both the British government (AONB) and European legislation (ICMZ). Yet, if we permit continued development on this proposed scale, the wild life (the Manhood is a Ramsar protected area) and other attractions of the Peninsular will be destroyed. Is this the government's policy? Accordingly, for the above reasons West Itchenor Parish Council urges you to refuse the above application. 6.5 Birdham Parish Council Birdham Parish Council Strongly Objects to this application on the grounds that it is unsustainable, outside of the Bracklesham settlement area, is significantly in excess of FAD guideline housing numbers and conflicts with both CDC retained policies, the 2014-2029 Local Plan and NPPF. The likely negative impact such a poorly situated large scheme will have on social, economic and environmental grounds does not outweigh Chichester District's shortfall of reserve housing numbers. We are particularly concerned about the severe impact this development will have on sustainable, non-vehicular traffic on the Manhood peninsula, its impact on vulnerable road-users, including cyclists, walkers, horse-riders, younger and older residents, residents and visitors quality of life and the economy. In Summary Social Impact - This development is at the bottom of a peninsula which suffers from significant and well-evidenced traffic problems, has relatively limited public transport, has few job opportunities, and lacks key services including secondary and higher education and training, entertainment facilities etc. In recent years several of the large employers based in the East Wittering/Bracklesham area, including Earnley Concourse which employed more than 50 local people, have closed. Only this month Cobham, one of the settlement's largest

employers, handed redundancy notices to its entire staff. This particular employer is highlighted by Wates as a potential employer for new residents. This casts doubt on the numerical assumptions for direction of travel for employment made in Wate's traffic assessment. In order to find employment and further training or education, most residents from the new development will have to commute out of the peninsula. This will worsen the area's significant congestion issues and cause traffic spillage into rural lanes widely used by cyclists, walkers and horse-riders. The increase in traffic will also impact the quality of life of residents in Birdham who live adjacent to the B2198 and A286, many of whom have to cross these 40 mph roads in order to access all village facilities and to visit friends and neighbours. Economy - Increased vehicles on local roads will also negatively impact the economy of Birdham and the entire western Manhood, particularly its important tourism economy. In a recent Business Survey of Birdham, conducted for the parish's neighbourhood plan, tourism was confirmed as a major contributor to local business while traffic congestion on the A286 was highlighted by businesses in the parish as a significant problem. Birdham has a fragile local economy that is heavily dependent on its harbour and coastal location and its rural environment, which attracts holiday makers and boat users. 22 of the 33 businesses that responded to the survey are involved in the holiday trade, marine trade or retail horticulture, with 14 out of 33 stating that they benefitted from tourist income. 21 out of 33 businesses commented on heavy traffic congestion in the area being an issue for their business, most notably summer traffic causing delays for customers, staff and deliveries. Comments included 'customers give up when traffic is very bad' and 'summer traffic at peak times causes delays and impairs access to Birdham for customers, deliveries, collecting'. Businesses also observed that congestion at the A27 at peak commuting hours affected employees living outside of Birdham with staff staggering work hours around congestion times. The continued ability of tourists to be able to enjoy the peninsula and travel across it (for example, from Birdham to Medmerry and Bracklesham) on foot, by bike or horse is a key component of the local tourism product. Moreover, while some of the new residents may shop locally, any adverse impact on tourism will have a negative impact on local shops, restaurants, and pubs etc., which rely on the tourism trade. Significant public and business consultation has been undertaken in recent years to prepare a long-term economic strategy for the Manhood Peninsula. Enhancement of the Manhood's environment, benefitting from the Medmerry coastal realignment scheme, and the promotion of safe cycle and walking routes (both on and off road) are part of the strategy to regenerate the economy through the increase of stay tourism and the lengthening of the stay visitor season. (See Manhood Peninsula Destination Management Plan, Towards ICZM, both on www.peninsulapartnership.org.uk; VisitChichester; CDC Local Plan 2014-2029). NPPF 17, 19,28,29, support 'sustainable growth' and state that development should 'not act as an impediment to sustainable growth', should 'support sustainable rural tourism,' and 'manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of walking and cycling' and 'maximise sustainable transport.' (The Manhood's work on linking climate change, the environment, flood risk management, planning, tourism and the economy has been financially supported by the EU and Defra, acknowledged by a Minister of the Environment and recognised nationally and internationally in publications and at conferences in the UK and in Europe). Environmental Impact - The proposed site is located less than 300 metres from the main entrance to the Medmerry realignment scheme. This experimental new coastal habitat scheme is the first and largest open coast realignment scheme in the UK. Medmerry was widely embraced by the local communities, after many years of public consultation, as an opportunity to enhance the environment and regenerate the local economy. Urbanising the fringes of Medmerry would send a confusing message to the public over long-term commitment to habitat creation and climate change mitigation. It is noted that a portion of the

proposed development site is in Flood Zone 2 and the continual expansion of small coastal communities such as Bracklesham goes against the advice of Dutch planners and coastal engineers who studied the area, offering strategic long-term planning guidance, in 2001 and 2008. (See Going Dutch I and II). The Medmerry site is a compensatory European Union habitat site and a Potential Special Protection Area and according to NPPF 118 should have the same status as fully-fledged SPA's. The Manhood Peninsula is bordered by three important EU habitat sites Chichester, Pagham and Medmerry Harbours creating a unique opportunity to satisfy NPPF 114 which promotes the 'creation and enhancement of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure' and 'maintain the character of the undeveloped coast and improve and enhance public access to and enjoyment of the coast.' The development site also is adjacent to the parish of Earnley, creating coalescence with this historic Conservation Area. The ICZM for the Manhood stresses the importance of maintaining the individual character and distinctiveness of the separate settlements within the peninsula. NPPF 17 states that core planning policies should conserve heritage assets. Traffic Implications - Major concerns about traffic on the Manhood Peninsula have been expressed during public consultation over the years, including at the Going Dutch workshops (2001 and 2008) and in the Selsey & East Wittering Visitor Survey 2010. (Cited in Towards ICZM p 25). The last official study of traffic on the Manhood stated that the peninsula's road structure was inadequate for the amount of traffic now on its roads. (Halcrow, 2002). More recent surveys such as Birdham's Business Survey suggests that road congestion is starting to impact the local economy, and visitor experience as well as residents' quality of life. This situation is caused by the area's peninsula shape with only two major access roads to the A27, a greatly expanded population with no change in the highway network, and very high visitor traffic volumes. More than 500 new homes have already been granted planning permission recently on the Manhood and yet no detailed and cumulative traffic assessment has been undertaken for the peninsula since a study completed by Halcrow in 2002 concluded that the peninsula's roads had reached capacity and that no further large scale developments could be supported by the local road infrastructure. Traffic impact on residents and visitors - The A286 south of Chichester regularly reaches capacity and suffers from severe congestion on sunny days, both during the week and at weekends, from April to October. There are 5000 car parking spaces at West Wittering beach alone as well as hundreds of caravan pitches on the Manhood means that a 30% uplift for holiday traffic is totally unrealistic and inadequate. Figures from West Wittering Car Park show that even non-holiday months such as March, April, May and September can attract thousands of daily visitors. On some days the three-mile journey to and from Birdham to Chichester can take up to two hours, buses also get stuck and taxis refuse to come to Birdham from Chichester on such days. The severe congestion - both seasonal and at peak rush hour - means that local people from Birdham, Earnley, the Witterings and Bracklesham increasingly use the narrow, winding, rural lanes through the centre of the Manhood, north of the Medmerry realignment site, to get on and off the peninsula. Traffic Impact on Sustainable and Vulnerable Road Users At a recent meeting of Birdham Parish Council, residents attending stated that they now regularly use the back roads on and off the peninsula when congestion on the A286 is bad. This traffic conflicts with the non-vehicular, recreational traffic using these lanes. Any increase in this situation will negatively impact the rural environment of the Manhood, its tourism economy, the social well-being of its residents and cause increasing traffic hazards, particularly to walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. There are half a dozen equestrian businesses located on the lanes to the north of Medmerry as well as many private stables. The Bridleways Association recently estimated a total of 500 horses are kept on the

Manhood Peninsula. There are also dozens of campsites in the area, with many visitors choosing to come to the Manhood in order to get out of their cars and walk or cycle in the peninsula.(see Local Visitor Surveys on www.peninsulapartnership.org.uk) Traffic Impact on Social Cohesiveness of Birdham - New housing about to be built in Birdham (in excess of the settlement's allocated housing through to 2029) will result in dozens more families having to cross both the B2198 and A286 in order to access all the village facilities (including schools, shop, recreational ground, church, village hall, etc). Increased traffic commuting from Bracklesham to Chichester along these roads will, as a result, have a negative impact on Birdham's social cohesiveness. Traffic congestion already adversely impacts the lives and travel patterns of residents on the Manhood and businesses. (Contrary to NPPF 32, 35 and 37) Traffic Impact on Conservation Areas - Traffic to the Clappers Lane development will also impact negatively on the conservation areas of Somerley (part of which lies in Birdham parish and which straddles the B2198) and Earnley, site of the main entrance to Medmerry. The negative impact of traffic on these historic settlements has been noted in CDC's character assessment of both. (Contrary to NPPF 17) Traffic Impact on sustainable routes to Medmerry - Increased traffic on both these roads and on the Sidlesham, Almodington and Batchmere Lanes will impact the ability of Birdham residents and its tourists/visitors to access the Medmerry nature reserve and Bracklesham and East Wittering by foot, cycle or horseback. This is the sort of sustainable transport promoted by NPPF 17, 34, 29,35, Traffic Accidents - Accident rates on the A286 and B2198, including fatalities, are already high, particularly on the Somerley Bends, where there have been more than 32 accidents causing 46 injuries, including 2 fatalities, along a 200 metre stretch of road since1999. In the last six months alone helicopters have attended two serious accidents on Bell Lane (B2198), including one this month. Lack of Rigour in Wates Traffic Assessment - None of the above traffic implications have been addressed in the Transport Assessment put forward by the developer of the site. We also question much of the data and assumptions made in the Wates traffic assessment, such as the employment opportunities in East Wittering/Bracklesham and so the direction of traffic from the site; the total number for new housing used to estimate the accumulative impact on the A27 junctions; and the 60/40 split used to estimate the maximum amounts of traffic travelling in any one direction. We also question the car count readings for very heavy congestion in the area- if the traffic is crawling or at a standstill there is a limit to the amount of cars that can physically pass the traffic counters and there are no cameras measuring speed on the A286 south of Donnington. Evidence and Material Planning Documents Chichester District Local Plan 2014-2029 To quote from Chichester District Council's Local Plan for 2014-2029 (consultation completed): The Manhood suffers from 'poor road accessibility and problems of traffic congestion resulted from the road connections to the north, the junctions with the A27 and the impacts of summer holiday traffic…..bus services are limited in the evening and weekends. These problems of accessibility are further accentuated by the fact that the peninsula relies strongly on Chichester city for employment, shopping, entertainment and other key facilities, which

increase the need to travel…(the) local economy is heavily dependent on tourism and horticulture; resulting in relative lack of employment opportunities.' ICZM - Manhood Peninsula As a result of the considerable infrastructure issues on the peninsula and the likely impacts of climate change, a decade-long consultation process with local residents and businesses as well as other statutory and non-statutory stakeholders in the area has resulted in an Integrated Coastal Zone Management strategy for the Manhood. The ICZM document was adopted by Chichester District Council on 20 December 2011 and has been incorporated into the 2014-29 Local Plan. Paragraph 105 of the NPPF states that planning should apply Integrated Coastal Zone Management. The Manhood's ICZM document was also given 'material consideration' and 'afforded significant weight' by a Government Inspector in a major appeal turning down a glasshouse development in nearby Almodington in June 2012 (APP/L3815/A/11/2160759). In refusing the development, the Inspector noted that 'the Manhood Peninsula is an area that experiences a number of conflicting interests which need to be balanced'. She observed that increased vehicular traffic on lanes north of the Medmerry realignment site would be 'in conflict' with pedestrian and other road users and that the 'rural tranquil character of the lane would be unacceptably diminished to the detriment of the living conditions of nearby properties.' After walking down Almodington Lane, which, like other lanes in this area is unpavemented and winding, the Inspector stressed that she felt 'vulnerable.' If, the residents of the proposed development choose to use these country lanes to the east to avoid the growing congestion on the A286, the danger to non-vehicular road users will increase. The Inspector recognised the popularity of these lanes with walkers, cyclists and horse riders. According to the ICZM, a SWOT analysis of the area recognises the main strengths of the peninsula to be its 'natural environment, coastal landscapes and opportunities for year round tourism' and its weaknesses to include poor infrastructure, particularly roads. The document also states that 'Poor transport links makes access for residents, visitors and the business sector difficult at peak times.' Meanwhile, opportunities include better provision for horse-riding, cycling and walking. (pp 37, 10 Towards ICZM, see CDC website). According to Towards ICZM the 'peninsula highway system is little changed from 100 years ago, when it served the agricultural industry….and a much smaller human population. Transport is now therefore a major problem in the area. Traffic congestion southward from Chichester to West Wittering is acute from May through October' and the fact that the Manhood is a cul-de-sac means getting off the peninsula can be difficult at peak times. 'Fortunately, locals are able to make use of the back roads across the peninsula,' the document observes, noting, however, the conflict this situation causes with vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians) in these un-pavemented, windy, narrow lanes. The ICZM notes the negative impact of traffic on visitor experience shown in surveys (p 27) and the need to recognise the 'congestion on the Manhood, particularly the frequent congestion on the A286 and B2145, and the undesirability of sending large amounts of traffic across the peninsula. The less-used rural roads of the peninsula are perceived as both an asset and a handicap. They are more suitable for cycling and horse-riding than the other roads in the area, which makes them popular with local residents and visitors as a recreational facility and, therefore, a potential asset for the community's environmental tourism aspirations, new cycle paths and bridleways linking Birdham and Sidlesham and Medmerry via Almodington Lane.' These roads are also used by vehicular traffic including lorries servicing local horticulture businesses in the area and 'this is a potential conflict that needs to be carefully considered in future planning strategies.'

Towards ICZM states that the Manhood's economic and social goals can be achieved by 'recognizing the core qualities of the area', enhancing 'the area's natural assets' and by 'recognising the economic importance of tourism and agriculture and enhancing and increasing these products' , including creating more room for recreational facilities (walking, cycling, horse-riding) and creating Medmerry Harbour as an economic asset. (p 30). A Destination Management Plan (DMP) and Tourism Surveys of the Manhood, commissioned as part of the ICZM, showed that tourism in the Manhood, particularly stay-tourism, represented half of the total tourism economy of Chichester District as a whole. The studies indicated that visitors come to the Manhood because of the area's rural environment and to ride, cycle and walk and the DMP pointed out that the area has a huge potential to boost its stay visitor economy and lengthen its holiday season, particularly with the habitat and environment creation at Medmerry, the country's largest coastal realignment scheme, and the suitability of the Manhood for walking, cycling and horse-riding. (Destination Management Plan for the Manhood see www.peninsulapartnership.org.uk). Going Dutch on the Manhood Peninsula 2001 Planners and coastal and water management engineers recommended no new permanent development below the 5 m mark and no new development until the road infrastructure had been improved. 'Roads through the Manhood have become busier, traffic faster and rush hour congestion at the A27 junctions worse. Without integrated planning, promotion of more sustainable forms of transport, such as buses and bikes, recommended by government, will become less and less viable. Already many of the roads in the Manhood are perceived by residents and visitor to be too dangerous for cycling, despite the fact that its confined geographical boundaries and flat landscape would otherwise make it ideally suited for cycling. The increased level of traffic and housing is also undermining the local tourist and recreation industry.' (p13) Going Dutch II 2008 The Dutch and British planners and coastal water management engineers involved in this workshop, several of whom also attended the 2001 workshop, recommended adopting ICZM, concentrating car traffic on the two main roads and making other roads safe for cycling, the creation of higher rated employment, upgrading recreational facilities, stimulating and upgrading tourism, and marketing the whole peninsula as a tourism product. West Sussex County Council Character Assessment of the Manhood warns of 'traffic generation resulting in erosion of rural lanes and loss of tranquillity.' Natural England National Character Area Profile: 126 South Coast Plain (NE525) - published 24 February 2014 www.publications.naturalengland.org.uk This document highlights the importance of the Manhood Peninsula as a 'Distinct Area' in the South Coast NCA - as 'one of the last, and largest, relatively undeveloped stretches of coastline between Newhaven and Southampton.' It notes that 'tranquillity is a scarce but greatly prized resource within this heavily urbanized NCA.' Natural England's Statements of Environmental Opportunity in this area include 'improving access to the coast for walking, cycling and disabled people and encouraging reduced car use.' (SEO 1) and 'encouraging a strategic approach to the planning of land use (in) the Manhood Peninsula' ensuring that 'the tranquil character is retained.' (SEO2). The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) National Map of Tranquil Areas - highlights the Manhood Peninsula as one of the most tranquil areas on the south coast.

Birdham Business Survey see www.np4Birdham.co.uk NPPF - paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 19, 28, 29,32,34, 34, 35, 37, 99, 100, 105, 114, 118, 123, 129 152. NPPF states that 'economic, social and environment gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously' (NPPF 8) and that 'pursuing sustainable development involves seeing positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people's quality of life making it easier for jobs to be created, moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for the future and improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure.' (NPPF 9). Birdham Parish Council believes that this development will undermine attempts to regenerate the local economy, increase the biodiversity opportunities of the area and improve the living conditions of both residents and visitors. CDC FAD statement CDC Local Plan 1999, 2014 Conclusion: Birdham Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed Clappers Lane development, because of its likely damaging impact on the social cohesiveness, economy and environment (both natural and historic) of Birdham Parish and the wider Manhood. Recent and permitted development already exceeds the area's allocation for the next 15 years, and has exceeded the capacity of the Manhood's existing infrastructure (particularly transport) to cope. The Manhood has been identified as an area that can capitalise on its location between three EU habitat sites and its relatively unspoilt environment and tranquillity in a crowded coastline to boost its economy, and the wider economy of the district. However, it is currently at a tipping point, acknowledged by its local community and local and national bodies, requiring planners to recognise that any negative impact on its environment and tourism character could have an irrevocable impact on its existing economy and potential regeneration. 6.6 Donnington Parish Council Donnington Parish Council objects to this application on the grounds of the impact of the additional traffic generated by the scheme. It would ask that the District Council take the following information into account regarding the transport assessment prepared on behalf of Wates Development: Donnington Parish Council considers the Transport Assessment to be flawed and are concerned by the conclusion in paragraph 7.3.7 On this basis, the A286 and B2198 have sufficient link capacity to accommodate the additional traffic demands of the development proposal (which will not result in the theoretical capacity being exceeded). We would draw your attention to the following in the Assessment relating to the A286 and Stockbridge Road: Table 7.4 - States the two-way capacity to be 1500 and in the busiest direction to be 900 Table 7.5 - States the total traffic demand with this development to be 1385 or 0.923 of the total two-way capacity of 1500. However traffic on the A286 is a tidal flow. In the morning traffic travels north to go to work and other destinations. In the evening travel is reversed. This tidal flow is repeated by holiday-makers heading to and from the beach in the summer season. BUT the figures in table 7.4 assume a 60/40 directional split at the busiest times. We consider this to be fiction and a more realistic split to be 80/20. If an 80/20 split is used then 1385total traffic demand (see above) gives traffic in the busiest direction as 1108 above the capacity of 900. Even a 70/30 split would produce 969 still above the capacity of 900.

We submit that this means that the A286 is currently staggering from being required to operate above capacity and this development will only exacerbate the situation. 6.7 Chichester Harbour Conservancy The Harbour Conservancy raises no objection to the proposed development subject to adverse impacts to the AONB's character and wildlife from recreational disturbance being mitigated through a S.106 agreement. The proposals reflect the strategic approach in the submission version of the Chichester District Local Plan to designate Bracklesham as a settlement hub to absorb new housing growth on the Manhood Peninsula as a means of securing the vitality and viability of that settlement and its facilities/businesses and also protecting more environmentally sensitive areas such as the AONB in the locality. 6.8 Environment Agency The development will only meet the requirements of the NPPF if the measures included in the Flood Risk Assessment are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition (raised floor levels and road level). 6.9 Southern Water Services Foul Drainage - There is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul and surface water disposal. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. The developer will need to enter into a separate agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure. Surface Water - the application refers to drainage by SUDS. Critical that the long term management, maintenance and responsibilities for implementation are secured. A planning condition is requested requiring details of both the foul and surface water drainage to be submitted to and approved by the LPA in consultation with Southern Water before construction of the development. 6.10 Highways Agency Objection - We have reviewed the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan dated February 2014. We have also reviewed the Transport Assessment Addendum from April 2014. From the information provided we consider the trip generation, distribution and assignment exercise is robust and provides a realistic estimate of the likely assignment of traffic on the highway network. In terms of the impact on the A27, this is predicted to be approximately 31 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 35 vehicles in the PM peak hour. However, an operational assessment of the impact of this traffic upon the A27 / A286 Stockbridge roundabout has not been undertaken. The Submitted Local Plan allocates 100 homes to be developed in East Wittering / Bracklesham with the sites not yet specified as this has been delegated to the Parish Neighbourhood Plan process. 50 dwellings of the proposed development at Clappers Lane would therefore complete the 100 homes allocation for East Wittering / Bracklesham in the Local Plan. We are concerned that 110 dwellings of the proposed Clappers Lane development are in excess of the quantum of development assumed for this area in the Local Plan's transport evidence base and transport strategy. In order to ensure that this proposal would not risk the delivery of the Local Plan, in accordance with paragraph 22 of Circular 02/2013 we expect an assessment of the impact of the 'excess' 110 dwellings on the A27 in the final year of the Local Plan, based on the presumption that the Local Plan proposals will be fully implemented. This is to ensure that the development, when added to

the development and mitigation measures in the Local Plan, is not detrimental to the safety and the operation of the A27. In the absence of evidence that this proposal would not result in a material impact upon the safety and operation of the strategic road network, in particular the A27 / A286 Stockbridge roundabout, at the end of the Local Plan period assuming the submitted Local Plan's proposals are fully implemented, the Agency is currently an objector to this proposal. 6.11 Natural England No objection subject to contribution to the Solent Disturbance Mitigation Project (SDMP). Chichester Harbour SSSI - No objection. Given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on the SSSI. 6.12 RSPB Strongly recommend a contribution is sought towards the SDMP as site is within the 5.6km zone of influence for Chichester Harbour SPA. Not likely to have a significant effect on Pagham Harbour SPA as it is outside of the 3.5km zone of influence so no mitigation required in that respect. The Medmerry Managed Realignment site in policy terms is treated the same way as an SPA. Recommends an appropriate contribution is sought to cover additional Medmerry visitor management costs arising from the development. 6.13 Sussex Police The development has been assessed with regard to the implications on the infrastructure requirements of Sussex Police and the day-to-day policing of the area. A contribution of £49,716 is therefore requested towards policing in the Parish. 6.14 NHS Sussex (PCT) Witterings Health Centre now has a complement of 10 GP's and has sufficient capacity to take on patients from the proposed development. No objection is raised and there is no requirement for a S.106 developer contribution. 6.15 WSCC - Highways Objection. Access - two vehicular accesses are proposed. To the south an access is proposed to connect with the permitted development of 50 dwellings, which in turn links to Bracklesham Lane via Elm Grove and Beech Avenue. A Road Safety Audit (RSA) undertaken on the Bracklesham Lane/Stocks Lane/Beech Avenue junction as part of the Beech Avenue development addressed concerns over safety issues and the layout of the junction has not materially changed since the audit was undertaken. The second access is proposed onto Clappers Lane. Concern over the possibility of rat-running by vehicles routing towards the east of the site and through Bookers Lane has resulted in a revised junction arrangement which takes the form of a left-in, right-out priority junction. The visibility and splays proposed are acceptable. A Stage 1 RSA has been undertaken and no problems have been raised. Rat-Running Local concern has been raised regarding the potential for rat running through the introduction of an access onto Clappers Lane. The Applicant has submitted an assessment of the likely occurrence of such movement. Having driven both routes on several occasions during site observations the LHA concur with the findings and do not consider there to be technical

evidence support the assertion that an access onto Clappers Lane would result in rat-running subject to securing the left out, right in junction by condition. Sustainability The site immediately south of the application site was subject to a recent appeal relating to sustainable access. The Inspector commented that while the site was considered sub-optimal to other locations closer to East Wittering village centre, it was by no-means unsustainable. Pedestrian and cycle routes are available and services and facilities are in close proximity to the site. A regular bus service is available to cater for both local journeys as well as longer journeys into Chichester in the absence of a rail link. The Applicant proposes to tie into the existing facilities by way of an footway connecting from the site access along Clappers Lane to the west as well as through the existing site. Capacity The information contained within the TA and its Addendum document regarding the trip generation, distribution and network assignment appear to be robust and represent a realistic estimate of the additional trips on the network. Junction capacity assessments on the immediate junctions indicate that the development is likely to have a limited impact on their operation as junctions are currently operating well below theoretical capacity. However, there are known capacity constraints to the north of the peninsula in particular at the A286/B2201 'Selsey Tram' roundabout and the A286/A27 'Stockbridge' roundabout junctions. An assessment of the Selsey Tram junction indicates that as a standalone junction it is geometrically sufficient to cater for the traffic associated with its current operation, as well as a predicted 8% growth in traffic up to 2019. However, from observation of the junction it is evident that there are significant exit constraints during peak hour operation as a result of queues extending back from the Stockbridge Roundabout. An operational assessment of the Selsey Tram junction within the TA Addendum that takes into account the exit constraints demonstrates that the junction is operating over theoretical capacity, and that the operation of the Selsey Tram junction is dependent on the operation of the Stockbridge Roundabout junction. The LHA consider that the delay associated with journeys through the Selsey Tram junction and onwards along the A286 are at a severe level and that any additional traffic without intervention would be to the further detriment of its operation. A further 50 homes are required to make up the housing allocation for Bracklesham in the submitted Local Plan (LP) and the development therefore results in an excess of 110 homes above the level of development assumed in the LP's transport evidence base and transport strategy. In light of the Highway Agency's objection and in the absence of an agreed position on the impact of the Stockbridge Roundabout and a means of mitigating the impact of development, the LHA raises an objection to the proposed development in that the development fails to satisfy paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework in that the proposal does not demonstrate that improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development, and that the residual cumulative impact of the development is severe. 6.16 WSCC - Infrastructure The proposals require the need to secure financial obligations trough a S.106 agreement based on the Infrastructure SPG in the following respects: Primary Education £224,525; Libraries £26,698; Fire and Rescue £2,523; TAD £299,150. 6.17 CDC - Housing Enabling Manager There is high housing need in East Wittering across all property sizes. There are 157 households on the council register with a local connection to the parish. 45 of these have a priority need (bands A-C). Affordable housing would be available to people from

neighbouring and other parishes as this is not an exception site and so the need is greater than just for East Wittering parish. The Council would therefore require the full 40% quota of units. The developers have discussed the development with the Housing team throughout and have provided the mix as requested which complies with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2012. (SHMA). 6.18 CDC - Community Facilities As per the SPG a financial contribution of £281,440 (£1,759 per unit) is sought which could be used for the following projects as identified by the Parish Council community facilities audit:- extension to Bracklesham Barn community centre and extension to its car park; additional seats at Bracklesham Park; refurbishment of Witterings Neighbourhood Youth Centre. 6.19 CDC - Environmental Health Officer Contaminated land - no objections to proposals Air quality - No objection. Concur with the applicants Air Quality Assessment Report. Condition recommended to secure the mitigation measures proposed to control dust and other emissions from the construction phase. 6.20 CDC - Archaeological Officer Agree with applicant's desk-based archaeological report. However potential of site warrants investigation and potentially a further phase of fieldwork. A condition is therefore required to secure this. 6.21 CDC - Drainage Engineer Proposed surface water drainage strategy is to discharge to adjacent watercourses. Infiltration to ground must be considered before this is accepted which will need to be informed by winter groundwater monitoring October-March to determine peak groundwater levels. Only if ground conditions permit no infiltration can surface water be discharged to ditches. Soakaways, permeable paving and infiltration basins should be considered. Conditions are proposed reflecting the above. 6.22 CDC - Environmental Strategy Application should strengthen existing wildlife corridors. Proposals should afford protection and appropriate mitigation for reptiles (and badgers where necessary) in field margins. Revised proposals for water vole habitat protection are acceptable. Suggestion that further survey carried out before work commences on ditch is welcome. Endorse Natural England's proposals for mitigating against recreational disturbance on the Solent Maritime SAC through financial contribution. Proposals meet required code level 3-4 for sustainable homes. Reserved matters application will need to provide full details of the on-site renewable energy proposals. 6.23 CDC - Sport and Leisure Based on the dwelling numbers and type a contribution of £118,919 is required.

6.24 CDC - Green Spaces and Street Scene Manager The development needs to provide 0.21ha of open space and 0.04 ha of equipped childrens playspace. These requirements are met in the proposed scheme. 6.25 CDC - Design and Implementation Manager In accordance with the Council's Public Art Strategy for development of 10 or more dwellings the requirement for a S.106 Public Art contribution should be applied. Based on the proposed dwelling mix the value of the public art to be provided should be £53,483. 6.26 91 Third Party Objections Overdevelopment - too many houses. More housing is not needed here. Plenty of properties for sale in local estate agencies. Will all become second or holiday homes. 160 dwellings is not sustainable and goes far beyond local plan proposals Will destroy productive farmland and erode rural gap between East Wittering and Earnley. Urban development of this size will be harmful to the countryside. Lack of local services/infrastructure to support a development of this size. Proposals are contrary to Planning Inspectors conclusions on adjoining appeal site. Not enough employment locally to support development. Local foul drainage system cannot cope. Existing sewerage flooding incidents will be exacerbated. Will result in traffic congestion particularly during summer and at weekends. Air and noise pollution. Roads on Manhood peninsula are already at capacity. Highway safety - already serious accidents are occurring. Will ruin quiet rural character of Clappers Lane and lead to rat running through Earnley. Harmful to Conservation Area. Harmful impact on RSPB reserve at Medmerry. 6.27 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information In addition to the Design and Access Statement the following comprehensive suite of reports are submitted in support of the application and are available to view in full on the Council's website: Planning Statement Sustainability and Energy Statement Ecological Surveys Ecological Impact Assessment Flood Risk Assessment and Foul Drainage Strategy Addendum to FRA - Foul Drainage Strategy Transport Assessment Framework Travel Plan Arboricultural Assessment Archaeological Desk Top Assessment Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Statement of Community Involvement Agricultural Land Quality Assessment Air Quality Assessment 7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE3 Archaeology BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features BE16 Energy Conservation RE1 Rural Area Generally RE8 Nature Conservation (Non-designated Areas) TR6 Highway Safety H4 Size and Density of Dwellings H5 Open Space Requirements H6 Maintenance of Open Space 7.3 At Full Council on 24 April 2014 it was resolved to formally submit the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission (with modifications) 2014-2029 to the Secretary of State for Examination. The draft Plan was submitted at the end of May 2014. The timetable going forward anticipates examination during the summer and adoption in autumn 2014. The draft Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process towards adoption it will gain more weight and paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant in this respect. The weight that can be given to the particular policies within the plan depends on the

extent to which there are outstanding unresolved objections. Applicable policies from the submitted Chichester Local Plan include: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 7: Masterplanning Strategic Development Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 22: Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Manhood Peninsula Policy 24: East Wittering and Bracklesham Strategic Development Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Carbon Reduction Policy Policy 42: Flood Risk Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas Policy 52: Green Infrastructure

Policy 54: Open Space, Sport and Recreation National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 6-13 (Presumption in Favour); 17 (the Core Planning Principles); 29-32, 34-37 and 39 (Sustainable Transport); 47-50 and 55 (Housing); 56-61 and 63-64 (Design); 69-70 and 73 (Healthy Communities); 93-101 (Climate Change and flood risk); 118-119 (Natural Environment); 188-195 (Pre-Application); 196-197 (Determining Applications); 203-206 (Conditions and Obligations) and Annex 1 (Implementation). National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) supplements and forms a companion guide to the NPPF. 7.6 The East Wittering and Bracklesham Neighbourhood Plan is at a very early stage in its preparation. The proposed area designation was approved in September 2013 and the anticipated timetable thereafter is as follows; pre-submission consultation February 2015, CDC consultation April 2015, examination July 2015 and the Referendum in September 2015. Once made, the Neighbourhood Plan will thereafter form part of the Development Plan for Chichester district. 7.7 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application

Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.8 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application: The Provision of Service Infrastructure Related to New Development in Chichester District (Parts 1 and 2) Interim Statement on Planning for Affordable Housing Interim Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours (Updated April 2014) (The Council's Interim Statements on Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) and Planning and Climate Change were archived with the submission of the Local Plan for examination). 7.9 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources C5: Accessible health and wellbeing services in rural areas C6: Health Protection D1: Increasing housing supply D2: Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods D3: Housing fit for purpose D4: Understanding and meeting community needs E1: Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion E2: There will be improved cycling networks and strong links to public transport to ensure that cycling is a viable alternative to using the car E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: Principle of housing development in this location Number of dwellings, mix and site density Highway impact Site sustainability Drainage Landscape impact Ecology Assessment The Principle of housing development in this location 8.2 The required starting point for the Committee's consideration of this application is established in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications: 'should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise'. The development plan comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. The Local Plan only supports the principle of housing development taking

place within Settlement Policy Areas through policies RE1, BE1 and H1. The site adjoins but is outside of the settlement boundary for Bracklesham so there is an automatic policy presumption against new housing. However, the current Local Plan is not up to date in terms of its housing policies because the District cannot demonstrate that it has a five year housing land supply (5YHLS) as it is required to do so by paragraph 49 of the NPPF. In the absence of a 5YHLS, the NPPF's central golden thread is that there should be a presumption in favour of allowing sustainable new development. This clearly can include new housing and potentially significant new housing outside of established settlement boundaries. The Committee will be aware that there have been a number of recent housing developments permitted across the District to address the supply issue which have been brought forward under the Interim Housing Statement (FAD) but there remains a shortfall of approximately 532 dwellings which is equivalent to the Council having a 4.3 year supply. The Council cannot rely on its saved housing policies and must continue to consider some new housing development on appropriate greenfield sites. With the submission to the Secretary of State for examination of what will be the statutory new Local Plan, the FAD document, which has no statutory weight has been withdrawn. 8.3 The government's policy basis therefore starts with the NPPF presumption in favour of allowing the proposed development unless any adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Policies from the extant Local Plan cannot be relied on unless they are consistent with the NPPF and in terms of the RE1, BE1 and H1 they are not. NPPF paragraph 216 advises that the weight in terms of decision making that may be given to policies in the new Local Plan is also dependent on their degree of consistency with the NPPF, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies. 8.4 In respect of the issue of principle, the comments of the planning Inspector in respect of the 50 dwelling development on the adjoining Beech Avenue site to the south are relevant. In allowing that appeal the Inspector observed that, 'In terms of the entire Chichester district, I have little doubt that the appeal site is in a sustainable location, as various local plans (and the Council's officers in this case) have recognised.' Whilst he went on to recognize that the site was, 'perhaps sub-optimal in terms of its transport sustainability..' he concluded that it was '..by no means "unsustainable". In fact, I consider that it is sustainably located for a housing scheme of its size.' In the context of the NPPF, the 5YHLS, the location of the application site relative to the existing settlement which is defined as a Settlement Hub in the Submission Local Plan and the clear observations of the Inspector regarding the adjoining site, your officers are of the opinion that there can be no objection in principle to 'some' further new housing here. Whether acceptance of the principle of some further housing extends to favourable consideration of a development of 160 new dwellings requires further analysis. Number of dwellings, mix and site density 8.5 The application is for 160 dwellings with the affordable and private mix as set out in paragraph 3.1 above. The Council's housing officer has confirmed that there is a high housing need in the parish and that both the market and affordable mix and tenure are acceptable. Delivery would be secured through the S.106 in the usual way. Purely in terms of the composition of the housing therefore there is no objection to the application. 8.6 More widely in terms of the amount of development proposed, the future development of Bracklesham under policy 24 of the draft Local Plan proposes a strategic allocation for East Wittering/Bracklesham of 100 dwellings for the plan period 2014-2029. There are no specific strategic site allocations for Bracklesham set out in the draft Plan because the

expectation is that the Neighbourhood Plan will ultimately shape and steer the selection of potential sites. However, the NP is at a very early stage with the pre-submission consultation not expected to take place until February 2015. Very little weight can therefore be attached to it at this time. The figure of 100 units is not expressed in policy 24 as a maximum and should be regarded as a minimum given the continuing 5YHLS situation. Following submission of the draft Local Plan to the Secretary of State, some weight must be attached to policy 24 in terms of setting the level of future housing development although the amount of weight that can be attached to it is tempered by the fact that the LPA has received 4 objections to policy 24 which include 2 comments that not enough housing is being proposed (one of these comments is from Wates). The fact that there are objections to the policy coupled with the fact that there is no 5YHLS and no Neighbourhood Plan mean that the amount of weight in terms of the number of proposed dwellings in policy 24 of the draft Local Plan has to be limited. 8.6 In terms of the specifics of the application site, the applicant is proposing a development of 160 dwellings on a total red line site area of 5.59 hectares. In order to establish whether 160 dwellings on this site is acceptable in development management terms and in the absence of a confirmed housing layout (layout being a reserved matter) it is necessary to make an assessment of whether the units could be successfully accommodated having regard to the site restrictions and the prevailing characteristics of the surroundings. Calculation of the resulting site density provides such a measure. 8.7 In calculating the density, the applicant has deducted the 'non-accessible' components of the site from the overall site area. These components comprise the existing substantial landscape buffers particularly on north and east boundaries which are to be retained. Based on this approach the net developable area amounts to 4.62 ha. This results in an overall development density of 34.6 dwellings per hectare (dph), close to the 35dph which the supporting text to draft Local Plan policy 33 at para 17.6 suggests is appropriate to most greenfield developments. However, the application site includes an area of 0.68 ha comprising the southern half of the peninsula of land that extends south from the main body of the site. This land is annotated on the submitted parameters plan as 'public open space'. There is no requirement for this land to be provided for this purpose given that the developed part of the site already makes provision for sufficient open space to accord with saved Local Plan policy H5 and the Infrastructure SPG. This part of the site is also predominantly in Flood Zone 2 (a small part is in FZ3), i.e. at a higher risk of flooding and preferentially less suitable than the main part of the site in FZ1 which is to where the NPPF advises new development should be directed first. 8.8 Notwithstanding that the proposal to in effect gift the surplus land as additional public open space is not in itself a reason to object to the development, it is considered that to include this land as part of the overall site area for the purposes of the density calculation is at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. Leaving the surplus land out of the density calculation and thus restricting the calculation to the net developable area (that part of the site minus the non-accessible components) results in a figure of 40.6 dph. Comparison of this density with that of the surrounding development reveals it to be a significantly higher figure. For instance the adjoining 50 dwellings at Beech Avenue are at 27.2dph. The average density for adjacent sites to the east of Bracklesham Lane i.e. those which are within the visual context of the application site (Beech Avenue, Pond Road, Garden Avenue, Elm Close, Barton Way, Mere Close, Shalbourne Crescent and Elcombe Crescent) is 22.75dph in the range 15dph to 31dph. The lower end of this range would be inappropriate in the majority of instances today and reflect a different era in planning (the 1970's) when there were not the same pressures for the efficient and effective use of land for housebuilding. The later developments of the 2000's have densities at or around 30dph which reflect the previous government benchmark of 30dph in PPS3.

8.9 Your officers are mindful of advice in the NPPF paragraphs 59 and 61 in terms of ensuring that inter alia the density of the new development integrates with the existing built environment. This reflects extant policy BE11 of the Local Plan which refers to the relationship to and effect on neighbouring development and policy 33 of the Submission Local Plan which states that schemes should provide for an appropriate density of development and that 'This will be determined by its immediate context' (4). It is considered that a density of 40.6dph would result in a notable and harmful transition from the pattern and density of existing residential development in this part of Bracklesham Bay contrary to planning policy. The development would mark a significant increase above the 27.2dph permitted at the Beech Avenue site. At the time of that application the proposals indicated that the approved scheme was part of a wider masterplanned approach to include the current application site. 8.10 Although the illustrative layout plan carries the caveat 'illustrative' it nevertheless contains a level of detail which has been purposefully worked up to show how the units could be set out on the site relative to the landscaping. The plan is helpful in that it reveals how a typical housing scheme of 160 units might compare with the adjacent Beech Avenue site. What it shows is a scheme which has a distinctly more cramped and urbanised feel with greater areas of hard surfacing, units in small gardens and a poor relationship between certain plots. Notwithstanding that this is not what the applicant might decide to submit as a final layout, what it does demonstrate in terms of the density is reinforce the impression that the proposals are trying to squeeze too much development onto the site. 8.11 It is considered that whilst there is no requirement to repeat the Beech Avenue 50 dwelling density of 27.2dph - indeed it maybe that a higher density is preferable - building out at such a marked contrast (the equivalent density on the application site to Beech Avenue would result in about 110 dwellings) is not good planning. The fact that the site lies on the periphery of the settlement with open arable land to the east strongly suggests that a lower density of development is more appropriate than proposed to ensure a softer edge of settlement transition from the built part of the settlement to the rural area beyond. 8.12 It is concluded therefore that notwithstanding the principle of some additional housing development in this location being considered acceptable, the 160 dwellings proposed on the net developable area is not appropriate as it would result in an unacceptable over-development of the site relative to the character of the adjacent development. In this respect the proposal is not supported by officers. 8.13 The Committee is advised that at the time of writing this report the applicant has submitted a further application for outline planning permission on the same site and indicating the same net developable area for a development of 140 dwellings which would equate to a density of development of 35.5dph. Highway Impact 8.14 The impact of the proposed development in terms of additional traffic movements on the Manhood to and from the site has received significant coverage in the representations received from third parties and from 6 parish councils. Traffic levels on the Manhood are appreciated to be a significant and on-going concern locally. Concerns are expressed at both the wider strategic level particularly regarding the junction capacity at the Stockbridge Road/A27 roundabout and in terms of the impact locally to the site as a consequence of increased vehicle movements along Clappers Lane and the possibility for traffic rat-running through Earnley. Both the Highways Agency and WSCC have undertaken detailed analysis of the

applicants Transport Assessment to establish whether the impacts are significantly and demonstrably adverse within the meaning of the NPPF (para 32). 8.15 The access arrangements for the application propose a new vehicular access to Clappers Lane through the existing hedgerow located approximately mid-way along its length. A second point of access is proposed through the southern boundary of the site linking through into the 50 dwelling scheme at Beech Avenue allowed on appeal. Following local concerns the access onto Clappers Lane has been amended so that it is now configured as a left out, right in arrangement. The Committee will note that WSCC is of the opinion there is no technical evidence to support the assertion that an access onto Clappers Lane would result in rat-running. On highway matters WSCC has raised no objection to the application on either the technical aspects of the access, the rat running issue or the sustainability of the site in transport terms. 8.16 However, both WSCC and the Highways Agency are not satisfied the applicant has demonstrated that the level of development proposed together with other development would not have a harmful impact on the capacity of key junctions on the road network. Cumulatively with the 50 dwellings at Beech Avenue the application would result in significantly more housing in Bracklesham than the draft Local Plan allocation of 100 dwellings proposes (by 110 dwellings). In particular WSCC consider that delays associated with journeys through the Selsey Tram junction and onwards along the A286 are already at a severe level and that any additional traffic without intervention would be to the further detriment of its operation. The applicant has not offered any specific mitigation but has proposed a financial contribution of £300k to go towards undefined transport mitigation measures. In the absence of an identified scheme such an approach is not considered sufficient as it does not adequately address the highway concerns. Both statutory authorities are concerned that there would be a material impact upon the safety and operation of the strategic road network. The Highway Agency's position is that there is no evidence that the proposal would not result in a material impact upon the safety and operation of the SRN, in particular the A27 / A286 Stockbridge roundabout, at the end of the Local Plan period assuming the submitted Local Plan's proposals are fully implemented. The impact on the A27 is predicted to be approximately 31 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 35 vehicles in the PM peak hour. The degree of cumulative material impact without mitigation is considered to 'severe' and under such circumstances the NPPF states that development should be refused (paragraph 32). 8.17 On the basis of the responses from the HA and WSCC it is considered that in terms of weighing the capacity issue in the planning balance, this application marks the tipping point where the impact on key parts of the network on the Manhood without specific and effective mitigation measures based on the results of wider modelling become severe. There is therefore an objection on this ground. Drainage 8.18 Foul The application proposes to drain the development to the Sidlesham wastewater treatment works (WwTW) via the existing mains sewerage system. Whilst there is sufficient headroom at the WwTW to manage the flows from a development of 160 dwellings there are issues with the network leading to it. The Committee will note the consultation response from Southern Water which is not to object to the application but to advise that there is currently insufficient capacity in the system. The proposed route of the foul drainage avoids both the Church Road pumping station and Clappers Lane and will be through the adjoining 50 dwelling site at Beech Avenue via the consented pumping station on that site which will be upgraded. From this point it will travel west along the existing gravity sewer under Beech

Avenue onto Stocks Lane then south along Legion Way and east along West Bracklesham Drive onto the pumping station at the eastern end of East Bracklesham Drive from where it will be pumped to the treatment works at Sidlesham. 203 metres of the existing sewer pipe under Stocks Lane will be upgraded to an increased diameter from 175mm to 225mm at the requirement of Southern Water to accommodate the foul flows. 8.19 Southern Water advise that the additional off-site infrastructure improvements required to service the development would need to be secured through an agreement entered into by the developer under the Water Industry Act 1991. It also recommends imposition of a condition to ensure that development is not commenced unless and until details of the foul drainage proposals are submitted to and agreed by the LPA in consultation with Southern Water. 8.20 Flooding from the sewerage system is potentially significant if the network is not upgraded and clearly any new housing on this site will need to ensure that it properly addresses this issue. However, it is not the responsibility of the applicant to remedy existing deficiencies in the foul drainage system for example in relation to ground or surface water ingress. The applicant's responsibility extends to ensuring that the additional flows generated by the proposed development are properly managed and following detailed technical consultation with Southern Water this will be dealt with in the ways specified above. On the issue of foul drainage therefore it is considered that there are sufficient controls to enable the development's impact to be considered acceptable in principle. 8.21 Surface Water The majority of the site lies in Flood Zone 1 with a small part at the southern section being in Flood Zone 2/3. The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment and confirmed no development is proposed for the land in FZ2 or FZ3. Whilst the applicant's indicative landscape strategy plan shows a layout with a limited number of dwellings within an area at risk of flooding, the overarching principle of the NPPF (and technical guidance in the NPPG) is the principle of developing FZ1 land first in preference to FZ2 which should only be considered where there are no suitable less vulnerable sites. The Committee will note that in this instance the Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposals based on the indicative plan subject to conditions being imposed which would require finished floor levels and the height of the access road being raised to address any potential flooding issue. 8.22 The applicants preferred means of draining surface water from the site is to adjacent watercourses. However, the Council's Drainage Engineer requires winter groundwater monitoring to be undertaken first as the preference for surface water drainage is via ground infiltration through SUDS. The recommendation from the Council's Drainage Officer is that the drainage means can be secured through the imposition of conditions with the management/maintenance obligations set out in a S.106 agreement. Officers are satisfied that this is acceptable approach and not a basis on which to object to the application. Sustainability of Location 8.23 The Submission Local Plan identifies East Wittering/Bracklesham as a Settlement Hub the grouping of which is second only to Chichester City in terms of the District's settlement hierarchy. It functions as a secondary service centre providing a reasonable range of employment, shopping, education, health, entertainment, arts and culture serving the settlement and local catchment areas. The Committee will note that in terms of some of the main indicators of sustainability aside from transport considerations which are considered separately in this report, there are no consultation responses which suggest that the development should not progress because it is unsustainable. It is considered the Inspectors

comments in relation to the sustainability of the 50 dwellings at Beech Avenue hold good for this site. The development will deliver a number of infrastructure benefits which will provide for enhanced community, sport and leisure facilities as well as for education, libraries, fire services and for policing. Landscape Impact 8.24 The Hankinson Duckett Landscape Capacity Study Extension for the Council prepared in 2011 in support of the draft Local Plan identified the site as falling in the Bracklesham Coastal Plain and having only 'slight' landscape value and 'slight sensitivity'. The Landscape Study concludes that the site has the highest capacity out of any of the sites assessed in Bracklesham to accommodate some new housing. It is well enclosed by substantial tree/hedgerow boundary to the east and lining Clappers Lane to the north. The site is also sufficiently removed from the Earnley Conservation Area such as to not compromise its setting with the natural boundary screening giving it a high degree of visual containment. It is therefore considered that some residential development at an appropriate density and scale whilst having some impact on the surroundings would not have an adverse impact within the meaning of NPPF para 14 when weighed against the benefits of delivering some new housing to address the 5YHLS shortfall. Ecology 8.25 The proposed development of 160 dwellings has not been subject to a Screening Opinion under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations but a larger proposal of 220 dwellings on the site was screened as part of a pre-application enquiry. The Screening Opinion concluded that following the advice of consultees including Natural England and the Environment Agency there would not be a harmful impact on the local environment or the protected natural habitats of Chichester and Pagham Harbours such as could not be addressed by means of conditions on any planning permission or through a S.106 agreement and as such no Environmental Statement was required. The current application is for a significantly lower level of development and on the basis of the conclusion on the larger proposal has not been separately screened. 8.26 The committee will note that comments on the application have been received from the RSPB and third parties regarding the impact of the development on the Medmerry Re-alignment and the possibility of securing a contribution towards mitigation. Medmerrry is not a designated site in the same way as Chichester or Pagham Harbour, but is a compensatory habitat required for flood defence works elsewhere in the Solent Maritime SAC. In planning policy terms it receives the same level of protection as if it were a designated SAC (NPPF paragraph 118). The Council's updated Interim Statement advises that the likelihood of a significant effect on the Medmerry Compensatory Habitat site needs to be considered not in terms of recreational disturbance (this test does not apply because the site is not an SPA) but in terms of any direct impact on habitats or indirect effect via water run-off. It is not considered that the site would have either a direct or an indirect impact on Medmerry being approximately 2km away. The application site is also well in excess of 400m from Medmerry which is the distance at which the Interim Statement advises an Appropriate Assessment may be required. Given the relative separation it is not considered that there is any policy basis on which to seek a financial contribution. 8.27 In terms of ecological interests on the site itself the presence of water voles as a protected species in the boundary ditches is a material consideration. The applicant has produced an update to the original mitigation strategy which addresses the initial concerns of the Council's Environment Officer in terms of the location of the proposed road bridge over the field ditch on the south boundary linking to the adjoining 50 dwelling site. This is now

proposed at the western end of the ditch rather than towards the middle to minimise disruption of habitat. The amended details are considered to be acceptable and could be controlled by condition. Conclusion 9.1 Whilst officers are acutely mindful of the Council's continuing 5 YHLS shortfall and the challenging implications of this position in the light of NPPF paragraphs 14 and 49, it is considered that the approval of new housing should not be at the expense of proper development management considerations. There has to be a continuing rigour in the assessment of new housing applications to ensure that even where the principle of some new development is accepted, as it is in this instance via the Submission Local Plan, the amount of development proposed is appropriate to its context. 9.2 In terms of the 7 main issues identified in section 8.1 above it is considered on the basis of the officers assessment and consultee responses that there is no objection on all but 2 of the issues - the amount of development and the highway impact. The application is considered to fail because the number of dwellings proposed would result in a density of development significantly above the established density in the surrounding area. Even notwithstanding that the application is for access only with layout and scale as reserved matters, it is concluded that the amount of development proposed would result in a scheme that would be more cramped, poorly integrated and out of context and character with the adjoining housing. This is contrary to the NPPF and to extant and draft Local Plan policy. 9.3 The application also fails because it has failed to fully assess all the highway implications and to adequately demonstrate to the statutory authorities that it would not have a significant adverse impact on the capacity of the road network. 9.4 The officers' recommendation to the Committee therefore is that had the appeal against non-determination not been lodged then the application would have been refused for refusal for the following reasons: 1) Notwithstanding that layout is a reserved matter and that the Council is not able to demonstrate that it has a 5 year housing land supply in respect of NPPF paragraph 49, it is considered that the proposal would result in a cramped over-development of the site relative to the character of the adjacent development by reason of the number of dwellings and the resultant density on the net developable area. This is contrary to paragraphs 58, 59 and 61 of the NPPF, saved policy BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 First Review and policy 33 of now the submitted Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission 2014-2029. 2) The development fails to satisfy paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework in that it fails to demonstrate that the residual cumulative impact of the development on the operation of the B2201 and A286 Birdham Road arms of the A286/B2201 junction and the A286 Stockbridge Road approach to the A27 Stockbridge Roundabout would not be severe or that improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that would cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Furthermore the development fails to demonstrate that it would not result in a material impact upon the safety and operation of the strategic road network, in particular the A27/A286 Stockbridge roundabout at the end of the Local Plan period. The development is therefore contrary to paragraphs 14 and 32 of the NPPF and policy 39 of the now submitted Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission (with modifications) 2014-2029.

3) The proposal fails to make adequate and proper provision (via a Section 106 Agreement or suitable alternative mechanism) for affordable housing and for meeting the burden which would be placed on local infrastructure by the development, particularly in respect of schools, libraries, fire service, transportation, public art, sports and leisure infrastructure and community facilities. It therefore conflicts with saved policy BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review, policy 9 of the now submitted Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission (with modifications) 2014-2029 and the requirements of the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on the Provision of Service Infrastructure Related to New Development, Part 2 December 2004 (as amended) and the Interim Statement on Planning for Affordable Housing. Human Rights In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPEAL BE CONTESTED AS THE APPLICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN REFUSED PERMISSION For further information on this application please contact Jeremy Bushell on 01243 534734

Parish: Hunston

Ward: Sidlesham

3 HN/13/04020/FUL

Proposal Change of use from agricultural barn to automobile repair business

Site Barn North of Hunston Dairy Farm Hunston West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 487039 (N) 102436

Applicant Mr Radoslaw Kaminski RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site lies north of the B2166 Pagham Road on land at Grists Farm and is adjacent to Hunston Dairy Farm on the opposite side of the road. It comprises a triangular parcel of land of 0.16 hectares on which there is a steel framed barn of approximately 100sqm clad in profiled metal sheeting. The open yard to the front of this building is generally flat but uneven and laid with a mix of scalpings and road stone. The site is currently in use as a car repair business. 2.2 There is approximately 3m high hedging to the east and west boundaries and 12m high coniferous trees at the south apex of the site. Open fields lie beyond the north and east boundaries. A drainage ditch runs alongside the east site boundary. 2m high metal security gates secure the splayed vehicular site access. Environmental Health records show the last authorised use of the site was as an Environment Agency licensed scrap metal site. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The proposal seeks to change the use of the site to a car repair business (B2) employing 2 no. full time and 2 no. part time staff. The application for change of use is retrospective with both the metal barn and the yard area being used for car repairs and the storage of vehicles. The principle of re-using rural buildings for commercial purposes is supported at the local level by policy RE14 of the Local Plan. RE14 defines the criteria which need to be met in this respect. In terms of this application the use is considered to meet the relevant criteria. 3.2 The site was previously granted consent in 2007 as a scaffolding storage and distribution yard; however this permission was not implemented. 4.0 History 74/00016/HN REF Temporary siting for one caravan

pending construction of house for farm worker.

89/00010/HN WDN Proposed conversion of two out

buildings to restaurant. 90/00018/HN WDN COU from retail outlet to

restaurant. Improvements to building with restoration of pitched roof.

95/00033/FUL PER Rebuilding of wind damaged

stables. 10/02017/PD REC Planning advice: re-roofing.

12/04018/FUL REF Extension and conversion of domestic storage (formerly dairy building) into a holiday let. Single and 2 storey extensions to the domestic dwelling and new roof on annex.

13/02723/DOM PER Single and two storey extensions.

13/04020/FUL PDE Change of use from agricultural

barn to automobile repair business.

07/00538/PD REC Use of barn as B1 or B2 and

residentail. 07/04502/COU PER Change of use of agricultural barn

and yard to scaffolding storage and business.

13/04020/FUL PDE Change of use from agricultural

barn to automobile repair business.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area YES

AONB NO

Strategic Gap YES

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations Parish Council North Mundham Parish Council has resolved to OBJECT to this application. There are a number of issues and anomalies in the application which give the Council cause for concern. From the application form and the supporting documentation, it is not clear whether this application relates to the building alone, or whether it includes the substantial yard area between the building and the B2166. The colouring of the boundary of the site on the location plan is indistinct, but appears to embrace the building and the yard area. However the floor plan and elevations are of the building alone, and the letter from the owner, Mrs Bell, to the Enforcement Office implies that the applicant has an agreement to carry on a

business which is limited to the building. But it is clear to the most casual observer that the business is having a much wider impact which includes most of the yard area. The Council is concerned that the application form, as submitted, significantly understates the impact of the business and its effect on the site. Section 10 of the form suggests that the use of the site will involve just two existing parking spaces. However, observation has shown the site is housing the semi-trailer portion of an articulated truck, four vans and over 50 cars in various states of repair, and these numbers are typical of the site in recent weeks. Many of these vehicles show little prospect of being roadworthy and the site is rapidly taking on the appearance of a scrapyard. In the light of the above it is worrying that the application form, in Section 16, suggests that there is no need to make provision for the disposal of trade effluent or waste. As well as the vehicles on site which may never achieve a roadworthy state, there is a pile of used tyres. There is no mention of how these will be disposed of, nor is there any reference to the disposal of waste oil or the safe storage of any fuel in vehicle tanks. Section 19 of the form indicates that at least two people are employed on site with plans for a third, but section 11 of the form states that there is as yet no arrangement for the disposal of foul sewage. Section 20 states that the hours of work are to be limited to Monday to Friday, but the business advertising board to the front of the building indicates that the business is open on Saturdays as well. Section 24 of the application is confusing since the applicant has signed both Section A as the owner of the building, and also Section B to advise that a notice has been served on the owner, except that the form then states that a notice has not been served. One of these two statements must be incorrect. From the application form, and from observation, the Council has been led to conclude that the application is for a substantial car repair business, which it believes is an inappropriate use of the site, for a number of reasons: o A business of this nature is bound to generate a significant amount of site traffic. Access to the site is via a gateway with poor sight-lines, particularly in respect of traffic approaching from the east. The gateway is close to a blind bend, and even if the hedges were cut back or re-aligned the hazard would still exist. o It is clear that no consideration has been given to the proper disposal of waste, and the risk of pollution from waste oil and other materials, not the fire hazards implicit in storing scrap tyres and any fuel left in large numbers of vehicles in a poor state of repair. o The site is rapidly becoming unsightly, and it is difficult to see how this could be mitigated without substantial additional planting. The Council believes that the business being carried on at this site amounts to little more than a scrapyard, and submits that this is an inappropriate re-use of an agricultural building in this location.

WSCC Local Development Division The application form submitted indicates that the current proposal would be low intensity with only two full time equivalent staff employed. As such, there is no expectation for the repair business to give rise to any significant increase in use beyond that accepted for the scaffolding storage use. No highway objection would be raised. Visibility splay condition required. CDC - Environmental Health Department This is a small scale proposal however there are residential premises nearby that could be affected by noise from the type of activities that could be associated with such a use. Conditions regarding no panel beating, paint spraying or mechanical car drying operations, hours of use and plant and machinery noise limits are recommended. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: RE1 Rural Area Generally RE6 Strategic Gaps RE12 Rural Diversification RE14 Conversions in the Rural Area TR6 Highway Safety 7.3 At Council on 24 April 2014 it was resolved to formally submit the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications to the Secretary of State for Examination at the end of May 2014. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 46: Alterations, Change of Use and/or Re-use of Existing Buildings in the Countryside

National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), 7-13 (achieving sustainable development), 28 (supporting a prosperous rural economy), 120-125 (conserving and enhancing the natural environment). 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Visual impact, ii) Highway safety, and iii) Impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. Assessment Visual Impact 8.2 In terms of visual impact, the site is well screened from wider public views by the hedge to the road side boundary of the site. A condition requiring the retention and strengthening of the landscaping would offer an improvement to this site. The unrestricted open storage of vehicle parts, tyres and scrap etc on the site has the potential to cause harm to the visual amenity of the surroundings even though these surroundings are not subject to any protected environmental or amenity status. A condition restricting the storage of waste materials, including cars. vehicle parts, tyres and other waster products, to specific areas to be agreed in writing would stop any spread of materials or encroachment to the extremities of the site. When considered against the former use of the site as a licensed scrap metal site and approved use as a scaffolding distribution yard it is considered that the use of the site for a car repair business on visual grounds is acceptable. Highway Safety 8.3 Highways comments are awaited with regard to the current application. However the view of WSCC Highways has been consistent in its previous consultation responses on this site, in that there was no objection to the proposals subject to adequate sight lines being provided at the site access. These sight lines can be provided on land within the control of either WSCC or the applicant. 8.4 The previous application approved for the scaffolding yard estimated 12 vehicle movements to the site per day of large vehicles. In the case of this application the majority of

vehicular movements would involve private cars, the scale of which the applicant estimates traffic movements of less than 10 per day. In terms of providing the visibility splays, it is envisaged that there will have to be some trimming back of the roadside hedgerow to the south of the access. The retention of an unbroken hedge line along the road frontage to screen the site is considered to be an important part of the development and a condition, requiring hedgerow re-planting behind the splay if necessary, is therefore proposed. Impact on Neighbour Residential Occupiers 8.5 In terms of the potential impact on residential amenity, the building and yard are reasonably remotely located. Hunston Dairy Farm on the other side of the B2166 is the nearest residential property and in order to protect residential amenity it is proposed to condition that all plant, machinery and equipment is operated in order to prevent transmission of noise and vibration into any premises in the vicinity of the application site. There are no recorded complaints regarding noise or pollution from the site in the Council's records. Other Matters 8.6 The Parish Council raised a number of concerns regarding the details of the application and irregularities regarding the application form regarding ownership certificates. Regarding the notification of the owner of the site, this issue has been addressed and the owner of the site aware of the proposal. The remaining issues can be overcome via conditions or do not have a material baring on the consideration of this application. 8.7 To clarify the application relates to the barn and its yard, in which the operation of a car repair business has already commenced. It is considered that the use, which has be in existence for approximately 12 months, is acceptable in principle in that it does not result in harm to the visual amenities of the area, neighbour amenities or highway safety and as such details of the disposal of foul and trade waste can be secured by condition. Significant Conditions 8.7 Conditions regarding the retention of the hedgerow and visibility splays are proposed, as well as requiring details of storage of waste materials to be submitted for agreement, and disposal of foul and trade waste. A condition restricting hours of operation from 8am until 6pm Monday to Friday is also proposed, in line with the hours of operation stated in the application form. Conclusion Based on the above it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 B01G No Departure from Plans 3 U86080 U86080 - Use 4 U86081 U86081 - External Lighting 5 U86167 U86167 - Visibility Splays 6 U86083 U86083 - Retention of Hedge 7 U86084 U86084 - Use 8 U86085 U86085 - Hours of Operation 9 U86092 U86092 - Storage of Waste Material 10 E18F Noise Control Machinery 11 U86091 U86091 - Foul Sewage Disposal INFORMATIVES 12 W18G Written approval for detailed matters 13 U86148 U86148 - Informative - Storage Area 14 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Natalie McKellar on 01243 534734

Parish: Loxwood

Ward: Plaistow

4 LX/13/03809/OUT

Proposal Erection of 25 no residential dwellings comprising of 14 no private residential

dwellings and 11 no affordable residential dwellings, associated private amenity space and parking

Site Land South of Loxwood Farm Place High Street Loxwood West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 503826 (N) 131336

Applicant Mr H Robbie RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Contentious application on which a decision should be made by Committee 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The 1.1ha greenfield site is located to the south west of the village of Loxwood and within the rural area in policy terms. The site is adjacent to but does not directly abut the village Settlement Policy Area (SPA) boundary as set out in the adopted Local Plan; it is separated by an archaeological site known as the 'moat' to the north, and 'High Street' to the east, the main route into the village from the south. 2.2 Although not within the settlement boundary in policy terms, the site is within 100m of the village post office and store, less than 400m from the village primary school and less than 500m from the doctor's surgery. There are 3 bus stops and access to the nearest public right of way within 100m. Access to the towpath along the Wey and Arun canal lies within 300m to the south. The village hall is to the north of the settlement, approximately 800m from the application site. St John the Baptist Church is around 500m south of the site and the local sports pitches are approximately 1.3km to the south on the Plaistow Road. 2.3 The application site is a separate parcel of unmanaged grassland enclosed by native trees, hedging and shrubs mostly semi-mature to mature. The site falls gently to the south east. Beyond the site boundary the land beyond falls more steeply to the road (High Street) and towards the canal to the south. There is existing residential development to the north, east and south east, including a ribbon of dwellings, many of which are listed, fronting High Street opposite the site. Dwellings to the north are large detached and back on to the site. An individual dwelling with stables lies to the south and there is open agricultural land to the west. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 This outline application seeks approval for the principle of development for 25 affordable and open market dwellings of the specified mix, access to the site and development layout. Appearance, scale and landscaping matters have been reserved for future consideration. 3.2 The proposed layout and housing mix have been amended during the consideration of the application to respond to officer and consultee concerns. Additional information has been provided on highways, ecology and utilities matters. A further plan, revision L, was submitted on 9th June to seek to respond to design, layout, arboricultural and heritage impact concerns. Additional information has been provided on highways matters. 3.3 As amended, the application proposes 25 dwellings, of which 11 will be affordable (44%) and 14 market. The affordable mix is as follows: 2 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed, 1 x 4 bed. All will be for affordable rent. The proposed market mix is as follows: 4 x 2 bed, 7 x 3 bed, 3 x 4 bed. 3.4 The development is proposed at a density of approximately 23dph, with the built form arranged around a U shaped internal road layout with the two arms joined to the south by a footpath link. A drainage/wildlife pond is proposed adjacent to the eastern boundary, with additional public open space proposed to the south east and adjacent to the southern boundary. The existing high level cabling crossing the southern part of the site is to be replaced underground and a sub station is proposed on site.

3.5 Access is proposed at the point of the existing field entrance, onto the High Street where the speed limit is 30pmh. Visibility splays of 2.4 x 59m are identified to respond to measured road speeds. The access incorporates 6 metre radii at the bellmouth of the junction and a carriageway width of 5.5 metres, which reduces to 4.8 metres within the site. A new footway will be provided linking the site entrance to the existing footway north of Farm Place to allow pedestrian links to the village facilities and transport links to the north. 3.6 Save the access, where additional visibility splays will result in the loss and pruning of some boundary planting, the existing boundary trees and hedging will be retained and additional species rich, mixed native planting both within the site and to the boundaries is proposed to supplement. A 2m minimum ecological buffer is shown on the plans to all site boundaries. Two options for reptile (slow worm) mitigation have been proposed, alongside planned enhancements to cater for the identified nesting bird and foraging bat habitats on the site. 3.7 Illustrative details have been provided of the proposed dwelling designs, with supporting studies referring to local examples and settlement pattern. These are indicative with approval of details to be sought through a further Reserved Matters application in due course and therefore provide a guide only at this stage. 3.8 To achieve foul drainage capacity, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and supporting details from Southern Water identify the local pumping station at Brewhurst Mill will require upgrading to allow for an additional flow of 1 litre per second. It is proposed other infrastructure requirements are to be covered through a S106 Agreement, the drafting of which is at an early stage at the time of writing. 4.0 History 13/03809/OUT PDE Erection of 25 no. residential

dwellings comprising of 14 no. private residential dwellings and 11 no. affordable residential dwellings, associated private amenity space and parking.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building ADJACENT

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area YES

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.0 Representations and Consultations Loxwood Parish Council Loxwood Parish Council has considered this application and OBJECTS to the proposals. The proposed development site is not included in Loxwood's Emerging Neighbourhood Plan, which is nearing the end of CDC's publicity period and due to be submitted to the Independent Examiner on 3rd March. The emerging Neighbourhood Plan is the result of extensive consultation with Loxwood residents and a robust Site Allocation Assessment, which favoured two alternative sites to meet the requirements for Loxwood in CDC's Emerging Local Plan. The Parish Council considers that the evidence of local support in the production of the Neighbourhood Plan should be respected. The Department for Communities and Local Government sets out that Neighbourhood Planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure they get the right types of development for their community and that communities will be able to choose where they want new homes, shops and offices to be built. DCLG guidance also states that "while emerging plans may acquire weight during the plan-making process, in the context of the NPPF and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development - arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than in exceptional circumstances (where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies of the Framework and any other material considerations into account). Such circumstances are likely to be limited to situations where both: a. the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location of phasing of new development that are central to all emerging neighbourhood plan and b. the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but has not yet been made" The parish council considers that this is such a situation and planning permission should be refused on these grounds. The applicant states that community engagement has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF. The Parish Council states that this is plainly not the case. The applicant has not met with the Parish Council and has not carried out any public consultation. The applicant did meet with members of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group as part of the Site Allocation exercise when the Steering Group met with all the landowners of potential development sites. The parish council also considers that the proposals do not comply with saved policy RE5 of the Local Plan, which states that "Due to its distinctive historic character and the special quality of the landscape and settlement patterns the North-Eastern Area of Chichester District, outside the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, is considered to warrant, and will be given, special protection. Development will only be permitted where the siting and design of buildings and additional traffic generated or off-site highway improvements required would not be detrimental to the area's landscape, character or historic features"

The proposed development site is not contiguous with the SPA and does not meet CDC's FAD requirement. The parish council has concerns about the safety of the proposed site access close the junction of the High Street with Station Road which is already a busy and dangerous junction. Environment Agency (summarised) The site is in Flood Zone 1, low probability of flooding. LPA to comment on all applications in Flood Zone 1 between 1-5ha. Recommend consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority on surface water matters. Southern Water Services (summarised) Updated comments: No change to comments - below Original comments: Currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, and existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. Conditions and informatives are recommended to require details of foul and surface water drainage arrangements. Southern Water can provide a water supply to the site. The exact position of the public water main must be determined on site before the layout of the development is finalised and all existing infrastructure protected during works. Sussex Police (summarised) Recommendations for the dwellings include outward facing dwellings, active frontages, in-curtilage parking and windows in side walls to provide natural surveillance. Perimeter fencing to be 1.8m close boarded, with gates of the same height, or use of trellis atop 1.5m fencing to improve surveillance. Advised avoidance of vulnerable rear access pathways to rear gardens. For public spaces, recommendations include good natural surveillance from surrounding dwellings, low foliage but avoidance of low tree canopies, and landscaped anti-vehicle measures. WSCC - Local Development Division (summarised)

Updated comments (Rev G): Speed survey results are Northbound 35.6mph and southbound 34.9mph,

therefore the splays of 2.4 x 59m (shown on Drawing No. 130524-01) in both directions are acceptable.

The footpath needs to be shown as continuing into the site as stated in the Design Audit

The tracking plan does not take into account a considerable overhang by the Cab. Planting etc. will need to be carefully considered to ensure there is sufficient

clearance. The vehicle has not been labelled, confirmation is needed that the measurements accord with those used for Council's refuge collection.

A detailed plan showing; footpaths, services margins (both side of the road), forward visibility splays, road widths etc. is required, with confirmation of which parts of the road are to be adopted.

5 parking spaces have been introduced to the north of plot 14 which have not been Safety Audited. Visibility around the bend, and the parking spaces adjacent will need to be addressed by the Designer

Original comments: Additional information requested to cover speed survey data, swept path tracking and an updated designer's response to the RSA. WSCC - Infrastructure Contributions will be sought to offset the burden imposed by the development on local infrastructure: Primary education £40,363 Secondary education £47,115 6th form education £9,948 Libraries £4,223 Fire and rescue £399 + 1 hydrant TAD £49,900 Footpath Justification for the sums specified are provided in the full consultation response. CDC - Planning Policy (summarised) The proposed site was included in the SHLAA 2013, where it is assessed as unsuitable at the present time, since it was not considered to be adjacent to the SPA boundary Housing Land Supply Position: The 5YHLS shortfall at the current date to 493 net dwellings, equivalent to 4.3 years housing supply. This is based on the housing target for Chichester District set in the former South East Plan. In these circumstances, the NPPF paragraphs 14, 47 and 49 apply. Local Plan: The draft Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies document has been subject to pre-submission consultation and the draft Plan (including Proposed Modifications) was formally submitted to the Secretary of State on 30 May 2014 for independent examination. The emerging Plan policies carry some planning weight (NPPF paragraph 216) particularly where policies are not subject to any significant unresolved objections. Policy 2 identifies Loxwood as a 'Service Village', where provision will be made for small scale housing developments consistent with the indicative housing numbers set out in Policy 5. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development within defined Settlement Boundaries, which will be reviewed through Neighbourhood Plans and/or Development Plan Documents. Outside Settlement Boundaries, development will be restricted to that which requires a countryside location, meets an essential rural need or supports rural

diversification. Policy 5 identifies an indicative parish housing requirement of 60 homes for Loxwood to be delivered over the Plan period to 2029. The policy specifically states that suitable sites will be identified in neighbourhood plans and/or in a Site Allocation DPD. However, Paragraph 7.29 of the draft Plan indicates that suitable sites of 6+ dwellings may come forward as planning applications and, where permitted, will count towards meeting the parish housing numbers. Policy 25 sets out general criteria for development in the north of the Plan area, stating that the Council will encourage and support development proposals which conserve and enhance the rural character of the area, the quality of its landscape and the natural and historic environment. Draft Neighbourhood Plan: The Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan has been approved to proceed to referendum with modifications by the Examiner and the Council at its Cabinet meeting on 3 June 2014. The community referendum is scheduled for 24 July and if approved and subsequently made by the Council the LNP will become part of the statutory development plan. The NPPG (paragraph 185) states that once a neighbourhood plan has demonstrated its general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and is brought into force, its policies take precedence over existing non-strategic policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood. Given the advanced stage of the Loxwood NP, I consider that its policies now carry greater planning weight as a material consideration than non-strategic policies in the adopted Local Plan and emerging Local Plan. The draft NP allocates two alternative sites which together provide for a minimum of 60 homes to meet the Local Plan parish target. One of the proposed allocations (Land at Farm Close) has recently been subject to a planning application (LX/13/02025/FUL) for 17 dwellings which has been recommended for approval by Planning Committee subject to a S106 agreement. NP Policy 1 (as amended following the examiner's recommendation) states that "The Loxwood Parish Neighbourhood Plan will allocate a minimum of 60 houses on new sites located within the Settlement Boundary defined in accordance with policy 2 of this Plan." The Neighbourhood Plan redraws the Settlement Boundary of the village to include the allocated sites, but excludes the application site. NP Policy 2 (as amended) states that land outside the Settlement Boundary of Loxwood village is deemed to be rural. While the intention is to concentrate sustainable development within the Settlement Boundary, this policy does not preclude sustainable development in the rural areas outside the Settlement Boundary in accordance with the NP, District Saved and Emerging Local Plan and the NPPF. However, NP Policy 13 seeks to generally limit development outside the Settlement Boundary to that which requires a rural location or supports rural diversification. NP Policy 3 states that all developments (including windfall sites) should conform to NP Policies 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 18. Site Location and Characteristics: In the context of the rural village location, the site is accessibly located, being within easy walking distance of facilities in Loxwood village. There appear to be no overriding constraints in terms of transport or other infrastructure which would prevent development. The site appears to be well contained visually. I consider that the scale of the proposed development (25 dwellings) would be generally appropriate for a village of Loxwood's size. However, there is a wider issue of whether the scale of development is acceptable when considered cumulatively with the housing sites allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan (see below). The site lies on the edge of the village and therefore consideration should be given to the impact of development on the character of the village townscape and wider landscape

character of the area taking account of NP Policy 9, as well as LP Policies 25 and 33, and development density with reference to NP Policy 9 and LP Policy 33. Conflict with the emerging Development Plan and Prematurity: The Loxwood NP has been found sound through independent examination and now carries considerable planning weight as a material consideration. The site is not identified for development in the NP and lies outside the Settlement Boundary defined in the draft NP. Furthermore, permitting this development in addition to the housing sites already allocated in the NP would cumulatively increase housing numbers well above the indicative parish target of 60 dwellings set out in the emerging Local Plan. Therefore, there is potential conflict with the emerging plan strategy and policies for the local area. The national planning practice guidance on prematurity states that: "in the context of the Framework and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development - arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account. Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both: a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or Neighbourhood Planning; and b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area. Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination, or in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan, before the end of the local planning authority publicity period. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process." In terms of the stage reached in the plan preparation process, the draft Neighbourhood Plan clearly meets criterion b) since it has been through examination and found sound. Therefore, there may be a case for arguing prematurity, if it is considered that permitting development would undermine or prejudice the emerging NP. With regard to criterion a) I consider that permitting the application would undermine the strategy for development in the village, as proposed in the NP. Firstly, the application site is not identified for development in the NP and furthermore lies outside the Settlement Boundary which is where the NP is seeking to concentrate development. At the Loxwood NP examination, the examiner supported the Settlement Boundary proposed in the NP and the principle that new development should be concentrated within it. Although the examiner noted representations relating to the current application site, she stated explicitly that she did not consider it necessary for the inclusion of additional, or alternative, sites. Secondly, the proposed development would increase the scale of housing development in Loxwood substantially to at least 85 dwellings, an increase of 42% over the proposed NP figure. The housing numbers in the Loxwood NP reflect the development strategy in the emerging Local Plan, which was informed by detailed evidence on housing needs, development constraints and infrastructure requirements for the Plan area as a whole, and in relation to individual settlements. Specific assessment of the potential housing capacity in

Loxwood is set out in the Settlement Capacity Profiles (October 2013). The proposed scale of development takes account of the village's size and relatively good range of local facilities, whilst also seeking to retain the rural character, heritage and landscape of the area. It is acknowledged that the housing numbers in the emerging Local Plan (including the parish numbers for Loxwood Parish) are currently subject to outstanding objections, including several arguing for increased housing provision. These include representations specifically arguing that greater reliance is placed on settlements in the north east of the District, including Loxwood to deliver housing promptly in the early part of the plan period. However, national planning practice guidance clarifies that neighbourhood plans can be brought forward before an up-to-date Local Plan is in place. A draft Neighbourhood Plan is not tested against the policies in an emerging Local Plan although the reasoning and evidence informing the Local Plan process may be relevant to the consideration of the basic conditions against which a neighbourhood plan is tested. The aim should be to provide complementary neighbourhood and Local Plans and to seek to minimise potential conflicts. In assessing the Loxwood NP, the examiner acknowledged that there is no up-to-date strategic policy against which to assess the overall housing figures. She considered that the indicative Local Plan parish housing figure of 60 homes provided the best guidance on total housing, but accepted that the housing numbers might alter through the Local Plan Examination. On this basis, she recommended that the reference to 60 dwellings in NP Policy 1 be stated as a minimum, allowing for flexibility should the indicative figure in the emerging Local Plan increase. She further stated that the maximum numbers can be determined on a site by site basis, taking into consideration site constraints and emerging Local Plan Policy. Thirdly, allowing development on this site could potentially undermine the delivery of the housing sites proposed for allocation in the Loxwood NP. Of the two sites allocated for housing, Land at Farm Close (allocated in NP Policy 4) already has a recommendation to approve planning permission for 17 dwellings. However, the Land at Nursery Site, which is allocated in NP Policy 5 for a minimum of 43 dwellings, does not yet have planning permission. The supporting text for Policy 5 indicates that some development on the site will be expected to be delivered in the first 5 years of the Plan period. Clearly there is a risk that permitting a further 25 dwellings on the application site could delay delivery of the Nursery site. Alternatively, if all three sites were progressed in the short term, the village would have to absorb substantial new housing within a short space of time, which would risk undermining its quiet rural character. The arguments above need to be weighed against the fact that there is a five-year housing supply shortfall in the District and that the site and development proposal appear generally acceptable in planning terms. In the recent Secretary of State decision in relation to a planning appeal at Broughton Astley, Leicestershire (appeal ref: APP/F2415/A/12/2183653), the SoS considered that the adverse impacts of the appeal proposal, especially in terms of the conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in terms of increasing housing supply, even though it was acknowledged that there was a five year housing supply shortfall and that the housing requirement in the adopted development plan was out-of-date. In reaching his decision, the SoS referred specifically to NPPF Paragraph 185 which states that, outside the strategic elements of the Local Plan, neighbourhood plans will be able to shape and direct sustainable development in their area. He further commented that neighbourhood plans, once made part of the development plan, should be upheld as an effective means to shape and direct development in the neighbourhood planning area in question, for example to ensure that the best located sites are developed.

There are some differences between the above appeal and the current position at Loxwood. The Loxwood NP has not yet been formally made, so is not yet part of the statutory development plan. Both NPPF Paragraphs 185 and 198 (which were given substantial weight in the SoS's decision on Broughton Astley) explicitly apply once a neighbourhood plan has been brought into force. However, the key test relating to prematurity - that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account - is similar to the test set out in NPPF Paragraph 14, which the SoS applied in his decision. The SoS (Broughton Astley decision) acknowledged that the identified housing shortfall meant that both the Neighbourhood Plan and Core Strategy policies for housing provision were out of date, despite the fact that both plans had been recently adopted. Therefore, I do not consider that the fact that the emerging Chichester Local Plan housing numbers are subject to outstanding objections and may be increased following the Local Plan examination necessarily reduces the weight that should be given to the policies in the Loxwood NP. Conclusion: The site appears to have some merits as a development location but there is a clear conflict between the application and the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. The NP identifies alternative sites to meet the 60 homes indicative parish requirement set in the draft Local Plan. The flexibility in NP policy 1 for increasing housing numbers only relates to the area within the defined Settlement Boundary. Currently there is a substantial five year housing land supply shortfall in the District, which weighs strongly in favour of permitting this planning application. Despite this, I consider that it would be justifiable to refuse this application based on the adverse impact of the proposal in undermining the emerging Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan. Although the Loxwood NP is not yet part of the statutory development plan, it has been found sound at examination and is sufficiently advanced to justify refusing the application on grounds of prematurity where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. I consider that permitting this application would clearly undermine the Neighbourhood Plan in terms of its overall planning strategy and the scale, location and phasing of new development it proposes for the village. Given the advanced stage of the Neighbourhood Plan which is about to go to public referendum, I consider that the conflict with the NP carries greater weight when compared to the housing shortfall in the District. CDC - Historic Buildings Adviser (summarised) Updated comments (Rev G) The principal concerns outlined below remain. The over-riding effect is that of suburbia encroaching into the countryside without any broader respect for the environs beyond the site boundary. The drop in ground level in the SE corner and adjacent to the grain of historic buildings on the main road should be important in informing the building type here and its scale. The historic roof tops which fall away above the tree line are an important feature and should not be encroached on. The four bedroom houses proposed in this corner are unlikely to maintain this or respect it. Views within the site, particularly the view onto the site from the entrance and that looking down from the entrance to the south east corner, are important. Ideally there should be a central focus for the buildings to express and work from. The curved road compromises the design.

Original comments: Objection Site is adjacent to a number of listed buildings and could have a significant effect on their setting. Historically a green field that contributes to the rural setting of the village. Setting can be affected by altering settlement character, noise and lighting. The extent of this effect has not been explored in the application. Screening should not be used to avoid broader setting issues. Layout, design and detailing within a sensitive location have to be considered holistically. New development needs to relate positively to its surroundings to contribute to sustainable development (NPPF para 58) and PPS5 Design Guidance. Indicative details suggest a generic and suburban approach, which needs to be changed to enable the development to contribute to this part of the village in a meaningful way. CDC - Environmental Health Officer (Housing) Single bedrooms should be a minimum of 6.5sqm and double bedrooms 9.5sqm. Suitable mechanical ventilation is required for rooms with no natural ventilation. CDC - Assistant Rural Housing Officer (summarised) Updated comments: Support. 11 (44%) of the 25 dwellings will be affordable housing, above the required provision and in accordance with the Council's Interim Statement. The revised plans reflect the following housing mix;

SHMA –

Affordable Rented Mix

Proposed Affordable Mix

SHMA – Market Mix

Proposed Market Mix

Affordable rent

1 Bed 10-15% 2 (18.2%) 35% 4 (29%)

2 Bed 30-35% 4 (36.4%)

3 Bed 35-40% 4 (36.4%) 50% 7 (50%)

4 Bed 15-20% 1 (9%) 15% 3 (21%)

Total N/A 11 N/A 14

Although the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) recommends that 30% of the affordable mix is to be delivered through intermediate housing, some Registered Providers (RP)s do not take on shared ownership units within a Designated Protected Area (DPA), especially if there is only a small quota. It is preferred that a shared ownership quota was delivered, however as the Council is not willing to grant a waiver on the DPA and there is an evidence need for affordable rented units within the parish, all rent is acceptable. The affordable mix is in line with the SHMA recommendations and is reflective of the housing register member's needs, current affordable housing stock and turnover in Loxwood, therefore is deemed acceptable. The proposed market mix is not exactly in line with the SHMA recommendations, however taking into consideration the higher demand for 4 bedroom properties and lower demand for 2 bed properties in the North East part of the District the proposed mix is considered acceptable. The proposed Gross Internal Area (GIA) requirement meets the Council's RP partner's minimum standards. The developer should confirm the sizes meet their affordable housing provider's standards.

Original comments: Objection. The mix of both affordable and market units needs to be amended to represent a balanced and mixed community. Neither the affordable or market units mix is representative of the SHMA or the local housing need. Cannot support this development until a more reflective mix is put forward. Recommended affordable mix: 2 x 1 bed affordable rented (AR) 2 x 2 bed AR, 2 x 2 bed shared ownership (SO) 3 x 3 bed AR, 1 x 3 bed (SO) 1 x 4 bed (AR). Recommended market mix: 5 x 1 and 2 bed, 7 x 3 bed, 2 x 4 bed. There are currently 20 households on the housing register with a local connection to Loxwood, of which 8 are in bands A-C (priority need). 3 of these require a 4 bed property and currently Loxwood has no 4 bed properties in their affordable housing stock. However since the SHMA was published in 2012, older children are expected to share bedrooms. To meet this need, 1 x 4 bed and 1 x 3 bed (6 persons rather than 5) are required. The affordable rented units should be delivered as 'lifetime homes'. The current proposal is for 50% 4 bedrooms. This is not acceptable as there is an oversupply of this type of property in the district. The SHMA analysis indicates that it would be appropriate to focus provision towards delivering affordable family homes, which will help retain younger working households in the area. CDC - Archaeological Officer There is a slight possibility that deposits associated with the adjacent supposed medieval moated site might be present. In the circumstances it would be prudent to undertake a trial investigation in the northern part of the site and to follow this with appropriate mitigation measures (depending on the results). A condition is recommended to secure this. CDC - Drainage Engineer (summarised) Updated comments: The updated FRA contains no information about groundwater monitoring or percolation testing. Previous comments apply - below. Original comments: The flood risk assessment states that surface water drainage can be achieved by discharging from SuDS features to a ditch. It also states that the results of a ground investigation may allow for infiltration. The ground investigation must include winter groundwater monitoring (October to March) to determine the peak groundwater level. Infiltration structures and basins must have sufficient clearance between the invert and peak groundwater levels. Percolation testing must also be carried out, at the depth and location of any proposed infiltration structures. The results of the monitoring and testing must inform the drainage design. The drainage system must be able to contain the 1 in 100 year storm event +30%. Infiltration must be investigated before discharging to a watercourse. A 3 metre easement must be retained for maintenance of watercourses. Conditions are recommended to cover surface water drainage details, discharge to watercourses, maintenance and management of SuDS and riparian responsibilities

CDC - Tree Officer (summarised) The front (eastern) boundary/vegetation (consisting mainly of Cypress, Yew, Oak, Field Maple, Hazel, Elm, Cedar and Hawthorn) is a fairly dense vegetative screen and is important to be kept but it includes Elms which have a limited longevity due to Dutch elm disease. This potentially may also apply to the Ash trees due to Chalara Ash Dieback disease. Vegetation on the frontage should be retained unless it is essential and/or planted with native hedgerow species which will have an instant impact. The extent of cutting back of vegetation for the visibility splays may not be significant but if it is then it will be essential for more planting with native hedgerow species to limit any loss/breaks in the vegetation. More information is required on this matter. Appropriate protective fencing (in accordance with BS: 5837 (2012) is required for all the trees/hedgerows on the four boundaries: Southern boundary - consists mainly of 3 no. Oak trees and 3 no. Ash trees with Hazel and Hawthorn understory - patchy in places. Could be strengthened. Western boundary - consists mainly of 12 no. Oak trees, 3 no. Cypress, 2 no. Ash, 2 no. Field Maple, 1 no. Birch - potentially within rear gardens on western boundaries. These are an important vegetative screen and if the proposed rear gardens are short these trees maybe under pressure to be pruned and/or felled by future occupancy. Northern boundary - trees are in adjacent rear gardens. Lime tree, Field Maple, Apple and Hazel. Trees graded A and B should be retained and appropriate new planting on the boundary and within the site (suitable native species, British grown). Details/method statements on the construction of the ditches (in the frontage) and new pond within south/south-east corner of the site are required. Appropriate conditions are required to prevent materials stored within the RPAs of the trees, avoidance of fires, works within RPAs to be carried out by hand or careful machinery use to limit root damage/compaction. CDC - Environmental Strategy (summarised) Updated comments: The submitted reptile mitigation strategy includes two acceptable options. Conditions should secure details of the final strategy to be approved before commencement. Original comments: Field margins, hedgerows and trees to be retained for wildlife habitat, with a 2m buffer. No trees to be removed without bat assessment. Lighting should minimise effects on bats. Recommend bat and bird boxes and additional hedgerows, vegetation clearance to take place outside bird nesting season, provision of log piles and fences lifted slightly to allow for small mammal movement. Full reptile mitigation strategy to be provided detailing slow worm relocation. The development should meet the requirements of the Interim Statement for Climate Change, details show minimum CODE 3 to be achieved through ground source heat, solar PV and thermal panels.

CDC - Design and Implementation Manager (summarised) Updated comments (Rev G): Development of the site should be treated as creating an extension to the existing settlement. There is a visual link between the site and the existing, mainly listed buildings on the east side of the High Street. It should be accepted that, if the development proceeds, the site will become part of the village and its character will change. Rather than trying to isolate the development by cutting it off and hiding it behind the boundary planting, good design practice would be to integrate it and accept the boundary will need to be opened up, even if only slightly. If the boundary is so important in landscape terms then this is probably the wrong type of development for the site. The green space in front of the buildings should be treated as a form of village green, with clear distinctions between private and public space. A review of the layout of the south east corner should be considered with the public open space rationalised into a well defined manageable area, which could include the balancing pond. The area in front of units 6-9 needs very careful treatment and could be considered as a less formalised shared space. The view into the site from the High Street could be reviewed to draw one into the site and also frame views of the oak tree on the boundary beyond. Advise rationalising the road layout and adjusting the orientation of units 11-14 and 25. The relocation of the covered parking and electricity sub-station from the street frontage of the development is an improvement. Shared cycle storage should be avoided. Render/half timbering should be avoided in favour of a simple palette comprising red-brick and tile-hanging with careful attention to detailing. Original comments: Objection. Original comments from pre-application enquiry apply. The design will need to meet Building for Life criteria. The main issues are: - Impact on the special character of the village, and listed buildings opposite - Layout in relation to the existing character and pattern of development of the village. Specifically setting the development back from High Street and backing onto the street - Layouts and building to building relationships appear cramped, public open space

is poorly overlooked, housing facing onto side or rear gardens is not acceptable. Suggest

including non-residential uses to enhance economic viability - Affordable housing to be tenure blind and pepper-potted - Car parking should be included in the building plots and parking courts avoided - Conventional design, advise perimeter block approach not cul-de-sacs - Car dependent, road hierarchy to be shown - Attempt to provide a mix of houses. Those fronting the High Street to be very high quality to preserve the setting of the listed buildings - Simple material palette, refer to better quality local buildings and detailing - Advise the community are involved in the design process - Public art should be designed into the site and commissioned in consultation with the community CDC - Waste Services Officer Each dwelling will require 1 x waste and 1 x recycling bins (240ltr)

CDC Community Facilities £42,750 (2013-14 figures) towards North Hall, Loxwood Village Hall North Hall is the main community facility available to the wider community. It is therefore very well used, providing clubs, groups and activities for all ages. Over the last four years, it has benefitted from a major refurbishment programme which has seen the kitchen and toilets upgraded from 1930s standard to the 21st century. Additional floor area has also been added, to give two additional meeting rooms and a pleasant and welcoming reception area. Required Works Increasing capacity of men's toilet facilities Additional storage space Improved access and car parking CDC Parks and Green Spaces A play or open space suitable to the design and layout of the development should be provided. This is achieved in the scheme proposed (February 2014) CDC Sport and Leisure £20,470 (2014-15 figures) towards enhancing existing or providing new sports facilities in the local area. CDC Public Art £8,841 (2014-15 figures) for the commissioning, installing and maintaining public art. This should be on site or in the immediate vicinity and commissioned in consultation with the community. 56 Third Party Objections Contrary to Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan policy

Not an allocated site in the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan (LNP), does not meet all the sustainability criteria, surplus to requirements

Application submitted during the LNP consultation period. Status of the LNP has significantly changed over the course of the application

Neighbourhood plan is at a critical stage. Permission would be contrary to the democratically considered views of the community, have a very substantial impact and undermine the plan making process.

Weight to be given to the neighbourhood plan as an emerging plan, the LNP should carry significant weight. Recent SoS decision (Leicestershire)

LNP Examiner's report confirmed there was no need to identify additional or alternative sites beyond the parish preferences

Neighbourhood plan conflict outweighs the lack of a 5 year housing land supply in Chichester District

Site to be considered in combination with other applications for housing in Loxwood

Site outside the SPA, contrary to Local Plan policy, contrary to FAD, dangerous precedent

Not sustainable for Loxwood, not consistent with the rate of growth in the parish

over the last 15 years

FAD will cease to be used in May 2014, relied upon to justify scheme Community and consultation

No engagement with, proper consultation with the community

No community benefits proposed, application does not meet local needs or demands

Limited community and public transport facilities, insufficient school and health provision. No S106 or CIL commitment

Traffic and highway safety

Close to B2133/Station Road junction in village centre

High road speeds contributed to this site not being allocated in the neighbourhood plan. Additional traffic will exacerbate and aggravate existing congestion and speed

Limited pedestrian accessibility - Other preferable sites Character and setting

Opposite several listed buildings and buildings of historic interest, detrimental to historic setting of this part of the village

Site in agricultural natural state is integral to the village setting

Development of large modern houses will destroy the authentic feeling and character of the old village and dwarf the listed buildings

Site is too small for the number of dwellings Flooding and drainage

Insufficient local sewerage capacity

Need to demonstrate the development will not increase flooding elsewhere

Recent flooding problems 1 Third Party Other Chichester Access Group request level doorways and regard had to positioning of electrical fittings Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information Plans amended and additional details supplied during application assessment including: Layout plan, showing agreed housing mix, ecology buffer, changes to open space and pond location Revised housing mix schedule, with 44% affordable housing Context and constraints plans Design justification with reference to local positive buildings Response on heritage and conservation matters Reptile mitigation strategy Foul drainage details including correspondence from Southern Water Updated road safety design audit and speed survey details Updated arboricultural method statement and impact assessment

7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows. Weight can be given in accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF. Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE3 Archaeology BE4 Buildings of Architectural or Historic Merit BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features BE16 Energy Conservation RE1 Rural Area Generally RE5 North-Eastern Part of the District TR6 Highway Safety TR8 Cyclists and Pedestrians H1 Dwelling Requirement H4 Size and Density of Dwellings H5 Open Space Requirements H6 Maintenance of Open Space H8 Social and Low Cost Housing in Settlement Policy Areas 7.3 At Council on 24 April 2014 it was resolved to formally submit the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications to the Secretary of State for Examination at the end of May 2014. This has now been submitted. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Applicable policies: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 25: Development in the North of the Plan area Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Carbon Reduction Policy Policy 42: Flood Risk Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 47: Heritage Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 52: Green Infrastructure

Policy 53: District Canals National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 6-13 (Presumption in Favour), 16 (Community Engagement), 17 (Core Principles), 32, 34-37 and 39 (Sustainable Transport), 47-50, 54 and 55 (Housing), 56-61 and 63-66 (Design), 69-70 and 73 (Healthy Communities), 93-97, 99 (Climate Change), 109-113, 118, 125 (Natural Environment), 126, 128-9, 131-2, 135, 140 and 141 (Historic Environment), 159 and 174 (Housing evidence), 162 and 173 (Infrastructure evidence and viability), 169-70 (Historic environment evidence), 183-185 (Neighbourhood Planning), 188-195 (Pre-Application), 196-198 (Determining Applications), 203-206 (Conditions and Obligations) and Annexe 1 (Implementation). 7.6 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) is a material consideration, particularly sections 2a (Housing and economic development needs assessments), 3 (Housing and economic land availability assessment), 6 (Climate change), 8 (Natural environment), 12 (Local plans), 18a (Historic Environment), 21a (Planning conditions), 21b (Determining a planning application), 23b (Planning obligations), 26 (Design), 34 (Water supply, wastewater and water quality), 41 (Neighbourhood planning), 42 (Travel plans, transport assessments and statements) and 50 (Rural housing). 7.7 The Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2029 was approved by an Independent Examiner in April 2014 to proceed to Referendum, subject to recommended modifications. This was agreed through Cabinet on 3rd June. It is intended the Referendum will take place on 24th July 2014, then if supported by the community and made thereafter, the Neighbourhood Plan will form part of the Development Plan for Chichester district. The content of the Neighbourhood Plan is a material consideration in accordance with paragraphs 183-185 and 198 of the NPPF. 7.8 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which

local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.9 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application: The Provision of Service Infrastructure Related to New Development in Chichester District (Parts 1 and 2) Interim Statement on Planning for Affordable Housing The Interim Statements on Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) and Planning and Climate Change were archived with the submission of the Local Plan for examination. 7.10 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources D1: Increasing housing supply D2: Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods D3: Housing fit for purpose E2: There will be improved cycling networks and strong links to public transport to ensure that cycling is a viable alternative to using the car E3: There will be a decrease in the numbers of road traffic collisions in the district E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level 7.11 The Loxwood Village Design Statement is a material consideration. 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: Principle of housing development outside the settlement boundary and policy position Design and layout, impact on historic buildings and village character Highway access and safety Drainage Housing mix and tenure Ecology Archaeology The conclusion will address the planning balance and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Assessment Principle and policy position

8.2 The starting point for the assessment is the content of the statutory development plan, the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review. However, the Plan only supports the principle of housing development within Settlement Policy Areas through policies RE1, BE1 and H1. The District cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply (5YHLS), with the shortfall at the time of writing of approximately 493 dwellings, equivalent to 4.3 years supply. 8.3 The NPPF clearly identifies at paragraph 49 that where a LPA cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply (5YHLS), the housing delivery policies contained in the development plan should not be considered up-to-date. In these circumstances the NPPF confirms the decision taker should apply the Framework's presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 14 and grant permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Policies in the Framework taken as a whole. This is caveated by 'unless material considerations indicate otherwise', or 'specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted'. This presumption also applies to housing supply policies contained within made neighbourhood plans, where the Authority cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS. 8.4 For plans in preparation, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is applicable and weight can be allocated in accordance with the stage reached by the emerging plan, the extent of unresolved objections and the degree of conflict with the Framework. Accordingly, the District's emerging Local Plan can be given some weight in accordance with these criteria although it is material to note there are unresolved objections in relation to the policies that set overall and parish housing numbers. These policies (4, 5) are material to this assessment but as a result of the objections carry reduced weight at this time. As a guide, the Plan allocates 339 dwellings to the north east portion of the district over the plan period, of which a minimum of 60 would be provided within the Loxwood parish. Other development management policies can be attributed more weight by paragraph 216, and the assessment of this proposal against the saved and emerging policies is covered in detail below. Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan 8.5 Also given weight in transition by paragraph 216 of the NPPF is the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan (LNP), which passed Examination in April 2014. The LNP has been approved to proceed to referendum with modifications by the Examiner and the Council at its Cabinet meeting on 3rd June. The NPPG confirms a Neighbourhood Plan will form part of the Development Plan once it has been supported by the local community at referendum and subsequently made by the local planning authority. The referendum is scheduled for 24th July. 8.6 Paragraph 184 of the NPPF specifies that neighbourhood plans should not promote less development than set out in the Local Plan or undermine its strategic policies. The Examiner's report confirms these tests have been passed. Although the emerging Local Plan is yet to be examined and there are unresolved objections to the District housing figures as set out above, the LNP Examiner and Secretary of State have confirmed there is no legislative requirement for housing numbers to be allocated at a district level before a neighbourhood plan could proceed. 8.7 The LNP identifies two sites within the village to provide for the (minimum of) 60 dwellings recommended for the Parish by the emerging District Local Plan. The Examiner concurred that the two allocated sites met the Basic Conditions and were the parish preferences, and there was no need to include additional or alternative sites. The application site, which was considered during the plan preparation process but not allocated in the

submitted LNP is consequently excluded from the Settlement Boundary and falls within the rural area. The LNP policies applicable to the rural area (specifically policy 13) do not support housing development outside this boundary. The application proposal therefore conflicts with the neighbourhood plan in principle, principally for its location outside the Settlement Boundary. The development would also result in the agreed (albeit minimum) housing figure for the parish being significantly exceeded. 8.8 With this conflict in mind, it is necessary to consider the guidance and instruction within the NPPF and NPPG as to three matters: (a) the weight that can be given to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan; (b) whether the application is premature, and with reference to both of the above, the extent and impact of conflict with the LNP, specifically with reference to any prejudicial effects that would ensue should planning permission be granted. Weight of the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan 8.9 NPPF paragraphs 185 and 198 identify that where a neighbourhood plan has been brought into force, its policies take precedence over non-strategic policies in the Local Plan where a conflict exists, and planning applications that conflict with an adopted neighbourhood plan should not normally be granted. 8.10 Although now at an advanced stage, the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan has not been adopted so cannot carry full weight as development plan policy. However, in light of its advanced position and the advice in paragraph 216 of the NPPF, the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan (with Examiner modifications) is considered to carry significant weight as a material consideration. The Secretary of State (SoS) decision dated 17th April in relation to the Broughton Astley Neighbourhood Plan, in the Harborough District of Leicestershire adds greater strength to this conclusion. Within the SoS's report, it identifies that the purpose in paragraph 185 of the Framework that outside the strategic elements of the Local Plan, "neighbourhood plans will be able to shape and direct sustainable development", should be held to represent "more than a statement of aspiration". The SoS considers that neighbourhood plans once made "should be upheld as an effective means to shape and direct development in the neighbourhood planning area in question". A clear conflict between the proposed development and the neighbourhood plan therefore holds substantial negative weight in the planning balance. Additionally, due to the advanced stage of the LNP and the provisions in paragraph 185 of the NPPF, it is considered that its policies now carry greater planning weight as a material consideration than non-strategic policies in the adopted Local Plan and emerging Local Plan. Development management policies in the LNP applicable to this assessment are policies 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 18. Prematurity 8.11 As the LNP is mature but has yet to be made, it is appropriate to consider whether the proposed development would be premature to the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan. 8.12 The NPPG (section 21b) advises that arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify refusal unless: (a) The development is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to Neighbourhood Planning; and (b) The emerging plan is at an advanced stage but not yet formally part of the development plan for the area. The LPA would, in refusing consent on these grounds, need to indicate clearly how the grant of planning permission would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.

8.13 The application meets the test in (b) as the emerging plan is advanced but not yet part of the development plan. With reference to (a), while the housing numbers overall and on each allocated site are not a ceiling but a minimum, the proposed 25 dwellings would result in a minimum of 85 rather than 60 dwellings for the village. This represents an increase of 42% over the allocated number. Of these, 17 dwellings have a resolution for planning permission (LNP policy 4), 25 dwellings are proposed within this application and a minimum of 43 dwellings are proposed under LNP policy 5 at the former conifer Nursery. The supporting text for policy 5 identifies that some development will be expected to be delivered on the Nursery site in the first 5 years of the plan period. Critically, where this total housing figure is expressed as a minimum, it is stated that development will be contained within the Settlement Boundary and this perimeter has been enlarged to accommodate not only the two allocated sites but additional windfall sites both on currently developed and undeveloped land. 8.14 Cumulatively, this is considered a significant increase and rate of growth for a village of this size, characteristics and facilities. Supporting text to the emerging Local Plan policy 25 provides justification for the housing numbers set for parishes in the north of the District. Support for the allocation of 60 dwellings rather than a higher figure to Loxwood parish is contained within supplementary documents to the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan process including the 2013 Settlement Capacity Profile study and the 2011 Landscape Capacity Study (Extension). The Settlement Capacity Profile study identifies the particular features of the parish and Loxwood village and concludes that the allocation of 60 dwellings is reflective of the local characteristics, facilities and landscape capacity. The Landscape Capacity study confirms the site lies within the Loxwood Western Low Weald, where the landscape value is moderate and development capacity low. The setting of listed buildings, archaeological potential and views of the settlement from the south east are noted as particular sensitivities, all of which are material to this assessment. 8.15 Furthermore, there is uncertainty over the repercussions of development of 25 dwellings on this site would have upon the scope and phasing of the delivery of the allocated sites. This situation will be exacerbated should other windfall development be provided within the Settlement Boundary in advance of the Nursery site proposal. The allocated sites are the parish preference and have been recognised by the Examiner as such, and confirmed to be suitable for inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan. Additionally, the allocated sites are both planned to provide community and local economic benefits over and above the minimum contributions of finance or facilities to offset the burden of development. This approach has been accepted by the Examiner for the purposes of the neighbourhood plan and is supported by policy 25. As such any prejudicial impacts on the delivery of these sites in terms of scope or phasing can be a material consideration. 8.16 In addition to the above concerns, the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan has received a positive recommendation from the examination process to progress to referendum with some minor modifications. It will need to achieve a minimum of 50% support at referendum to allow it to be submitted to the District Council to be made. As identified above in the 'consultees' section of the report, there is significant local objection to this application, for the primary reason of the conflict with the plan. There are a large number of objectors who have expressed their anxiety at the effect a grant of permission would have on the final stages of the plan-making process. Recent SoS and Inspector decisions have recognised that a decision contrary to a neighbourhood plan is likely to undermine confidence in the Neighbourhood Planning process, and where the plan is at an advanced stage a decision contrary to the plan may result in a plan not achieving the 50% vote necessary for acceptance at referendum. At an earlier stage, communities could easily lose faith in their ability to influence local planning decisions as allowed for by the NPPF and plans could stall.

To be consistent with the aforementioned decisions, some weight can be attributed to these social implications and their effects on policy making in Loxwood and across the District in the planning balance. 8.17 Taking all the matters and guidance above into account, it is considered the principle of this development cannot be supported on the grounds of it being not only contrary to but premature and prejudicial to the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan and the Neighbourhood Planning process. By considerably exceeding the housing number allocated to Loxwood, the proposal would also not accord with the strategic policies of the emerging plan, which aim to direct development on the basis of need and environmental and infrastructure capacity. Design and layout, impact on historic buildings and village character 8.18 Loxwood lies within the north east part of Chichester district, specifically identified for its distinctive rural and historic characteristics and protected through policy RE5 of the saved Local Plan, policy 9 and 10 of the LNP and policy 25 of the emerging Local Plan. The site lies on the southern approach to the village core within the historic part of the village and adjacent to several listed buildings. The south east corner of the site is noticeably higher than the adjacent highway and the mature vegetation to the boundary provides a rural setting for the historic buildings and a sense of enclosure for those who enter the village from the south. Viewed from the north, there is a marked and rapid change from busy village centre to historic rural fringe with sporadic and traditional ribbon development of moderately sized dwellings fronting the road. Many of these are listed or considered heritage assets. The mature trees on the southern boundary of the site and the semi mature trees to the west are visible from the canal and its public access routes on substantially lower ground to the south and south west. These factors make the site particularly sensitive to development and the south east corner of the site particularly so. 8.19 The proposed layout has been amended a number of times during the course of the assessment to respond to concerns raised on the layout and relationship to the surrounding development, particularly the listed and historic dwellings fronting High Street. The layout has also been revised to take into account the effect of the development on the trees on and adjacent to the site boundaries. 8.20 The principal area of sensitivity is the south east corner of the site, where gaps in the boundary planting allows some inter-visibility between the dwellings fronting the High Street and those proposed on the application site. The higher ground level, and loss of some planting to the far eastern end of the southern boundary, increases the sensitivity of this part of the application site. The positioning of the largest, four bedroom detached dwelling in this corner does not respect or echo the historic built form opposite in scale, orientation, height and bulk and would detract from the setting of the heritage assets, contrary to saved policy H4, LNP policy 10, emerging policy 47, section 12 of the NPPF and guidance within the NPPG. Furthermore, unsympathetic development in this corner would impinge on the rural approach to the village and its traditional modest and staggered ribbon development to the detriment of the historic buildings and their rural setting. The impact would be particularly apparent in the short to medium term until the replacement planting is able to establish. This element of the scheme therefore does not accord with the aims of LNP policy 9. 8.21 The retention and supplementing of the eastern boundary will have the effect of isolating the majority of the proposed development from the High Street, and this is raised as a concern in design terms. However, in weighing up the environmental merits of retaining

this boundary with the design advantages of increasing visibility and engagement with the development, it is considered that the setting of the historic buildings along High Street, the sense of enclosure experienced when entering Loxwood from the south will be better preserved by retaining the planting. Filtered views of the development through gaps in the planting will be possible. It is noted that the existing dwellings, including those within Farm Place to the north are well set back from the highway and screened by mature planting, with the eye drawn instead to the historic buildings of old Loxwood fronting High Street, and those grouped by the Station Road junction, specifically Willetts/Meadowcrest and the village shop. Setting the development back from the highway and retaining the planting is therefore considered to be consistent with and complementary to the existing pattern. 8.22 Within the site, the proposed layout groups the dwellings into three areas; the smaller mostly affordable units by the site entrance, a ribbon of mostly semi-detached dwellings backing onto the western boundary, and a cluster of small to medium sized dwellings to the south east corner. The density of development of around 23 dwellings per hectare is relatively low and the need to ensure efficient use of land is recognised. Contrary to the advice in the LNP policy 9, plots are generally regular in size and the development in the main does not give the "impression of spaciousness". It is noted that this site is in close proximity to the village centre where building density and the relationships between dwellings are significantly closer than those immediately adjacent to the site. 8.23 The distances and relationships between the dwellings are considered to be within acceptable tolerances, having regard to the Council's design guidance. All dwellings are set away from the boundaries, avoiding both direct and perceived overlooking to existing neighbouring development. Parking is provided on curtilage to most plots, and within well-overlooked shared areas for the remainder. The public open space to the southern and eastern boundaries also benefits from good natural surveillance, and is considered appropriate for the scale and layout of the development as required by saved Local Plan policy H5. The positioning of the open space to the east and south pulls the build form away from the most sensitive boundaries, in terms of protecting the trees and maintaining the rural nature of the setting of the village when viewed from the canal. The layout also allows scope for landscaping within the site and to supplement the existing boundaries. 8.24 The layout in its revised form has generated concern in respect of the proximity of the largest dwellings in the south east corner, however the other aspects of the layout are considered to be acceptable. Taking all the above matters into account, it is considered that the site is not overdeveloped, nor will the development give rise to unacceptable impacts on the amenities of neighbours. In this respect there are no conflicts with saved policies BE11, BE13, or BE14, emerging policies 25 or 33, LNP policy 9, the NPPF or NPPG. The impact of the development on the historic buildings and village approach remains a concern, with conflict identified with saved policies RE5 and BE4, emerging LNP policies 9 and 10, emerging Local Plan policies 25, 33, 47 and 48 and NPPF and NPPG advice. Based on the latest layout plan which shows a greater distance between the four bed dwellings and the historic buildings, this harm is considered not to be sufficiently detrimental in its own right to warrant refusal specifically on these grounds. Nevertheless, an adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings on the sensitive rural approach to the historic village centre is considered to add weight to the objection to the proposal on the grounds of conflict with, prematurity to and prejudicial effect upon the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan. Access and highway safety 8.25 The proposed access is in the position of the existing in the north east corner of the site. Although the road has a speed limit of 30mph, speed surveys have identified the 85th percentile speeds of over 35pmh northbound and just under 35mph southbound.

Visibility splays have been designed to be safe for speeds of 37mph, measuring 2.4m x 59m both ways. These splays have been confirmed as acceptable by the Highways Authority. The visibility splays are contained within the public highway or land under the applicant's control. 8.26 A 2m pedestrian footway will be provided along the verge to the north to meet the existing footway adjacent to the entrance of Farm Place. There is an existing footway on the eastern side of the road running north to the village centre and south to the canal and the public rights of way. 8.27 The development provides 49 parking spaces and secure cycle storage will be required for each dwelling. Parking is predominantly on curtilage, or grouped with no more than 5 spaces in one location. The parking areas are well overlooked. WSCC parking standards require 52 spaces for the proposed housing mix. The residual number could be provided within garages on the larger market units, through a Reserved Matters application if all other aspects were acceptable. 8.28 There remain a number of elements of concern with the layout from a highway safety perspective, including visibility on the bends in the road, the proximity of parking spaces to the bend to the north west corner and a considerable overhang of the cab of the vehicle used for the tracking plots beyond the edge of the road. It is also not clear if this vehicle size and type would be sufficient for local authority refuge collection. The proposal as it stands therefore does not comply with saved policy TR6 and emerging policy 39, and the local concern about traffic and parking is noted. It is considered there is sufficient space within the site to accommodate the required parking provision. Further details required in relation to adoptable road standards could be reasonably sought by condition. Drainage 8.29 Southern Water has confirmed there is currently insufficient capacity in the local sewage network to service the proposed 25 dwellings and it will be necessary to undertake off-site works to achieve the required foul drainage capacity. These works have been identified to comprise an upgrade to the Brewhurst Mill pumping station which lies to the south of the Onslow Arms and north of the River. 8.30 Sewage capacity is one of the key issues for Loxwood, as explained in policy 8 of the Neighbourhood Plan and the supporting text. The policy requires "rigorous analysis" to confirm there is sufficient capacity, and new developments will be permitted only if the network can accommodate the additional demand in advance of its construction. 8.31 Southern Water has estimated an upgrade from 52 to 53l/s flow should be sufficient to accommodate the foul water discharge from the development. The final details will only be available once a formal application have been made by the developer under S98 of the Water Act, and a series of surveys are undertaken. This would generally take place after the grant of planning approval. For the purposes of this planning application, it is considered sufficient information and assurances have been provided to the Local Planning Authority for this outline application to demonstrate that the foul drainage infrastructure required to serve the development can and will be provided should the development be approved. Final details of the drainage arrangements are capable of being sought and approved by condition, if all other aspects are acceptable. 8.32 A flood risk assessment has been submitted including preliminary surface water drainage details. This identifies the use of swales and an attenuation pond on site, with limited opportunity for infiltration drainage. Winter groundwater, infiltration and percolation testing have not to date been undertaken to confirm this is the optimum practical solution for

the site. It is noted the ground levels fall to the south east and ground levels at this point are higher than the road. Management of surface water drainage within the site boundaries is expected, with discharge to a watercourse as the least preferred option. It is considered that the proposed surface water drainage arrangements are acceptable in principle and that final details could be appropriately secured through the use of conditions in the event that planning permission could be granted. Housing mix and tenure 8.33 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (update 2012) is considered to be the best available evidence of the objective dwelling need. With reference to the content of the NPPF, specifically paragraphs 50 and 159, the policy recommendations and evidence base of the SHMA can properly be used to inform an appropriate mix of both market and affordable dwellings. The combination of the SHMA policy recommendations and additional local evidence on local dwelling imbalance and affordable housing need has been used to inform the extent of acceptable provision for this site. 8.34 Discussions during the course of the application have led to agreement on the provision of 11 affordable dwellings (44%) and 14 market. The affordable mix provides 2 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed, 1 x 4 bed dwellings, all of which will be delivered for affordable rent in this case. The proposed market mix would deliver 4 x 2 bed, 7 x 3 bed, 3 x 4 bed dwellings. The affordable dwellings will be distributed throughout the site, with a cluster to the northern boundary. The dwellings must be designed to be tenure blind, as advised in the NPPF and NPPG and in accordance with good practice. This detail could be reasonably provided within a Reserved Matters application if all other elements of the development were considered acceptable. 8.35 The 40% affordable provision complies with the requirements of the Interim Statement, and the housing mix meets the requirements of the SHMA (interpreted alongside local circumstances) and section 6 and paragraph 159 of the NPPF. Ecology 8.36 This greenfield site offers habitat for a range of species including slow worms, nesting birds and bats. The plans as amended show a 2m ecological buffer surrounding the site, with the retention of the majority of the existing planting and supplementary native vegetation where required. It is considered that the plans show an acceptable wildlife margin and the slow worm relocation mitigation strategy is appropriate. Conditions could be used to secure the protection and enhancement of wildlife and habitats to ensure compliance with wildlife legislation, saved policy BE14 and emerging policy 48, if the scheme was deemed to be otherwise acceptable. Archaeology 8.37 There is a possibility that deposits associated with the adjacent supposed medieval moated site might be present on the site. In the circumstances it is recommended that a trial investigation is undertaken in the northern part of the site followed with appropriate mitigation measures if finds are revealed. It would be appropriate to secure this by condition, should other aspects be acceptable. This approach accords with the advice in section 12 of the NPPF, saved policy BE3 and emerging policy 47.

Infrastructure 8.38 The applicant has agreed to progress a legal agreement under the provisions of S106 of the Planning Act to cover payments and provisions on site to address the infrastructure burden the development would place upon the locality. The contributions required by CDC and WSCC as set out in the 'consultations' section above are calculated using the methodology set out in the SPG (as amended and updated), the Interim Statement for Affordable Housing and the methodology set out in the WSCC consultation response. It is considered these obligations comply with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and paragraphs 204 and 205 of the NPPF. Affordable housing 11 units (on site) Community facilities £43,975 Sport and leisure £20,470 Public Art £8,841 Primary education £40,363 Secondary education £47,115 6th form education £9,948 Libraries £4,223 Fire and Rescue £399 (plus fire hydrant(s) to be confirmed) TAD £49,900 Additionally, it is expected the S106 will include clauses to deliver the footway link to the north and maintenance in perpetuity of the SuDS systems, open space and landscape buffers. 8.39 While it is expected the parties will be able to agree with the above terms, the agreement is presently only in draft form and as such the absence of an appropriate legal agreement will constitute a reason for refusal. It is noted there is local concern about the burden this development will place on local infrastructure. Conclusion with planning balance 8.40 While the District cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS, paragraph 49 of the NPPF confirms that housing supply policies are considered out of date and the tests within paragraph 14 of the NPPF are engaged. This applies to all adopted housing supply policies including those within made neighbourhood plans. Saved policies in the Chichester District Local Plan can be allocated weight under paragraph 215 of the NPPF, in accordance with their compatibility with the NPPF. Emerging Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan policies are given weight under provisions of paragraph 216 of the NPPF, with reduced weight applied to policies against which there are unresolved objections and increasing weight for policies which are close to adoption and are compliant with the NPPF. 8.41 The decision on this application must therefore be firmly rooted in paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. As such, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when taken against the Framework as a whole. While the site is environmentally and historically sensitive as identified above, there are no specific policies in the Framework which indicate development should be restricted. 8.42 The lack of a 5YHLS is consistently held by Inspectors, the Secretary of State and development management practice as commanding significant negative weight against the tests of paragraphs 49 and 14 of the NPPF, with the provision of new housing given significant positive weight in the planning balance, regardless of the number of units to be

delivered. The proposal would provide 25 additional dwellings of a mix that has been deemed appropriate for the local context and need. 11 of these 25 dwellings would provide affordable homes. The economic and social benefits of delivering additional dwellings also weigh in favour of the proposal. 8.43 As detailed above, the principle of the proposed development clearly conflicts with the aims and policies of the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan, specifically the location of the site within the rural area. Furthermore, permitting this development in addition to the housing sites already allocated in the LNP would cumulatively increase housing numbers well above the indicative parish target of 60 dwellings set out in the emerging Local Plan and confirmed as an appropriate number for the village through the neighbourhood plan examination. In recognition of the position the LNP has reached towards adoption, and the positive examiner recommendation, the content of the Plan as a whole can be given significant weight. Conflict with the plan, and the prejudicial impacts on the village that could result should this development go ahead as proposed must therefore carry significant negative weight. A decision to permit contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan and where prejudicial effects are identified would not comply with the NPPF, specifically paragraphs 183-185 and 198. Some negative weight can also be given to the prejudicial effects a decision contrary to this advanced Neighbourhood Plan would have on the likelihood of a successful referendum and similarly, the negative repercussions on the progress and community support for the district's other Neighbourhood Plans. 8.44 Additional negative weight is attributed to the detrimental effects the proposed development would have on the setting of the cluster of listed and historic buildings opposite the site on the approach to the village centre, due to the positioning of large detached dwellings within the south east corner of the site on raised ground and the partial loss of boundary vegetation. This adds weight to the primary reason for refusal, rather than constituting a separate reason. There are also unresolved highway safety concerns relating to the development layout and location of parking spaces. Furthermore, in the absence of a signed S106 legal agreement, the necessary obligations to ensure the development meets its infrastructure needs in full, particularly in relation to securing the affordable housing in perpetuity, have not been secured. 8.45 As a result, the development does not comply with saved policies RE5, BE4, BE11, BE13, TR6 and TR8 of the Local Plan, all of which are considered to comply with the intentions of the NPPF and as such carry weight. Emerging policies 25, 33, 39, 40, 45, 47, 48 and 49 are not subject to material unresolved objections and as such these carry weight. Weight can also be given to applicable policies of the Neighbourhood Plan, specifically policies 1-3, 9 and 10 against which this proposal does not comply for the reasons above. 8.46 Weighing up all matters above, it is concluded that the conflict of the proposed development with the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan and the impact the proposal would have on the Neighbourhood Plan process and Loxwood village would constitute adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, principally the contribution of 25 market and affordable dwellings towards the five year housing land supply for the district. The application is therefore recommended for refusal. Human Rights 8.47 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE 1 U86162 U86162 - Contrary/premature/prejudicial to NP 2 U86163 U86163 - Highway safety details required 3 U86164 U86164 - Infrastructure 4 U86165 U86165 - INF Plans 5 U86166 U86166 - INF Pos/pro working For further information on this application please contact Naomi Langford on 01243 534734

Parish: Plaistow And Ifold

Ward: Plaistow

5 PS/14/00799/FUL

Proposal Application for retrospective planning permission under section 73A for the

extension of roof on piggery.

Site Strudgwick Farm Plaistow Road Loxwood Billingshurst RH14 0TZ

Map Ref (E) 502181 (N) 130723

Applicant Strudgtwo Ltd RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is located on the southwest side of Plaistow Road, immediately southwest of the Ifold Settlement Policy Area. To the west of the site lies the main Strudgwick Farm house, accessed from the same unmade driveway as the application site. 2.2 The site itself comprises two agricultural buildings, both do not appear to be in use, and constructed with white rendered or painted brick elevations under corrugated sheeting roofing. The remainder of the site is laid to concrete hardstanding with the outline of former buildings in the vicinity. The site is bounded by a mix of screen fencing to the southern boundary and timber post and rail fencing to the east, north and west boundaries. Between the site and the main road is an area of overgrown vegetation, which contributes towards screening the building from the road. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 All the works are retrospective. The works related to the re-roofing and slight height increase of the elevations of the piggery building. The building measures 14.2m by 9.2m, and comprises a ridge height of 3.6m, increased from 3.1m. The eaves height increased from 1.7m to 2.2m. The roof form reflects that as previous . Whilst not in apparent use at the time of the site visit, the use remains agricultural for the purposes of the current application. 4.0 History 92/00044/PS REF Two detached cottages (self-

build). 05/04332/ELD REF Use of land for the siting of a

residential mobile home.

12/00068/REF DISMIS Alterations and extension to former farm building to facilitate use as live/work unit.

12/00345/FUL REF Alterations and extension to former farm building to facilitate use as live/work unit.

14/00799/FUL PDE Application for retrospective

planning permission under Section 73A for the extension of roof on piggery.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area YES

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council Strong objection to this application as we do not believe a raised roof is needed for a piggery. The original building fell into disuse and essentially collapsed many years ago. The new building is significantly larger, having been rebuilt within the last nine months, and inappropriate for its location which is outside the building line for Ifold. The Council was unable to identify the proposed use of the new building from the application. 6.2 CDC Environmental Health No objections with respect to contaminated land or air quality issues. It is noted that the previous roof contained asbestos cement sheets which the applicant states have been removed and disposed of safely. The new roof is made of metal cladding material. Records to show that waste arisings have been disposed of in accordance with relevant Asbestos Regulations and other Waste Regulations are available, and these records should be forwarded to this authority to confirm how the material was disposed of. The site is adjacent to a former small brickworks however this application should not be affected by this neighbouring landuse. 6.3 1no. Third Party Objection 1no. letter received stating that the building has been completed rebuilt and the site has not been used for agricultural purposes for more than 30 years, having formed part of the residential curtilage of Strudgwick Farm House until recently. 6.4 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information The application has been supported by a short Planning Statement stating that the building was damaged by an adjacent tree resulting in the roof collapsing. The tree was subsequently removed and the roof replaced. During the works, the eaves (and subsequently the ridge) were increased by 500mm in order to provide a more flexible and safer use of the floorspace. They had assumed that the works were permitted development.

7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE1 Rural Area Generally RE5 North-eastern Part of the District 7.3 At Council on 24 April 2014 it was resolved to formally submit the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications to the Secretary of State for Examination at the end of May 2014. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the local plan process towards adoption the Local Plan will gain more weight. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF which advises on the weight can be given to emerging plans is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 25: Development in the North of the Plan area Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 46: Alterations, Change of Use and/or Re-use of Existing Buildings in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), and the remainder of the document generally.

Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.6 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1: Managing a changing environment 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of the development; and ii) Visual impact. Assessment i) Principle of the development 8.2 This retrospective proposal seeks permission for the retention of the works to the agricultural building which involved the increasing of the eaves and ridge height of the building by 500mm. Whilst not recently used for agricultural purposes, the primary use remains agricultural, and therefore the amendments to the building to enable a more flexible and safer use of the existing ground floor area are considered acceptable. 8.3 It is noted that the applicant has not specified a purpose of the building in it altered state, however, within the consideration of this planning application, the use remains agricultural, and it is for that use that the proposed works are considered to be acceptable. The comments of the Parish Council are noted, however, until at least 2012 the building remained complete in its original form, as evidenced by earlier site visit photographs from officers. ii) Visual Impact 8.4 The building, measuring 14.2m by 9.2m comprises a ridge height of 3.6m, increased from 3.1m, is located in excess of 45m from Plaistow Road, and whilst the immediate area comprises an opening in the surrounding vegetation, there remains a significant level of intervening vegetation between the building and the street scene. It is considered that provision of agricultural buildings within the rural area are acceptable, and that the visual appearance of the building is that of a typical agricultural building. The overall form of the building remains as originally built, except for the increased height. 8.5 The works to the building have resulted in a visual improvement to the site, with the majority of the land around the building being cleared of overgrown vegetation and dying trees, which together with the improvements to the visual appearance of the building (white washed elevations and replacement roofing) has resulted overall in an improvement to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. 8.6 It is therefore considered that the building, which remains in agricultural use despite its lack of use for agricultural purposes, and provided the intended use is for agricultural purposes, the minor modifications to the height of the building are considered to be acceptable. Significant Conditions 8.7 There are no significant conditions proposed to be imposed, save and except that the building should be maintained in accordance with the submitted plans.

Conclusion 8.8 Based on the above assessment, it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.9 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded there would be no breach if planning permission were to be granted. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 U86006 U86006 - No Departure from Plans INFORMATIVE 2 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Peter Kneen on 01243 534734

Parish: Plaistow And Ifold

Ward: Plaistow

6 PS/14/00927/FUL

Proposal Single dwelling to rear of Staddle Stones

Site Staddle Stones The Drive Loxwood Billingshurst RH14 0TD

Map Ref (E) 502784 (N) 130810

Applicant Mrs M Ragusa RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site comprises the north-eastern area of garden associated with Staddle Stones, which is a detached 2-storey dwelling of modern construction with attached garage, located on land behind Malthouse, which fronts The Drive. This property is well screened on all sides by mature vegetation. The garden area associated with the proposal is mostly flat grassland, benefiting from mature screening along much of the southern boundary and more sporadic mature screening to the north. There is woodland to the east of the site, which is classified as Ancient Woodland. 2.2 There are neighbouring properties to the north and south of the site (as well as Staddle Stones to the west). Northwood is a detached dwelling to the south-west of the application site, whilst Courtlands is a large, but very low detached bungalow to the north of the application site. Planning permission has recently been granted for a single dwelling to the rear of Northwood (PS/14/00255/FUL). Ifold is a small settlement, with many examples of development behind the dwellings fronting the 3 main roads it contains. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application is for the construction of a 2-storey chalet style detached, 5-bedroom dwellinghouse with integral garage, approximately 30m from the east elevation of Staddle Stones. The existing access drive which runs along the southern boundary is proposed to be extended further east to serve the new dwelling. A parking area is proposed at the driveways end. The proposed dwelling will have an overall height of 6.8m and an eaves height of 3m on the main dwelling and 3.6m on the projecting gable. 3.2 The proposal will include a garden area of approximately 20m in length before the Ancient Woodland designation, however this garden will be outside of the Settlement Policy Area boundary. Staddle Stones will be left with a garden area to the east of the dwelling of approximately 25m by 25m. 3.3 The application has been submitted following the recent refusal of 2 detached dwellings on the site, for which there is currently an appeal against this decision in progress (Planning Ref: PS/13/03662/FUL). Officers considered that the principle of the development currently at appeal would result in a cramped, contrived form of development, bearing an awkward relationship with the topography of the site and the surrounding properties. 4.0 History

10/01356/FUL WDN Erection of 1 no. five bedroom

detached house. 10/03645/FUL WDN 5 bed detached house on land

adjacent to Staddlestones.

13/03662/FUL REF 2 no. dwellings to the rear of

Staddle Stones. 14/00927/FUL PDE Single dwelling to rear of Staddle

Stones 5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area PART

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Plaistow and Ifold Parish Council The Council object as the building is in very close proximity to the SPA line. The building proposed is very large and fairly close to the existing house. The access drive is extremely narrow and a hazard to emergency vehicles. There are on-going sewage problems in this area of Ifold. 6.2 Natural England The proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. However, the development is in close proximity to an area of priority habitat. If significant harm to this cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, compensated for, the application should be refused. 6.3 CDC - Environmental Strategy Full mitigation report required for slow worms prior to determination of the development. Additional walkover to check site for great crested newts required prior to determination of the development. Following submission of Mitigation Statement May 2014 No Objection. Strategy to be conditioned 6.4 3 Third Party Objection The comments of the third parties can be summarised as follows: - Access drive and services inadequate - Impact on trees (leading to structural harm to neighbouring properties) - Insufficient drainage - Overbearing and overdevelopment - Inadequate parking provision

7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE5 North-eastern Part of the District RE8 Nature Conservation (Non-designated Areas) TR6 Highway Safety 7.3 At Council on 24 April 2014 it was resolved to formally submit the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications to the Secretary of State for Examination at the end of May 2014. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 25: Development in the North of the Plan area Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Carbon Reduction Policy Policy 49: Biodiversity National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), 58-60 (design) and 118 (biodiversity).

7.6 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living D1 - Increasing housing supply 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: - The visual character of the area - The amenities of the neighbouring properties - Wildlife and ecology. Assessment Character of the Area 8.2 The site is within the Settlement Policy Area where there is a presumption in favour of development, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal now comprises a single, 2-storey dwellinghouse in a chalet style, with a maximum height of 6.8m and low eaves height of 3m to the east of Staddle Stones (which is to remain). The new dwelling would be within the boundary of the Settlement Policy Area, and would not encroach further east than other developments further south. The proposal generally reflects the stance taken with other recent developments along the east of Ifold, where the built form of the dwellings themselves has been kept to within the SPA boundary but the residential curtilages i.e. their gardens do extend into the rural area. This was the case at the site to the south of the proposed development, where a further dwelling has recently been granted consent to the east of the existing dwelling (planning ref: PS/14/00255/FUL). Overall, it is considered that the reduced scale of the proposal has addressed the concerns raised by the Council, regarding the cramped nature of the previous development currently at appeal and the proposal would therefore comply with local plan policies BE11 and BE13.

Neighbour Amenity 8.3 The dwelling has now been orientated in order to minimise direct overlooking of the neighbouring properties, in particular Courtlands, Northwood and Staddle Stones itself. The proposed dwelling is 12m from the side elevation of Courtlands, with a single ground floor window serving the kitchen. The windows in the rear elevation will look down the garden of the application site and Courtlands. This would result in overlooking of the rear end of the neighbours garden, a view which would be obscured by trees and is considered to be an acceptable relationship. Substantial screening along the southern boundary will prevent any direct overlooking of Northwood, which is over 25m from the proposal. There is a distance of approximately 30m from the front elevation of the proposed dwelling and the east elevation of Staddle Stones. Again, given the orientation of the properties, there will be no direct overlooking. The presence of mature vegetation will also prevent harm to residential amenity. Overall, it is considered that as a result of the siting, orientation and overall height of not more than 6.8m, the proposed dwelling will not result in a significantly harmful effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. 8.4 Concerns have been raised by neighbouring properties regarding the impact the additional dwelling will have on the existing driveway, as a result of increased activity and whether the width is appropriate. The on-site layout provides sufficient parking and turning for both the proposed dwelling and Staddle Stones. The driveway is straight and therefore allows for good visibility to prevent the likelihood of vehicles coming face-to-face. The new stretch of driveway is 4m wide, which is sufficient for all vehicles. Furthermore, a single dwelling is unlikely to result in a significant increase in activity and therefore unlikely to have a significant impact on neighbour amenities. Conditions are proposed to require further details of a construction management plan, specifically to manage parking, and also requiring details of the bin collection point. Ecology and Wildlife 8.5 Following the original comments from the Council's Ecologist, a full mitigation strategy has now been provided to ensure no harm will come to any protected species, in particular reptiles/slow worms. This strategy includes the following measures: - Reptile exclusion fencing - On-site translocation (trapping visits between mid-March and mid-October) - Enhancements of the wider garden space - Sympathetic lighting scheme (bats) - Pre-construction survey (badgers) The Council's Ecologist has confirmed that these details are acceptable and the strategy will be conditioned. 8.6 A Tree Survey and Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted as part of the application submission, with an addendum to bring up-to-date. Whilst some trees will be removed as a result of the development, the Council's Tree Officer has visited the site and has raised no objection to the proposals. Other Matters 8.7 There is a main sewer running north/south across the application site, which follows the line of the Settlement Policy Area boundary. The proposed dwelling is located away from this sewer, however should there be a need to divert the sewer this would be a matter to be dealt with between the applicant and Southern Water Services. The onus is therefore on the applicant to ensure the sewer is not effected as a result of the construction of the dwelling.

8.8 The Council are aware of the concerns regarding surface water drainage in Ifold. However, it is considered that there would be a technical solution to any impact the construction of a single dwelling would have on the area, which is likely to be minimal. Conditions have been imposed requiring full details to be provided for a surface water drainage scheme and SuDS management to ensure a satisfactory solution is found. Significant Conditions 8.8 In addition to the conditions mentioned above concerning protected species mitigation, bin collection and construction management, conditions would also be imposed to provide further surface and foul water drainage details, surfacing of the access and samples of materials. Conclusion 8.9 Based on the above assessment, it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies BE11, BE13 and RE8 and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.11 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U86103 U86103 - No Departure from Plans 3 U86104 U86104 - Materials/Finishes 4 U86105 U86105 - Surface Water Drainage 5 U86106 U86106 - SUDS 6 U86132 U86132 - Foul Drainage Details 7 U86107 U86107 - Construction Method Statement 9 J14F Car Parking as Plans 10 U86110 U86110 - Bin and Cycle Storage 12 K01H Landscaping 13 K02G Landscaping 13 U86133 U86133 - Site Levels and Sections 14 U86108 U86108 - Tree Protection 15 U86109 U86109 - Protected Species Mitigation INFORMATIVE 16 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions For further information on this application please contact Vicki Colwell on 01243 534734

Parish: Sidlesham

Ward: Sidlesham

7 SI/14/00884/FUL

Proposal The proposed re-siting of existing mobile home, proposed additional 6 pitch

site including the provision of utility buildings for settled gypsy accommodation, re-positioning and widening of existing access following removal of existing stables and hay barn

Site Littleacre Keynor Lane Sidlesham Chichester PO20 7NL

Map Ref (E) 485012 (N) 97774

Applicant Mr Joseph Lee RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site is located on the southern side of Keynor Lane, accessed directly from the B2145 Selsey Road, which connects Chichester to Selsey. The site, presently comprising a single permanent gypsy pitch , which has been in existence for over 20 years, and is bounded by mature vegetation of all boundaries, with screen fencing and post and rail fencing set on the inside of the boundary landscaping. The site is set within the open countryside, with a wooded area to the west of the site, and open grassland bounded by hedging to the east and south. To the north of the site, (northern side of Keynor Road) lie two residential properties (semi-detached) and Dean Home horticultural nursery. The site lies within the Horticultural Development Area, but has never formed part of a nursery site. 2.2 Whilst the site is located in the rural area, the site is located close to Sidlesham Primary School, and within easy walking distance to the regular buses along the B2145 Selsey Road. 2.3 The site itself presently comprises two mobile homes, a brick built day room, stables and areas of gravelled parking and circulation space. There is also a large area of open amenity space at the southern end of the site. The site is well contained with limited views of the site from the wider area. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the sub-division of the site into 7no. pitches (i.e. 6no. new pitches) for the Lee family. The access arrangements will be altered to allow for improved access visibility and to enable the sub-division of the site. A central roadway will provide direct access to the rear of the site which will be sub-divided into individual plots for the siting of a static mobile home, utility/day room and space for car parking. Each plot will provide amble parking space for a touring caravan and up to 2no. cars. 4.0 History 02/02489/DOM REF Single storey utility block.

91/00072/SI REF Change of use to private gypsy

caravan site for one gypsy family. 92/02071/FUL PER Construction of access from plot

into Keynor Lane 95/00697/FUL REF Chalet bungalow.

97/02508/DOM REF Proposed garden wall and entry

gates. 99/00547/DOM PER New access.

04/02280/DOM REF 2 no. stables and 1 no. hay barn.

04/03855/FUL PER 2 no. stables and hay barn. 06/05663/FUL PER Single storey utility block.

08/03137/ELD REF Residential caravan site. Subject

to 2 conditions imposed in 1992 limiting occupation to gypsies only and to Mary Lee and her family.

12/01389/FUL PER Erect new tractor shed.

12/02709/DOC DOCDEC Discharge of condition no. 3 of

planning permission SI/12/01389/FUL.

14/01418/FUL PCO Retrospective - erection of 2no.

lean-to buildings and the creation of an extended area of hardstanding.

95/00077/REF DISMIS Chalet bungalow.

98/00062/REF DISMIS Proposed garden wall and entry

gates. 02/00101/REF DISMIS Single storey utility block.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area YES

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council The Parish Council is aware of policy, yet to be approved by CDC, which may influence this application. However, the PC objects to the application on the grounds that 6 mobile homes

would be too many for the site. This land is agricultural and this would result in an overdevelopment of the area. 6.2 WSCC: Highways First Consultation: A 6m wide access onto Keynor Lane is proposed, which extends through the site culminated in a turning head at the south of the site. The width is sufficient to enable two vehicles to pass one another comfortably. It is noted that the point of access is to be moved from its position on the western boundary to a more central location, thus bringing it closer to the hedge. Further information is sought on the maximum achievable visibility splay from a setback of 2.4m from the edge of the carriageway to the near side kerb line; it may be necessary to undertake maintenance of the hedge in order to maximise splays. It is noted that a footway exists on the northern side of the carriageway. In order to encourage safe pedestrian movement, consideration should be given to the introduction of a small stretch of pedestrian footway in the vicinity of the site access in order to segregate pedestrian and vehicular movements, tying into the existing footway network by way of an uncontrolled dropped kerb pedestrian crossing. Any works in the highway would need to be completed under licence from the LHA. Second Consultation: The plan makes it quite difficult to assess whether the visibility splays have been drawn correctly and whether the proposed pedestrian footway is in accordance with standards. However, the principle is acceptable and I am satisfied for the detail to be secured by condition. No highway objection subject to conditions. 6.3 Environment Agency The site is located in Flood Zone 1 defined as having a low probability of flooding, is not where land contamination is suspected and outside any Source Protection Zones. Therefore as this development proposal falls outside our current working arrangements we has no comment to make on the proposal as submitted. We are pleased that foul drainage is proposed to be managed by a mains connection. 6.4 CDC Planning Policy The site is currently authorised for 1 mobile home, the proposal is for an additional 6 pitches and associated utility/amenity buildings for relatives of the owner. The main consideration is whether there is a need for the development. The Development Plan The Development Plan currently comprises saved policies in the Chichester District Local Plan 1999. There is not a saved policy which relates specifically to gypsies and travellers. The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission document was submitted on the 30th May. It has been subject to consultation and is therefore a material planning

consideration, it currently carries some weight. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight (paragraph 216 of the NPPF). The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission document contains Policy 36 Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The policy sets out a criteria based approach to identifying sites within the plan area as part of a forthcoming Site Allocation DPD and for determining planning applications. This is consistent with paragraph 10 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPfTS) which says 'Criteria should be set to guide land supply allocations where there is identified need...' Following the Pre-submission consultation a couple of comments have been received on Policy 36, one of which suggests that the 'policy criteria has been framed in vague terms and provides maximum opportunity to reject proposals rather than accept them'. The comments will be discussed at the forthcoming examination. Therefore the application should be judged against the criterion within Policy 36, other relevant policies include: 22, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51. Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) As part of the Council's assessment of need, the Council in partnership with the Coastal West Sussex Authorities (Arun, Adur and Worthing) and the South Downs National Park Planning Authority with support from West Sussex County Council, commissioned a Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Assessment (GTAA) (2012/13). The GTAA identifies a total need for 59 pitches for gypsies and travellers and 18 plots for travelling showpeople within the Plan area during the plan period. With a specific need for 37 gypsy and traveller sites before 2017. Since September 2012 permission has been granted for 22 units to date, there is therefore a need for 15 pitches prior to 2017. Based on this the five year supply gives an identified supply of 2.4 years. It is acknowledged therefore that there is a need for gypsy and traveller sites within the plan area, particularly in the period up to 2017. In the long term the Council intends to allocate sites in the Site Allocations DPD and work has started on this. Conclusion There is a need for gypsy and traveller sites within the plan area, particularly up to 2017. Given the government guidance above and there not being a five-year supply of deliverable sites there is not a policy objection to the proposal, providing you are satisfied in terms of development management principles. 6.5 Third Parties 1no. third party objection letter received from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). They state: The application is in the centre of a Horticultural Development Area. The District is short of land for horticulture, and the proposal for 6 mobile homes is obviously totally unacceptable.

6.6 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information The planning application has been supported by a detailed Planning, Design, Access, Utilities and Travelling Statement. The Statement includes details regarding the history of the site, originally granted permission on Appeal in 1991, details regarding the need for the additional pitches on the site, together with a background into the family's status as a travelling family. The statement also includes details regarding the design, amount, layout, scale of the development proposal, together with planning policy considerations, the District Council's need for additional pitches, sustainability of the site, access and landscaping and infrastructure within the site. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: RE1 Rural Area Generally RE6 Strategic Gaps RE7 Nature Conservation (Designated Areas) RE21 Safeguarding Existing Travelling Showpeople's Sites RE23 Safeguarding Existing Gypsy Sites TR6 Highway Safety R4 Public Rights of Way and Other Paths 7.3 At Council on 24 April 2014 it was resolved to formally submit the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications to the Secretary of State for Examination at the end of May 2014. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013: Policy 1: Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 52: Green Infrastructure National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking:

For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles). 7.6 In addition to the overarching policies of the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites, published at the same time as the NPPF. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources C3: A culturally enriched and empowered community D4: Understanding and meeting community needs E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Current provision; ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site; iii) Impact on the character of the area; iv) Impact on the amenities of surrounding properties; v) Highway implications and means of access; Assessment i) Current Provision 8.2 There is an accepted need for a minimum of 59no. pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 37no. pitches before 2017. This figure was established after the Council, together with the other West Sussex coastal authorities commissioned a Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment. The report was undertaken by Opinion Research Services and Peter Brett Associates and was completed in April 2013. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of gypsy pitches. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 15no. pitches in order that the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply up until the end of 2017. This application would provide a further 6no. permanent pitches to contribute towards meeting this requirement. 22no. permanent pitches have been provided by the grant of planning permission or at appeal since September 2013.

ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site 8.3 Policy H of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) documents relates to determining planning applications for traveller sites and requires planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Paragraph 20). It also advises that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and the planning policy for traveller sites (paragraph 21). 8.4 Paragraph 22 advises that planning authorities should consider a number of issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites; a) The existing level of local provision and the need for sites b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections 8.5 As set out in paragraph 8.2 above, there is an accepted need for a minimum of 59no. pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 37no. pitches before 2017. Whilst the District Council has now permitted 22no. pitches since September 2013, there remains a significant shortfall in provision. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of gypsy pitches. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 15 gypsy pitches in order that the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply up until the end of 2017. 8.6 The Supporting Statement confirms that the site will be occupied almost entirely by the Lee Family, with 5no. of the proposed 6no. pitches being occupied by the five grown-up children of the applicant and their family. The last remaining pitch would be available in the immediate term to meet the outstanding need in the district, although this would be likely to be used by the Lee family in the future. No other available permanent sites have been identified either by the applicant or the Council. The seventh unit will remain in the occupation of Mr and Mrs Lee, (the applicants) as existing. 8.7 There is no current adopted policy in the Local Plan 1999 for new sites and following submission of the Draft Local Plan, Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029 carries an increased degree of weight. Given the relevance of Policy 36 and its general conformity to PPTS, further regard to this policy is set out below. 8.8 Policy 36 specifically sets out 6no. criteria for assessing the suitability of sites, criteria 1, 5 and 6 relate to the principle of development. Considering these in turn; they require that the development should: 1) be well related to existing settlements/close to major roads and/or public transport; 5) avoid areas of Flood Risk; and 6) not dominate the settled community. 8.9 Whilst the site is located outside and away from any defined Settlement Policy Area (as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review, 1999), Keynor Lane is

within 700m of the main Selsey Road (closest bus stop is 150m along Selsey Road), and 1.5km from the nearest local shop (Sidlesham petrol filling station), and only 300m from Sidlesham Primary School. Given the nomadic habit of life associated with gypsies and travellers, a travelling distance of 850m is considered to be appropriate, and would enable the occupiers of the site to access a reasonable range of local services and facilities by public transport. 8.10 Having regard to the definition of sustainability as set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF, and paragraph 11 of the PPTS, the site would not be sustainable for most forms of residential use and would not meet the requirements set put in paragraphs 18-219 of the NPPF for permanent settled residential accommodation. However, given the nature of the proposal for gypsy and travellers as outline in paragraph 8.9 above, and the identified need to be met within the District it is considered to be in a location with sufficient links to local infrastructure to be considered acceptable. 8.11 The site is not located within any known area of flood risk and no objection has been received from the Environment Agency. 8.12 In addition to criteria 6 of Policy 6 to the emerging local plan, Policy C of the PPTS (Sites in rural areas and the countryside) seeks to ensure that 'the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community'. The site is located in an area characterised by low density residential development, formed along the road frontages, with numerous horticultural nurseries or varying sizes in the vicinity. Therefore, it is considered that the intensification of the site to provide 6no. additional pitches would not result in a significant increase that would overwhelm the settled community. The immediate area is largely comprised of permanent dwellings and the existing single pitch has occupied the site for over 20 years without causing harm or a detrimental impact on the sporadic residential developments in the immediate area. 8.13 Paragraph 24 advises that 'considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to 4 matters, a) Effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land b) Sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness c) Promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children d) Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences, that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community 8.14 The proposal is generally considered to be in conformity to the four above criteria, and given the urgent need for additional permanent accommodation, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable, would contribute towards improving and making better use of the site, which is well designed, screened by existing mature boundary vegetation whilst providing a good living environment for the Lee Family and their children. Further enhancements could be achieved by the imposition of relevant conditions. 8.15 In conclusion, on this point, the current scheme is not considered to conflict with the objectives of the PPTS. It is therefore considered, given the existence of this existing single permanent pitch, and the clearly identified need for the District Council to provide additional pitches, that the premise of allowing this on a permanent basis is considered acceptable.

iii) Impact on the character of the area 8.16 Criteria 4 to Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires that development should not compromise nationally important features. Paragraph 23 of Policy H to the PPTS advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan, however where sites are within the rural area LPAs should ensure that sites respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure. 8.17 The site is located outside any specific landscape designations, but does fall within the Horticultural Development Area. Given the relatively flat nature of the prevailing landscape, additional development in the open countryside could have the potential to significantly impact on the character and appearance of the rural landscape. However, given the existing single pitch has been established for over 20 years, and the site is bounded by a mature established landscape belt, comprising largely evergreen planting, it is considered that the site would not have an impact on the character of the wider landscape setting. It could be considered that the level of screening seeks to deliberately isolate the occupiers from the rest of the community, however, an open frontage, and the relatively sporadic nature of the character of the area ensures that the site whilst enclosed and secure, does not intentionally seek to be isolationist from the surrounding area. 8.18 The use of the site for non-horticultural activities within the HDA is not considered to be an overriding factor against considering the appropriateness of the scheme. The site measures only 0.4ha, and its loss from the HDA is not significant to warrant a refusal in this case, particularly given the established need for additional permanent pitches. Furthermore, as existing, the site is not available for horticultural use. 8.19 It is also noted that the Parish Council has raised concerns regarding overdevelopment of the site. Following a detailed review of the Department for Communities and Local Government's Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide, the design and layout accords with the advice in terms of separation distances, orientation of pitches, manoeuvring within the site, health and safety, access and security, and is therefore acceptable in this regard. Given that the occupation of the site would comprise largely of one family group, it is also considered to be acceptable for the occupiers. iv) Impact on the amenities of surrounding properties 8.20 Policy BE11 of the adopted Chichester District Local Plan requires that the relationship between existing and proposed development would be harmonious. Criteria 3 to Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires that development would provide for a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for occupiers and neighbours. 8.21 The closest neighbouring residential properties would be the pair of semi-detached dwellings on the northern side of Keynor Lane. The site has already been considered acceptable with regard to the impact on the amenities of surrounding residential properties in 1991, and the intensification of the use would be essentially set further into the site than the existing permitted use. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be sufficiently distanced, orientated and designed so as not to have an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, in particular to their outlook, privacy, available light or additional noise generated by the development, which is also residential in nature.

iv) Highway implications and means of access 8.22 Criteria 2 to Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires that development would provide for a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for occupiers and neighbours safe and convenient vehicular access. The access has been assessed by WSCC Highways who consider it appropriate, subject to confirmation on visibility splays onto Keynor Lane. 8.23 This part of Keynor Lane is relatively straight and relatively lightly trafficked. Given the existence of an access point at this location already, it is considered that the altered access arrangements would not cause harm to highway safety. Significant Conditions 8.24 The application is considered acceptable, subject to a number of controlling conditions, including the use of the site by gypsy and travellers only, together with conditions relating to the number and siting of the touring caravans, retention of boundary planting and details regarding surface water disposal. Further, a condition restricting commercial activity on the site is also proposed. Conclusion 8.25 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that although the proposal conflicts with adopted development plan policies, the unmet need for gypsy and travellers pitches in general is afforded weight in favour of the proposal, it complies with draft policy advice and the advice in the NPPF and PPTS and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.26 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of any affected parties have been taken into account. The proposal requires engagement of the1998 act, however, taking account of rights under Article 8 of Section 1 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. Equalities 8.27 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant. "In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty: (1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act.

(b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level. However, the duties do not require a particular outcome. What the decision making body chooses to do once it has had the required regard is for it to decide subject to the ordinary constraints of public and discrimination law. In conclusion, the actual needs of the applicant need to be weighed against the harm that this development would cause to neighbours, along with all of the material planning considerations. The decision must be proportionate in the light of all the circumstances of this case". RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U86057 U86057 - Occupation Limition 3 U86058 U86058 - 14 caravans only 4 U86139 U86139 - Materials/Finishes 5 U86060 U86060 - No commercial activity 6 U86061 U86061 - No burning any waste 7 U86062 U86062 - No departure from plans 8 L09F Oil Tanks to be Bunded/Landscape 9 U86063 U86063 - No walls/fencing without Approval 10 K01H Landscaping 11 K02G Landscaping 12 U86064 U86064 - Retention of Hedging 13 U86065 U86065 - Day Room Use 14 U86067 U86067 - Fencing and Gate Details 15 U86069 U86069 - No occupation until drainage complete 16 U86070 U86070 - Waste and Recycling Arrangements 17 U86072 U86072 - Storage of other waste 18 U86128 U86128 - Vehicular Access 19 U86129 U86129 - Closing of existing access 20 U86130 U86130 - Visibility Splays 21 U86131 U86131 - Car Parking spaces INFORMATIVE 22 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Peter Kneen on 01243 534734

Parish: Tangmere

Ward: Tangmere

8 TG/14/00797/FUL

Proposal Variation of condition 11 (mix of dwellings) and 13 (layout and siting) to

planning permission TG/11/00640/EXT for Mixed use redevelopment with access from Meadow Way and including land for community use, 160 dwellings and ancillary car parking, open space and landscaping.

Site Land to North East of Tangmere Military Aviation Museum Gamecock Terrace Tangmere West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 490755 (N) 106280

Applicant Miller Homes Ltd (Southern) _ Skeller Ltd RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT WITH SECTION 106

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site is a brownfield site of 4.46 hectares located on the southern edge of Tangmere. It comprises a level rather bleak site on the periphery of the old RAF airfield (now partly in horticultural use). The site is dominated by 3 large hangers originally constructed in the 1950's for aircraft but later used for grain storage and then more recently for a variety of general B8 storage uses. There are a number of other former RAF brick built buildings on the site, all set within a large expanse of concrete hardstanding, interspersed with areas of grass predominantly at the site periphery. The whole site is contained by a wire mesh security fence. There are some category grade B trees on the site but no other landscape features of merit. The site is enclosed on 3 sides to the north, east and west boundaries by 2 storey residential development. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The principle of developing 160 dwellings on this site has already been agreed by the Council on two previous occasions in 2008 and again in 2011 as an extension of time. The extant outline planning permission from which the site benefits expires in October 2014.The outline permission secures a single point of vehicular access from Meadow Way in the north west corner of the site and a secondary pedestrian/cycle/emergency vehicle access point onto Lysander Way at the north east corner of the site. All other matters relating to layout, scale, landscaping and appearance of the development are reserved matters. 3,2 This application is submitted under section 73 and proposes variation of 2 of the planning conditions on the extant outline planning permission reference TG/11/00640/EXT. The proposals are for a new mix of market and affordable housing (varying condition 11 below) and an amended sketch layout showing how the new mix of dwelling types could be laid out on the site (varying condition 13 below). Notwithstanding that 'layout' was not being applied for on the 2008 application, the Committee favoured the sketch site plan submitted with the application and recommended that a condition be imposed securing it. The two conditions which the applicant is now applying to vary state; 11) The mix of dwellings hereby permitted shall not depart from that specified in the Schedule of Accommodation annotated on Sketch Site Plan drawing no. 05 Revision C other than with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and in the interests of delivering a mixed and balanced residential development as stated in PPS3. 13) In respect of the reserved matters application pursuant to this permission the layout and siting of the development shall not depart from that shown on drawing no. 07.022 05 Rev C. Reason: To secure the proposed layout in the interests of the proper planning of the development. 3.3 The extension of time on the outline permission to October 2014 cannot now be extended beyond this date so in order for the applicant to retain the benefit of outline permission to build the new housing development, an application for the approval of all of the

remaining reserved matters, which is everything apart from access, has to be submitted before the October date. 4.0 History 08/01390/OUT PER106 Mixed use redevelopment with

access from Meadow Way and including land for community use, 160 dwellings and ancillary car parking, open space and landscaping.

11/00640/EXT PER106 Extension of planning permission

TG/08/01390/OUT. Mixed use redevelopment with access from Meadow Way and including land for community use, 160 dwellings and ancillary car parking, open space and landscaping.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area YES

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council The revised planning application is a significant change from the original outline planning application, TG/08/01390/OUT, and as such the Parish Council objects to this application. The Parish Council wishes to see a full planning application which will include the full implications of the revised layout on the local infrastructure. 6.2 Environment Agency No objections to the proposals as submitted.

6.3 Southern Water Services No objection to the variation of condition application. (Officer comment - Southern Water has confirmed that the calculation of available headroom at the wastewater treatment works is based on the number of dwellings rather than the mix of dwellings). 6.4 Natural England No comment to make on the variation of the conditions. (Officer comment - the site is outside of the 5.6km buffer zone and as such no financial contribution is required in respect of recreational mitigation payments). 6.5 WSCC - Infrastructure The application requires total WSCC service infrastructure contributions of £719,894. See section 8.11 of the report for the detail. (Officer comment - this figure does not include the final contribution for TAD which will be dependent on a formulaic approach and will be determined once the reserved matters application is received, specifying the exact number of car parking spaces). 6.6 WSCC - Highways Trip Generation - The revised housing mix is indicated to give rise to an increase in peak hour vehicle movements, namely an increase of 15 two way vehicles movements in both the AM and PM peaks. The additional impact at junctions on the local highway network would be minimal and would not be expected to give rise to any capacity related reason to justify an objection. Parking Provision - The current application seeks to make amendments to an outline scheme. The detailed internal layout, including parking provision can therefore be considered as part of the reserved matters by way of a suitably worded condition. The applicant has considered the potential parking demands against the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator. In principle, an adequate number of parking spaces are accommodated within the indicative layout to satisfy the potential parking demands. There would be no reason to object on parking related grounds. 6.7 CDC - Housing Enabling Officer The submitted affordable housing mix is acceptable and accords with that negotiated with the Council's Housing Service. The applicant has confirmed that 30% of the affordable will be shared ownership and 70% affordable rent The proposed market mix responds to the SHMA recommendations which are for 35% 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings, 50% 3 bedrooms and 15% for 4 or more bedrooms and is considered acceptable. 6.8 CDC - Sport and Leisure The development will require a contribution of £129,773 based on the Sport England Facility Calculator towards enhancing existing sports facilities or providing additional sports facilities in the local area.

6.9 CDC - Community Facilities Based on the Council's Infrastructure SPG the development generates a requirement for a contribution of £281,440. The potential projects identified are: new large/expansion of community centre; tarmac the Village Centre car park; provide scout hut and land for the scout group; expansion of allotments; relocate museum locally. (Officer comment - the submitted sketch site layout plan shows a potential building for community use located in the south west corner of the site. This is a legacy of the Committee's decision on the 2008 outline application to condition the originally submitted sketch site layout. However, the original S.106 agreement required a financial contribution for community facilities in lieu of a building on the site and this remains the Council's preferred position.) 6.10 3 Third Party Objections Loss of Airfield fire station Construction noise, dust and air pollution Lack of schools and broadband Foul water issues Overlooking/overshadowing 6.11 1 Third Party Comment Proposal represents a 93 bedroom increase over permitted development which has implications for local infrastructure particularly schools. All the previous S.106 contributions should be re-visited plus a sport and leisure contribution. A commuted sum is a more appropriate way of providing community facilities. More detail need on extra trip generation and parking provision. Can Tangmere WwTW cope with the extra capacity? Effect of 2.5 storey scale dwellings on neighbours. 6.12 Agent's Supporting Information The agent has submitted a Planning Statement, correspondence relating to the changed housing mix and a technical Note on trip generation and parking demand including an indicative parking plan. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE2 Loss of Community Facilities BE3 Archaeology BE11 New Development

BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features BE16 Energy Conservation RE1 Rural Area Generally RE7 Nature Conservation (Designated Areas) RE8 Nature Conservation (Non-designated Areas) TR6 Highway Safety H1 Dwelling Requirement H3 Polluted Sites H4 Size and Density of Dwellings H5 Open Space Requirements H6 Maintenance of Open Space H8 Social and Low Cost Housing in Settlement Policy Areas 7.3 At Full Council on 24 April 2014 it was resolved to formally submit the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications to the Secretary of State for Examination. The draft Plan was submitted at the end of May 2014. The timetable going forward anticipates examination during the summer and adoption in autumn 2014. The draft Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process towards adoption it will gain more weight and paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant in this respect. The weight that can be given to the particular policies within the plan depends on the extent to which there are outstanding unresolved objections. Applicable policies from the submitted Chichester Local Plan include: Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Carbon Reduction Policy Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas Policy 54: Open Space, Sport and Recreation The application site is outside of the Tangmere Strategic Development Location. National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

- Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given inter alia to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), paragraphs 47 and 50 (using an evidence base to objectively assess market and affordable housing need including the size, type, tenure and range of housing required in particular locations to reflect local demand), paragraphs 56, 58 and 59 (requiring good design including layout), paragraph 69 (promoting healthy and socially integrated communities) and paragraphs 203 to 206 (planning conditions and obligations). 7.6 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) is also relevant. This was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding and aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application: The Provision of Service Infrastructure Related to New Development in Chichester District (Parts 1 and 2) Interim Statement on Planning for Affordable Housing Interim Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours 7.8 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources D1: Increasing housing supply D2: Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods D3: Housing fit for purpose D4: Understanding and meeting community needs E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level

8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The first main issue arising from this proposal is: o Whether the housing mix agreed for the development on the outline planning permission in 2008 is still relevant to local market and affordable housing needs in Tangmere in 2014 and is therefore capable of being delivered? The second main issue which stems from the first is; o Whether a layout amended to take account of the changed dwelling mix is acceptable in terms of development management considerations considering matters such as additional trip generation, the number of car parking spaces and S.106 obligations? 8.2 FIRST ISSUE - Housing mix In terms of the first issue, the housing mix permitted in 2008 responded to identified housing needs at that time and as a consequence contained a higher proportion of 1 and 2 bedroomed dwellings within apartment blocks. Over the intervening 6 years the need for a higher number of smaller dwellings particularly 1 bed dwellings has declined and there is an acknowledged need by the Council's Housing Service to re-balance the mix of dwelling sizes and types across the range to better respond to local needs as identified in the November 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The 2011 permission did not change the housing mix from the 2008 permission. A comparison between the mix approved under the 2008 permission and the mix now proposed for the 160 dwellings is set out below:

Extant approved mix 2008

Proposed mix 2014

Market Not specified. Subject to approval of later

reserved matters application (layout, landscaping,

appearance and scale)

Market 1 bed x 2

2 bed x 31 3 bed x 47 4 bed x 16

Affordable 1 bed x 12 2 bed x 28 3 bed x 17 4 bed x 7

Affordable 1 bed x 10 2 bed x 22 3 bed x 25 4 bed x 7

Combined total = 1 bed x 12; 2 bed x 53;

3 bed x 72;4 bed x 23)

8.3 What the figures show is that in response to the Council's most up to date research into the housing needs of its District (the 2012 SHMA), the need for affordable housing since the 2008 outline permission and the subsequent 2011 permission, has shifted towards the provision of a lower number of 1 and 2 bed dwellings and a greater preponderance of 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings. Whilst no specific market housing mix was specified in 2008 or 2011, a similar pattern to the affordable requirement is seen with the need for a small number of 1 bed dwellings, a broadly even split of 2 and 3 beds and an increase in 4 bed dwellings.

8.4 The Committee's attention is drawn to the comments from the Council's Housing Officer summarised at paragraph 6.7 above. The submitted mix has been the subject of detailed and lengthy negotiations over the course of the last year to ensure that the mix of both affordable and market housing will result in a development which meets the need locally. The submitted mix complies with what is required and the Council's Housing Officer has confirmed that the mix of market and affordable dwellings with 40% affordable (70% affordable rent, 30% shared ownership) is acceptable. 8.5 Ultimately every housing development has to be capable of being delivered and in order for it to be delivered it has to offer a product which is both attractive to build by a developer and Registered Provider and one which meets the objectively assessed needs of the local community it will provide accommodation for. The application site is already factored in as a housing commitment by the Council in terms of calculating it's 5 year housing land supply figures and at a time when the Council is unable to demonstrate that it has a 5 year supply it is considered important that this major housing scheme remains on course and is deliverable. 8.6 The final layout of the development which would be approved as part of the subsequent reserved matters application will secure an appropriate pepper-potting of the affordable dwellings in groups of no more than 10-15 across the site in accordance with the Council's Infrastructure SPG (a clause to this affect will be included within the S.106). The affordable dwellings will also need to meet minimum floorspace sizes. It is considered that the revised proposals on this basis will provide a mixed and balanced community which better responds to local housing than the extant outline planning permission. The proposals in this regard are therefore considered to be consistent with NPPF advice in paragraphs 47 and 50 which require Council's to adopt an evidence based approach to working out their local housing needs, and with paragraph 69 which strives to ensure that new proposals are socially well integrated. 8.7 In terms of varying the existing condition 11 the suggested rewording will specify the proposed mix (as set out in paragraph 8.2 above) with the S.106 agreement additionally confirming the tenure and dwelling type for the affordable provision. 8.8 SECOND ISSUE - Amended layout The revised layout of the development submitted with the application is an 'illustrative' only layout. The applicant is not applying at this stage to have the final layout of the development approved by the Council. Layout remains a reserved matter, notwithstanding that the wording of condition 13 the subject of this application specifies that the layout should accord with the 'sketch site plan' submitted with the original 2008 outline permission. The revised layout is submitted to show how the amended housing mix which is supported in principle by officers could be accommodated on the application site. The purpose of the applicant showing a different illustrative layout is to demonstrate that although there have been inevitable changes to accommodate the new housing mix, the revised layout is still in general conformity with that which the Committee wanted and originally conditioned on the 2008 permission. 8.9 The development therefore still has a central east-west spine road, the location of the 2 areas of open space are unchanged and the general disposition of buildings across the site is still broadly the same allowing for the fact that there are now more houses as opposed to apartment blocks. The main change to the layout is in the north east corner where the previous sketch plan showed apartment blocks. These are now replaced with dwelling houses. Your officers having considered the layout are of the opinion that whilst in the strictest sense this is a departure from the layout which the Committee liked and wished to

see built, it is not a materially significant departure. It is likely that the final layout will closely follow the revised illustrative layout when this is submitted for consideration as part of the reserved matters application and indeed to secure this a revised original condition 13 is attached to the recommendation to permit this development. This proposed replacement condition states; In respect of the reserved matters application pursuant to this permission the layout and siting of the development shall be in general conformity with that shown on the Illustrative Layout drawing no. 83-1951-SK-001 REVA. Reason: To secure the proposed layout in the interests of the proper planning of the development. 8.10 OTHER ISSUES Highways and Parking Whilst the scope of the current application may appear to be limited to simply a variation of the mix of dwellings and a different layout from that which the Committee originally approved in 2008 in order to accommodate it, there are other potential implications. As a consequence of the changed mix of dwellings, the result is that across the site there would be an increase of 89 bedrooms because of the move away from 1 and 2 bedroom units to a larger number of 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings. The result of this change is an anticipated increase in the total number of vehicular trips to and from the site. The applicant's assessment of this has shown that there would be an estimated 15 additional trips to and from the site with the revised housing mix. WSCC Highways has assessed this change and concluded that such an increase across the whole development would not be so material as to lead it to object to the application. Similarly the applicant has prepared an illustrative car parking plan to demonstrate how the increased parking requirement associated with the increased number of larger dwellings can be accommodated on the site without compromising the areas proposed for public open space. Again WSCC has assessed the submitted illustrative parking plan and has confirmed that the suggested parking provision is acceptable and is in line with its Parking Calculator. The illustrative plan shows that the proposals would still deliver the amount of public open space required by the SPG. 8.11 Foul Drainage A further potential consequence of changing the mix of dwellings on the site to a mix with a higher number of bedrooms is whether there remains sufficient available capacity at the Tangmere Wastewater Treatment Works to deal with any associated additional flows. Given that there is an extant outline planning permission for 160 dwellings on the site, the Council has already accounted for and safeguarded the necessary headroom. The Committee will note that Southern Water's consultation response is to raise no objection to this application and it has subsequently confirmed to the Council that the calculation of the remaining headroom should be based on the number of dwellings rather than any detailed analysis of the composition of these dwellings. This approach to carrying out the calculation is also endorsed by the Environment Agency. 8.12 Significant Conditions In respect of the housing mix it is proposed to vary condition 11 as follows;

11) The mix of dwellings hereby permitted shall not depart from that specified in paragraph 2.1 of the submitted Planning Statement (v 1.1 dated 24.04.14) other than with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. (Officer comment - see paragraph 8.2 above for the mix) Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and in the interests of delivering a mixed and balanced residential development in accordance with advice in the NPPF. In respect of the layout it is proposed to vary condition 13 as follows; 13) In respect of the reserved matters application pursuant to this permission the layout and siting of the development shall be in general conformity with that shown on the Illustrative Layout drawing no. 83-1951-SK-001 REVA. Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and to secure the proposed layout in the interests of the proper planning of the development. It is proposed that the remainder of the conditions will be brought forward from the current extant outline permission including that restricting the overall height of the new dwellings to no more than 2.5 storeys. 8.13 S.106 Agreement The Parish Council comments with regard to the implications of the revised application on local infrastructure provision are noted. The Committee is advised that the revised S.106 agreement captures all those contributions required by the development in terms of the Council's SPG stemming from the revised housing mix and the additional bedrooms created. The S.106 legal agreement secures the following obligations: WSCC Primary Education £285,624 Secondary Education £333,398 6th Form Education £70,398 Libraries £27,447 Fire and Rescue £3,026 Fire Hydrants x 2 TAD £ formulaic approach Total WSCC contributions £719,894 (+TAD) CDC 40% Affordable Housing (64 units of which ) Community Facilities £281,440 (in lieu of provision of community use building on site) Sport and Leisure £129,773 Public Art £55,103 5 metre wide landscape belt on south site boundary Provide, maintain and manage the open space areas Total CDC contributions £466,316 8.14 Conclusion This application proposes variation to a longstanding extant outline planning permission in order to translate it into a housing development which is relevant and deliverable and which

is in accordance with the SHMA, the Council's most recent and objectively assessed evidence base. The proposed mix has been the subject of lengthy negotiations with the Council's housing officers over the last year to ensure that it is up to date and viable. The revised layout whilst remaining illustrative for the purposes of this application ('layout' remains a reserved matter) reflects the changed dwelling types and within this constraint is considered to be faithful to the general layout which the Planning Committee wished to see delivered when permitting the original application in 2008. To all intents and purposes this application does not fundamentally alter the principle of 160 dwellings being built on the former grain stores site. It is however considered that it will result in a better development than the scheme from 2008 by delivering more family sized houses rather than a large number of smaller apartments. The development remains an important part of the Council addressing its 5 year housing land supply and will deliver 64 affordable dwellings and associated local infrastructure contributions in excess of £1.1 million. It is therefore recommended for approval subject to completion of the S.106 agreement. 8.15 Human Rights In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT WITH SECTION 106 1 U85813 U85813 - Time Limit - Reserved Matters 2 U85814 U85814 - Time Limit - Reserved Matters 3 U85815 U85815 - Approved Plans 4 U85816 U85816 - Access to Public Highway 5 U85817 U85817 - Land Contamination Measures 6 U85818 U85818 - Max 2.5 Storey Height 7 U85819 U85819 - Surface Water Drainage 8 U85820 U85820 - 5 metre Landscape Buffer 9 U85821 U85821 - PD Rights no Enclosures 10 U85822 U85822 - Bats 11 U85841 U85841 - Housing Mix 12 U85823 U85823 - Climate Change Measures 13 U85824 U85824 - Conform to Illustrative Layout 14 U85825 U85825 - Demolition Controls 15 U85828 U85828 - Construction Management Plan INFORMATIVES 16 U85830 U85830 - Informative - Land Contamination 17 U85831 U85831 - Informative - Sewer Connection 18 U85832 U85832 - Informative - Protected Species 19 U85833 U85833 - Informative - Positive and Proactive For further information on this application please contact Jeremy Bushell on 01243 534734

Parish: Tangmere

Ward: Tangmere

9 TG/14/01117/DOM

Proposal Single storey rear extension

Site 64 Churchwood Drive Tangmere Chichester West Sussex PO20 2GS

Map Ref (E) 490806 (N) 106463

Applicant Mrs Jo Povall RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Red Card - C - When the member has information or an opinion, which he wishes to raise in debate. Further information required includes: Appropriateness of increasing built environment in the area. Impact on amenity and utility of garden space for this size of dwelling. Impact on surface water drainage due to reduction in permeable area. Impact on amenity of garden to N of site. 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 This site lies within Tangmere Settlement Policy Area as defined by the Chichester District Local Plan 1999. The terrace of three properties is positioned to the north of Churchwood Drive and west of Windmill Court. The application site is formed by a mid-terrace property. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 This application seeks consent for a single storey rear extension to extend the living room. The extension would measure 3.2m deep, with a ridge height of 3.5m and 2.25m to the underside of the eaves. 4.0 History 14/00169/DOM WDN Single storey rear extension.

14/01117/DOM PDE Single storey rear extension.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area NO

Rural Area NO

AONB NO

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone

- Flood Zone 2 YES

- Flood Zone 3 YES

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council No objection 6.2 Agent's Additional Information In summary the DAS submitted provides further information as follows; o The design is visually integrated with the existing building, using matching materials and design details. o The extension would be sympathetic to its surrounding and adjacent properties by offering no overlooking, nor significant loss of light and is not overbearing to adjacent properties. o The extension would be subservient in mass, bulk and form to the existing property. o The 11.5m2 rear extension takes up just 20% of the overall curtilage of the dwelling o The existing garden equates to 38sqm leaving 26sqm which is considered sufficient for a 2 bedroom property o The existing patio is impermeable and is to be removed to allow for the extension o The proposed patio would be formed by a permeable surface o Both the current and withdrawn applications have a proposed rear extension that qualifies for permitted development under the temporary limits for extensions (until 30 May 2016) under the neighbour consultation scheme - please note: there were no objections from neighbours to this or the previously withdrawn application. o The extension protrudes out beyond the existing building by 3.2m, just 200mm beyond the limit of standard permitted development that would not require neighbour consultation of any form. The ridge height of the extension sits at under 3.5m which again is under the 4.0m requirement for PD. The eaves height is also under the specified 3.0m where sited within 2.0m of a boundary. With the extension taking up just 20% of the curtilage of the property this falls in line with the 50% maximum allowed under PD. o A strip soakaway is proposed within the garden to dispose of rain water from the extension o The new patio would be formed by a permeable surface 7.0 Planning Policy 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE11 New Development BE12 Alterations, Extensions and Conversions 7.3 At Council on 24 April 2014 it was resolved to formally submit the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications to the Secretary of State for Examination at the end of May 2014. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan

process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles) and 64. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.6 The following are material to the determination of this planning application: Chichester District Council's Planning Guidance Note 3, Design Guideline for Alterations to dwellings and extensions (revised September 2009) (PGN3) 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1: Managing a changing environment 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of development; ii) Impact on the character of the area; iii) Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties; iv) Drainage rain water run off Assessment i) Principle of development 8.2 The application site lies within the Settlement Policy Area (SPA) as defined within the Chichester District Local Plan where the principle of the extension and alteration of existing properties is normally found to be acceptable. The proposal is for the extension of an existing residential property and as such the principle of the development is acceptable, subject to all other relevant planning considerations and policies. ii) Impact on the character of the area 8.3 The extension would measure 3.2m deep, expanse across the width of the plot and is designed with a full hip to the roof. An extension of this modest scale and would result in 80% of the curtilage (front and rear) remaining. The garden space that would remain would

measure 6.6x4m which is considered an acceptable amount for a 2 bedroom terrace property within a built up residential environment. Therefore, the proposed extension would not result in overdevelopment of the site. Furthermore, the extension would be sympathetic to the pattern of development in the area. 8.4 The design and scale of the proposed extension would be in keeping with the existing property and the surroundings and the external finish materials are proposed to match the existing property. The rear of the terrace is visible from Churchwood Drive and would be seen in the context of the built form of the two storey terrace, meaning that the extension would not appear out of place. 8.5 Given the above it is considered that the impact on the character and appearance of the area would not be harmed by this proposal. iii) Impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties 8.6 The rear extension would project eastward, beyond the existing rear elevation, into the garden. The closest element of the neighbouring property to the north is a kitchen window which is open internally into a dining area served by a door and with a side window. The 60 degree requirement of PGN3 would be encroached by 0.9m. However considering the eaves level at this point is 2.25m (25cm over Permitted Development), the height of the roof at the point of encroachment would be 3.1m, and the sloping away hipped roof, the amount of encroachment would be limited and on balance, it is considered that the relationship with this neighbour to the north is acceptable and would not be harmful to their amenities. 8.7 A rooflight is proposed to the north elevation of the vaulted ceiling with the cill 2.5m above floor level, and therefore would not cause unacceptable overlooking, as it would be above eye level. 8.8 To the south the neighbour includes a single storey lean-to extension and therefore the 60 degree requirement of PGN 3 would not be encroached. The rooflight would have a similar arrangement as discussed above and therefore would not form unacceptable level of overlooking. 8.9 To the rear the blank flank of the two storey neighbour is parallel to the garden of the application site and therefore the impact in this direction would be limited. 8.10 In conclusion the proposal is of sufficiently designed and of an acceptable scale so not to have an overbearing or oppressive impact on their general outlook from the neighbours' properties and gardens and their privacy would not be harmed. iv) Drainage 8.11 The agent's additional information confirms that the existing patio forms an impermeable surface and would be replaced by the extension and also confirms that the extension will have a strip soakaway to take the rainwater from the roof. The soakaway would be constructed within the rear garden. The new patio will form a permeable surface i.e. aggregate/gravel and will therefore soak away naturally into the ground (a condition is suggested to ensure this is the case). Meaning that, rain water would be disposed of in an acceptable manner and would not increase such to an unacceptable level.

Additional matters 8.12 The Committee should be aware that this extension could be carried out under a Permitted Development Prior Notification Procedure and as no objections from the neighbouring properties have been received it is likely that it would be allowed under the current Permitted Development criteria. Furthermore, if the extension was reduced in depth by 200mm it could be implemented under the current GPDO without a Permitted Development Prior Notification Procedure. Conclusion 8.13 Based on the above assessment, it is considered the proposal complies with the local and national planning policies quoted above and that, subject to the imposition of conditions permission should be granted. Human Rights 8.13 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 B01G No Departure from Plans 3 F02F Materials to Match Existing 4 U86077 U86077 - Patio materials INFORMATIVE 5 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment For further information on this application please contact Maria Tomlinson on 01243 534734

Parish: West Wittering

Ward: West Wittering

10 WW/14/00786/DOM

Proposal New swimming pool installation with associated HW decking

Installation of new and replacement fencing in matching HW

Site Hesperus Roman Landing West Wittering Chichester West Sussex PO20 8AL

Map Ref (E) 477759 (N) 98565

Applicant Mr and Mrs E Kump RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

NOT TO SCALE

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral 1.1 A Red Card was received from Councillor Marshall because of the widespread opposition to this proposal has been raised in two Parish meetings. The Councillor also has information or an opinion, which he wishes to raise at Committee. 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The site is located in the south-east corner of the Roman Landing Estate to the north of Pound Road. The plot is an irregular shape with a significant proportion of the rear garden situated to the south-east of the dwelling. The property is a detached two-storey dwelling with a detached double garage positioned within the rear garden to the south-east of the house. The gravel driveway extends along the south side of the dwelling and round towards the detached garage. The plot to the east of the dwelling is primarily laid to lawn and is framed by a brick wall and mature planting to the north boundary, a mature hedgerow with fencing behind to the east boundary and fencing with trellis above along the south boundary. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The proposed development involves installing an outdoor swimming pool to the south-east of the dwelling, which would be set into the ground and measure 12.5m by 5m. The swimming pool would be surrounded by decking that would be set 0.2m above the existing ground level. The swimming pool and decking would be framed by new fencing to the north, east and south, and would be 2.2m in height. The proposal also involves converting and partially re-building an existing brick enclosure to form a plant room with an external shower immediately adjacent to the east. The plant room would measure 1.75 by 1.85m and have an overall height of 2.3m. The brick enclosure as existing on site is currently partially covered with plants and therefore details are required. 4.0 History 11/03677/PD REC Installation of solar photovoltaic

panels. 11/04849/DOM PER Installation of photovoltaic panels

on flat roof to existing garage.

14/00721/PE REC Planning Advice: Proposed

swimming pool. 14/00786/DOM PDE New swimming pool installation

with associated HW decking. Installation of new and replacement fencing in matching HW.

14/01829/DOM PCO Infill to rear pitched roof at first

floor and new roof. Enlarged rear dormer change of existing roof and wall tile hanging to cedar

shingles. New verandah to west and south elevations.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO

Conservation Area Adjacent to boundary

Rural Area NO

AONB YES

Strategic Gap NO

Tree Preservation Order NO

South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO

Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Parish Council The Parish Council objects to this application. This development lies within the Chichester Harbour AONB, is adjacent to the Parish Council Allotment site and is extremely close to several properties. Because of its size and location this development will have an adverse effect on the tranquillity of the surrounding area and will detract from the characteristics of the AONB. It is un-neighbourly as it is situated very close to the gardens of neighbouring properties. Although no detail is provided regarding the operation of the plant room it is expected that this will also create noise which detracts from the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding area. 6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy Site is just outside a Conservation Area, but within a defined settlement boundary and the AONB. Policy 37 on page 23 does not stipulate constraints on swimming pool development. If the swimming pool is to be excavated into the ground (which is not clear) an archaeological watching brief is likely. The site is of irregular shape with the area where the swimming pool is intended, essentially behind two adjoining properties' gardens. The site is largely screened by a tall hedge. There would be no wider views affected in the landscape and thus no harm to the AONB. Issues of residential amenity are largely matters for the Council to decide. The Local Planning Authority is advised that the Conservancy raises no objection to this application, for the reasoning set out above. 6.3 Environment Agency Due to the development type and location of the proposal, the Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal as submitted. However, an Environmental Permit may be required for the discharge of swimming pool water to surface or groundwater. 6.4 CDC Environmental Health Officer

6.4.1 Comments relating to the original plans and documents submitted. The noise from the plant room has not been characterised. I have previously requested that sound power levels; or sound pressure levels at a given distance be supplied together with spectral information for the plant. This information should be available from the supplier. It is important as it describes the overall nature of the noise, the presence of any low frequencies and any tones that may be associated with it. It should then be possible to determine what might be reasonable to achieve in terms of acoustic performance. The agent has provided estimations of the noise within and outside the enclosure, identified some products that may be used and said that an acoustic consultant will be used to reduce the levels. However, it is not possible, with any degree of certainty to be reliant upon that for the planning decision making. Whilst I think it unlikely in this situation, there are cases where such plant has given rise to justifiable complaint. Therefore, at this time because we cannot be reasonably assured that it will not have a significant impact on the amenity of the area, then either the applicant should supply the information requested above so that a reasonable assessment can be made; or the application is refused. 6.4.2 Comments following the submission of acoustic report. Having considered the report from Hann Tucker Associates dated 30 May 2014 addressed to Jack Harding of Guncast Swimming Pools Ltd, outlining their investigation, proposal for noise criteria and construction technique I confirm that we have no objection to the granting of permission provided that the following conditions are placed on any permission granted: - The noise breakout from the plant room shall not exceed 35dB(A) when measured at 1m from the plant room in any direction. The spectral characteristics of the noise shall not contain any tones (in this case defined as where no third octave band sound pressure measurements shall exceed either of the adjacent third octave bands by 5dB or more); - The construction of the plant room shall comply with section 6 of the Hann Tucker letter of the 30 May 2014 reference 20346/MLB submitted in support of the application. For the avoidance of doubt any matter therein referred to as advisory shall be read as if it were mandatory; and - The plant shall be operated only within the times stated within the application. Reason: to protect the amenity of the neighbourhood 6.5 CDC Environmental Strategy The mapping system does not show any records of bats so this issue would not have highlighted before. I would recommend the hedgerow and trees on site remain and following be conditioned. Bats - The lighting scheme for the site will need to take into consideration the presence of bats in the local area and the scheme should minimise potential impacts to any bats using the trees and hedgerows by avoiding unnecessary artificial light spill through the use of directional light sources and shielding. Birds - Due to the level of protection nesting birds' hold, any vegetation clearance (including tree felling) should take place outside the nesting season (February - October).

6.6 Third Party Objection Ten objection letters from ten different authors were received. The comments are summarised below: - Concern relating to the position of the boundaries of the site and ownership of fences; - Swimming pool will lead to disturbing noise levels that will impact on neighbouring properties; - The swimming pool would not be in keeping with traditional style of architecture that predominates this part of West Wittering; - The pool and hard landscaping is not sympathetic to the wider surroundings; - Does not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Contravenes requirements of the AONB; - The plant house containing heating and pumping machinery and the open-air shower will cause further noise impacts. There is no provision of any form of sound insulation such as might be provided by brick walls, trees or dense planting; - Light pollution - if the pool is illuminated it will be highly intrusive to neighbours and area; - Overdevelopment of the site; - Impact on the Conservation Area; - Impact on roots of screening trees and protected trees in adjacent gardens; - Disruption during construction with increased commercial traffic; - Chemical used for water treatment may infiltrate to surrounding area with unpleasant fumes and unnecessary air pollution; - May lead to a change of use for the current garage; and - Clarification sought regarding pool cover. 6.7 Agent's Supporting Information Following the receipt of a number of representations from neighbouring occupiers, the agent submitted a letter of support in relation to the proposals. The letter sets out how the primary concerns will be addressed. - Plans and boundary disputes - The new fencing will be erected on land within the applicant's ownership; - Noise and disturbance - The pool will be located at the rear and bordered by fencing and hedgerow. It will be set well away from adjoining residential properties. The plant will be within an existing brick enclosure that will be upgraded and soundproofed to prevent any noise disturbance; - Light pollution - No external lighting proposed as part of this application. May introduce low level lighting in future; however, this will be no different from any form of external lighting that could be introduced to any residential garden without planning permission; - Out of keeping with the area - A number of properties within the surrounding area, including Farthings, Hewlets and Saltings have swimming pools within their rear gardens; - AONB and Conservation Area - Garden bordered by residential properties. As such the proposal would not be visible from any public vantage points within the AONB or Conservation Area; - Overdevelopment of site - Roman Landing characterised by large detached properties or sizeable plots. Proposal would take up limited garden area and not represent an overdevelopment of the site; - Tree roots - There are no trees within the application site. Conditions could be imposed to protect roots if reasonable and necessary; - Conversion of garage - Applicant does not intend to convert garage to a pool room; and - Other matters - No cover for the pool is proposed at this time.

7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE6 Conservation Areas BE11 New Development RE4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 7.3 At Council on 24 April 2014 it was resolved to formally submit the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications to the Secretary of State for Examination at the end of May 2014. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013 Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Policy 47: Heritage Policy 48: Natural Environment National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), and section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment).

Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.6 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application: - Design Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (August 2010); and - West Wittering Village Design Statement (2006). 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: D3 - Housing fit for purpose 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) The impact on the existing building and the surrounding area; ii) Impact on the Chichester Harbour AONB and Conservation Area; iii) Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and iv) Other matters. Assessment i) Impact on the existing building and surrounding area 8.2 The proposed external swimming pool would be located in the rear garden to the east of the existing dwelling and be set within the ground. The swimming pool would be surrounded by decking, which would be raised 0.2m from the existing ground level. The proposed new fencing would be 2.2m high and positioned in front of the existing mature planting along the northern boundary, in front of a mature hedgerow with fencing behind to the east and in front of existing fencing with trellis above to the south. The proposed plant room and external shower would be situated adjacent to the north boundary and in front of the existing mature planting. The plant room would be enclosed and have an overall height of 2.3m. 8.3 The swimming pool and decking would be set within or just above the existing ground levels and therefore have a limited impact on the existing dwelling or the appearance of the surrounding locality. The proposed plant room and external shower would be limited in scale whilst the new fencing would be predominately screened by the existing mature planting, hedgerow and fence along the southern boundary. It is considered, therefore, that these elements of the development would not harm the appearance of the immediate locality due their siting, scale and the existing boundary treatment. 8.4 The property is located within a plot which is an irregular shape and is surrounded by other residential gardens. The proposed swimming pool and associated decking would occupy a proportion of the rear element of the garden. However, despite the proposed development and the existing double garage, a reasonable proportion of the rear garden would remain undeveloped. In addition the plot also has a large area of amenity space to the front of the dwelling. It is considered, therefore, that the proposed scheme would not represent an overdevelopment of the site.

8.5 The immediate surrounding locality is characterised by dwellings located within sizeable plots, which vary in the style and type. The aerial maps from 2007 indicate that a number of properties in the surrounding locality, including Hulets, Farthings and Saltings which are located to south-west and north-west of the site, have external swimming pools within their gardens. As such it is considered that the proposal would not be out of keeping with the surrounding area. ii) Impact on AONB and Conservation Area 8.6 The site is located within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The southern boundary of the rear garden also abuts the West Wittering Conservation Area. Nonetheless, the proposed development would be predominately screened by the existing mature planting adjacent to the north boundary, the hedgerow to the east and the fence with trellis above to the south. The residential properties surrounding the rear garden would also provide further screening from the wider locality. Consequently the proposed development would not be visible from public vantage points. In addition it is considered that the proposal not result in a significant increase in activity as the development would remain incidental to the overall residential use of the land. Furthermore it should be noted that the Harbour Conservatory have raised no objections to the proposal. It is considered, therefore, that the proposed development would conserve the character of the Chichester Harbour AONB and the West Wittering Conservation Area. iii) Neighbour Amenity 8.7 A number of neighbouring occupiers have raised concerns regarding the proposed development, particularly in relation to disturbance, noise and light pollution. The development would be located to the east of the neighbouring dwelling, Leda, which includes two rear facing dormer windows, to the south of Rowans and north of North Cottage, South Cottage and the Annex to South Cottage. The proposed swimming pool has the potential to increase activity in the rear element of the garden. However, although the development would be in close proximity to the boundaries of site, a reasonable separation distance would remain between the proposal and the neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore given that the use would be domestic only and incidental to the host dwelling, it is considered that any increase is unlikely to be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. 8.8 The proposed development includes a plant room, which would be located to the west of swimming pool adjacent to the northern boundary. The Health Protection and Environmental Management team as well as adjacent neighbours raised concerns in relation to the potential noise levels from the proposed plant. As such information was requested regarding sound power levels; or sound pressure levels at a given distance together with spectral information for the plant. Consequently an acoustic report was submitted along with a general specification for acoustic and vibration isolation materials and products. This information was subsequently considered by the Health Protection and Environmental Management team who have raised no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions being applied to any permission. 8.9 The existing boundary treatment, which comprises mature planting and fencing, together with the proposed new fencing should assist in attenuating noise levels from the proposed plant. It is considered, therefore, that the proposed development would not adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers. It should also be noted that noise emanating the occupiers of the host dwelling whilst using the proposed development is not a material planning consideration.

iv) Other Matters 8.10 The neighbouring occupiers have raised concerns in relation to the ownership of boundaries, the conversion of the garage, the inclusion of a pool cover, light pollution and tree protection. 8.11 In light of concerns regarding the ownership of boundaries and the accuracy of the plans, the original plans were amended for clarification and to confirm that the fence along the southern part of the rear garden would not be replaced. Instead a new fence would be erected inside the existing fence with trellis above along southern boundary. Therefore the plans indicate that the proposed development would be undertaken on land with the ownership of the applicant. Notwithstanding the neighbouring occupiers concerns, it should be noted that boundary disputes are not a material planning consideration and are a civil matter. 8.12 The agent has confirmed that the applicant does not currently intend to convert the existing double garage, add a pool cover or external lighting. The neighbouring occupier to the south of the site raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the roots of the protected Walnut tree. However, it is considered that the proposed development would not harm the amenity of the tree due to the separation distance between the proposal and the protected tree. Nonetheless a condition will be attached to ensure the hedgerow adjacent to the east boundary is retained. Significant Conditions Conditions will be attached relating to the following matters: i) Materials; ii) Noise levels; and iii) Protection of hedgerow. Conclusion Based on the above assessment of the material planning considerations, it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies BE1, BE6, BE11 and RE4, and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. RECOMMENDATION PERMIT 1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U86158 U86158 - No Departure from Plans 3 U86159 U86159 - Materials/Finishes 4 U86150 U86150 - Noise Levels 5 U86151 U86151 - Construction of Plant Room 6 U86152 U86152 - Operation Time of Plant 7 U86156 U86156 - Retention of Hedge

INFORMATIVES 8 U86157 U86157 - Application Approved Following Revisions 9 U86160 U86160 - Letter For further information on this application please contact Anna Weir on 01243 534734

Agenda Item 11 Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 25 June 2014 By Assistant Director of Development Management Local Authority Chichester District Council Application No: SDNP/14/01657/CND Validation Date 28 May 2014 Target Date: 23 July 2014 Applicant: Mr P Tyrie Proposal: Application for the removal of condition 2 and the variation of Condition 3 of planning application number: SDNP/13/01674/FUL - Condition 2 to be removed as it is considered that the specified mitigation works proposed are no longer necessary as existing landscaping to the front (north-west) of the approved dwelling already secures a satisfactory form of development that is in keeping with the amenities and character of the area. Condition 3 to be varied to state; "Existing landscaping to the front (north-west) of the approved dwelling shall remain in place in perpetuity and no alterations or changes to shall be made unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority." Site Address Popple Meadows Graffham Petworth GU28 0QF Purpose of Report The application is reported to committee for a decision Recommendation: That the application be refused for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report Executive Summary The proposal seeks the removal of condition 2 and the variation of condition 3 of planning permission SDNP/13/01674/FUL to relate solely to the retention of the existing planting that has taken place. These conditions were considered reasonable and necessary in order to both regularise the construction of the dwelling and to redress, as far as practically possible, the harm caused to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The future reliance on the existing landscaping that has been carried out to the front of the dwelling as the sole means of mitigating the harm arising from the development as built, including the retention of the steps, associated piers and brick balustrade walls does not adequately address the visual harm that has resulted from the development as constructed and therefore it is recommended that the application is refused.

1. Site Description 1.1 Popple Meadows is a recently constructed dwelling located on the south side of Graffham Road, opposite a loose ribbon of residential development of varying ages and styles. The dwelling is constructed of coursed dressed sandstone blocks with brick detailing under a clay tiled roof. As a result of a change in levels the building has been cut into the former slope of the land. Access to the front door of the dwelling is obtained via a flight of 10 steps defined by flanking brick balustrading. The floor level of the dwelling at the front door is approximately 1.8 metres above the gravelled turning area. 1.2 The original dwelling to the north west of the dwelling has been retained and is currently being converted to ancillary accommodation. An 'L' - shaped range of timber buildings used for garaging and storage are located at the front of the site and to the north east of the dwelling and entrance. 1.3 The boundary treatment to Graffham Road comprises relatively immature hedging and a number of mature trees and the property remains visible from the public highway when approaching from the north east. The entrance to Popple Meadows is currently screened by two metre high timber gates with curved tops hung off brick piers with decorative stone inserts and caps. A timber pedestrian gate is located to the south west side of the vehicular gates. Beech hedging flanks the access driveway on the highway side of the gates.

2. Relevant Planning History

EL/07/03344/FUL - Replacement dwelling, replacement outbuildings: garages, workshop and stores. PERMIT 14.11.2007EL/11/03550/FULNP - Erection of dwelling (retrospective application pursuant to planning permission EL/07/03344/FUL to provide for re-grading of land to front constructed dwelling). REFUSE 04.11.2011SDNP/13/01674/FUL - Erection of dwelling (retrospective application pursuant to planning permission EL/07/03344/FUL to provide for mitigation measures to front constructed dwelling) - resubmission following refusal application 11/03550/FULNP. PERMIT 29.07.2013

3. Proposal

3.1 This application is for the removal of condition 2 of SDNP/13/1674/FUL and the variation of Condition 3 of the same planning permission. Condition 2 requires a number of physical alterations to the present house and its immediate setting in order to adequately address the harm that has resulted to the site and its surroundings from the dwelling not being constructed in accordance with the originally approved (2007) plans.

3.2 Condition 2 requires the following steps to be taken in order to make the dwelling acceptable in landscape terms: Within 6 months of the date of this permission the following mitigation works which are shown in Dwg No. 11/22/100 shall be completed in their entirety. i. Increase the height of the wall in front of the basement windows of the

property by 1.2 metres; ii. The formation of an earth mound between the gravel driveway and the top

of the retaining wall; iii. The gradation of the earth mound to the northeast and southwest; iv. The grassing of the earth mound; v. The planting of a hedge along the north west slope of the earth mound; vi. The removal of the steps, step piers and balustrade walls and their replacement with a continuation of the earth mound, and; vii. The resulting debris is removed from the site. Reason: To secure a satisfactory form of development that is in keeping with the amenities and character of the area. 3.3 Drawings forming part of the planning permission demonstrated how the remediation measures detailed above would be implemented in practice. 3.4 Condition 3 of SDNP/13/01674/FUL required the mitigation works subject to Condition 2 to remin in situ in perpetuity. This application seeks to vary this condition to now only require the retention of the existing planting and landscaping carried out in front of the dwelling in perpetuity without variation unless agreed with the SDNPA.

4. Consultations

Parish Council Consultee: No response received.

5. Representations

None received at the time of writing

6. Policy Context 6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan

unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Chichester Local Plan First Review(1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010 Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are

important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks.

6.2 National Park Purposes

The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:

To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas;

To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas.

If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes.

6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010

In addition to the above, it is considered that the following paragraphs and section of the NPPF are considered relevant to the determination of this application: Paragraphs 14, 17, 56, 60, 61 and 208 Sections 7 and 11 Guidance on the use of planning conditions contained in the National Planning Practice Guidance published in March 2014 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan 2014 - 2019 is also a material consideration. Outcome 1 and Policy 1 are considered relevant.

7. Planning Policy

The following policies of the Chichester Local Plan First Review(1999) are relevant to this application:

CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Genera

CHBE11 (CH)New Development

8. Planning Assessment 8.1 The original planning permission granted in 2007 was for the erection of a two storey dwelling with a basement level largely constructed below ground level. During the course of construction it was noted that the building was being constructed 1.0 metre higher and 0.6 metre closer to the highway than originally approved. This resulted in the basement level being exposed to view, giving the building the appearance of a three storey dwelling. When combined with the more elevated siting of the dwelling this resulted in a more assertive and prominent structure in the surrounding landscape. The initial application to regularise the development as built with some limited mitigation (EL/11/03550/FULNP) was refused by Committee in November 2011. 8.2 In October 2012, the Committee resolved to issue an enforcement notice in respect of a dweliinghouse without planning permission. The notice was to be

drafted to require certain mitigation works to be carried out in order to allow the development to be retained in a form acceptable within the public realm - i.e. under enforcement. This consisted of a series of measures requiring physical alterations to ground levels at the front of the dwelling, reducing the number of steps of the flight of steps leading to the front door from ten to three and the re-direction of the access path to the front door. Before the issue of the notice and following further detailed negotiations with the applicant, a further application to regularise the development including the steps described above was submitted under reference SDNP/13/01674/FUL. This was subsequently approved by Committee in July 2013. These steps are incorporated in Conditions 2 and 3 of that planning permission and were considered to be mutually acceptable to both the applicant and the Committee. 8.3 The works required by condition 2 have not yet been carried out. In their place, the applicant has carried out extensive shrub planting, comprising mainly Photinia 'Red Robin', an evergreen shrub, at the front of the dwelling in an effort to screen the lower ground floor of the dwelling and the screen walling and railings. The proposal in this application is that the applicant would now rely on this planting to provide the mitigation against the increased height and massing of the dwelling. As part of the application, the flight of steps up to the elevated front door would remain in situ in their current form 8.4 It is considered that the planting that has been carried out in front of the screen walling in front of the lower ground floor and to the sides of the balustrade wallls to the flight of steps does little to effectively disguise the verticality/height of the development as built. It is acknowledged that the planting has had a softening effect but it does not have the same three dimensional depth of field or visual robustness that the agreed contoured banking across the entire width of the dwelling would have, particularly when viewed in the context of the gently sloping landform in which the dwelling has been built. 8.5 The application also proposes the retention of the flight of steps without alteration. The flight of stairs contribute to the solidity and verticality of the front of the dwelling and as such would continue to emphasises the elevated nature of the dwelling and which the present planting does not and would not disguise. The previously approved mitigation measures identified the removal of the flight of stairs as a key component in addressing the harn to the visual amenities that the development has resulted in. 8.6 The variation of condition 3 states that the planting that has been carried out is to be retained in perpetuity. However given potential issues with the longevity of planting, other variables such as its health and vigour and future ownership, it is considered that the control over the future retention of such planting would not be effective or practical over time. Therefore it is concluded that such a condition would not accord with the guidance on the use of planning conditions contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)or National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG).

9. Conclusion

9.1 The steps required in the original conditions - particularly condition 2 - were considered to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the adverse impact the dwelling as constructed has had on the surrounding countryside was effectively mitigated against. These conditions were considered necesary, reasonable,

related to the development that has taken place and enforceable in accordance with the NPPF and NPPG, to secure a satisfactory form of development and to accord with the two purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park. 9.2 It is concluded that the deletion of Conditon 2 and the variation of Condition 3 to solely relate to the retention of the planting that has been carried out would not achieve a form of development that is acceptable in landscape terms and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

10. Recommendation 1. It is recommended that the application be Refused

subject to the reason set out below 01. The steps required by conditions 2 and 3 of SDNP/13/01674/FUL are considered to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the adverse impact of the height and massing of the dwelling as constructed has had on the surrounding countryside was effectively mitigated against. These conditions were considered necessary, reasonable, related to the development that has taken place and enforceable in accordance with the NPPF and NPPG, to secure a satisfactory form of development and to accord with the two purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park. The reliance on soft landscaping alone is not considered sufficient to address that harm and the retention of the flight of steps to the elevated front door would continue to emphasise the height, scale and massing of the dwelling. Without the mitigation measures required by conditions 2 and 3 of SDNP/13/01674/FUL the development would fail to integrate successfully with the surrounding landscape and therefore be in conflict with Policy BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and paragraphs 56, 60, 61 and 115 of the NPPF together with the first purpose of designation of the South Downs National Park.

11. Human Rights Implications

This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.

Case Officer: Derek Price Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: dprice@chichester.gov.uk

Appendix 1

Site Location Map This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright (Not to Scale)