Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
For questions regarding this agenda please ask for Rosie Chase – email: [email protected] CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY – PLANNING COMMITTEE A meeting of the Conservancy’s Planning Committee will be held at 10.30am on Monday 3 June 2019 at Eames Farm, Thorney Road, Thorney Island. Richard Craven Director and Harbour Master AGENDA
1. Welcome and Apologies
2. Declaration of Interests
Members and officers are reminded to make declarations of pecuniary or personal interests they may have in relation to items on the agenda and to make any declarations at any stage during the meeting if it then becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.
3. Minutes Minutes of the Planning Consultative Committee meeting held on 13 May 2019 (page 1)
4. Development Applications
BI/19/01107/FULEIA. Chichester Yacht Club, Chichester Marina Birdham PO20 7EJ
(page 5)
SB/19/01093/FUL. 1 Slipper Mill, Slipper Road Southbourne PO10 8XD (page 15)
SB/19/01224/FUL. Thornham Point, Thornham Lane Southbourne PO10 8DD (page 23)
APP/19/00449 2-4 West Street, Emsworth, Hampshire (Page 31)
5. Delegated action BI/19/01033/DOM. 18 Greenacres, Birdham, Chichester, West Sussex
To consider the report from the Principal Planning Officer (page 47)
6. Table of delegated recommendations 8-5-19 to 29-5-19 To consider the report from the Principal Planning Officer. (page 51)
7. Date of Next Meeting
Monday 15 July 2019 from 10.30am at Eames Farm ____________________________________________________________________ Planning Consultative Committee members: Tim Callaway, John Connor, Nick Fox, Keith Martin, Pieter Montyn, Ann Briggs, Steven Schrier, Ken Smith and Alison Wakelin.
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting held from 10.30am on Monday 13 May 2019 at Eames Farm, Thorney Road, Thorney Island. PO10 8DE
Present Keith Martin (Chairman)
Alison Wakelin Nick Fox Steven Schrier
Pieter Montyn
Officers
Richard Austin Rosie Chase (minutes)
1.0 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Ken Smith, Ann Briggs, David Rothery and Steve Lawrence.
2.0 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2.1 There were none.
3.0 MINUTES
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2019 were agreed as a true record of the meeting and were signed by the Chairman.
4.0 MATTERS ARISING
4.1 A member asked for an update as to the proposed development of Northney Marina. The AONB Manager said that the Conservancy had submitted comments, which were legally checked, at a cost £1,500 + VAT. There has been no other information since from Havant Borough Council.
5.0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Point View, 10 Western Parade Emsworth
5.1 The AONB Manager presented the application for Point View, 10 Western Parade Emsworth which was for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a replacement 3-bedroom dwelling, including balconies to the front elevation and Juliet balcony to the rear.
5.2 Members felt that the officer recommendations were appropriate and considered the conditions for approval.
5.3 A member asked if the inclusion of bat or bird boxes were included in the Planning Principles. A member said that encouraging biodiversity was a weaker area of the Planning Principles.
Recommendation
5.4 The Planning Committee resolved that there was no objection, provided –
(a) the council is satisfied that no part of the existing dwelling to be demolished is currently being used as a bat roost; (b) that the council negotiates repositioning of the footprint backwards into the plot, to at least be no nearer the harbour than the existing chalet bungalow, with
1
removal of the front rooflight window;
(c) and subject to the following planning conditions being imposed: -
(d) Agreement of a Construction Environment Management Plan, to ensure that the public right of way in front of the site is not obstructed during the build process;
(e) Samples of external facing and roofing materials to be agreed (with the Conservancy’s preference of colour finishes of a dark hue); and,
(f) Consideration being given to the incorporation of bat or bird boxes into the fabric of the new dwelling, to achieve a net gain to biodiversity.
Land at Heron House, Taylors Lane. Bosham.
5.5 Members were informed that the application was initially considered as a delegated action. However, members agreed to discuss the application at Committee due to the nature of the application warranting further discussion. A delay on commenting on the application has been agreed by the Local Planning Authority and the feedback from the meeting would need to be submitted to on 14 May 2019 (the next day).
5.6 Members discussed the Planning Officer recommendation and said they would have liked a photograph of the street scene to be able to assess the visual impact of the proposed development at the site.
5.7 Following a question from a member, it was felt that the site would potentially be visible from the nearest footpath that runs east to west. Members also noted that the application would likely be approved as there had been a precedent set by granting permission to the property behind for a similar development.
5.8 Members supported the officer recommendation, provided that conditions on the materials, lighting and glazing of the development were strengthened.
Recommendation
5.9 The Planning Committee raised no objection subject to
a) schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction (not as per submission / application forms and drawings), dark, muted coloured cladding or render and not whitewashed.
b) Lighting and glazing should be compliant with the Dark Skies policy. For glazed surfaces, the use of coated surface glass that is non-reflective to mitigate external reflective glare which might also assist with keeping heat in and radiation out for the respective seasonal changes. c) removal of permitted development rights relating to additions, extensions, enlargements, or alterations affecting the external appearance of the proposed building given the overall size and scale of the dwellings compared to the size of the plots indicated.
d) retention of all boundary hedgerows, planting shrubbery and trees along the west (rear), north, south and east (frontage) boundary strips (3m minimum) and
2
replacement of any part of the hedgerow or planting as existing which is removed with a hedge of a similar size and species. e) a new front boundary hedge be supplemented with hedgerow plants and trees of a native species typical of the AONB (list of native species found on page 3 of the AONB Design Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions). f) prior to the commencement of any site works a development contribution is made with regards to development and disturbance of birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas.
5.10 Members discussed whether the wording on the conditions should change from “suggested recommendations” to “Conservancy stipulations.” The latter was agreed in this instance.
6.0 APPEAL DECISION. OLD HAVEN, THE STREET, ITCHENOR.
6.1 The AONB Manager informed members that he attended the appeal and that the Principal Planning Officer had presented evidence. He said that the Conservancy and the Council both objected to the new proposals but for slightly differing reasons. Conservancy feedback was that the development was too big and too close to the water. The AONB Manager said it was not an objection in perpetuity and should the applicant come back with a smaller dwelling in line with the existing footprint then the Conservancy may consider it more favourably.
6.2 The Planning Committee noted the outcome of the appeal, which was dismissed. Members recorded their appreciation to the Principal Planning Officer.
7.0 DELEGATED ACTIONS
7.1 Members noted the no objection in respect of the proposed Velux roof light at 1 The Boat Store, as they considered the darks skies policy could have been applied.
7.2 Members discussed whether officers should apply the test of whether an application conserves and enhances the AONB rather than applying the lesser test of whether any development is detrimental. The AONB Manager said that in some applications where changes are minimal, or likely to be approved, considering the detrimental effect of any application is more appropriate.
7.3 Members noted that the application at Northshore for a variation of condition 13 has been withdrawn.
7.4 Members discussed the application for an extension in order to build a snooker room at Longmore Cottage. In addition, they noted the Principal Planning Officer’s objection to the proposed development at Birdham Fruit Farm as there was a concern that the planning condition to require the accommodation to remain ancillary may not be enforced.
7.5 Members asked for clarification on the Conservancy’s response to the proposed extension at the Crown and Anchor public house in Dell Quay as the officer’s response was not uploaded to the Council’s website until three days after the decision was made, which was to permit the application.
8.0 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
8.1 Chichester Local Plan. The AONB Manager presented some slides following a meeting he had with officers of Chichester District Council on Friday 10 May regarding the Chichester Local Plan.
3
8.2 Members discussed their approach to the proposed development at Highgrove Farm. The AONB Manager confirmed that the site is not currently proposed as a wildlife corridor. Another meeting has been scheduled with the District Council for July. There is still no information on where the houses will go in each area as the decision has been given to local Parish Councils to make. Nothing is proposed inside the AONB however. Members said that some developments would still have an impact on the AONB.
8.3 Members discussed the ongoing issues associated with the proposed tunnel under the footpath at Dolphins, Rookwood. The Conservancy have written to both Natural England and Chichester District Council. A response from Diane Shepherd from the District Council is expected, The AONB Manager said that should the response to the letter not be satisfactory both parties would be agreeable to a meeting.
8.4 Dolphins. Rookwood. James Seymour of Natural England has also received a letter and as a result put a stop on the application and officers are reassessing. The application will now go back to the Council’s Planning Committee in June for determination. The AONB Manager recovered a memorandum of understanding between Natural England and the Conservancy and said there was potentially some work to be done with this to re-establish to the roles of both. A member expressed concern that there was a lack of enforcement on the change of use of the foreshore, being made into a garden and that action should be taken, to avoid the creeping process of domestication and a loss of SSSI.
8.4 Planning Habitat training. The original plans for Habitat Regulations Assessment training have been postponed as the solicitor originally prepared to do the training is no longer able to do so. Officers and members will work together to identify an alternative provider and Tournerbury Woods and Dolphins would be used as case studies.
The meeting closed at 11.50am
Chairman
4
Local Planning Authority planning application reference: BI/19/01107/FULEIA Site: Chichester Yacht Club Chichester Marina Birdham PO20 7EJ
Proposals: New piles, replacement pontoons, bridge and bridgeheads, safety boat berthing, waterfront tidying and maintenance. Dinghy park drainage installation throughout.
Recommendation – No objection, subject to application being withdrawn and re-submitted with a new ‘red line’ encompassing moving the western pontoon to its new position 3 metres to the west and subject to the following suggested planning conditions:-
The existing west pontoon sections and bridge head, unless they are to be re-used, to be taken up and removed from the site in accordance with the submitted method statement;
Works to be carried out between 1 April and 30 September in any calendar year and not outside that period;
Piling only to be carried out between 08:00 and 18:00 on weekdays and 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays; and,
No access by mechanised plant on the intertidal mudflats at any time during the construction phase of the development.
1.0 Site and its context
1.1 This 990 sq.m site comprises the open dinghy park and related Harbour foreshore associated with Chichester Yacht Club, located at the western end of Chichester Marina in Birdham. A public footpath passes the site which is also highly visibile from the water. The application site sits wholly within Flood Zone 3 (highest risk).
5
1.2 The clubhouse forms the immediate southern backdrop to the site, with Chichester Canal lock-gates beyond that forming part of the public footpath and Salterns Way leading to Lock Lane and Birdham Pool marina. The club has two pontoons secured by chains and anchors, which allow substantial movement of the pontoons, depending on wind and sea conditions, so the floats may settle in any position over a wide area. The chains also cause disturbance to the seabed. The dinghy programme is centred on racing, cruising, training and coaching. The replacement pontoon and upgraded safety boat berthing will provide the club with the means to develop this programme for able and disabled sailing. The results of club activities are clearly demonstrated by the involvement of club sailors to regional and national RYA events.
1.3 Part of the application site is below the mean high water springs and therefore within the SPA/SAC/Ramsar/SSSI designations.
1.4 In terms of the landscape character assessment commissioned by the Conservancy in 2006, the site is located within area I1 – West Manhood Peninsula, but bordering the D3 Fishbourne Chanel. Key defining characteristics of these areas relevant to the proposed development include –
6
- Broadly flat land overlying brickearths, intersected by small streams or rithes.
- A wide range of habitats including unimproved coastal grassland, small ancient woodlands, marshes along the River Lavant, and Birdham Millpond contribute to character.
- Distinctive clusters of flint and brick cottages at Itchenor, Birdham and Dell Quay.
- Wide views of harbour from coastal path in the south west and views across farmland to Chichester Cathedral in the
north.
- Birdham Pool and Chichester Marina are major recreational centres.
- Overall the area retains a largely rural undeveloped Character
The sensitivity of the area is moderate to high. The coastal edge is particularly sensitive to any built development which would result in the loss of eroded shoreline and intrude on characteristic views. The appropriate strategy is conservation and enhancement.
And for D3 –
- Long narrow inlet. - Winding channel. - Mud and shingle exposed at low tide. Underlying chalk and
red and orange clays of the Reading Beds are occasionally
revealed.
- Patches of fringing saltmarsh. - Largely undeveloped shoreline with a wooded appearance. - Undeveloped and mostly tranquil character.
The landscape has a high sensitivity to change. It is particularly sensitive to any new development that would result in loss of the wooded character of the adjacent peninsulas and which would be visually intrusive close to the shoreline. The appropriate strategy is conservation.
2.0 Relevant planning history of site and wider area (N.B. history prior to 1974
not available on line)
2.1 91/42/BI – New social wing to clubhouse, converting of existing for use as clubhouse showers and changing temporary building to be demolished.
7
Replacement staff flat (to be built later) – approved 1.10.91.
2.2 92/00054/BI - Hut to assist in control of dinghy racing – approved 11.9.92.
2.3 94/00296/BI – To erect a new permanent land based sailing school with hostel style accommodation for Chichester Sailing Centre – approved 18.5.94 (not implemented).
2.4 96/01607/FUL – Marina office – approved 19.12.1996.
2.5 98/00146/FUL – Proposed outer waiting pontoon and access bridge to Bridgehead platform – approved 1.6.1998.
2.6 00/00321/FUL – Ground level timber deck with steps – approved 28.3.2000.
2.7 02/01861/REN – Hut to assist in control of dinghy racing – approved 19.8.02.
2.8 03/00699/FUL – Rebuilding of original club house with accommodation within new pitched roof – approved 28.4.03.
2.9 03/02535/FUL – Rebuilding of original club house with accommodation within new pitched roof (alternative to 03/00699/FUL) – approved 10.11.03.
2.10 04/02333/FUL – Single storey dining annexe on north side of building – approved 24.8.04.
2.11 04/02845/FUL – Single storey extension to provide additional office accommodation and hospitality suite, together with external fire escape stairway – approved 19.11.04.
2.12 04/04007/FUL – Erection of temporary buildings during construction period for rebuild of clubhouse – Approved 5.1.05 (until 31.12.05).
2.13 05/04856/FUL – Renewal of permission to continue to use temporary buildings during construction period for rebuild of clubhouse extending use until 31st July 2006 – approved 15.2.06 (until 31.7.06).
2.14 11/003616/FUL – Replacement of existing pontoons. Reshaping of existing safety boat zone/land together with new (small) spur taken from existing slipway – Approved 28.1.12. The applicant states works commenced in 2012.
2.15 12/00475/FUL – Demolition of three workshops/sheds for the comprehensive redevelopment of the South-West area of the marina comprising four purpose built buildings including marine related workshops, offices, storage, re-provision and extension of the retail (chandlery) and a cafe/restaurant together with an additional 23 car parking spaces, boat parking and storage and appropriate landscaping – Approved with S.106 29.6.12.
2.16 19/011059/FUL – Proposed pergola with adjustable and opening roof louvres and sliding retractable windows – Pending consideration at time of writing this report.
8
3.0 Proposed development
3.1 The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment into the likely effects of the development on the SPA/SAC/Ramsar/SSSI designations in Chichester Harbour. Consultation has taken place with the Harbour Master before making this application.
3.2 The applicant explains that work conducted to submit 11/003616/FUL, led the Club to conclude the health and safety issues arising from the deteriorating pontoons and the manhandling of the safety boats into their parking zone needed to be addressed. The proposed work design concept is to provide a safe, practical environment to support the sailing activities of the club. This includes consideration for the age range of club members using the facilities; from young children to elderly or disabled sailors. It is anticipated the works will further enhance the club’s ability to reach out to local community – especially the young and disabled and will also provide an additional, much needed, ‘quick response’ safety boat, launched from the floating dock for safety of club and other ‘water users’ in the immediate vicinity Onshore construction materials will be concrete, steel reinforcing and gravel. Materials that will be used in the marine civil engineering work include reinforced concrete, Works will include –
a. Installation of steel or wooden piles to replace the anchors, chains and rope currently securing the pontoons. Five piles to be installed by barge in the intertidal area preferably with vibro-hammer, each pile being driven in for a 1 to 2 hour period, between 08:00 and 18:00 on weekdays and 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays. Should a percussive hammer prove necessary it will be fitted with a noise-reducing
9
shroud. Access by water will only be at high water, to minimise the effect on feeding wildfowl. Piling works are planned to start 1st July 2019. Soft start procedures will be employed for a five minute period, where there is a gradual increase in piling power until full operational power is reached. This method is accepted as current best practice for reducing the potential for harm to marine mammals.
b. Replace existing east pontoon, bridge and bridge bank seat, addition of an emergency safety boat floating dock alongside and dinghy launching ramp and finger pontoons at the end to facilitate disabled sailors.
c. Replace existing west pontoon and bridge and relocation of the bank seat 3m to the west. Pontoon sections will arrive by road, craned into the water at high tide and towed into position.
d. Reshape and enlarge existing safety boat parking zone to accommodate 4 safety boats and additional gravel to the existing gravel slipway leading to safety boat berthing. The gravel ‘hard’ ramp and safety boat area will be supplemented with additional gravel to level the surface using manual labour and a mini digger/dumper, at low tide
e. Install drainage trenches and perforated pipes to the existing dinghy parking area to improve the drainage and re-profile dinghy park surface.
f. Tidying of foreshore by removal of concrete and rock debris between the west and east pontoons and removal of obstructions embedded in the east slipways.
g. Maintenance of the riprap along the foreshore to prevent erosion by wave and tidal action.
3.3 The benefits of these works are described by the applicant as –
10
“The design includes greatly improved access to both pontoons. Both will have step free joints with ramps between the land and the pontoons that will allow wheeled access. The dinghy park drainage and surface improvement will resolve the hazardous boggy conditions for moving dinghies. The removal of the obstructions around the east pontoon and on the east slipways will improve the surface for dinghy launching and resolve the trip hazard.”
3.4 The following topics have been scoped within the EIA –
Marine and terrestrial ecology; Contamination and water quality; Landscape and visual effects; Traffic and transport; Noise and vibration; and, Navigation.
3.5 Findings of the EIA are:-
Construction traffic at the site will be minor and is estimated to be less than 18 HGV (two-way) movements in total. Construction traffic will travel to site via the A27 and A286 (Wittering Road) and will use the marina access road which is commonly used for the delivery of large vessels to the marina.
The plant & equipment during the onshore works will include mini bucket excavator (with bucket Lift), mini dumper truck, Kango concrete breaker and hydraulic concrete Burster and drill. The precise nature of plant employed during construction will vary at each stage of the project.
The plant to be used during the marine works will include a tug, a piling
barge and crane. A safety boat will be in attendance. The Foreshore wall works will be based on the mass use of labour and hydraulic or wedge Burster to enable the removal of unwanted concrete.by hand.
By anchoring with piles, both the west and east pontoons can be restrained
within a substantially smaller, engineered movement allowance, this will reduce the area of mud affected through contact by the supporting floats. The improved location control will fully offset the overall effect, on the mud habitat, of the additional features on the East pontoon, required to improve emergency rescue response.
The area over which light is totally obscured when the floats settle on the
mud is increased by 38.8% from 157.4m2 to 196.2m2 primarily due to the new facilities on the east pontoon. However, that increase is balanced by the reduction in the overall area affected by shading, reduced by 38.7% from 266m2 to 227m2.
There would be slight effects from noise and vibration and the works would
be carried out in summer months to limit disturbance to overwintering birds. Piling is estimated to last only 4 days to limit the chances of birds avoiding regular feeding areas, whilst recognising some level of background noise from activity at the marina, which birds may have become used to. As such, the magnitude of change is considered negligible, with effects slight and not significant.
In terms of piling work, given that there is a range of anthropogenic noise from sources within Chichester Harbour water, the impact on species with low sensitivity to noise is predicted to be a small magnitude of change. The unmitigated effect would be moderate and significant.
11
The new piles will stand 2m above MHWS (1.5m above the pontoon section) and be of two tone colouration, matching that currently existing in the marina waiting pontoon and within an area of much recreational activity. Tidying of the foreshore will be of benefit to the appearance of this piece of foreshore. The slight impact will result from the new piles and the western pontoon being positioned 3m further west.
In terms of navigation, there are two potential effects of this proposal.
Firstly, the requirement to transfer the pontoon sections from launch to the final position and secondly, the piling barge being brought into position. This will use the main harbour channels for access. In both cases mitigation plans will be agreed with the Harbour Master and Premier marinas to ensure the works do not impact on navigation to vessels in this area.
3.5 The applicant has put forward method statements as to working practices to mitigate the environmental impact identified by the EIA. Any further observations from the Conservancy’s Ecologist will be reported verbally at the meeting.
4.0 Key issues
Policy framework*
NPPF - paragraphs 1-3, 6-13, 28-29, 38-39, 42-43, 47, 54, 83-84, 91-92, 96, 124, 127-128, 130, 148, 155, 166, 170-172, 174-177, 180; NPPG IDs – 4, 6-8, 20-21a, 26, 30, 34, 37; CLP - Policies 1, 22, 40, 42-44, 48-49, 54; BNP - Policies 3-4, 15, 18, 21-22; POCLP - S1, S18, S20-S21, S24-S28, S31, DM16, DM19-DM20, DM22, DM25, DM28-DM29, DM34; CHMP - 1-6, 8-10, 12; PP – 01, 10-11, 13; SPG/D.
4.1 Safeguarding intrinsic character and beauty of countryside/biodiversity from inappropriate development –
4.1.1 The findings of the EIA seem plausible and well researched. The mitigation put forward in terms of working practiices to immplement the works can be conditioned by the local planning authority. The main aspects of concern are set out in this report’s recommendation.
4.1.2 Visual impact will only be slightly increased in terms of the 5 new piles. The reduced need for chains to anchor the pontoons will therefore cause less tidal scape of the intertidal mud and have a positive effect on the condition of the SPA/SAC, where there would be no net increase in intertidal mud cover.
4.1.3 Removal of debis from the shoreline can only enhance the appearance of this part of the AONB and repair of the existing riprap defence seems appropriate.
4.2 Encouraging recreational use of the Harbour, where this is consistent with conserving and enhancing natural beauty –
4.2.1 The Club has identified a clear health and safety concern about the condition of the pontoons. Their replacement in the manner proposed should be supported, especially where this would allow young and disabled sailors to participate in sport and enjoy the Harbour.
4.3 Flood risk –
4.3.1 According to the Environment Agency’s flood maps, the land lies within Flood Zone 3 (highest risk). The form of development is set in the intertidal area, with the
12
pontoons floating above the water level. Overall, safety would increase for those sailing.
4.4 High quality design–
4.4.1 Appropriate and well engineered materials are proposed which are sufficiently robust and in muted colour finishes so as to blend into the landscape.
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 The development is considered to be acceptable, subject to the safeguarding conditions proposed, to ensure that the AONB is conserved and enhanced.
5.2 A procedural matter has arisen with the submission of the application and the way the red line has been drawn to identify the application site. It is proposed to move the western pontoon 3m west. However, this would then be outside the red line as drawn. It is not possible in law to enlarge a red line once it is drawn. The only course that seems to be open therefore is to withdraw the application and re-submit it with a different red line.
SRL - For 3.6.19 CHC Planning Consultative Committee.
Comments requested by 7.6.2019.
*Abbreviations used
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019)
NPPG National Planning Practice Guidelines (2014 onwards)
CLP - Chichester Local Plan (2015)
POCLP Preferred approach version of Chichester Local Plan (2018)
BNP Birdham Neighbourhood Plan (2016)
CHMP - Chichester Harbour Management Plan (2019-2024)
PP Planning Principles (adopted by Conservancy 17.10.16)
SPG/D Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents:-
Joint Chichester Harbour AONB SPD (2017)
CHC Sustainable Shorelines guidance (2017).
13
THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
14
Local Planning Authority planning application reference: SB/19/01093/FUL Site: 1 Slipper Mill Slipper Road Southbourne PO10 8XD
Proposals: Side extension to existing house with re-cladding of the adjoining single storey structure and new roof arrangement for garages
Recommendation – No objection, subject to implementation with the specified external facing and roofing materials.
1.0 Site and its context
15
1.1 Slipper Mill is an unlisted building occupying a prominent position in the landscape, located at the northern end of the street and backing onto the Harbour. It has very distinctive recessed window openings. To its south lies the (tidal) Slipper millpond. A public footpath passes over a bridge, separating the Harbour from the millpond, which then turns towards Queen Street in Emsworth. Beyond that is the tidal inlet fed by the River Ems, which flows into the Harbour. Properties beyond that the west are modern but contained within the Emsworth Conservation Area in Havant Borough.
1.2 The application site is within the AONB and Environment Agency flood zone 3 (highest risk).
1.3 Although built up in character, the area has a countryside feel to it from the informality of Slipper Road as a highway with no footways and the open water of the millpond and Harbour.
16
1.4 Originally the tide would have been used to turn a waterwheel with which to grain corn and wheat. No.1 forms the northern-most dwelling formed out of the conversion of the Slipper Mill.
1.5 A flat roofed and lean-to monopitched projections exist to the dwelling at its northern end. The flat roofed double garage is rather at odds with the appearance of the Slipper Mill and undermines its character as an undesignated heritage asset.
22.
2.0 Relevant planning history
2.1 None. It is unclear when the Slipper Mill was converted to a number of dwellings. The applicant has had pre-application discussions with the council, but has not approached the Conservancy for its views before making this application.
3.0 Proposed development
3.1 The driving force of this application is to improve the layout and circulation within the dwelling, especially at ground floor level, by relocating the position of the stairwell and also improving the appearance of the dwelling. The existing and proposed floor layouts and existing proposed elevations are shown below. Effectively the width of the dwelling has been taken along to the north, absorbing the lean-to element and applying a pitched roof to the garage to improve its appearance.
17
18
19
3.2 The proposed facing and roofing materials are set out below.
Policy framework*
NPPF-1-3,6-12, 28,38-42,47-48, 54-56, 91, 102, 105-106, 109-110, 124-128, 130-131, 148-150, 155, 163-164, 166-167, 170-172, 174-175, 180, 212-213; NPPG – ID’s 6-8, 18a, 21a, 26; CLP – 1-2, 33, 42-44, 47; SNP – 1, 4, 6, 7; POCLP – S1, S20, S22, S25, S27, DM16, DM18-DM20 CHMP – 1-2, 15; PP – 01, 03; SPD.
4.0 Key issues
4.1 Safeguarding intrinsic character and beauty of the AONB/biodiversity from inappropriate development –
4.1.1 The extension has been well planned and adjusted as the result of a pre-application enquiry with the council.
4.1.2 Whilst it is usual to make an extension sub-ordinate to the original profile of the host building, carrying along the profile of the Slipper Mill makes sense in this instance to retain the integrity of the original building form and adding a pitched roof to the double garage/’art room’ definitely respects the pitched roof form of Slipper Mill.
4.2 Heritage –
4.2.1 The proposed alterations will improve the appearance of this undesignated heritage asset within the AONB.
4.3 Flood risk –
4.3.1 Whereas the property lies within Flood Zone 3 (highest risk), the property remains as a 3 bedroomed property with a home office. As such the level of occupancy of the property is unlikely to change and owners can subscribe to the Environment Agency’s flood risk alerts.
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 The proposed extension is acceptable and would also enhance the visual qualities of this part of the AONB landscape.
SRL - For 3.6.19 CHC Planning Consultative Committee
20
Comments requested by: 24 May 2019: requested to comment.
*Abbreviations used
NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework – (Revised 2018)
NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance – (March 2014)
CLP – Chichester Local Plan (2015)
POCLP – Preferred option Chichester Local Plan
SNP – ‘Made’ version Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan (2015)
CHMP – Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2014-2019)
PP – Planning Principles (adopted by The Conservancy 17.10.16)
SPG/SPD – Planning guidance published by Chichester District Council relating to:
• Joint CHAONB SPD (2017)
21
THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
22
Local Planning Authority planning application reference: SB/19/01224/FUL Site: Thornham Point Thornham Lane Southbourne PO10 8DD
Proposals: Change of use of residential garden to agricultural land and agricultural land to residential garden
Recommendation – Objection:
(a) Uncertainty about the submitted ‘red line’ identifying the application site; and,
(b) insufficient ecological survey work to demonstrate no harmful impact to the adjoining Chichester Harbour Special Area of Protection/SSSI/Ramsar/SAC designations.
23
1.0 Site and its context
1.10 The first thing to note about this application is that two ‘red line’ drawings have been submitted – an existing and a proposed private garden curtilage. The application really ought not to have been made valid until this issue was resolved. It is therefore not clear if the former garden land would actually be changed to ‘agricultural’ in its land use classification. This matter needs to be resolved before the local planning authority makes its decision. In fact, when one considers the aerial photograph of the design and access statement (see below), one might even argue that a third ‘red line’ has been introduced.
1.11 The second point is that the applicant is claiming that the residential curtilage of the dwelling known as Thornham Point extends all the way down to the public footpath that separates it from the Harbour to the north-east. I would suggest this is unlikely and certainly no lawful development certificate has been granted to that effect. There is no historic map regression exercise undertaken by the applicant so it is difficult to know what purpose the Harbour ‘end’ of the Thornham Point plot has been put to over time and that other than save for a ‘shed’ on the common boundary with Thornham Marina to the north, the site is undeveloped. This land measures 185m long by 30m wide.
1.12 Thornham Point is a 1.5 storeys high, detached dwelling situated on a private road at the end of (the publicly adopted) Thornham Lane. It forms one of a number of detached dwellings immediately south of Thornham Marina. The applicant also owns land adjoining the Thornham Point plot, which is also accessed via the private road and dog-legs behind the other house plots, stretching back to the public footpath between it and the Harbour. This land is said to enjoy base agricultural use, although the applicant says it has not ben cultivated nor used to graze livestock for many years. The existing survey drawing submitted shows that a single building, labelled ‘Shed’ exists on that land, set well back from the private road and just beyond the rear plot lines of the other houses. Levels from those rear plot lines, moving toward the Harbour vary from 3.06 AOD to 3.09 in the northern corner of the Thornham Point plot to 3.26 AOD in the eastern corner of the ‘other land’, with some levels dropping to 2.77 AOD within the overall site.
24
1.13 A tree and hedge screen marks the boundary of Thornham Point and Thornham
Marina. Trees and shrubs are mainly in two groups on the ‘other land’ – by the Harbour and to the rear of the other residential plots. The applicant states that all trees would remain if their proposals are approved.
1.14 The applicant states that standing water makes use of the Harbour end of their plot not possible at times. That and a desire to have more of their garden orientated away from Thornham Marina, are the driving factors behind this application, more of which will be commented upon later.
1.15 In terms of the landscape character assessment commissioned by the Conservancy in 2006, the marina is located within area C3 – Thorney Channel Head. Key defining characteristics of this area include –
Broad inlet with a largely undeveloped shoreline. Mudflats and saltmarsh are exposed at low tide, intersected by the main
Thorney Channel and the narrower forking Prinsted and Nutbourne Channels. Intricate network of smaller winding channels and rithes.
Isolated and undisturbed Nutbourne Marshes are a haven for wildfowl and waders.
Harbourside trees, copses and hedgerows merge together in views from the water to give the impression of a wooded shoreline.
A few small groups of yachts moored along the line of the main channels. Many historic features including worn elm posts between Cobnor Point and
Pilsey Island, marking the attempted C19th reclamation of the inlet, and the Second World War discarded military equipment.
Peaceful, tranquil and undisturbed character.
The sensitivity to development/change is high.
4.0 Relevant planning history of the site and adjoining Thornham Marina
2.1 SB/00012/86 – Bungalow and private garage (Conditional approval)(Was ‘Storm Haven’, but now ‘Thornham Point’), believed to have been permitted to provide accommodation for security guard to the Marina, but later sold away from the Marina (around the late 1980’s), when it ceased to be known as Andrews Boatyard and was sold to current owners. It is not known if a rural ‘occupancy’ condition was placed on this consent as the details of this application are not displayed on the Council website. Plans and particulars for this application are not available on-line. A request has been put to the council for relevant documentation, to see if this establishes what the intended curtilage for what became Thornham Point was set out at that time. If further information is received a verbal update will be given at the meeting.
2.2 SB/66/88 – Improvements to boatyard (Conditional approval); details of this application are not displayed on the council website.
2.3 SB/93/01951/DOM – Open porch to front door and rear dormer window at Thornham Point (Conditional approval). The approved plan for this development appears to show a more restricted residential curtilage runninglevel with the rear of plots to the other detached houses south of the site, with a separate line drawn arround other land in the applicant’s control extending out towards and even into
25
the Harbour (see below).
2.4 95/01256/FUL – Siting of up to 50 touring caravans on two separate parts of the marina - (one including part of the current application site) - between 1 April and 31 July on a yearly basis (Refused and dismissed at Appeal).
26
2.5 12/01605/DOM – Proposed extension and refurbishment of Thornham Point (Conditional approval). The red line submitted for that application is shown above. The Council did not seek to query the residential curtilage at that time and no planning conditions were imposed removing permitted development rights for development such as outbuildings. It is unclear whether a swimming pool and outbuilding had been constructed at that time at a point significantly behind the rear plot lines of the other detached houses to the south of Thornham Point. Certainly no record exists of a planning permission o for those strucutres, but whoever built them may have claimed they were constructed under permitted development.
2.6 Fire in 2017 destroys former ‘Boaters Café’ located in western corner of the Marina site.
2.7 18/01111/PRESS – Pre-application enquiry for new boaters café and marina offices. Conservancy Officers initially met the marina owner and manager 24.11.2017 and then engaged with their architect further 22.2.18, before this formal pre-application enquiry was made to the council in May 2018.
2.8 18/02417/FUL - Proposed new boaters cafe and marina offices at Thornham Marina (withdrawn 12.2.2019). The applicant had proposed to constuct a pitched roofed single storey building (244.31 sq.m – 168.41 sq. café and 75.9 sq.m marina office space). The building would have been 20.2m long with a width varying from 14.6m to 15.8m. The café would have two glazed faces. One directly facing the Harbour, behind the grassed bund being retained, the other facingnorth-west, looking across the marina basin. The former, full length glazing - (occupying just under 69% of the overall frontage, albeit the middle part [2.5m of 9.3m] would be louvred) - would be recessed 4m (see below).
27
3.0 Proposed development
3.1 The applicant desires to have a garden area better related to the house, which is less likely to become waterlooged/flooded and away from that point in Thornham Marina, where a café was proposed and may be re-submitted for in the future.
3.2 The applicant cliams that all of the Thornham Point plot is its residential curtilage and proposes to ‘swap’ the rearmost part over for land which is currently described as ‘agricultural’ and also in their control/ownership. This ‘swap’ is indicated below.
3.3 The plans above show land labelled ‘agricultural’ reducing from 7791 sq.m to 7780 sq.m.
3.4 The agent asserts that the this change of use would be of benefit to the AONB in that a ‘buffer’ of countryside would be established next to the Harbour adding to
28
its tranquility. That which had been used as a garden would be left to regenerate naturally.
Policy framework*
NPPF-1-3, 28, 38-43, 47-48, 54-55, 83, 91, 117, 121, 124, 127, 130, 148-150, 155, 163-164, 170-172, 174-175, 177, 180; NPPG – 6-8, 26; CLP – Policies 1-2, 40, 33, 42-45, 48-49; POCLP – S1, S3, S20, S3, S24, S26, DM19, DM22 & DM28-DM29; SNP –Policy 7; CHMP – 1-3, 7-8; PP – 01; Joint CHAONB SPD.
4.0 Key issues
4.1 Safeguarding intrinsic character and beauty of countryside/biodiversity from inappropriate development –
4.1.1 The first thing to note about this application is that two ‘red line’ drawings have been submitted – an existing and a proposed private garden curtilage. The application really ought not to have been made valid until this issue was resolved. It is therefore not clear if the former garden land would actually be changed to ‘agricultural’ in its land use classification.
4.1.2 This matter needs to be resolved before the local planning authority makes its decision. In fact, when one considers the aerial photograph of the design and access statement (see above), one might even argue that a third ‘red line’ has been introduced.
4.1.3 The second point is that the applicant is claiming that the residential curtilage of the dwelling known as Thornham Point extends all the way down to the public footpath that separates it from the Harbour to the north-east. It is suggested, from the evidence above, that this is unlikely and certainly no lawful development certificate has been granted to that effect.
4.1.4 There is no historic map regression exercise undertaken by the applicant so it is difficult to know what purpose the Harbour ‘end’ of the Thornham Point plot has been put to over time and that other than save for a ‘shed’ on the common boundary with Thornham Marina to the north, the site is undeveloped.
4.1.5 Whereas the applicant is claiming a tit for tat swap of agricultural land for garden land, what if the back part of the plot known as Thornham Point is already lawfully ‘agricultural’?
4.1.6 It seems that if that were true, then actually the applicant is unable to offer a tit for tat swap and that in fact, part of the AONB countryside is to be given over to private garden use for which there is no exceptional need demonstrated under local plan policies 43, 45, 48 & 49 and emerging policies S3, S24, S26, DM19, DM22 & DM28-DM29.
4.1.7 Lastly, no ecological survey work has been carried out by a competent professional to understand and indeed assess whether the proposal development might actually be harmful and contrary to Policy 49 of the local plan and policy DM29 of the emerging plan.
4.2 Flood risk –
4.2.1 According to the Environment Agency’s flood maps, the proposed private residential garden land lies within Flood Zone 3 (highest risk). The EA label residential use as a ‘vulnerable’ user of land. Given that both pieces of land are
29
open, the best one could say is that the flood risk would be no greater and that the new garden land would at least be further from the Harbour.
4.3 Best, most versatile agricultural land –
4.3.1 Paragraph 170 (b) of the NPPF states the following –
“170. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland”.
4.3.2 The site is classified as Grade 2, the second highest grading, in terms of the Conservancy’s new Management Plan (p.93). The applicant has not stated any plans to farm the land. Overall, 11 sq.m would be lost, although if the rear part of Thornham Point plot is already lawfully ‘agricultural’ then considerably more would be lost.
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 On the face of it, this would appear on first inspection to be quite an innocuous form of development. However, given concerns raised in this report and the lack of certainty concerning lawful use of land, which may already enjoy agricultural use and the lack of any ecological survey or even planting plan/strategy to assist ‘regeneration’, the application should not be favourably determined at this time.
5.2 Objection to the proposed development, subject to the reasoning given above.
SRL - For 3.6.19 CHC Planning Consultative Committee
Comments requested by: 11 June 2019.
*Abbreviations used
NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework – (Revised 2018)
NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance – (March 2014)
CLP – Chichester Local Plan (2015)
POCLP – Preferred option Chichester Local Plan
SNP – ‘Made’ version Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan (2015)
CHMP – Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2014-2019)
PP – Planning Principles (adopted by The Conservancy 17.10.16)
Joint CHAONB SPD (2017)
30
Local Planning Authority planning application reference: APP/19/00449 Site: 2-4 West Street, Emsworth, Hampshire
Proposals: External alterations for change of ground floor drinking establishment (Use Class A4) to flexible mixed use as frontage floor area to retail shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments, hot food takeaways (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5) and rear single storey extension, together with provision of ground floor rear one-bedroom flat within new rear single storey extension (following demolition of existing single storey rear extensions) with private amenity space; addition of new first and second floor (room in the roof) extensions to rear and conversion of upper floors to one two-bedroom flat (first floor) and one two-bedroom maisonette (first and second floor) (all Use Class C3); with associated car parking and external works.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Havant Borough Council, as the local planning authority, be advised that the Chichester Harbour Conservancy, raises no objection to the proposal. The LPA are asked to consider the following stipulations should they issue any planning permission –
- schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / and where appropriate to match the existing on site Conservancy Officer’s comments and reasoned justification
1.0 Site and it’s context
2‐4 West StreetEmsworth
APP/18/00938
31
1.1 The site lies within the Old Town and Harbour character sub-area ‘A’ of the Conservation Area. This forms part of the H1 Havant to Chichester Coastal Plain Landscape Character area, in a study of the AONB commissioned by the Conservancy in 2005, whose relevant key characteristics are listed as:-
Linear historic settlements follow, or are located in close proximity to the Roman Road line of the A259
Dense urban development of Havant, Chichester, Emsworth and Southbourne
1.2 The site itself lies within 300m, but outside of the SPA, SSSI and Ramsar designations.
1.3 The application building is locally listed within the Emsworth Conservation Area and abuts a Listed Building (No. 1 West Street).
1.4 The building is two storeys high with a clay tile, pitched roof. The building has been extended in the past with rear additions provided in a rather ad hoc manner. The buildings either side are two-storey in height, providing an articulated street scene appearance with the former public house a dominant feature.
1.5 This building is currently vacant but has the livery of the former Town Brewery public house. The building has a former commercial ground floor area with a grassed area and service yard to the rear. The upper floors, including the roof space, provided other accommodation.
1.6 Rear vehicular and pedestrian access is obtained between 10 and 12 West Street.
32
2.0 Site history
2.1 APP/18/00938 : application for the demolition of existing single storey additions to rear; alterations to existing building to provide a mixed use of frontage floor area to retail shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments, hot food takeaways (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5) and provision of ground floor rear one-bedroom flat within new rear single storey extension (following demolition of existing single storey rear extensions) together with private amenity space; addition of new first and second floor (room in the roof) extensions to rear and conversion of upper floors to one two-bedroom flat (first floor) and one two-bedroom maisonette (first and second floor) (all Use Class C3); with associated car parking and external works.
2.2 The proposal showed a single ground floor retail floor area to the West Street frontage of 52.2sqm, with a rear area along the eastern boundary to provide ancillary storage or unit space of 14.3 sqm and a kitchen and staff facilities. Access to an enclosed courtyard and the rear of the site was shown.
2.3 The ground floor also indicated a one-bedroom flat (53 sqm area) with communal rear access and its own enclosed garden amenity space. The communal access gave staircase route to the new upper storey, with a two-bedroom flat (66.5sqm area) and a maisonette of 65.8 sqm area on both the first and the second (roof space) levels. The roof accommodation was shown with a large rear facing projecting dormer window.
2.4 The main concern was the brutal architectural idiom to be employed to the rear, featuring a two storey flat roof to the rear extension with angled recessed first floor rear windows to limit any potential for overlooking to nearby residential houses along South Street (a cause of concern in the earlier refusal). To this a top-heavy
33
framed dormer projection with a recessed window pane was shown. This detail, visible only from a distance due to the bulk of the rear two-storey extension, would add to the general box-like architectural vernacular as proposed to this residential part of the buildings change of use. The rear was the only access to the residential accommodation and therefore the principle visual approach to the units.
2.5 The professional officer report was to object to the proposal on grounds of - 1 : the rear extension being overbearing and out-of-keeping within the rear service access area due to its added height and flat roof design 2 : the proposals being an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a single small commercial unit to the frontage, which could harm the vitality and viability of the defined shopping centre of Emsworth, and 3 : The proposals seeking an increase in residential units which have not been supported by a viability case in preference of other preferred employment and tourism uses, and through the increase in dwelling units no provision for wildlife mitigation has been secured against increased recreational disturbance of the coast and harbour areas
2.6 The Conservancy Planning Consultative Committee at its meeting on 10 December 2018 however chose to raise no objection to the proposal subject to the use of more sympathetic materials to be used in the extension proposed than were indicated on the application forms and drawings. The LPA were advised of this and indicated that the applicant was not interested in alternative materials and finishes to those stipulated in the application (thereby discounting the PCC request for sympathetic materials).
2.7 The Local Planning Authority considered the case on 19 December 2018 and decided to refuse the proposal on grounds of - i) its height, mass and design having an unacceptable and intrusive impact on the existing building and on the character and setting of the Conservation Area. ii) the absence of a suitable agreement to secure appropriate mitigation measures, the development would be likely to have a significant effect on the Solent Special Protection Areas.
2.8 APP/17/00067 : an application for the demolition of existing single storey additions to rear; alterations to existing building to provide second floor accommodation to rear; construction of 2 No. three-bedroom townhouses to rear with three storey link to existing building; car parking to rear.
2.9 The proposal was shown to provide two frontage retail units of 33.4 sqm and 32.6 sqm each. One unit had only road frontage access, the other had both frontage and an access door to the rear, to an open pavened area providing access to the rear residential accommodation and by way of a staircase, to the upper floor area and the freestanding / semi-linked townhouse building as was then proposed. The upper floor area of the main building was shown with a first floor two bedroom flat of 76.4sqm and a second floor roof area two-bedroom flat of 62.6 sqm. The three-storey townhouse block of two dwellings were 101.7 sqm and 107.75 sqm respectively.
2.10 CHC raised objection to the LPA as it considered that the addition to the main rear roof profile, by reason of its added height and design, would appear alien within a run of conventional pitched roofs, and as such, the development would not
34
enhance the natural beauty of the Chichester Harbour AONB, nor preserve or enhance the character of the Emsworth Conservation Area. Furthermore, the tabled proposals were considered to be symptomatic of an overdevelopment of the site, which – by leaving two very small shop units – could harm the vitality and viability of the defined shopping centre of Emsworth as an historic settlement within the AONB.
2.11 This proposal was refused by the LPA on 29 March 2017 on three reasons. These related to i) an unacceptable and intrusive impact on the existing building and on the character and setting of the Conservation Area;
ii) an overbearing impact in relation to the neighbouring properties in School Lane, with the proposed windows resulting in unacceptable over looking and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents; and
iii) the lack of an appropriate binding arrangement to secure a contribution towards the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership to ensure that the provision is made from new development towards mitigating against increasing recreational pressure on the Solent SPA.
2.12 APP/16/00093 : for external alterations in connection with proposed change of ground floor A4 use to flexible A1/A2/A3/A4/A5 use including rear extension, the conversion of first and second floors to form 2 x two-bedroom apartments and rear extension to form 1 x two-bedroom apartment with associated parking and external works.
2.13 The proposal, as amended on 17 March 2016, showed a ground floor commercial unit of 121.7 sqm to the frontage of the building, with a side wing running to the rear of the building and large store room and separate refuse enclosure. To the rear was a ground floor 50.7 sqm residential flat with a private amenity area / garden. At upper floors of the main building was shown a two-bedroom first floor flat (61.0 sqm), and a first and second floor two-bedroom maisonette (61.1 sqm).
2.14 CHC raised no objection on 31 March 2016, subject to the use of matching facing and roofing materials and the use of conservation style rooflights, which were to be maintained and retained in that condition once installed. The CHC did note the flexible usage sought for the retained ground floor commercial space of 124.5 sqm. (inc. bin store) which would seem to maintain the legibility and activity of the facade and thereby continue to contribute to the health and vitality of this defined shopping centre within the AONB.
2.15 This proposal was approved by the LPA on 4 April 2016 subject to 10 planning conditions. The discharge of certain conditions was sought and approved for materials (condition 2) and conservation roof light specifications (condition 9) on 20 July 2016.
2.16 APP/16/01181 : for a new shopfront. This indicated lower cill level ground floor windows and inserting a second doorway. No floor plans accompanied this application, though it could be assumed by the additional doorway that the ground floor commercial area was to be sub-divided into two separate units.
2.17 The CHC raised no objection on 24 January 2016 given the position of the planning proposal within the urban area of Emsworth and its full enclosure by larger scale development, the development of a new shop front was considered as not
35
being intrusive in the wider AONB landscape or harmful to designated nature conservation sites. The application was approved by the LPA on 21 February 2017.
3.0 Proposed development
3.1 The proposed development consists of physical works to the building to enable a change of use to be considered.
3.2 The front elevation (north facing) is shown to have the exisitng ground floor leaded windows removed and replaced with window openings with lower cill levels and larger clear glass windows (similar to but not the same as the approval under ref APP/16/01181 dated 21-02-2017). The single door opening is retained. The upper floors are to be retained also, with the only identified change being the introduction of two conservation rooflights within the roof slope (similar to but not the same as approved under ref APP/16/00093 dated 04-04-2016).
Rear view along access road leading to the proposal site (arrowed)
no.10 no.8 no.6 no.4 -no2 no.1(listed building)
36
3.3 The rear elevation (south facing) is shown with the removal of the add hoc extensions added over time, which give a higgledy-piggledy appearance characteristic of many older historic buildings. The proposal replaces this sporadic and visually archaic yet pleasing aspect with a pair of staggered gable ended two-storey projections. These have a traditional appearance and sit well with the building and the surrounding area. The extensions are both staggered and angled to the ground floor, which projects further into the rear of the site. ,
3.4 The ground floor extension enables a ‘living roof’ to be created of a seedum treatment, due to the upper storey being staggered and set back at an angle. The roof over the retail units rear ancillary area is also shown with a similar flat roof treatment. The angled and staggered upper storey design allows the first floor windows to be directed away from nearby residential property along School Lane, and reduces the potential of overlooking and loss of privacy.The main building roof slope is largely retained, although various roof light to the rear roof are shown.
3.5 The exiting building is predominantly red brick. The neighbouring elevations include a mix of render and painted brickwork. The use of materials proposed is a mix of traditional and modern. The roof is to reamin clay tiles for the retained building and for the two gable extensions a red standing seam roof covering is indicated. This is not ideal within the Conservation Area, but in terms of the implication on the AONB within this built-up area, it is unlikely that this would stand out as being out-of-place. The walls are to be off-white render with black colour treated vertical timber cladding to the gound floor extension areas. This modern / contemporary treatment woiuld be partially screened by the fencing to the amenity garden and the car parking and service area enclosures to the rear of the site.
4.0 Planning Considerations
4.1 The main planning assessment issues to be considered for this site within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty relate to – 1. The principle of the development within the AONB 2. The visual impact within the Chichester Harbour AONB 3. The visual impact for a locally listed building in the Emsworth Conservation Area 4. Finding a sustainable beneficial use for the building to help pay for its upkeep; and, 5. Securing necessary contributions via a planning agreement to mitigate the impact of ecological disturbance at the harbour shoreline from any net gain of dwellings at the site.
Principle of development in the AONB
4.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy, administer and safeguard the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (CHAONB). The aim of conserving and enhancing the areas natural beauty requires the Conservancy to consider the proposal on its landscape character aspects. Landscape covers both urban environments as well as countryside and coastal areas.
4.3 The proposal comprises physical works to the structure of the building, and in so doing, creates the opportunity for a change of use from a commercial property (public house with upper floor ancillary accommodation) to a smaller commercial
37
footprint with residential development of three dwellings (Use Class C3).
4.4 The CHAONB Planning Principles PP06 deals with the conversion of buildings (inside and outside defined settlements). This Planning Principle requires that the proposal is clearly demonstrated to meet six criteria. These criteria include, that the building is no longer required for its original purpose; that an alternative employment or tourism use is first evaluated, and only if shown to be unviable, that if dwellings (Use Class C3) are then proposed as the most viable use, that occupation is restricted to those needing a location owing to their employment locally or to provide affordable housing in the area; and the design of any alterations and materials used are sympathetic to the character of the exisitng building and its location.
4.5 The proposal includes three dwelling units where one was indicated as part of the former use (submitted application form question 16). There is a clear reduction in commercial floor space compared to the former use, and therefore the scope for employment generating use is limited through this proposal. The alternatives for tourism have not been indicated and what is proposed is full market value dwelling units. There is no specification for occupation by those needing to live in the area for work purposes.
4.6 On the principle of the development, the proposal fails to demonstrate that they have met the stipulated Planning Principles of the CHAONB. However it has to be borne in mind that a similar proposal (Ref: APP/18/00938) was considered by the Conservancy Planning Consultative Committee as recently as 10 December 2018, where a decision was taken to raise no objection to the proposal.
38
Visual Impact within the AONB
4.7 The front of the site is on West Street, where it separates from North Street, which is a main throughfare within the town centre and commercial area of Emsworth. The site is therefore of clear visibilty both within the town centre and on the primary approach into the centre from the A259. The changes to the front of the site as detailed above (para. 3.2), whilst not retaining the proportions of the window and doorway openings, are unlikley to result in significant harm to the AONB.
4.8 Whilst the rear of the site has less public visibility (and none from the harbour shoreline), the changes proposed here are more significant to the fabric of the building and to the views from the access route to the rear of the site (to be used as the principal access the residential properties proposed) and surrounding property. The rear extensions and alterations (para.3.3 and para.3.4 above) featuring two gable ended projections are considered to be in-keeping and sympathetic with the character and traditional style of buildings in this area. The proposal is therefore in line with CHAONB Management Plan Policy 2 : Development Management.
4.9 Considering the site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the urban context should reflect an appearance and image which is sympathetic to the immediate and wider surroundings, and be in scale to the setting and character of adjoining buildings and structures.
4.10 It terms of its impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, whilst located out of general public sight, it is a visually traditional architectural solution to provide the level of accommodation sought. It is of a traditional, domestic scale, rear-of-site addition.
4.11 CHAONB Management Plan Policy 15 : Historic Environment and Heritage Assets, seeks to ensure that the historic and archaeological resources of the ANOB are conserved and where possible enhanced. CHAONB Planning Principles PP06 criteria
39
requiring the design of any alterations and that the materials used are sympathetic to the character of the exisitng building.
4.12 CHAONB Management Plan Policy 13 : Prosperous Economy, seeks a prospous local economy and requires developments of commercial sites are sympathetic within the AONB.
Visual Imapct within the Conservation Area and the AONB
4.13 Traditional and sympathetic modern design can add visual interest within an historic environment, such as Emsworth Conservation Area, adding to the context and the setting of buildings of historic character. The proposal, to the rear service area of these West Street frontage buildings, produces an extension in design and appearance which complements the location.
4.14 The proposal in this rear enclave, reflects the subservient nature of the rear architectural vernacular of the building, and creates a visually recognisable and a welcoming approach to the effective main approach to the residential units being proposed.
4.15 CHAONB Management Plan Policy 2 and Policy 15, which requires development to be appropriate and to respect the historic environment and heritage assets of the AONB, are met by this proposal.
A sustainable beneficial use for the building
4.16 A sustainable future does need to be found for this heritage asset now that use as a public house has ceased. The separate application to alter the shopfront did not have floor plans associated with it so it was reasonably assumed that the APP/16/00093 layout to create a good sized commercial ground floor use based upon the former public house footprint of approx 127 sqm would be implemented.
40
4.17 What is proposed is an potential mix of possible uses, most appropriate to a town centre location. It is noted, however, that the retail front of house commercial floor area has been reduced to 66sqm. As a single commercial unit, this is an improvement to the more recent refused proposals (see table below). Whilst this is not substantiated by any viabilty statement available for CHC to consider, when judged against CHAONB Management Plan Policy 13 Proposperous Economy, to safeguard the socio-economic activities supporting the AONB and its communities, the proposal offers a workable replacement to the exisitng floor space available for an alternative commercial use. The LPA will be better placed to consider the full economic aspects of this aspect.
Floor areas taken from planning files (approx figures only)
41
Current proposal commercial floorspace residential floorspace APP/19/00449 66.1sqm ground flat 58.9 sqm pending 19.5 sqm ancillary first floor flat 73.8 sqm first / seconf 68.4 sqm
APP/18/00638 52.0 sqm ground flat 53.0 sqm refused 21.3 sqm ancillary first floor flat 66.5 sqm first / second 66.5 sqm
APP/17/00067 33.4 sqm first 76.4 sqm refused 32.6 sqm (66.0 sqm total) second 62.6 sqm townhouses 101.7 sqm / 107.75 sqm
APP/16/00093 121.7 sqm ground flat 50.7 sqm approved first floor flat 61.0 sqm first / second 61.1 sqm
Mitigate the impact of ecological disturbance at the harbour shoreline
4.18 The submitted Planning Statement (page 8 para.3.11) makes reference to the Solent Mitigation Strategy and clarifies that the development proposal will make appropriate and suitable contributions as part of this arrangements. This is due to the increase in dwelling units proposed, and the need for mitigation from the increase in human activity resulting from these units on the additional coastal recreational disturbance this could create.
4.19 P.U.S.H. which includes Havan Borough Council, have formed a partnership and commissioned studies into such recreational impact and an interim mitigation strategy has been adopted by partners, including the Conservancy, which has the support of Natural England. Under the European Habitats Regulations, such mitigation has to be secured before affected development can be supported.
4.20 The applicant has provided assurances, to be secured through a legal mechanism, that the proposal is fully compliant with the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Definitive Strategy, and is able to secure the contributions towards this mitigation measure and against the potential adverse effects of recreational disturbance on the integrity of the European site(s). The proposal is therefore can be considered to meet CHAONB Planning Principles PP01, Chichester Harbour as a protected area; PP04; PP06; CHAONB Management Plan Policy 8 : Thriving Wildlife, as there is a commitment to minimise the impact of recreational disturbance on designated habitats and species within a protective framework for sites and through incorporation of mitigation measures.
In Summary
4.21 To the frontage, the changes to the fenistration and shop front appearance remove some of the traditional quality and character of this building within both the conservation area and within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but similar (though not identical) alterations have been considered and approved by the LPA on esarlier proposals.
42
4.22 To the rear, the proposal would involve the replacement of a number of smaller extensions and additions to the rear of the main building and the replacement with a stepped two-storey gable ended extension with a scale and design that reflects a traditional form of such an extension and reflects a design style of other subservient service elevation additions to the main buildings sharing this service access.
4.23 Overall, the proposal maintains and adds to the general enhance of the visual quality of this building within the urban element of the ANOB, even at the rear service elevations, which incrementally create change which is acceptable to the character of the ANOB.
Ground floor proposed
First floor proposed (over leaf)
43
Second floor (roof area) proposed
44
DR - For 03.06.19 CHC Planning Committee Comments requested by LPA : 24 May 2019 – extension to 3 June 2019.
5.0 Key issues and related Policy framework
NPPF – 80, 83, 84, 118, 127, 130, NPPG - IDs 8, 37, 42; HBLP – CS2, CS4-CS6, CS8, CS11-CS12, CS14-CS17, CS19-CS21, DM3, DM11, DM14; SBSA – AL1-AL2, DM20, DM24-DM25; CHMP – Policy 1, Policy 8, Policy 13, Policy 15: CHAONBPP – 01, 18.
NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework – (July 2018)
NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance – (March 2014)
HBLP – Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy)(2012) CHMP – new Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024)
CHAONBPP– Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Planning Principles (adopted by Conservancy 17.10.16)
SPG/SPD – Planning guidance published by Havant Borough Council relating to:-
Emsworth Village Design Statement (2008) Emsworth Conservation Area Character Appraisal/Management Plan (2010) Havant Borough Council - Borough Design Guide - Supplementary Planning
Document (December 2011) ANOB design guidelines (2010)/Emerging AONB Design SPD
45
THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
46
CHICHESTER HARBOUR
AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY
PLANNING ASSESSMENT REPORT
CHC AONB Unit Fully Delegated Officer Decision
Merrieweather, 18 Greenacres, Birdham, Chichester, West Sussex BI/19/01033/DOM Proposal for single storey extension to freestanding garage to form gym and store Chichester Harbour AONB Unit Recommendation – No objection Suggested considerations – - schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction / as indicated on
application forms / to match the existing on site - the use of the outbuilding is to remain ancillary to the host dwelling on the site – not
to be separated into a separate dwelling unit or for tourist accommodation thereby generating the requirement for a replacement garage / store building
Assessment – The relevant planning history available for this site includes the following – BI/18/03213/DOM : Proposal for extension to west side with changes to north (front) changes to north (front) rear (south) and east elevations, internal alterations, change of external materials and extension to free standing garage to provide gym room and storage. Application Withdrawn on 4 February 2019. The proposal was for an expansive enlargement of the existing large dwelling on the site. The proposal also included the increase in size of the detached garage building to the southern boundary to incorporate a gym and store, including bathroom / toilet and kitchenette facilities within the gym floorspace. CHC commented on 22 January 2019 raising an objection on three ground relating to - Physical Appearance in the AONB : an unsympathetic addition and redesign of this large
property located on the coastline of the Chichester Harbour and with an open view from the harbour. The gave an appearance of a row of terraced properties rather than a single dwelling house, and the design, with a flat roof with capped gables was unnecessarily top-heavy, bulky, and out-of-proportion with the character of properties within this residential enclave with open aspect to the harbour waterside. The proposal was considered to be unduly prominent be detrimental to the character of the AONB.
- Prominent Impact in the AONB : the western side extension would increase the profile
and through the use of non-traditional materials, the visual impact and appearance of the proposal, being elevated and closer to the public coastal footpath that runs to the north of the application site, reducing the buildings set back from this curtilage line and making the building more prominent when seen from neighbouring land and public locations along this footpath route and the open water. The proposal was considered to be unduly prominent and to be detrimental to the character of the AONB.
47
- AONB Size and Scale Assessment Criteria: The extensions would be contrary to the provisions of Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (version 1.1 July 2017) Planning Principle PP03 (replacement dwellings and domestic householder extensions); and the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (16 May 2017) as adopted by the Council, paras. 14.2 (design of extensions) and 12.1 to 12.4 (guidance on size increases), in that the scale of the proposed extension when compared to the original dwelling represents a building with a silhouette of 28.6% and 52.4% which were both in excess of the 25% maximum when viewed from both the north/south and the east/west elevations and a footprint at 68.3% which was greater than 50% allowable to that of the original.
The application site is located within the northern part of Birdham where the settlement enclave of Westlands lies, north of Westlands Lane. The site is situated to the north side of Greenacres, off a private access drive. The large plot is within a close nit scattering of dwellings accessed from Westlands Lane. To the east, west and south of the application site are detached dwelling houses within their own grounds. The dwelling is located at a slight angle to the rear boundary, which faces onto the harbour. Vehicular access is from the south-east corner off a drive from Greenacres. A double bay garage lies to the southern boundary of the site, off the drive access. Most of the plot is laid to an informal garden area, with a swimming pool to the rear (north) private garden area. The proposal would relate only to the freestanding garage to the southern boundary which is proposed to be would be extended to the west to provide additional ancillary accommodation. The existing garage and workshop is approx. 9.0m long and 6.1m deep. The proposed extended building would be 23.9m long and 6.1m deep. The floorspace includes a gym area room (57.4sqm approx.) which includes a bathroom / toilet and a kitchenette area. It is noted that the garage extension as proposed by the earlier application (withdrawn by the applicant) is the same as that now currently proposed. The inclusion of internal facilities which are not normally associated with a home gym (bathroom / kitchenette: when such facilities are provided elsewhere within the house) does give rise to some concern that the proposal is a stepping-stone or a subterfuge for an independent residential accommodation / tourism letting accommodation within the site. The omission of these facilities from the submitted plans would remove this concern, but these facilities could be (re)introduced at a later stage, as and when the building was completed (and building regulations control signed off as such). This concern would have an impact under the Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles PP08 (New Tourist Accommodation). This Planning Principle indicates that the Conservancy is likely to object to proposals within or adjacent to the AONB unless it can be demonstrated that there would be no harm from visual intrusion, noise, increased recreational activity or erosion of rural character. Obviously as the application is not proposing tourism accommodation, only a well facilitated home gym, therefore no justification has been provided for consideration. Taken on face value, the use of a home gym would have little impact on the activity on the residential site, especially given its generous plot size and distance from neighbours. The positioning of the proposed extension of the garage building would have minimal impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling itself and would have a similar minimal impact on the AONB, as it would be well within the residential plot and screened from most external and public vantage points by boundary treatment and existing buildings on the site and to the adjoining property curtilages.
48
Given its setting, the proposal is considered in this circumstance not to be unduly prominent to be detrimental to the character or the appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Site viewed by google maps LPA request reply 28 May 2019 Comment to LPA : 22-05-19 LPA Planning Case Officer : William Price Chichester Harbour AONB : David Rothery – Principal Planning Officer
This comment and recommendation is made having regard to the Policy framework:
CHMP – NEW Chichester Harbour Management Plan (2019-2024)
CHAONBPP’s Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (adopted 17.10.16 and consultation version 1.1 July 2017)
SPG/SPD – Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017)
Birdham Neighbourhood Plan (‘made’ 2016)
CLP – Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2015)
NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework (Revised 2018)
NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance (2014)
CHMP – Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 15; CHPP’s – 01; 03; NPPF – 170, 172, 174-175, 185, 188-189 and 193 specifically (& 1-3, 7-12, 28, 38-40, 42-43, 47, 124-125, 127, 130 and 148-149 generally); NPPG – ID’s 08, 26, 44; CLP – 33; 43; 50.
49
THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
50
Table of delegated recommendations 8‐5‐19 to 29‐5‐19 for 3 June 2019 CHC Planning Committee
Date Considered Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation
16/05/2019APP/19/00326 HBC 11 KING STREET, EMSWORTH, PO10 7AX
LOFT CONVERSION, REPLACEMENT WINDOWS AND DOORS INCLUDING PROVISION OF JULIET BALCONY TO SOUTHERN ELEVATION.
Objection: Excessive glazing to harbour facing gable end
16/05/2019BO/18/01571/FUL CDC NURSERY COTTAGE, TAYLORS LANE, BOSHAM, CHICHESTER PO18 8EN
(AMENDED PLANS) CHANGE OF USE OF GLASSHOUSE OUTBUILDING TO HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION AND WORK UNIT WITH SIDE EXTENSION.
Having regard to views Members have previously expressed, I am now more inclined to see this interesting building conserved and therefore withdraw the holding objection, made 16 August 2018. If consented, the Conservancy would oppose any later application to replace the dwelling on the basis of removal of an undesignated heritage asset. I trust the council will impose suitable planning conditions as to appropriate facing and roofing materials, internal blinds to be fitted, securing the electric car charging point and secure/covered bicycle parking and control the hours of use of any commercial undertaking that may still form part of the proposals, to ensure the tranquillity and appearance of this part of the AONB is maintained and especially paragraph 170 of the NPPF and Policy 43 of the Local Plan are respected.
16/05/2019BI/19/01059/FUL CDC CHICHESTER YACHT CLUB CHICHESTER MARINA BIRDHAM CHICHESTER WEST SUSSEX PO20 7EJ
PROPOSED PERGOLA WITH ADJUSTABLE AND OPENING ROOF LOUVRES AND SLIDING RETRACTABLE WINDOWS.
No objection is offered on a without prejudice basis, subject to:‐. • Implementation with the specified building materials;
51
Table of delegated recommendations 8‐5‐19 to 29‐5‐19 for 3 June 2019 CHC Planning Committee
Date Considered Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation
• Retention of black weather‐boarding to existing external wall to be enclosed by the new pergola.
16/05/2019BI/19/01137/DOM CDC FIR TREES, SHIPTON GREEN LANE, ITCHENOR, CHICHESTER, WEST SUSSEX PO20 7BZ
RESTORATION OF GROUND FLOOR STAIRCASE.
No objection
16/05/2019WW/19/00880/DOM CDC ROSEMARY COTTAGE POUND ROAD WEST WITTERING PO20 8AJ
REMOVAL OF EXISTING FLINT RETAINING WALL AND BOUNDARY FENCE AT THE BOUNDARY TO ELLANORE LANE AND REPLACE WITH NEW FLINT RETAINING WALL AND BOUNDARY FENCE.
Objection – Too ‘urban’ a style of fencing proposed and better details required to ensure that boundary oak tree is not adversely affected by the proposals
52
