WP: CBF/F3/LAH/SP
SUSSEX DOWNS CONSERVATION BOARD Agenda Item No. 18
PLANNING COMMITTEE
8th May, 2000 — At a meeting of the Committee held at Sullington Village Hall, Thakeham Road, Sullington
Present Mr. Reed (Chairman), Mr. Brown, Mr. Buck, Mr. Burden, Mrs. Duncton, Mr. Elliott, Mr. Millmore, Mr. Neighbour, Mr. Rose, Mrs. Sutton,
Mrs. Tidy
APOLOGIES
122. Apologies were received from Mrs. Burns and Mr. Hall
MINUTES
123. Resolved — That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13th March, 2000 be approved as a correct record.
PLANNING OFFICER UPDATE
CHICHESTER DISTRICT
Application no. CKHY/99/02993/FUL — Replacement and new agriculture shed at Cocking Hill Farm, Bepton, Midhurst - The Planning Officer reported that the District Council had indicated that it might be difficult to tie the proposals in the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group’s Landwise report to any permission if granted, in which case the Board would have a stronger objection to this application if no mitigating circumstances existed.
Application no. EB/00/00128/FUL — New club house and other facilities at Cowdray Park Golf Course, Easebourne — The Planning Officer reported that this application was being considered by Chichester District Council on 8th May with a recommendation for approval. In response to a question about the illumination of the proposed golf driving range, the Planning Officer agreed to clarify the position. The County Landscape Architect had agreed with the views of the Board’s Planning Committee that the proposals would be detrimental to the landscape but English Heritage had considered that it would be acceptable.
Application no. EB/00/00098/COU — Proposed change of use and refurbishment of river side stable block to form a polo centre at Ruins Stables, Cowdray Ruins, Easebourne — The Planning Officer reported that English Heritage had objected to the area taken up by the proposed car park and to the absence of a link between The Ruins Heritage Project and the proposed development.
Application no. SJ/99/02123/FUL — Change of use from scrubland to wildlife reserve at Fitzhall, Iping — Permission granted following the District Council’s acceptance of an ecological appraisal of the site which had been undertaken subsequent to the submission of the Board’s objection.
Application no. TL/99/02855/FUL — Construction of a lined reservoir at Tillington — The Planning Officer reported that an Environmental Assessment had been submitted to the District Council with a copy to the Board and a further report would be made to the Planning Committee if time permitted before the application was considered by the District Council. It was noted that following comments made by the Board, the shape for the reservoir had been altered and further landscaping had been proposed.
Application no. EB/99/02096/FUL — Change of use from a redundant agricultural barn to visitor facilities at Benbow Pond, Cowdray Park, Midhurst — It was noted that the District Council would be considering this application on 8th May and the officer recommendation was for approval because it was considered that the proposals would represent only a modest increase in activity on this site.
Application no. ED/99/02586/OUT — Redevelopment of existing estate of dwellings associated with King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst — The Planning Officer reported that the Board had been advised of amendments to the proposals e.g. the houses in the south west area of the site had been reduced to single storey and the access road had been located further north. However, the Board’s fundamental concerns remained and the Planning Officer had reiterated the Board’s objection to the proposals. Notwithstanding this objection, the District Council’s officer recommendation was for approval.
Application no. LG/99/02629/FUL — Improvement to a children’s recreation and study centre at Woodcraft Park Farm, Lurgashall — It was noted that the District Council would be considering this application on 8th May with an officer recommendation for refusal on the basis of it being damaging to the AONB landscape and the intensification of use on the site.
Masts Conference held at Wealden District Council Offices
124. Members of the Committee who had attended the Conference on 14th April had found it most useful. The Planning Officer reported that he had spoken to representatives of each of the operators and had been promised details of their existing and proposed networks. It was noted that applications for telecommunication masts still lacked supporting information. Mrs. Tidy reported that a follow-up seminar would be held and that it was hoped this would encourage a greater degree of dialogue between the local authorities and the licence operators with regard to the number and siting of masts. The Chairman agreed to write a letter of thanks to Wealden District Council.
WEST SUSSEX MINERALS LOCAL PLAN — PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
125. The Committee considered a report by the Sussex Downs Officer (copy attached to the signed minutes) on Proposed Modifications to the West Sussex Minerals Local Plan as it affected the Sussex Downs AONB. Issues of particular relevance included the allocation of Coopers Moor, near Duncton, as a site for sand extraction to which the Board had previously lodged an objection because of the likely impact on the AONB of the working of the site. The proposed sites for gravel workings were considered sufficiently distinct and screened from the AONB so as not to cause significant harm to the landscape or character of the AONB. It was, however, recognised that the County Council was obliged to comply with the Government’s mineral planning guidelines and that objections might be lodged to other sites allocated as a result of the proposed modifications. There was a need to address this point in the Board’s response to the County Council.
126. Resolved — That the following comments be made to West Sussex County Council on the Proposed Modifications of the West Sussex Minerals Local Plan and, in addition, that the Chairman be authorised to agree additional comments relating to potential alternative sites:
1. The Board is disappointed that, overall, the Proposed Modifications appear to weaken or remove much of the Minerals Local Plan that the Board has previously supported or requested.
2. The Proposed Modifications to the policies on AONBs and statutorily designated sites of historic, architectural, natural or scientific interest (10 and 12) and the supporting text are disappointing in that they would appear to weaken the clear protective aims of the existing policies and text. However, the Board recognises that compliance with PPGs and MPGs is important in order for the Plan to be robust and defendable on appeal. The Board notes that the proposed wording is no weaker than the advice in the Guidance Notes and thus accepts Proposed Modifications 73 and 75.
3. The Board considers that Policy 27 serves a useful and desirable function in reinforcing the reference of Policies 10 and 12 to the need for the mineral in question. It is not considered to be so contrary to MPG1, MPG6 or PPG7 as to necessitate its deletion, or it could be slightly reworded to ensure closer compliance with the phraseology of these Guidance Notes. The Board, therefore, objects to its proposed deletion.
4. The Board is disappointed at the proposed increase in the equivalent annual production rate of sand and gravel from 1.09 to 1.4 million tonnes, but recognises that this is to accord with Government guidance in MPG6 and that it would make the Plan more robust and defendable on appeal. The Board, therefore, reluctantly accepts Proposed Modification 118.
5. The Board objected to the proposed allocation of Coopers Moor as a site for sand extraction in the Consultation Draft of the Mineral Local Plan. The Board considers that this objection is still valid because, notwithstanding the Inspector’s views and the pragmatism of according with the apportionment for West Sussex in MPG6, of the likely impact on the AONB of the working of this site and consequently objects to Proposed Modification 123/239. If Coopers Moor is to be allocated, the Board believes that the inclusion of open water in its restoration scheme is not acceptable and would prefer to see an increased area of heathland.
6. The Board notes the proposed allocation of Common Road, the proposed potential reopening of the workings at Lavant and the extension of Slades Field, but considers that these are all sufficiently far removed and/or screened from the AONB as to be acceptable to the Board.
7. The Board considers that the proposed modification of Policy 36 would weaken the presumption against the extraction of sand and gravel from new sites. The Board notes that the Policy, as proposed to be modified, does include the wording "subject to environmental and other material considerations", but believes that it would be clearer and perhaps stronger if it was to include a cross-reference to Policies 10,11 and 12. The Board thus objects to Proposed Modification 126 as currently drafted, but would not object if this cross-reference was to be included.
8. The Board has previously commented on the desirability of retaining more of the southern ridge at West Heath and, accordingly, welcomes Proposed Modifications 226-231.
WEALDEN LOCAL PLAN REVIEW
127. The Committee considered a report by the Sussex Officer (copy attached to the signed minutes). Members had considered an earlier report on the Wealden Local Plan Review in March but had asked the Planning Officer to produce a further report linking the Board’s comments more closely to the questionnaire from Wealden District Council which was largely concerned with housing developments. With regard to development in villages, the Board would only support such development where there was a local need and it was considered that affordable housing should be maintained whenever possible.
128. Resolved — That Wealden District Council be thanked for the opportunity to comment on a preliminary stage of the review of the Wealden Local Plan and be requested to take the following comments into account in preparing the draft local plan review:
(1) As a general point, the Board would emphasise the nationally important natural beauty of the Sussex Downs, including the Heritage Coast, and would advocate the strongest possible protection from damaging development and positive enhancement measures in the Local Plan Review commensurate with its national importance.
(2) The Board would, therefore, oppose any proposals for significant housing development within the Downs, although may not oppose any sensitively designed and located affordable housing schemes where there is an identified need and adequate services. Infill housing development should not be allowed where spaces between houses are an integral part of the character of a settlement.
(3) Should any large-scale housing or business development be proposed for Polegate it should be so located or designed as not to have any adverse impacts on the natural beauty of the AONB or its setting.
(4) The Board considers that it is important to retain employment opportunities in rural areas where appropriate and may not, therefore, be adverse to well-established, environmentally-acceptable local businesses being allowed some limited expansion beyond their existing site boundaries where this would have no unacceptable adverse landscape or other environmental or amenity impacts.
(5) The Board may not be averse to sensitively designed and located small-scale business developments on sites on the edge of some villages identified and allocated through the Local Plan Review process, but not where these would cause unacceptable adverse landscape or other environmental or amenity (including traffic) impacts.
(6) The Board is firmly in favour of small-scale employment —generating uses normally being preferred to residential uses in converted rural buildings.
(7) The Board is generally sympathetic to farm diversification proposals where these would provide an income to supplement a land management regime that conserves the natural beauty of the AONB, provided that the proposals are themselves environmentally-friendly.
(8) The Board will normally be sympathetic to proposals for small-scale woodland product processing and manufacture where these would secure the active sympathetic management of woodlands within the AONB and there would be no adverse environmental effects.
(9) The Board will normally support small-scale tourism initiatives within the AONB which draw on the area’s natural beauty and other qualities and which are otherwise in accordance with the six principles of sustainable tourism set out in "A Management Strategy for the Sussex Downs AONB".
(10) The Board is supportive of the principle of making rural lanes safer and more attractive routes on which to walk, cycle or ride. However, it is aware that many "traffic calming" schemes involve signage, surfacing or other works that can be intrusive and out of character in rural areas. The Board welcomes traffic calming in the countryside provided the means of achieving it is sensitive and appropriate to the locality.
(11) The Board would advocate the protection of the countryside for its own sake but, in accordance with point (1) above, the Board would advocate the strongest possible protection for the Sussex Downs and High Weald AONBs in accordance with their nationally important landscapes.
(12) The Board encourages the recognition and use of the principle of local distinctiveness in considering proposals for new development and would advocate the preparation of design analysis and guidance for the District, perhaps in the form of a countryside design summary.
(13) The Board looks forward to being consulted on future stages of the Local Plan Review.
Members agreed the response to the Wealden Local Plan Review questionnaire with the following additions:-
Question 8 no.6 - ensure suitable housing is available for the work force — priority
Question 25 - other situations where car parking provision could be reduced? — add increased cycling and walking provision to the response.
Question 42 what measures are needed to maintain and enhance the attractiveness and prosperity of the town centres? — litter clearance on a regular basis and as and when necessary.......
DRAFT REGIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR THE SOUTH EAST
129. The Committee considered a report by the Sussex Downs Officer (copy attached to the signed minutes) on the proposed changes to the Draft Regional Planning Guidance published for consultation by the Government Office for the South East on 27th March, 2000. Although the reduction in overall proposed housing numbers in the Draft Regional Planning Guidance compared with the recommendations in the report of the Panel which had conducted the Examination In Public was welcomed, members remained very concerned about the pressures which the housing allocation would have on land within both the Sussex Downs and East Hampshire AONBs. The need for a regional balance was discussed with reference to economic development which was overheating the south east, whereas other areas were in need of re-development and it was considered that this issue should be addressed.
130. Resolved — That the Government Office for the South East be advised of the Board’s response to the proposed changes to the Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South East as follows:
(1) The Board welcomes the Government’s support for the plan, monitor and manage approach to housing provision and the proposed rejection of the overall proposed housing numbers recommended by Professor Crow. However, it remains a matter of great concern to the Board that the total figures suggested by the Government are still much higher than those suggested by Serplan and they are considered to still be unacceptably high. The Board considers that the proposed housing numbers fail to recognise the significant environmental constraints within the South East and is neither convinced that the proposed housing provision can be accommodated without requiring additional land than would have been required by the level of development proposed by Serplan or that the target of 60% of new development being on brownfield sites can be achieved in East and West Sussex.
(2) The Board welcomes the Government’s statement on the importance of protecting areas of land such as AONBs, but considers that the level of development proposed is undoubtedly going to adversely affect the qualities of the Sussex Downs and East Hampshire AONBs, with increased visitor pressure, transport movements, pressure for waste disposal etc. Accordingly, the Board strongly objects to the proposed levels of housing development in the South East generally and particularly as suggested for East and West Sussex. The Board would wish to see a reduction in the overall total and a redistribution of that total recognising the environmental constraints in the Sussexes and Hampshire and the proposed growth in areas such as the Thames Gateway.
(3) The Board considers it particularly important to recognise the need to have regard to the protection of the qualities of the AONB in tandem with the proposed economic regeneration of the south coastal towns given the close proximity of the AONB and the towns. The Board thus objects to the omission of any reference within the Proposed Changes to this need.
(4) The Board welcomes the reference in the Draft RPG to reducing the demand for energy, but considers that this should be highlighted as the first priority.
(5) The Board is concerned that the Draft RPG reflected the over-development of the South East in contrast to the under-development of other regions of England and considers that the Government should address this regional imbalance.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL APPLICATIONS
Arun District
Application no. H/5/00: Alteration of existing toilet block to provide and improve toilets and new take-a-way catering unit together with demolition of existing catering unit at Whiteways Countryside site, Whiteways, A29
130. The Committee considered a report by the Sussex Downs Officer (copy attached to the signed minutes) on the above proposal to improve the existing toilet and catering facilities at Whiteways countryside site. It was noted that the proposed works would represent an enhancement of this popular site and the proposals were supported.
132. Resolved — That Arun District Council be advised that the Board supports the proposals as representing an improvement in the overall appearance and character of this popular and important facility.
Application no. A/31/00: Outline application for a new children’s hospice and associated highway works on land at The Dover, Poling
133. The Committee considered a report by the Sussex Downs Officer (copy attached to the signed minutes) on the above outline application. Members were concerned that this would be a large development. It did not require a location within the AONB and would be preferable for such a development to be located where it was easily accessible by public transport. The need for a large car park for a facility catering for eight children was also questioned.
134. Resolved — That Arun District Council be advised that:
8. The Board would wish to retain the right to be heard on this application under the development control scheme.
CHICHESTER DISTRICT
Application no. NC/00/00813/FUL: 30m Telecommunications Tower, Cabin and Ancillary Equipment, land west of Copygrove Cottage (Copygrove Woods), Valentines Hill, Northchapel — The Committee considered a report by the Sussex Downs Officer (copy attached to the signed minutes) on the above proposal.
135. Resolved — That Chichester District Council be advised that:
1. The Countryside Agency and the Board consider masts over 15m high in the AONB to constitute "major development" in terms of PPG7 and that proposals for such masts should satisfy the twin tests for major development set out in the Guidance Note. There is no supporting information supplied with the consultation that indicates that the applicants have considered any alternative sites outside the AONB and, if they have, why those sites have been rejected in favour of the proposed site.
2. In addition, no information has been supplied with the consultation to explain how the proposed installation relates to either the applicants’ existing network or proposed network, in particular to the recently permitted masts at Frith Wood and Littleton Farm.
3. Accordingly, the Board objects to this application on the basis of a lack of supporting information, particularly to demonstrate the satisfaction of the alternative sites test in PPG7.
4. The Board is concerned about the potential landscape impact of the proposed installation and requests the erection of a trial mast to allow that impact to be assessed more accurately.
5. If the District Council was minded to grant planning permission, every effort should be made to ensure the design of the facility is appropriate to its location and a condition should be imposed to ensure the removal of the facility should it no longer be required.
Application no. G/00/00770/FUL: 27m lattice tower, antennae, cabin and ancillary equipment at Hayland Farm, Graffham — The Committee considered a report by the Sussex Downs Officer (copy attached to the signed minutes) on the above application.
136. Resolved — That Chichester District Council be advised that:
1. The Countryside Agency and the Board consider masts over 15m high in the AONB to constitute "major development" in terms of PPG7 and that proposals for such masts should satisfy the twin tests for major development set out in the Guidance Note. There is no supporting information supplied with the consultation that indicates that the applicants have considered any alternative sites outside the AONB and, if they have, why those sites have been rejected in favour of the proposed site.
2. In addition, no information has been supplied with the consultation to explain how the proposed installation relates to either the applicants’ existing network or proposed network, in particular to the recently permitted masts at Frith Wood and Littleton Farm.
3. Accordingly, the Board objects to this application on the basis of a lack of supporting information, particularly to demonstrate the satisfaction of the alternative sites test in PPG7.
4. In addition, the Board considers that the proposed mast would be visible from public viewpoints in the locality and that it would represent an intrusive and alien feature in this attractive area, detracting significantly from the character of the landscape and the amenity of the area. Accordingly, the Board also objects to this application on the grounds of landscape impact.
5. If the District Council is minded to grant planning permission, every effort should be made to ensure the design of the facility is appropriate to its location and a condition should be imposed to ensure the removal of the facility should it no longer be required.
Application no. UWER/00/00570/FUL: 25m lattice tower, antennae, cabin and ancillary equipment on land east of Selhurst Park at A285 junction Selhurst Park, Halnaker — The Committee considered a report by the Sussex Downs Officer (copy attached to the signed minutes on the above application.
137. Resolved — That Chichester District Council be advised that:
1. The Countryside Agency and the Board consider masts over 15m high in the AONB to constitute "major development" in terms of PPG7 and that proposals for such masts should satisfy the twin tests for major development set out in the Guidance Note. There is no supporting information supplied with the consultation that indicates that the applicants have considered any alternative sites outside the AONB and, if they have, why those sites have been rejected in favour of the proposed site.
2. In addition, no information has been supplied with the consultation to explain how the proposed installation relates to either the applicants’ existing network or proposed network, in particular to the recently permitted masts at Frith Wood and Littleton Farm.
3. Accordingly, the Board objects to this application on the basis of a lack of supporting information, particularly to demonstrate the satisfaction of the alternative sites test in PPG7.
4. In addition, the Board considers that the proposed mast would be visible from public viewpoints in the locality and that it would represent an intrusive and alien feature in this attractive area, detracting significantly from the character of the landscape and the amenity of the area. Accordingly, the Board also objects to this application on the grounds of landscape impact.
5. If the District Council is minded to grant planning permission, every effort should be made to ensure the design of the facility is appropriate to its location and a condition should be imposed to ensure the removal of the facility should it no longer be required.
QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORT
138. The Committee received and noted the quarterly monitoring report for the period January to March 2000 for applications on which the Board has bee consulted under the development control scheme. It was noted that the Planning Officer had been unable to attend to exercise the right to be heard with regard to the proposed storage building for the Weald and Downland Open Air Museum at West Dean. The Committee agreed that, in the event that the Planning Officer was unable to attend meetings to exercise the right to be heard, that arrangements be made for the Board to be represented to exercise its right. With reference to the telecommunications mast at Rosemary Park Nursing Home, Marley Common, Haslemere, it was noted that Board had objected to this application and the table of consultations amended accordingly.
CHAIRMAN