Case Reference: 3286315

Costs Decision
Inquiry held on 1 March 2022
Site visits made on 3, 7 and 8 March 2022
by Anne Jordan BA (Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 22 April 2022
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3286315
Land to the West of Church Road, West Wittering, West Sussex, PO20 8FJ
• The application is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Wellbeck Strategic Land IV LLP for a full award of costs
against Chichester District Council.
• The Inquiry was in connection with an appeal against refusal of planning permission for
residential development of 70 dwellings (some matters reserved except for access).
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs are allowed in the terms set out below.
The submissions for Wellbeck Strategic Land IV LLP
2. The appellant contends that the Council acted unreasonably because:
• They failed to adequately substantiate their reasons for refusal, particularly
in relation to the matter of location and accessibility and matters of
infrastructure capacity;
• Relied on out of date information in forming a view on the weight to be
attached to policies relating to development outside the settlement
boundary;
• Failed to adequately substantiate their case on whether the Council had a
five year supply of housing land;
• In doing so it is alleged that the Council delayed development which should
clearly have been permitted.
The response by Chichester District Council
3. The Council responds that:
• The Council refused the development on legitimate planning grounds;
• The evidence supplied to support those grounds was not unreasonable;
• With regard to the matter of infrastructure capacity the Council did not call
any evidence on the issues discussed for the third reason for refusal, and
the Appellant did not present any evidence of their own, so no costs can
have been incurred;
• The Council’s stance in relation to 5 year supply is reasonable and based on
sound assumptions;
• The appellant’s contention that the refusal of the scheme was a “product of
public pressure” is entirely unsubstantiated.
Reasons
4. Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a party
who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for
costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. Planning
Committee Members are not bound to accept the recommendations of their
officers. Nevertheless, reasons for refusal should be substantiated and based
on relevant evidence.
5. The Council refused the proposal for three reasons, the last of which related to
matters subsequently resolved by the provision of the legal agreement and so
fell away. These were matters without which the permission could not have
been granted, which the appellant does not dispute. The parties also disputed
whether a 5 year supply of housing land could be demonstrated in the district.
In the event I have found this not to be the case but do not consider the
Council to have been unreasonable in the case put to me.
6. The second reason for refusal related to the impact of the proposal on the
character and appearance of the area and the local landscape. Whilst I note
that the reason for refusal was based on an outdated assessment of settlement
boundaries, it was nonetheless not unreasonable for the Council to reach the
view that some harm would arise to the character and appearance of the
countryside as a result of the development, and to apportion weight to it. I
have also found some harm in this regard and whilst I ultimately reached the
decision that the harm identified was outweighed by the benefits of the
scheme, this was a matter of planning judgement. I therefore do not consider
the Council to have been unreasonable in apportioning more weight to this
matter than I myself did.
7. In relation to the first reason for refusal the Council did not dispute that the
village was generally well served by facilities but cited a small number of local
facilities that were absent. In essence the case for the Council was largely
based on the argument that travel to higher order services would involve travel
off the Peninsula. Due to the particular constraints in peak hour and seasonal
travel, and the Council’s views on the distance travelled, this was considered to
be unsustainable.
8. The settlement is identified in both the adopted and emerging local plan as a
settlement hub, which is defined as a settlement which provides a reasonable
range of employment, retail, social and community facilities serving the
settlement and local catchment areas. It was therefore unsurprising that the
Council was unable to provide substantive evidence to the contrary. At the
time of refusal the Council would have been aware that there is nothing in
national guidance to indicate that all new development must be served by a full
range of services and facilities. The Council would also have been well aware at
the time of the decision that housing numbers set out in the adopted Plan were
out of date and so would also have been aware that any previous target set out
in the Plan was also out of date. Furthermore, the Council provided no
substantive evidence to me during the Inquiry that there was anything about
the proposed quantum of development, as put forward by this proposal, that
rendered it unsustainable.
9. Therefore, whilst I appreciate the reason for refusal reflected the views of
many local residents, I cannot conclude that the actions of councillors in
disregarding the professional advice of officers were reasonable. Furthermore,
I accept that this was a matter on which the appellant will have felt obliged to
seek some clarity through the appeals process. In doing so the appellant will
have had to support a case at appeal in relation to the first reason for refusal
and so would have been likely to incur expense which could not have been
avoided.
10. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense,
as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated and
that a partial award of costs, in relation to the first reason for refusal1, is
justified.
Costs Order
11. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act
1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Chichester District Council shall pay to Wellbeck Strategic Land IV LLP, the
costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision insofar
as they relate to the Council’s first reason for refusal of application
WW/20/02491/OUT, dated 28 September 2020.
12. The applicant is now invited to submit to Chichester District Council, to whom a
copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to
reaching agreement as to the amount. In the event that the parties cannot
agree on the amount, a copy of the guidance note on how to apply for a
detailed assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office is enclosed.
Anne Jordan
INSPECTOR
1 Planning application ref WW/20/02491/OUT


Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 1 March 2022
Site visits made on 3, 7 and 8 March 2022
by Anne Jordan BA (Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 22 April 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3286315
Land to the West of Church Road, West Wittering, West Sussex, PO20 8FJ,
479822, 97732
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a
refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Chichester
District Council.
• The application Ref WW/20/02491/OUT, dated 28 September 2020, was refused by notice
dated 1 July 2021.
• The development proposed is an outline planning application for residential development of
70 dwellings (some matters reserved except for access).
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for residential
development of 70 dwellings (some matters reserved except for access). at Land
to the West of Church Road, West Wittering, PO20 8FJ in accordance with the
terms of the application, Ref WW/20/02491/OUT, dated 20 September 2020, and
the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions attached.
Applications for costs
2. An application for costs was made on behalf of the appellant. This is the subject of
a separate decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. The application was initially submitted on the basis of a scheme for 76 dwellings.
This was subsequently amended on the 17 March 2022 to a scheme for 70
dwellings and the Council and appellant agreed the description of development set
out above. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the agreed
description. The application is made in outline form with all matters reserved
other than access.
4. The application is accompanied by a legal agreement dated 16 March 2022 which
makes provision for affordable housing, a travel plan, open space, a play area and
a landscape buffer. It also provides for a contribution to mitigate the effects of
recreational disturbance on the Solent SAC and a financial contribution towards
improvements on the A27. The legal agreement is accompanied by a plan showing
the adjoining land within the ownership of the applicant. This area was not shown
in the original application plans. However, this additional information does not
alter the proposal in any way and so I am satisfied that its absence from the
original application plans does not prejudice any party.
5. The application was subject to 3 reasons for refusal. The third reason relates to
provision for securing the necessary infrastructure to serve the proposed
development. The Council confirmed at the Inquiry that subject to the provision of
the legal agreement to secure these matters, they were no longer defending the
third reason for refusal.
6. During the Inquiry I heard from a number of local residents. Their evidence was in
some cases accompanied by written submissions which expanded upon their
original responses at the time of the application. These have been accepted as
Inquiry documents and are listed as such in the Schedule appended to this
decision.
7. At the time the application was refused the Council could not demonstrate a five-
year supply of housing land. The Council subsequently contended that a five-year
supply could be demonstrated and as a result five-year housing land supply would
be a main issue for the Inquiry. The parties prepared a Statement of Common
Ground (SoCG) specifically in relation to five-year supply prior to the event which
identified agreement as to the housing requirement. Subsequently the appellant
introduced late evidence disputing the requirement which related specifically to the
effect of unmet need from the South Downs National Park. Consequently, the
majority of the evidence in relation to housing land supply was heard by means of
a round table discussion on day 3 of the Inquiry with written submissions relating
to unmet need being submitted after the Inquiry sessions finished.
Main Issues
8. Accordingly, the main issues for the appeal are:
• Whether the authority can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land;
• The effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and
upon the local landscape;
• Whether the proposal would represent sustainable development with regard to
accessibility to local services and employment.
Reasons
Planning Policy Background
9. The site lies outside the settlement boundary of East Wittering and within the
parish of West Wittering. The Chichester Local Plan was adopted in 2015 (LP).
Policy 2 sets out a settlement hierarchy and indicates the scale and type of
development that will be provided in the different settlements. Policy 45 seeks to
restrict development in the countryside to a limited range of development
considered appropriate in a rural area. As the site lies outside the settlement
boundary it conflicts with both policies. However, the housing requirement has not
been reviewed within the last 5 years. Policy 2 and 45 cannot therefore be
considered to be up to date. In addition, policy 2 is derived from settlement
boundaries which are based on an out-of-date housing requirement and this also
reduces the weight I can attribute to them.
10. The Council referred to a number of other policies within the decision notice. Policy
1 reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy 33 relates
to new residential development and seeks to ensure that new development
provides a high-quality living environment, in keeping with the character of the
surrounding area and its setting in the landscape.
11. Policy 8 relates to transport and accessibility, Policy 9 relates to development and
infrastructure provision and Policy 39 relates to transport, accessibility and parking.
Together these policies seek to mitigate the effects of development in relation to
infrastructure provision, including roads, and to ensure that new development can
be safely accessed. They also seek to locate development in locations which
minimise the need to travel.
12. Policy 48 - natural environment, Policy 49 - biodiversity and Policy 50 -
development and disturbance of birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours
Special Protection Area (SPA) all seek to protect local wildlife and to ensure that
the effects of new development are appropriately mitigated whilst taking available
opportunities to enhance the natural environment.
13. Policy 52 relates to the provision of green infrastructure and Policy 54 relates to
open space and recreation. Both policies seek to ensure that new development
provides adequate open space and recreation facilities to meet the needs of
existing and future residents.
14. All these policies are consistent with the aims and objectives of the National
Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and carry full weight.
15. In November 2020 the Council published its Interim Position Statement for Housing
(IPS). This provides a framework for the consideration of housing applications in
the absence of an up-to-date development plan and in the light of a deficit of 5-
year supply in the District. Although the Council now considers that it can
demonstrate a five year supply it has continued to adopt a proactive approach to
boosting the supply of housing by continuing to apply the 13 criteria within the IPS
in assessing housing proposals.
16. The Council has referred to a number of policies within the IPS. Policy IPS1
supports development which is in whole or in part is contiguous with an identified
settlement boundary as approved in the adopted development plan. Policy IPS2
supports development the scale of which is appropriate to the settlement’s location
in the settlement hierarchy and with a range of facilities which would make it a
sustainable location for new development. IPS4 requires development which
respects the character and appearance of the settlement. IPS5 seeks development
which does not have an adverse effect on landscape character. IPS7 seeks
development which is supported by all necessary infrastructure. IPS10 seeks
development which is sustainably located in accessibility terms. All these policies
are consistent with the aims of the Framework, and although the IPS is not
adopted policy, the policies within it are nonetheless a material consideration that
carries considerable weight.
17. The Chichester Local Plan Review (CLPR) is currently at an early stage. Although
the Plan was initially scheduled to be submitted for examination in 2022, I note
that the Regulation 19 Draft Submission has yet to be published with no date fixed
for public consultation on the document. It therefore appears unlikely that the Plan
will be adopted in the near future. For this reason and given that it remains
uncertain how far the policies in the CLPR might be carried forward into the final
Plan, I attribute very little weight to the policies within it.
18. Although not referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal, the site lies within the
West Wittering Neighbourhood Plan Area. The submission version of the West
Wittering Neighbourhood Plan (WWNP) was agreed by the Parish Council on 3
February 2022. The site is not identified within the WWNP for development, and
policy WW3 within the plan would not be supportive of development at the site, as
it lies outside the settlement boundary. Furthermore, although the plan has been
through pre-submission consultation, I note that it has yet to be agreed by the
Council for consultation and to undergo consultation, examination, potential
modification and then a referendum before it can be adopted. I can therefore not
be assured that the Plan will be adopted in its current form, and this limits the
weight I can attribute to the policies within it.
Housing Land Supply
The Requirement
19. The Standard Method (SM) calculation for Chichester District is 763dpa (as of
January 2022). The Council have deducted 125 units to take account of need
arising from within the National Park Authority and thereby covered by provision
within the South Downs National Park Local Plan (SDNPLP). This gives a
requirement of 638dpa. Chichester District is subject to a 5% buffer, therefore
totalling 670dpa, or 3,350 dwellings over the five-year period 2021 to 2026.
20. Planning Practice Guidance recognises that where local authority and plan-making
boundaries do not align, an alternative approach will have to be used and that this
will need to be determined locally. In this case the Plan area excludes a portion of
the National Park which lies within the district. The Council have used the figure
arrived at from the SM and then deducted 125 dwellings to account for need within
the National Park (SDNP) and outside the Plan area. The figure of 125 dwellings
was arrived at using the best available information for the SDNP1 and uses the
2014-based CLG Household Projections which are also used in the SM.
21. I note that the appellant has not disputed the identified requirement of 125 within
the National Park. Although the process for arriving at a housing requirement
within the SDNP during the production of the SDNPLP predates the SM, and so may
not be entirely aligned, in the absence of a prescribed methodology for calculating
the requirement in these circumstances, the approach taken by the Council is a
pragmatic and reasonable one.
22. Instead, the appellant’s concern is related to unmet need. The Council and the
SDNP have a SoCG2 dating from 2018 which identifies an unmet need of 44
dwellings a year within Chichester District which have not been provided for in the
SDNPLP. The appellants’ view is that 44 dwellings per annum should therefore be
added to the current requirement in Chichester District.
23. Paragraph 61 of the Framework sets out that the needs of neighbouring areas that
cannot be met can be taken into account in addition to local housing need.
Paragraph 74 of the Framework requires a local planning authority to provide a
minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement set out
in either their adopted strategic policies, or against their local housing need where
the strategic policies are more than five years old. It differentiates here between a
housing requirement in a strategic policy (which may differ from housing need) and
local housing need where policies are absent or out of date. The apportionment of
1 Within the SDNP HEDNA (Appendix 1 of the Council’s rebuttal proof on Housing Land Supply), table 5, page 39 which
sets out that the demographic need for the SDNP within Chichester is 125 dpa
2 Appendice to the Appellant’s Planning Rebuttal
unmet need should therefore not be confused with any assessment of the housing
need within the district. The Council is not obliged to accept unmet need in the
absence of an up-to-date strategic policy which includes it as part of the housing
requirement. In this regard the SoCG makes explicit that the Council will assess its
ability to accommodate the unmet need in its Local Plan Review, which is on-going.
24. There will be a number of factors which the authority and ultimately the local plan
Inspector will need to grapple with to determine housing need within the district
and to arrive at an appropriate housing requirement figure within the Plan, one of
which will be, consistent with the aims of sustainable development, the extent to
which the district can practically accommodate unmet need from the National
Park3. In the absence of a consideration of all relevant factors, a S78 Inquiry is not
an appropriate forum for arriving at a proxy decision in relation to unmet need. In
the interim, I am satisfied that the locally arrived at figure for housing need put
forward by the Council is an appropriate basis on which to determine this appeal.
I therefore conclude that the housing requirement for the district is 670dpa, or
3,350 dwellings over the five-year period 2021 to 2026.
Housing Supply
25. The parties disagree in relation to the sites included in the supply. At the base
date of April 2021, the Council contended a 5.28 year supply of housing land with
3536 dwellings within the supply. The appellant disputes a number of elements
within the supply.
Sites that have expired
26. The supply includes 27 dwellings for which planning permission has expired since
the base date. Whilst they were deliverable at the point of inclusion, as
permissions for minor development without permission now, they no longer fall
within the definition of deliverable within the glossary to the Framework. This
results in a loss of 27 dwellings from the supply.
Windfall sites
27. The Council’s calculation of supply includes an allowance for major windfall sites in
addition to an allowance for minor windfalls. This is based on an analysis of past
trends for major site delivery in the district4 which concludes that an allowance of
140dpa or 280 dwellings for major windfalls in years 4 and 5, should be included
within the housing supply.
28. I have carefully reviewed the evidence, including the methodology on which it is
based. It is clear that the district has had a history of delivering major
development sites which have not been allocated in an adopted development plan.
As such, the “windfall” rate in the district has historically been high. An
understanding of the factors that led to these sites coming forward would provide
some indication as to whether past windfall rates are likely to continue, and so
whether it is reasonable to make an allowance for this within the housing supply.
29. The Council’s evidence includes an analysis of major windfall sites since 2009. It
considers the size and previous use of windfall sites and in projecting forward likely
future trends it removes any “outliers” which are sites which it considers to be
unlikely to be repeated. In calculating average rates of delivery, it removes years
with very high or very low levels of delivery to ensure these do not skew the
3 Paragraph 35 of the Framework
4 C3 Critical Friends Review – Lambert Smith Hampton
overall trend. As an overall approach this seems to me to be a reasonable and
pragmatic one and so I see no reason to dispute the Council’s assumptions in
relation to minor windfall sites.
30. In relation to major windfalls the study also purports to take into account other
factors that may have impacted upon past trends, including the status of the
development plan and the presence or absence of a 5-year supply of housing5.
This is important because if windfall sites are shown to have come forward because
of an absence of a 5-year supply, it cannot be assumed that this level of windfall
delivery will continue when normal adopted planning policies are in place. Table 12
within the report compares completions with the status of the development plan at
that time. Taking into account a time lag the Council concludes that there was no
correlation between the status of the development plan and housing completions.
31. However, housing can in some cases be completed many years after being first
granted permission, particularly if the initial application was an outline permission,
made on a speculative basis, or a large site. Instead, I am of the view that to
reach any reasonable conclusion as to whether the status of the development plan
and windfall delivery is correlated, or not, a comparison should be made as to the
date the permissions were granted and the factors that led to their approval at that
time. The study does not do this, and the Council was unable to provide any
substantive evidence in this regard at the Inquiry. I take account of the fact that
the study does not rely on outlying years and that this has had the effect of
reducing potential windfall supply. I also take into account the views of the
Inspector at the Raughmere Drive decision6 but given the evidence put to me,
including the answers given to my questions at the housing land supply round table
session, and in the absence of a cogent analysis of the factors influencing previous
permissions, I cannot be assured that an absence of five-year supply was not a
factor which influenced windfall rates in the past and so cannot conclude on the
evidence before me that large windfall sites will continue to provide a reliable
source of supply.
32. At the Inquiry the appellant provided an analysis of historic windfall sites within the
district since 20127. It purported to provide details on the circumstances in which
major schemes were granted permission. The document was not prepared by the
appellant and so I am unable to be assured of its accuracy in relation to individual
sites. Nevertheless, it draws to my attention the fact that some of the sites which
have been counted as windfalls may have been sites granted on appeal when the
Council could not demonstrate a 5-year supply, or sites which were draft
allocations in either emerging neighbourhood plans or the emerging local plan.
Whilst I note that the IPS seeks to increase the supply of housing, this is not an
adopted plan and so I have no surety that the Council will continue to apply the
policies within it. These are not factors which the Council’s report analyses and so I
do not know if sites of this type historically made up a significant proportion of
windfalls, or if they will continue to come forward as windfalls following the
adoption of the emerging local plan. Consequently, on the basis of what is before
me, I have no firm basis for concluding that an allowance for major windfalls as
proposed should be included within the 5-year supply. This removes 280 dwellings
from the supply.
Major Sites
5 Table 12 p17
6 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3284653
7 ID11 Appellants HLS Rebuttal appendix
33. The parties also dispute the delivery of 4 sites within the supply. Land at
Highgrove Farm, Bosham had a valid consent at the base date that has since
expired. However, I am advised it is also an allocation in the Local Plan and that it
also forms part of a site with an outstanding planning application for 300 houses
which is currently under consideration. Therefore, although the site does not have
planning permission at this time, the site for 50 houses is clearly considered to be a
suitable location for housing and the planning application for full permission by a
major national housebuilder would appear to indicate that there is a realistic
prospect of the site yielding 50 dwellings within 5 years. I therefore consider the
inclusion of 50 dwellings from this site within the supply to be justified.
34. Land East of Manor Road, Selsey has full permission for 119 dwellings, and outline
permission for a further 74 dwellings under a hybrid application which was
approved in 2021. The appellant disputes the inclusion of the 74 dwellings within
the supply. I am advised that there are no impediments in terms of ownership and
that the applicant, a major housebuilder, is progressing with phase 1 of the
development and intends to proceed with phase 2 on completion of phase 1.
Whilst the 74 dwellings have only outline permission, and are subject to
outstanding conditions, given the clear synergy between this part of the site and
phase 1, I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of delivery within 5
years and the inclusion of this site within the supply is justified.
35. Land North of Cooks Lane, Southbourne has outline permission for 199 dwellings.
The site is subject to a recently submitted reserved matters application and is not
believed to have any major constraints. Taking into account the application, which
is by a major housebuilder, I consider that there is a clear intention to develop the
site on the part of the applicant and a reasonable prospect of this taking place
within 5 years. The Council consider that a site of this size would normally begin to
deliver housing within 11 months of first permission. The assessment of 130
dwellings is based on delivery at a rate of 43 units a year. Taking into account the
likely time needed for permission to be granted and pre-commencement conditions
to be discharged, commencement early in 2023/24 is optimistic. However, the
delivery rate used is below the rate anticipated by the applicant and is a cautious
one. It therefore seems to me that taken in the round and based on information
available at this time, there is a realistic prospect of delivery of around 130
dwellings in the five-year period and this inclusion is justified.
36. Tangmere SDL is a strategic allocation in the LP. The site is being progressed by a
major housebuilder who have entered into a development agreement with the
Council. Although the Council has resolved to grant outline planning permission at
the time of writing this has not yet been granted. The site is subject to CPO
proceedings which I am advised are well advanced, but the CPO is not yet complete
and the legal agreement for the site has also not been completed. The site is very
large and although phasing could allow some development to go ahead in advance
of major road infrastructure works I am also not aware of how far matters to be
covered in the full application have been advanced, or how far the phasing of
development has been agreed. The Council project that development will start to
be delivered on site half-way through 2024/2025, in around 30 months from now.
37. I am satisfied that the site will eventually deliver housing in the district and given
the size of the site and the potential to use multiple outlets, I am also satisfied that
delivery rates, when they commence, will be at a higher level than anticipated on
smaller sites. However, the date of first completions seems to me to be overly
optimistic. Notwithstanding the evidence of the appellant in this regard, I am not
of the view that it is likely to start delivering within the 5-year period. This would
lead to a loss of 180 dwellings to the supply.
38. Removing the above reductions from the identified supply for the period 2021-2016
would leave the supply at around 3,049 dwellings or around 4.6 years8.
39. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) directs in paragraph
11(d) that where a five-year supply of housing land cannot be demonstrated, the
presumption in favour of sustainable development requires the application of the
“tilted balance”9 in decision making. I return to this below.
Character and Appearance
40. The Council considers that because of its quantum and density the proposed
development would lead to a significant addition beyond the settlement boundary,
which would not respect or enhance the landscape character and appearance of
East Wittering, and so would have an adverse visual effect on the countryside
around the site.
41. The layout and appearance of the development is not a matter for consideration at
this stage. Nevertheless, the application is accompanied by an indicative layout
plan (PL02 G) which includes a landscape buffer to the north of the site, on land
adjoining the development. This is secured as part of the legal agreement which
accompanies the application. I have therefore taken the landscaping into account
when considering the visual impacts of the development.
42. The appeal scheme would comprise up to 70 dwellings with associated landscaping,
open space and surface drainage features. The site lies in open countryside to the
north of the existing settlement. It is adjoined by open fields to the north, east
and west, and by the relatively recent development of Sandpiper Walk to the
south, which forms the northern edge of the village of East Wittering.
43. In coming to a view as to the landscape and visual effects of the proposal I have
had regard to the methodology set out in GLVIA310. This sets out that the
landscape and visual effects of development can be quantified by identifying the
magnitude of change a development will bring about over time (or nature of the
effect) in relation to the value and quality of the receiving landscape and its
sensitivity to change. By quantifying these variables, which will require some
value judgements, a picture of the likely landscape and visual effects of
development can be arrived at. Landscape effects can be defined as the effects of
the proposal on the landscape as a resource in itself, and visual effects are the
effects of a development on views and visual amenity as experienced by people.
Landscape Effects
44. The site lies within the “wider Furzefield Western Coastal Plain (Sub-area 106)”
Landscape Character Area (LCA), as defined in the 2019 Chichester District
Landscape Capacity Study. This extends roughly north-south from the AONB south
of Birdham in the north to the settlement edge of East Wittering. The site lies at
the southern end of this area and forms part of the transitional landscape setting to
the village. Whilst the wider area is described as being open arable land with a
generally rural and undeveloped character, the study also recognises the effect of
8 4.550 years rounded up.
9 Any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when
assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole
10 I01
built form on the landscape. Therefore, whilst the wider area will have a relatively
high sensitivity to change, the area around the site is less sensitive due to the
urbanising influence of the settlement edge.
45. I noted during my site visits that the modern development of Sandpiper Walk with
its tall evergreen boundary treatment provided a stark edge to the settlement
which was visible across flat open fields on the approach from the north. In views
towards the north and east, the built form of the industrial estate at Church Farm
Lane and the cluster of housing at Furzefield punctuated otherwise open views.
The urban edge of East Wittering is notable in almost all views or is perceived as
being nearby.
46. The site itself is flat and punctuated with hedgerow and hedgerow trees. The
Council consider that the development would result in a major/moderate effect on
landscape character. I do not agree with the Council’s characterisation. In
available views from Sandpiper Walk in the south the countryside would be
obscured by the proposed development and in these views the level of change
would be very high. However, the extent of these views would be relatively
limited. Whilst the field itself would undoubtably experience a very high degree of
change due to development, this change will be experienced in the context of the
immediate surroundings of the site, which includes the urban edge of the village
itself and in almost all views other than from the south, the development would be
seen against the foil of that existing development.
47. The Council and the appellant agree that views of the site are relatively localised,
and I consider that taken as a whole the effects of the proposal on the surrounding
landscape would be relatively limited.
Visual Impacts
48. Visual effects are normally taken to mean the effects of a proposal on those who
would see the development, such as local residents in their homes, walkers, or
those driving in the area. The scheme is submitted in outline form but is
accompanied by indicative drawings11 showing the likely extent of development on
site. These show development of 2 storeys in height. Whilst I am mindful these are
illustrative only, I note that the design and access statement and the appellant’s
assessment of visual effects state that development on site will be 2 storeys in
height12. I have also carried out my assessment of visual effects on this basis.
49. The “Zone of Theoretical Visibility” (ZTV) of the proposed development, would be
relatively limited due to existing trees and 2 storey housing development to the
south, trees and Church Farm Lane Industrial Estate to the east and by housing at
Furzefield to the north-east. The site is also generally screened or filtered in most
close-range views by established hedges and hedgerow trees. As a result, the
potential impact of the proposal would be confined to a relatively small area of
countryside to the north and east of the village, as the effects of the development
would diminish with distance to the north-west and west.
50. In immediate views of the site from the south there would be a very high
magnitude of change for occupiers and visitors at Sandpiper Walk. The existing
view of an open field which is available through the conifers would be replaced by
that of built development. In views at the proposed access to the site, on Church
Road, the magnitude of change would also be very high and whilst for vehicular
11 6840PL02G and SK 03 B
12 D14 section 5.54 p44 and D22 para 4.3 p46
users this would be a transient view, it would be very apparent for those on foot.
The effect of this change would lessen over time as the development and
associated landscaping became established. Nonetheless, the extent of change
would remain high and would be adverse.
51. In views from the east, from Church Farm Lane, intervening vegetation would filter
views and new development would be partly seen in the context of existing
development to the south of the site. As such, the development would have only a
moderately harmful impact on the quality of the existing view. The impact would be
greater from Church Lane and although views of the development would be
screened by the existing and proposed boundary planting, the development would
reduce the perception of openness that is currently enjoyed from this viewpoint.
This would be apparent in views south eastwards from the Thatched Tavern. The
Council advised that they did not consider that the scheme would result in
coalescence, and it is evident that the scheme would be separated from
development to the north by a relatively narrow band of open field. However, I am
mindful that the close proximity of Furzefield and the industrial estate would
intensify the sense of “urban creep”. The visual change would lessen over time as
the development and associated landscaping became established but nevertheless
would be moderately adverse.
52. In views from Piggery Hall Lane and also from Furzefield, available views would be
reduced by increased distance from the site and would be more glimpsed, in gaps
in the hedgerow. The same reduction in openness perceived from Church Lane
would be apparent but to a lesser degree. For users of Footpath 14, looking south,
the development would be more clearly apparent. In these views the development
would be seen against the backdrop of existing development and so would have a
no more than slight to moderately harmful effect on views.
53. In views from the north from Footpath 14, the visibility of the development would
increase as the walker travelled south. These views would on occasion be filtered
by intervening vegetation, but sustained views would be available along open
stretches of the path. These views would in part be shared by those using the field
for recreation or by users of the adjoining Scotts Farm Camping Site. In some of
these views the new dwellings would be clearly visible above the proposed
planting. The visual impact of this would be lessened by the existing backdrop of
built development at Sandpiper Walk. Nevertheless, the sense of urbanisation
would be increased and would lead to moderate harm in these views, diminishing
to a low level of harm over time as the proposed landscaping became established.
54. In available views from further afield, from the Footpaths 14 and 15, from the
direction of Elms Lane in the north, the site would not be clearly perceived against
the existing backdrop of built form due to the distance form the site. Accordingly,
the development would have a negligible effect on views.
55. It was put to me by the Council that the amount of development proposed on the
site, and its consequent density, would have an impact on both the wider landscape
and the character and appearance of the local area. Having viewed the adjoining
development at Sandpiper Walk and the illustrative site layout plan, I can see little
difference between the density, or urban grain of the proposed development, and
that on the adjoining site. Whilst I note that some of the plots along Church Road
in the vicinity of the site are marginally larger than others along the road, to my
mind the properties are all still relatively closely spaced. The defining characteristic
of properties along the frontage is the distance to which they are set back from the
road and the illustrative layout indicates that the development could be designed to
reflect this. I therefore find no basis for the view that the proposal, by reason of
the amount of development proposed, would be any more intrusive that any other
residential development on the site.
56. The development would be sensitively landscaped. The extent of the development
follows the existing field pattern and the existing hedgerow around the site would
be extensively supplemented, providing a soft edge to the development and a
visual buffer to the northern boundary which would provide a sensitive edge to the
settlement. Once established the scheme would be comfortably assimilated into
the existing built fabric. In this regard it would respect the form and character of
the existing settlement and the wider landscape character of the surrounding area.
57. All these factors lead me to the view that although the scheme would have a
limited impact upon the wider landscape it would have a significant, albeit localised
effect on the appearance of the countryside in this location. These effects would
lessen over time as landscaping around the site became established. Nevertheless,
the loss of open views would have a significantly harmful effect on the rural
character of the area around the site. As a result, the proposal would conflict with
guidance in the Framework which seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and
beauty of the countryside.
58. The development would not conflict with the requirement in Policy 2 for new
development to respect the setting, form and character of settlements but as the
site lies within open countryside it would conflict with the part of the Policy 2 and
Policy 45 which seeks to restrict new development in the countryside to that which
requires a countryside location. As the LP policies are out of date, I attribute limited
weight to this conflict.
59. The Council allege conflict with Policy 33. The policy relates to new residential
development and whilst the loss of the field has led to some visual harm, this
would be inherent in the development of almost any such residential scheme, and I
am satisfied that the scheme could ultimately be integrated into the existing
settlement.
60. Insofar as the proposal would impact upon the rural character of the location, the
proposal would conflict with Policy 48 of the LP. There would also be some limited
conflict with IPS5 which requires development that does not have an adverse
impact on wider landscape character.
61. The proposal would fail to comply with IPS1, as it would not be located adjacent to
the settlement boundary. However, I note that the settlement boundary in this
case does not accurately reflect the extent of the built-up area, as it does not
include Sandpiper Walk, a well-established part of East Wittering, and I attribute no
weight to this conflict. There would also be no conflict with IPS4, which requires
development which respect the character and appearance of the settlement and for
the reasons set out above I also find no conflict with IPS3, with regard to
coalescence. The Council have also referred to IPS2 but as this does not relate to
the visual impact of the development, I do not consider it relevant in this case.
Accessibility to Local Services
62. The Council considers the development would not represent sustainable
development as it would not be in accessible location, with a lack of accessible key
local services and employment provision. I noted during my site visits that the site
lies less than 10 minutes easy walk from the village centre, along a flat paved
footpath. The village has an impressively varied range of local facilitates for a
settlement of its size, owing to the local tourist trade. I note that future residents
would have to travel into Chichester to visit a private dentist, or to access a larger
supermarket. Nevertheless, I am of the view that the available facilities in East
Wittering would meet the day to day needs of most residents.
63. With regard to education, the local primary school, which currently has capacity,
lies to the north of the village, between the site and the village centre and is easily
accessible on foot from the site. Secondary school children would need to travel
into Chichester for education, a trip of around 8 miles which is served by a school
bus service. This is not an unreasonably long distance to travel for secondary
education, and I noted on site that a number of young people make the trip.
64. With regard to access to employment and social and recreational opportunities,
whilst there will be some jobs and entertainment on the peninsula it is likely that
some future residents will travel to Chichester, and beyond, for work or leisure.
However, I note that the distance involved is relatively short, and that some
opportunities are available by public transport, with a regular bus service, albeit
one which may not facilitate a late evening trip back from Chichester. These
observations are consistent with the designation of East Wittering in both the
adopted plan and emerging plan as a “settlement hub”, which is a settlement
capable of providing a range of workplaces, and social and community facilities to
meet identified local needs. I am aware that travel times during peak hours and
during peak holiday season could be subject to delays. However, this matter on its
own does not appear to me to prohibitive, and I have no reason to consider that it
would preclude access to education or other higher order services.
65. At the Inquiry I heard from local residents who had concerns regarding the effects
of the proposal on local health care services. The Clinical Commissioning Group
(CCG) have advised that the surgery is at capacity and that best practice is for the
CCG to be advised of strategic plans for housing development so that additional
capacity can be provided as part of new development. Where this is not possible,
they advise that provision should be made through CIL. Although, I have some
sympathy with the concerns of residents, in relation to the recruitment and
retention of medical staff, I have no evidence that the extent of development
before me would place an additional insurmountable burden on local healthcare
facilities. I am also satisfied that the Council and CCG will together have at their
disposal the ability to make further provision in the local area if this is shown to be
necessary.
66. The reason for refusal also refers specifically to the sustainability of the amount of
development proposed within the Manhood Peninsula being unable to serve the
service and employment needs of the new community. However, the scheme is for
70 houses, and East Wittering is identified in the adopted and emerging Local Plan
as a “settlement hub”. The evidence base for the emerging plan confirms this13.
It seems to me to be very clear, having heard the evidence of many members of
the public, that the underlying concern relates to both the effects of the
development proposed and the cumulative impacts of a number of proposed
developments on the Peninsula and indeed the district, a matter which has led to
delays in progressing the emerging plan. It was also put to me at the Inquiry that
substantial levels of development had already occurred in East Wittering, over and
13 ID35
above the 180 dwellings anticipated in policy 24 of the Local Plan, and that further
development would be beyond the scope of that anticipated within the
development strategy set out in policy 2.
67. The adopted local plan is out of date, and so policies 2 and 24 carry reduced
weight. Furthermore, policy 24 relates to the neighbourhood plan for East
Wittering, which has not been advanced, and which would, in any case is not
applicable to the development site, which lies beyond its plan area. The Council did
not, in the event, refer to it in the reasons for refusal. I have not therefore
attributed it any meaningful weight in relation to the determination of this appeal.
It remains to be seen how much development the emerging local plan will allocate
on the Peninsula. In the interim, and in the absence of an up-to-date plan,
decisions on individual applications will need to be based on the merits and
circumstances of each individual case.
68. On the third matter I therefore conclude that the proposal would be in an
accessible location with good access to most facilities and services. The Council
have referred to policies 1, 2 and 45 of the LP. The site lies within open
countryside and so, As outlined above, would offend the requirement in policies 2
and 45 to resist development in restrict development in the countryside to that
which requires a countryside location. Nevertheless, due to its accessible location
it would not be inconsistent with the settlement hierarchy and taking into account
that the policy is out of date, I attribute only limited weight to the identified
conflict. I also find the proposal consistent with the requirement in the Framework
to ensure new development has accessible services.
69. With regard to the IPS, the proposal would not conflict with IPS2, which requires
the scale of development proposed to have regard to the settlement’s location in
the settlement hierarchy and the range of facilities available. As outlined above the
proposal would conflict with the requirement that new development be contiguous
with an identified settlement boundary in IPS1. However, as the settlement
boundary does not accurately reflect the built form on the ground, I attribute
limited weight to this conflict.
Other Matters
Highways
70. The effects of the proposal with regard to highway safety are a concern for a
number of residents. The application was supported by a Transport Assessment
(TA) which used trip generation rates that were agreed with the Local Highways
Authority (West Sussex County Council WSCC). This concluded that the impacts of
the development on the highways network could be accommodated without a
significantly adverse impact upon existing traffic flows.
71. It was put to me at the Inquiry that the trip generation rates were flawed.
However, I note that these were accepted by WSCC, and National Highways and I
have been provided with no persuasive evidence that they under-represent the
likely numbers of vehicles leaving the site at peak hours. It was also put to me that
there are marked differences in seasonal traffic flows on the peninsula. Whilst I
have no reason to doubt that this is the case, I am also satisfied that the modelling
of background traffic flows was carried out in accordance with government
guidance, using September as a “neutral” month, and note that WSCCC and
National Highways were also satisfied that the modelling to inform the transport
assessment is robust.
72. It was also put to me that trip generation rates were based on outdated rates of
employment on the peninsula and that this would impact upon the direction of
travel from the site during peak hours. The rates are derived from figures from
201114which are the best available at this time. It may well be that more up to
date figures show a shift towards out-commuting and so would result in more
vehicles heading north. Junctions outside the site were not modelled, in line with
the view of WSCC that this was not necessary, and it was put to me that the
background modelling for the B2179 roundabout was also inaccurate. However,
even if both these matters were to be the case, the overall numbers of vehicles
involved15 would not lead to a severe impact on the functioning or safety of the
highways network. This is confirmed by traffic date provided for the A286 which
shows that the traffic generated from the development would have a fractional
effect on wider traffic flows.
73. Having regard to the comments of WSCC I am satisfied that the scheme as
proposed can be safely accessed. I was advised at the Inquiry of traffic accidents
in the local area, and I noted on site that Piggery Hall Lane/Church Lane had some
sharp bends. Nevertheless, the access geometry would provide acceptable
visibility in both directions and the traffic flows from the site would not lead to an
increase that would prejudice highway safety.
74. I note the concerns of residents with regard to construction traffic, but I am
satisfied that subject to an appropriate condition, a construction management plan
would mitigate the impact of construction activity on the wider highways network.
75. Furthermore, in relation to the effects of the proposal on the A27. I am advised
that the delivery of A27 improvements works has been a concern of the Council in
the formulation of the Chichester Local Plan and that at present it is unclear
whether there is sufficient external funding to deliver a full package of A27
improvements, sufficient to serve the entire predicted housing need for the district.
Nevertheless, in relation to the development before me, Highways England have
indicated that they are satisfied that a financial contribution in line with Chichester
District Council's SPD16 would mitigate the potential effects of the development in
relation to the cumulative impacts of traffic arising from the development.
Therefore, in the interim, whilst the extent of planned development in the district
and any necessary highways works is being decided upon, I am satisfied that the
contribution is sufficient to mitigate the impacts of the development to the A27 and
will enable those works to take place once their extent have been finalised.
76. I have been asked by residents to consider the cumulative effects of the
development in association with other proposed schemes in the area. However,
whilst it is appropriate that the cumulative impacts be taken into account, this can
only be the case for committed schemes. At this time, I cannot assume that any
other proposed schemes will go ahead and so must base my decision on
development which I know is likely to occur, as must the decision maker on any
subsequent development.
77. In conclusion, in relation to matters of highways safety, I am satisfied that this
matter does not weigh against the proposal in the planning balance and I find no
conflict with Policy 8 - transport and accessibility, Policy 9 - development and
14 The Office for National Statistics (ONS) Census origin-destination data from 2011
15 Transport Proof of Evidence – Mr Stephen Evans
16
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 'Approach for securing development contributions to mitigate additional
traffic impacts on the A27 Chichester Bypass'
infrastructure provision or Policy 39 transport, accessibility and parking which
together seek to mitigate the effects of development in relation to infrastructure
provision, including roads, and to ensure that new development can be safely
accessed. It would also not conflict with policies IPS7 and IPS10 which have
similar aims.
Biodiversity
78. The site lies within a short distance of a number of designated and non-designated
nature conservation sites including Bracklesham Bay Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI), Chichester Harbour SSSI, Chichester and Langstone Harbours
Special Protection Area (SPA) SSSI and Ramsar site. These sites lie within the area
known collectively as The Protected Sites Around the Solent. The site also lies
around 5km from Pagham Harbour Ramsar, SPA and SSSI.
79. Under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
(as amended) I am required as competent authority to undertake an Appropriate
Assessment of the proposal on the basis of its likely significant effects on European
Sites. The habitats present within the site do not support any qualifying species of
the Solent Maritime SAC or the Pagham Harbour SAC. Furthermore, wintering bird
surveys were conducted to assess “functional linkages”. Of the 15 species requiring
assessment for functional linkage between the site with Pagham Harbour SPA
and/or Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA, no species were recorded, and the
site is not considered to be functionally linked.
80. The Solent SAC includes species which are sensitive to pollution. A drainage ditch
on site discharges into the Bracklesham Bay SSSI. The proposed development
would include a SUDs scheme which would ensure run-off at greenfield rates. It is
therefore considered that provided the SUDs system is implemented and
maintained, and impacts during construction are managed, ground and surface
water conditions would not alter as a result of the scheme.
81. With regard to recreational disturbance the site lies within the Zone of Influence for
the Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA but falls outside the Zone of Influence
for the Pagham Harbour SPA. Therefore, the proposal would give rise to a likely
significant effect with regard to recreational disturbance during occupation (alone
and in-combination).
82. A number of mitigation measures are proposed to address these effects which,
having regard to the advice of Natural England, I am satisfied would adequately
mitigate the effects of the development to ensure there would be no adverse effect
on the integrity of any European sites. The mitigation would be achieved through
planning obligations submitted with the appeal and through planning conditions.
These would comprise:
- A contribution towards a Solent-wide mitigation strategy;
- A Construction Environmental Management Plan and a SUDs maintenance plan,
to be secured via planning condition;
83. I have considered the effects of the proposal in relation to nutrient outputs during
occupation. Within the local area the issue of nutrient neutrality only applies to
developments where the treated effluent discharges into any Solent international
sites (Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar,
Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and
Ramsar), or any water body (surface or groundwater) that subsequently discharges
into such a site. In this case the site lies outside the catchment for these areas17
and as such the development of the site is unaffected by this requirement.
84. Lastly, the effects of sewerage discharge on the Pagham Harbour European
Protected Sites is also a concern of residents. Foul drainage from the site would be
treated at Sidlesham Waste Water Treatment Works (SWWTW) which I am advised
discharges to Pagham Harbour. In this regard, after the Inquiry closed I was
provided with a draft report from JBA Consulting, prepared for Natural England18.
The report post-dates the preparation of the Ecological Impact Assessment and the
Habitats Regulation Assessment Screening Report and identifies that within the
Pagham Harbour Maritime Conservation Zone (MCZ) there has been a decline in
the extent of intertidal seagrass beds which are a designated feature of the MCZ.
Features of the MCZ could, in some circumstances, support qualifying species
within the SPA. However, the report does not make any recommendation in
relation to this finding. The production of the draft report in January also predates
my latest correspondence with Natural England who have not altered their advice
in relation to the site in the light of it. I therefore have no basis for concluding that
the development, in combination with other development, as a result of the
operation at Sidlesham WWTW, would have a likely significant effect on the
European site.
85. I have also considered the effects of the proposal on local wildlife outside European
protected areas. The application was accompanied by an ecological assessment19
which found that provided adequate mitigation was provided, the effects of the
proposal on local wildlife were likely to be minimal. This is largely due to the fact
that the site is predominantly arable land, with the retention of existing hedgerow,
other than a short stretch along Church Lane to facilitate access. Enhanced
planting is proposed along the site boundaries as part of the proposed landscaping
which would facilitate biodiversity enhancements. The scheme was subject to a
number of ecological surveys in relation to protected species including bats, water
voles, badgers, reptiles and Great Crested Newts. The Council have identified that
additional mitigation may be required, particularly in the case of water voles and
potentially badgers, but that these matters would not preclude development on
site.
86. Having regard to the Ecological Impact Assessment20 submitted with the
application, I am satisfied that subject to the mitigation measures set out within it,
which can be secured by condition, the proposal would not have a detrimental
impact on the biodiversity of the site, including protected species. I therefore find
no conflict with Policies 49 and 50 which together seek to protect local wildlife and
to ensure that the effects of new development are appropriately mitigated.
Flooding and Surface Water Drainage
87. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, with the exception of a small portion of the site
which lies within Flood Zone 3. The proposed development shows this area is not
proposed for built development. The site is also within land identified within the
Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2018 (SFRA) as being located within a
2115 tidal event zone. Land within this area was initially discounted from inclusion
in the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2020 (HEELA) on this
basis. However, the Environment Agency have subsequently advised21 that this
17 D32 figure 3
18 Condition data review of Pagham Harbour Designated Sites – Draft Report JBA Consulting – March 2022
19 Land South of London Road Leybourne, Kent Ecological Impact Assessment July 2019
20 D41
21 EA response to West Wittering Parish Council (21.06.2021)
model has been superseded and that the site is not considered to be at risk of
coastal flooding.
88. The Agency have also advised that the site is at low risk from surface water
flooding and high risk from groundwater flooding. The Flood Risk Assessment22
accompanying the development acknowledges this and advises that there may be a
residual risk of groundwater emergence to some lower parts of the site. As such,
mitigation measures may be required, in addition to a period of groundwater
monitoring to ensure any risk to the proposed development can be managed
appropriately.
89. In order to ensure the proposed development does not increase the risk of flooding
elsewhere the scheme includes proposals to restrict surface water discharge from
the site to an equivalent greenfield runoff rate. This would be achieved through
the implementation of a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDs) on site. I am
satisfied that the site is large enough to accommodate such a scheme and that it
could include measures to take account of groundwater flooding23. The
requirement for a SUDs scheme to be implemented and maintained could be
secured by a suitably worded planning condition. I therefore do not consider that
the proposal would be at risk of flooding, or that it would increase the risk of
flooding to residents elsewhere.
Foul Drainage
90. During the Inquiry many residents raised concerns with regard to how foul
drainage would be dealt with in the development and I was advised of the
difficulties of some properties in the area in achieving appropriate foul drainage. In
addition, recent incidents where Southern Water had been found to be making
illegal discharges into Chichester Harbour were brought to my attention.
91. After initially objecting to the development Southern Water have stated that there
is capacity at the Sidlesham Waste Water Treatment Works (SWWTW) and an
available connection from the site to serve the development. Southern Water has
identified Sidlesham as one of 7 WWTWs that requires improvement as part of their
process24 for identifying where strategic investment needs to be made in their
catchment.
92. As the statutory undertaker Southern Water are obliged by The Water Industry Act
1991 to accept flows and provide the necessary capacity to drain property within
their area and new connections charges are paid to provide any upgrades needed
to serve new development. Southern Water as statutory undertaker have
confirmed that they have capacity to facilitate the development. Notwithstanding
the evidence of residents, I have no compelling basis for concluding that Southern
Water are unable to treat the sewage arising from the proposal, or that the scheme
would lead to a repeat of the recent illegal activity of the operator. Should
Southern Water fail to meet their obligations under the Act, the industry regulator,
OFWAT is obliged to take appropriate action and to ensure necessary work is
carried out. Therefore, whilst I understand the strongly held views of residents
in this regard, I cannot conclude that sewage from the development will not be
adequately dealt with.
Housing Type
93. The proposal would provide 21 affordable homes, the size and type of which would
meet local needs. I was provided at the Inquiry with a great deal of evidence in
22 D20
23 Oral evidence – questions from the Inspector to Mr Allum-Rooney
24 ID38
relation to the need for such housing, and whilst I note that East Wittering has
been provided with affordable housing through recent development in the area, I
see no reason to doubt that affordable homes provided as part of this development
would meet an urgent need in the district. This weighs in favour of the proposal in
the planning balance.
94. At the Inquiry I was also advised of the pressures brought by increasing numbers
of second homes25 and the emerging WWNP proposes a policy which aims to
control levels of second homes within new development. In this regard the
appellant has indicated that they would be no objection to a condition limiting
occupation of the dwellings to that of a primary residence. However, the emerging
policy is some way from being adopted, and whilst I recognise the issues that
vacant property out of season will raise for local communities, I note that East
Wittering, where the site is located, has a lower proportion of second homes that
West Wittering. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the properties would be
affordable, and so their occupation would be controlled in any case. I therefore do
not consider that there is a sufficient case for imposing such a condition in this case
and this matter does not weigh in the planning balance.
95. I am also advised that the location is popular with retirees, and that as such, there
is a local need for bungalows. The design and access statement accompanying the
proposal expresses the intention for a proportion of the development to be made
up of single storey properties, which would reflect the development pattern in the
wider area, where I note that single storey property (albeit in some cases with roof
conversions) are a local feature. The appellant’s indicative housing mix would also
assist in ensuring that the range of accommodation on site meets local needs.
Therefore, having regard to the relatively high proportion26 of the local population
who are over 65, I am satisfied that the provision of such accommodation would
help provide an appropriate housing mix on site.
Heritage Assets
96. There are 5 listed buildings within the wider area around the site. The Church of
the Assumption of St Mary the Virgin (Grade II*), Hale Farmhouse (Grade II),
Piggery Hall (Grade II) and East Wittering Windmill (Grade II) and The Thatched
Tavern (Grade II).
97. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory
duty on decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a
listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic
interest when considering whether to grant planning permission for development
which affects the setting of a listed building. This duty is reflected in the Framework
which subsequently goes on to categorise any harm to the significance of a
heritage asset as either ‘substantial harm to or total loss of significance of an asset’
or ‘less than substantial harm to the significance of an asset’.
98. The first 4 assets above are all located some distance from the site, and the
intervening buildings and vegetation ensure that there is no visual link between the
site and the assets. Taking into account the nature of the assets and the distances
involved, I am satisfied that the proposal would not impact on the significance of
these assets.
25 The West Wittering Neighbourhood Plan states that 22% of homes in West Wittering are second homes compared to
only 3.45% in Chichester City and 10.5% in East Wittering
26 B18 West Wittering Neighbourhood Plan paragraph 2.20 – 42.1% of the resident population are over 65 compared to
16% across England – 2011 Census
99. The Thatched Tavern sits on Church Lane to the north-east of the site. It is an 18th
century thatched pub with a modern 20th extension to the rear. The building sits
within a small beer garden and is adjoined to the rear by the Briar Cottage Caravan
Park. Despite alteration, and the significant erosion of its immediate setting, its
appearance is indicative of its origins as an isolated rural building. The significance
of the asset is therefore derived from its origins as a remaining example of a
building of its type and in the contribution the appearance of the front elevation
makes to the character of the wider area.
100. I have considered the extent to which the wider setting of the Tavern contributes
to this significance. The building would originally have been set in open
countryside, but this has been greatly reduced by the introduction of residential
development to the north at Furzefield and the industrial estate to the south, and
in the immediate surrounds of the site in the form of the caravan park. The
development would lead to a reduction in the open fieldscape to the south-west of
the site. However, the edge of East Wittering is a feature that is already part of
the wider setting of the asset and open fieldscape in the vicinity of the site would
be retained. Taking into account the extent to which the setting of the asset has
already been significantly altered, the development proposed would not, to my
mind, materially alter how the asset is currently appreciated.
101. The construction of the proposed development would impact upon any
archaeological remains which may be present. The submitted archaeological
assessment indicates that any remains that are likely to be present would be of
local archaeological value. In this regard I am satisfied that archaeological
interests would not preclude the grant of consent and that a condition requiring a
written scheme of archaeological investigation would ensure that any
archaeological matters that arise are appropriately considered.
102. I am therefore satisfied that the development would not harm the significance of
nearby heritage assets and find no conflict with the Framework, which seeks to
sustain and enhance such assets.
Agricultural Land
103. The site is made up of 4 hectares of Grade 3a agricultural land. Local residents
have expressed concerns in relation to the loss of this asset. Policy 48 of the LP
requires development schemes to demonstrate that poorer quality agricultural land
has been fully considered in preference to best and most versatile land. The
appellant has not carried out a comparative assessment to indicate that no lower
grade land is suitable and available. Although the Framework does not require a
sequential test, it recognises the economic and other benefits of maintaining a
supply of such land. This matter weighs against the proposal in the planning
balance.
Other Matters
104. I have considered the potential impacts of the development with regard to air
quality. The site does not lie within an Air Quality Management Area, and I have
no compelling evidence that pollution from vehicles or on site plant is likely to
impact upon the living conditions of residents. The application was accompanied
by a sustainable construction and design statement which sets out the applicant’s
intention to implement measures to better the building regulations in relation to
low carbon energy use and to provide EV charging points. These measures could be
secured by condition, as could a further condition to tackle dust during
construction, thus ensuring that the development does not significantly impact
upon existing air quality.
105. I have considered the impact of lighting from the development on the local area.
I note that parts of the peninsula, particularly within the AONB, are noted for their
dark skies and that the area is known as a destination for enjoying astronomy. The
development would be located adjacent to the existing settlement and so would not
significantly increase the spread of lighting into previously unlit areas.
Furthermore, planning conditions, intended to mitigate the effects of lighting on
local wildlife would also contain the amount of lighting derived from the site. In
light of this I am satisfied that the development would not lead to significant harm
in this regard.
106. The indicative layout includes details of how the development could make
provision for a play area and open space to serve the development. These matters
are also addressed in the planning obligation, to secure delivery of these, along
with a number of other matters. For the reasons set out below I am satisfied these
address the direct impacts of the scheme. I note the comments of some
respondents who consider that CIL revenue from the development should be
directed towards East Wittering Parish, to which the development is directly
related, rather than West Wittering Parish, within which the development falls. The
matter of how CIL is appropriately spent is one which rests with the Council and
not a matter which I consider having any bearing on the merits or otherwise of the
scheme.
107. Finally, I note the comments of some local residents in relation to the design of
the development and who fear that the proposal may impact on the living
conditions of adjoining residential occupiers. The layout of the development is not
a matter before me. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the layout of the
development could respond to any such concerns at reserved matters stage. and
so, this matter does not weigh against the proposal.
The Planning Balance
108. Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that
applications should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the
Development Plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.
109. For the reasons outlined above I find no conflict with Policies 8, 9 and 39 of the
LP with regard to the need to mitigate the effects of development in relation to
infrastructure provision including roads, and to ensure that new development can
be safely accessed. I find no conflict with Policies 49 and 50 which together seek
to protect local wildlife and to ensure that the effects of new development are
appropriately mitigated in this regard. I also find no conflict with Policies 52 and 54
which seek to ensure that new development provides adequate open space and
recreation facilities to meet the needs of existing and future residents. For the
reasons outlined above the proposal would also not conflict with Policy 33 of the LP.
110. The Framework indicates that where the local planning authority cannot
demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites the policies in the
development plan are to be considered out of date. In such cases planning
permission should be approved without delay unless any adverse impacts of
granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits of the scheme. Policy 1 of the LP reflects the presumption in favour of
sustainable development within the Framework.
111. The proposal would cause harm to the rural character and appearance of the
countryside and in this regard would conflict with Policy 48 of the LP. As the site
lies outside the settlement boundary, within open countryside, the proposal would
conflict with Policies 2 and 45 of the LP and IPS1 and IPS5 of the IPS. The harm
identified would be localised and would lessen as the development became
established. Furthermore, policies 2 and 45 are out of date and the IPS is not
adopted policy. Accordingly, I attribute this harm moderate weight in the planning
balance.
112. The proposal would lead to the loss of almost 4 hectares of Best and Most
Versatile Agricultural Land and so would conflict with Policy 48 of the LP in that
regard.. Having regard to the amount and grade of the land affected, I attribute
this matter no more than moderate weight in the planning balance.
113. The proposal would provide 70 homes in an accessible location, some of which
would be bungalows and 21 of which would be affordable. Having regard to the
need for housing nationally, including affordable housing, and the need for
affordable housing in the district, I attribute the provision of housing substantial
weight in the planning balance.
114. The proposal would also bring some economic benefits through construction and
through the additional spend generated by new residents, who would also help to
sustain local services, and this carries some moderate weight, commensurate with
the size of the development.
115. The proposal would lead to a loss of a short stretch of hedgerow but would
include extensive planting as part of the finished development. This would result in
Biodiversity Net Gain as required by national policy. Having regard to the size of
the site and the extent of ecological improvement that will result, I attribute this
only limited weight in favour of the proposal.
116. It would also provide open space and provision for play in accordance with
policies 52 and 54 of the Local Plan. These elements of the scheme are necessary
to meet the needs of residents of the proposed development and are likely to be
predominantly used by them. Given the location of the site, I accept that it could
be used by other local residents or visitors to the area. Nevertheless, I’ve been
provided with no quantification of the extent to which this might occur and having
regard to the size and nature of the likely provision I attribute it only limited weight
as a benefit.
117. The proposal would include a financial contribution towards improvements to the
A27. Having regard to the constraints of the CIL Regulations which precludes
contributions which are not necessary to mitigate the impacts of the scheme, it
seems to me that if these contributions gave rise to any benefits to other members
of the community these would be likely to be peripheral, small in scale and by their
nature difficult to quantify. I have been provided with no evidence of the extent of
the benefit these contributions would make to existing members of the community,
and this limits the weight I am able to attribute to them. This matter is therefore a
neutral matter which does not weigh in the planning balance.
118. The harm that would arise due to the loss of agricultural land and harm to the
rural character of the area would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
very substantial collective benefits that the scheme would provide in relation to
housing provision and the other identified benefits of the scheme.
119. The proposal would therefore amount to sustainable development when
assessed against the Framework and accordingly would not conflict with Policy 1 of
the LP. This is a material consideration which would outweigh the identified conflict
with policies 2, 45 and 48 of the adopted development plan and policies IPS1 and
IPS5 of the IPS. Planning permission should therefore be granted.
The Planning Obligation
120. The application is accompanied by a planning agreement made under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
121. The agreement makes provision for the delivery of affordable housing, including
the provision of first homes. It also makes provision for open space, a play area
and a landscape buffer at the site, along with a management company to maintain
the managed land within the development. For the reasons set out above I am
satisfied that these elements are necessary to make the development acceptable in
planning terms, that they are directly related to the development and are fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
122. The agreement also makes provision for sums to be paid towards improvements
to the A27 and for a sum to be paid to monitor the Travel Plan. These measures
are necessary to mitigate the effects of the development on the wider highways
network and I am satisfied that they are directly related to the development and
are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
123. Finally, the agreement also makes provision for a habitats mitigation payment to
be made to enable works to be carried out to mitigate the effects of the
development on the Solent Maritime SAC. This payment is necessary to mitigate
the effects of the development and to make the development acceptable in
planning terms. Having regard to the precautionary principle implicit in any
consideration of the effects of development on nature conservation sites of this
type, I am also satisfied that the payment is proportionate and so is fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Conditions
124. The suggested Schedule of Conditions was agreed by the Council and the
appellant and was discussed at the Inquiry. I have made some small amendments
to ensure that they meet the requirements set out in the Framework paragraph 56,
particularly in the interests of precision and enforceability. The conditions now set
out in the Schedule annexed to this decision are necessary to make the
development acceptable and meet the tests set out in the Framework.
125. For clarity I have imposed conditions to define the reserved matters (condition
1) to identify the approved plans (condition 2) and to set the timescale for
submission of reserved matters and implementation (condition 3). I am satisfied
that the reduced timescale for submission of reserved matters of two years is
necessary to ensure that the housing is delivered quickly to meet identified need.
Condition 4 relates the provision of details of levels within the finished development
and is necessary in order to secure a satisfactory relationship between the
development and adjacent land.
126. Condition 5 ensures that construction on site will take place in accordance with
provisions laid out in a Construction and Environment Management Plan (CEMP).
This is necessary to ensure that construction takes place having regard to impacts
on highway safety and the amenity of nearby residents. It is also necessary to
ensure that construction does not lead to environmental pollution. Conditions
10,11 and 12 require that contamination investigation is carried out and that
remediation is undertaken if any contamination is encountered during construction.
Condition 26 required that any works in this regard are verified. These conditions
are necessary to protect human health and to protect groundwater.
127. Conditions 28, 31 and 25 relate to measures outlined in the ecological impact
assessment and the provision of lighting within the development. Conditions 13
and 14 require additional survey work to be undertaken to determine if mitigation
is required in relation to the effects of the development on water voles and
badgers. I have amended Condition 13 in the interests of clarity. Condition 32
requires that clearance of vegetation takes place outside the bird breeding season.
All these conditions are required to ensure the implementation of the development
does not have a harmful impact upon wildlife habitats on or off site. In order to
ensure that the scheme of mitigation is effective I have amended the agreed
condition to include a requirement for details of a scheme for maintenance for an
appropriate period of at least 5 years.
128. Condition 9 is necessary to protect trees on site during construction. Condition
19 relates to the provision of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping for the site,
including details of how pedestrian permeability is to be achieved through the
development. This condition is necessary to ensure an acceptable appearance for
the scheme and to ensure an acceptable residential development for future
residents. As it will inform, and in turn be informed by the layout of the
development it should be submitted prior to the submission of reserved matters.
To be effective it should also include proposed finished levels or contours,
pedestrian access and circulation areas and details and samples of the hard
surfacing materials.
129. Conditions 22, 23, 33 and 34 relate to the implementation of highway and
footpath design details and are necessary in the interests of highway safety.
Condition 16 requires the provision of electric vehicle charging points within the
development and is necessary to enable the use of low emission transport in the
interests of air quality and carbon reduction. Condition 29 relates to the provision
and implementation of a Travel Plan and is necessary in order to encourage and
promote sustainable transport also in the interests of air quality and carbon
reduction. Condition 18 requires the provision of a sustainable design and
construction statement, demonstrating how CO2 emissions saving of at least 19%
improvement in energy performance over the requirements of the Building
Regulations (2013) are to be met within the development and is also necessary in
the interests of carbon reduction.
130. Condition 27 requires details of the location, installation and ongoing
maintenance of fire hydrants and is necessary in the interests of public safety.
Condition 21 requires that before occupation all dwellings are connected to all
relevant utilities and service infrastructure and is necessary to enable an
appropriate standard of amenity for future occupiers. Condition 20 seeks to protect
existing and future residents from the effects of noise and is necessary in the
interests of residential amenity.
131. In order to ensure the satisfactory treatment of surface water and to limit
surface water run-off from the site in order to reduce flood risk, Condition 7
requires the provision of a SUDs Scheme within the development and Condition 15
requires its on-going maintenance. Condition 30 sets a minimum floor level for
dwellings within the development and is necessary to reduce the risk of flooding to
the proposed development and future occupants. Condition 6 requires the
provision of a suitable scheme for foul drainage and is necessary in order to ensure
the development has adequate provision in this regard. Condition 24 requires
water efficiency measures within the new dwellings, which is necessary to reduce
the impacts of water extraction within the catchment in accordance with policy 40
of the LP.
132. Condition 8 is required to ensure that the archaeological investigation takes
place in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation. This is necessary to
ensure the proper investigation and recording of the site, which is potentially of
local archaeological interest.
133. Condition 17 requires that 10% of the open market dwellings within the
development be provided as bungalows and is necessary to achieve an appropriate
mix of development on site to meet local housing needs.
Conclusion
134. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should succeed.
Anne Jordan
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Christopher Young QC
assisted by Sioned Davies, of Counsel
Kathryn Ventham, BSc (Hons) Msc MRTPI - Barton Willmore now Stantec
Stephen M Evans BA (Hons) MA CMILT, MCIHT MTPS - Pell Frischmann
Stephen Kirkpatrick (BSc BLD CMLI) - Scarp Landscape Architecture Ltd
Ben Pycroft BA(Hons), Dip TP, MRTPI - Director of Emery Planning
Annie Hamilton Gingell BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI, Tetlow King Planning
Daniel Allum-Rooney BSc (Hons) MSc CIWEM, Pell Frischman
For Conditions Session
Caroline Featherston, BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI – Barton Willmore now Stantec
John Reid BA LLB
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Alex Jelley, BA MSc MRTPI – Alpine Planning Ltd
Mr Alex Roberts BSc MPhil MRTPI – Lambert Smith Hampton
For Conditions Session
Jane Thatcher BA MSc MRTPI
Jo Bell BA MA MSc MRTPI
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Claire Tester BA (Hons) Dip TP MSc MRTPI on behalf of West Wittering Parish Council
Sam Tate on behalf of East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council
Graham Campbell on behalf of Birdham Parish Council
Cllr Graeme Barrett - Ward Councillor Chichester District Council
Dr Carolyn Cobbold Phd on behalf of the Manhood Peninsula Partnership
James Birkett - Local Resident
Cllr Pieter Montyn – Ward Councillor West Sussex County Council
Dr Peter Collinson - Local Resident
Carey McKinnon – Local Resident
Mr Burdett – Local Resident
Jill Sutcliffe – Manhood Wildlife and Heritage Group
John Williams on behalf of Earnley Parish Council
Chris Hardy – Local Resident
Trish McKinnon – Local Resident
Bob West – Local Resident
Mr G D Bellamy BSc CEng, MICE - Highways consultant on behalf of East Wittering
and Bracklesham Parish Council and West Wittering Parish Council
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
ID01 – Statement from Birdham Parish Council
ID02 – Statement from Ms Sutcliffe
ID03 – Statement from Chris Hardy
ID04 – Statement from Cllr Montyn
ID05 – Statement from Trish Mackinnon
ID06 – Statement from Carey Mackinnon
ID07 – Statement from Ms Tester
ID08 – Statement from Dr Cobbold
ID09 – Statement from Cllr Barratt
ID10 – Appellant’s 5YHLS Rebuttal
ID11 – Appellants 5YHLS Appendix
ID12 – Council’s Planning Rebuttal
ID13 – Council’s Character and Landscape Rebuttal
ID14 – Appellant’s Planning Rebuttal
ID15 – Appellant’s Landscape Rebuttal
ID16 – S106 unengrossed (agreed draft version)
ID17 – Council’s 5YHLS Rebuttal
ID17a – Council’s 5YHLS Rebuttal Appendices
ID18 – Appellant’s Opening Statement
ID19 – LPA’s Opening Statement
ID20 – Statement from Audrey Backhouse
ID21 – Acceptance of Revised Scheme
ID22 – Revised Statement from Ms Sutcliffe
ID23 – Revised Statement from Mr Hardy
ID24 – Email from Cllr Barrett regarding W.Wittering Population
ID25 – Answer to question regarding formal designation for bird sites
ID26 – Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability
ID27 – Statement from Mr Burdett
ID28 – Further Statement from Ms Sutcliffe
ID29 – Soham Appeal Decision – 3282449
ID30 – Planning SOCG
ID31 – Bus Times
ID32 – Affordable Housing SOCG
ID33 – Supplemental Affordable Housing Statement of Annie Hamilton Gingell
ID34 – CDC Letter to Parish Councils
ID35 – CDC Local Plan Review: Background Paper Settlement Hierarchy (Dec 2018)
ID36 – Statement from Mr James Birkett
ID37 – Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy 2020
ID38 – Manhood Peninsula Destination Management Plan 2018-2023
ID39 - Title Plan of site owner
ID40 – Council’s Closing Statement
ID41 – Appellant’s Closing Statement
ID42 – Schedule of Conditions
Documents Submitted Post Inquiry
Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3284653 – Raughmere Drive
Condition data review of Pagham Harbour Designated Sites – Draft Report JBA Consulting
– March 2022
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1. Approval of the details of the "layout of the site", "scale of the buildings",
"appearance of the buildings or place" and the “landscaping of the site" (hereinafter
called "reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority
before any development is commenced.
Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to above, relating to the
layout of the site, the scale of the buildings, the appearance of the buildings or
place, and the landscaping of the site shall be submitted in writing to the Local
Planning Authority and shall be carried out as approved.
Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local
Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this
permission.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two
years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
3. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in
accordance with the approved plans:
- PL-01 (Location Plan),
- 103606-T-005/RevA (Proposed Site Access and Refuse / Large Car Swept
Path),
- LLD1869-ARB-DWG-003/Rev0 (Tree Retention and Protection Plan),
- LLD1869-ARB-DWG-001/Rev01 (Tree Constraints Plan 1/2),
- LLD1689-ARB-DWG-002/Rev01 (Tree Constraints Plan 2/2), and
- PL-06/RevA (Landscape Parameter Plan).
4. No development shall commence until plans of the site showing details of the
existing and proposed ground levels, proposed finished floor levels, levels of any
paths, drives, garages and parking areas and the proposed completed height of the
development and any retaining walls have been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The details shall clearly identify the
relationship of the proposed ground levels and proposed completed height with
adjacent buildings. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details.
5. No development shall commence, including any works of demolition, until a
Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) comprising a schedule of
works and accompanying plans for that Phase has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved CEMP shall be
implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period unless any
alternative is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall
provide details of the following:
- the phased programme of demolition and construction works,
- the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during
construction,
- the location and specification for vehicular access during construction,
- the provision made for the parking of vehicles by contractors, site operatives
and visitors,
- the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste,
- the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development,
- the erection and maintenance of security hoarding,
- the location of any site huts/cabins/offices,
- the provision of road sweepers, wheel washing facilities and the type, details of
operation and location of other works required to mitigate the impact of
construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary
Traffic Regulation Orders),
- details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works,
including a named person to be appointed by the applicant to deal with
complaints who shall be available on site and contact details made known to all
relevant parties,
- measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction, to
include where relevant sheeting of loads, covering and dampening down
stockpiles and restriction of vehicle speeds on haul roads. A dust management
plan should form part of the CEMP which includes routine dust monitoring at
the site boundary with actions to be taken when conducting dust generating
activities if weather conditions are adverse,
- measures to control the emission of noise during construction,
- details of all proposed external lighting to be used during construction and
measures used to limit the disturbance of any lighting required. Lighting shall
be used only for security and safety,
- appropriate storage of fuel and chemicals, in bunded tanks or suitably paved
areas,
- measures to reduce air pollution during construction including turning off
vehicle engines when not in use and plant servicing, and
- waste management including prohibiting burning,
- provision of temporary domestic waste and recycling bin collection point(s)
during construction.
6. Notwithstanding any details submitted, no development shall commence, until
details of a system of foul drainage of the site have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter all development
shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and no occupation of
any dwelling, shall take place until the approved details for that dwelling have been
completed. The foul drainage system shall be retained as approved thereafter.
7. No development shall commence, until details of the proposed overall site wide
surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The design should follow the hierarchy of preference
for different types of surface water drainage disposal as set out in Approved
Document H of the Building Regulations and the SUDS Manual produced by CIRIA.
Winter ground water monitoring to establish highest annual ground water levels
and Percolation testing to BRE 365, or similar approved, will be required to support
the design of any Infiltration drainage. The surface water drainage scheme shall be
implemented as approved unless any variation is agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until the complete surface water
drainage system serving that property has been implemented in accordance with
the approved surface water drainage scheme.
8. No development/works shall commence on the site until a written scheme of
archaeological investigation of the site, has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include proposals for an
initial trial investigation and mitigation of damage through development to deposits
of importance thus identified. It shall also include a schedule for the investigation,
and the recording of findings and subsequent publication of results. Thereafter the
scheme shall be undertaken fully in accordance with the approved details, unless
any variation is first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
9. No development shall commence on the site, including demolition, until protective
fencing has been erected around all trees, hedgerows, shrubs and other natural
features not scheduled for removal in accordance with the recommendations of
BS5837:2012. Thereafter the protective fencing shall be retained for the duration
of the works, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
No unauthorised access or placement of goods, fuels or chemicals, soil or other
materials shall take place inside the fenced area; soil levels within the root
protection area of the trees/hedgerows to be retained shall not be raised or
lowered, and there shall be no burning of materials where it could cause damage to
any tree or tree group to be retained on the site or on land adjoining at any time.
10. No development shall commence until a scheme to deal with contamination of land
and/or controlled waters has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Unless the local planning authority dispenses with any
such requirement specifically in writing the scheme shall include the following, a
Phase 1 report carried out by a competent person to include a desk study, site
walkover, production of a site conceptual model and human health and
environmental risk assessment, undertaken in accordance with national guidance
as set out in DEFRA and the Environment Agency's Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination CLR11.
11. If the Phase 1 report submitted pursuant to Condition 10 above identifies potential
contaminant linkages that require further investigation then no development shall
commence until a Phase 2 intrusive investigation report has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the LPA detailing all investigative works and sampling on
site, together with the results of the analysis, undertaken in accordance with BS
10175:2011+A1:2013 - Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of
Practice. The findings shall include a risk assessment for any identified
contaminants in line with relevant guidance.
12. If the Phase 2 report submitted pursuant to Condition 11 above identifies that site
remediation is required then no development shall commence until a Remediation
Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning
Authority detailing how the remediation will be undertaken, what methods will be
used and what is to be achieved. Any ongoing monitoring shall also be specified. A
competent person shall be nominated by the developer to oversee the
implementation of the Remediation Scheme. The report shall be undertaken in
accordance with national guidance as set out in DEFRA and the Environment
Agency's Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination CLR11.
Thereafter the approved remediation scheme shall be fully implemented in
accordance with the approved details.
13. No development shall commence until an updated Water Vole Survey has taken
place within Ditch D1, as detailed within the submitted Water Vole Survey (October
2019), by The Ecology Partnership. If water voles are found, no works can
commence until a mitigation strategy has been agreed in writing with the Local
Planning Authority; The mitigation strategy shall subsequently be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
14. No development shall commence, until a badger survey has been undertaken to
ensure badgers are not using the site. If a badger sett is found on site, Natural
England should be consulted and a mitigation strategy produced and carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
15. No development shall commence on the Sustainable Urban Drainage System
(SUDS), until full details of the maintenance and management of the SUDS system,
set out in a site-specific maintenance manual, has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The manual shall include details of
financial management and arrangements for the replacement of major components
at the end of the manufacturers recommended design life. Upon completed
construction of the SUDS system, the owner or management company shall strictly
adhere to and implement the recommendations contained within the manual.
16. No development shall commence above ground level, until the developer has
provided details of how the development will accord with the West Sussex County
Council: Guidance on Parking at New Developments (September 2020 or any
superseding document) in respect of the provision of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging
facilities. These details shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
and carried out as approved. Specifically, the development shall provide passive
provision through ducting to allow EV charging facilities to be brought into use at a
later date for the whole site. Active EV charging facilities shall be provided in
accordance with the table at Appendix B of the West Sussex County Council:
Guidance on Parking at New Developments (September 2020 or any superseding
document) and no dwelling which is to be provided with an active charging facility
shall be first occupied until the EV charging facility for that dwelling has been
provided and is ready for use.
17. Any future reserved matters submissions shall include for the provision of 10% of
the open market dwellings to be provided as bungalows.
18. A detailed Sustainable Design and Construction statement, demonstrating how CO2
emissions saving of at least 19% improvement in energy performance over the
requirements of the Building Regulations (2013) are to be met for the approved
development and shall be submitted with the first application for reserved matters
and any subsequent applications for reserved matters shall demonstrate how the
proposal complies with the approved details. The statement shall also include the
proposed location, form, appearance and technical specification of any air source
heat pumps (including acoustic performance). The development thereafter shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
19. Notwithstanding the illustrative landscaping details submitted with the application,
a detailed scheme of hard and soft landscaping for the whole site shall be
submitted for approval as part of reserved matters to the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall include a scheme for pedestrian permeability through the site and
shall demonstrate substantial compliance with the approved Landscaping
Parameter Plan (ref. PL-06/RevA) and shall include a planting plan and schedule of
plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, and shall
include a program/timetable for the provision of the hard and soft landscaping. In
addition, all existing trees and hedgerows on the land shall be indicated including
details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection during the
course of development. The scheme shall make particular provision for the
conservation and enhancement of biodiversity on the application site and boundary
fencing shall include gaps underneath to enable the passage of small mammals.
The hard landscaping shall include the proposed finished levels or contours,
pedestrian access and circulation areas, details and samples of the hard surfacing
materials. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
and planting timetable and in accordance with the recommendations of the
appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. Any trees
or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or
become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably
practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved unless
otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
20. A scheme for protecting the proposed development from noise; including noise
from external mechanical plant and neighbouring commercial activities, shall be
submitted with the first application for reserved matters and any subsequent
applications for reserved matters shall demonstrate how these details are to be
implemented, in accordance with an approved noise mitigation scheme. Any site
wide noise mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of
the site and any noise mitigation specific to an individual dwelling shall be
implemented prior to the first occupation of that dwelling, unless alternative
implementation arrangements are agreed. The noise mitigation measures shall be
maintained as approved thereafter. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the
attached informative which offers clarification with regard to the specific
requirements of this Condition.
21. Before first occupation of any dwelling, full details of how the site will be connected
to all relevant utilities and services infrastructure networks (including fresh water,
electricity, gas, telecommunications and broadband ducting) shall be submitted to
and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall
demonstrate the provision of suitable infrastructure to facilitate these connections
and the protection of existing infrastructure on the site during works. The
development will thereafter only proceed in accordance with the approved details
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
22. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied until such time
as the vehicular access serving the development has been constructed in
accordance with the details shown on the drawing titled 'Proposed Site Access and
Refuse / Large Car Swept Path' (plan no. 103606-T-005/RevA).
23. No part of the development shall be first occupied until visibility splays have been
provided in accordance with drawing number 103606-T-005/RevA. Once provided
the splays shall thereafter be maintained and kept free of all obstructions over a
height of 0.6 metre above adjoining carriageway level or as otherwise agreed.
24. The dwellings hereby permitted shall be designed to ensure the consumption of
wholesome water by persons occupying a new dwelling must not exceed 110 litres
per person per day, as set out in in G2 paragraphs 36(2) and 36(3) of the Building
Regulations 2010 - Approved Document G - Sanitation, hot water safety and water
efficiency (2015 edition with 2016 amendments) and any subsequent amendments.
No dwelling hereby permitted shall be first occupied until the requirements of this
condition for that dwelling have been fully implemented, including fixtures, fittings
and appliances.
25. Before first occupation of any dwelling details of any proposed external lighting of
the site shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. This information shall include a layout plan with beam orientation and
schedule of equipment in the design (luminaire type, mounting height, aiming
angles and luminaire profiles). The lighting shall be installed, maintained and
operated in accordance with the approved details, unless the Local Planning
Authority gives its written consent to any variation. The lighting scheme shall take
into consideration the presence of bats in the local area and shall minimise
potential impacts to any bats using trees and hedgerows by avoiding unnecessary
artificial light spill through the use of directional lighting sources and shielding. Any
proposed external lighting system should comply with the Institute of Lighting
Engineers (ILE) guidance notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution.
26. The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied, until a verification
report for the approved contaminated land remediation has been submitted in
writing to the Local Planning Authority. The report should be undertaken in
accordance with national guidance as set out in DEFRA and the Environment
Agency's Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination CLR11.
27. Prior to first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, details showing the
precise location, installation and ongoing maintenance of fire hydrants to be
supplied (in accordance with the West Sussex Fire and Rescue Guidance Notes)
shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
consultation with West Sussex County Council's Fire and Rescue Services. The
approved fire hydrants shall be installed before first occupation of any dwelling and
thereafter be maintained as in accordance with the approved details.
28. Notwithstanding any details submitted, no part of the development hereby
permitted shall be first brought into use, until a scheme of ecological mitigation
based on the recommendations of the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
(by the ecology partnership, April 2019), the submitted Ecological Impact
Assessment (by the ecology partnership, September 2020) and the comments of
the CDC Environmental Strategy Unit (dated: 04.11.2020); together with a
timetable for implementation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of ecological enhancements shall include
consideration of:
- Any trees removed should be replaced at a ratio of 2:1.
- Filling any gaps in tree lines or hedgerows with native species.
- Bat and bird boxes installed on the site.
- Grassland areas managed to benefit reptiles.
- Log piles provided on site.
- Gaps are included at the bottom of the fences to allow movement of small
mammals across the site.
- Two hedgehog nesting boxes provided on the site.
- Wetland area for the benefit of water voles.
- Flower rich margins
The scheme shall include a scheme for maintenance for an appropriate period of at
least 5 years. Thereafter the strategy shall be implemented fully in accordance with
the approved details and timescale.
29. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied, until a Travel
Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
in consultation with West Sussex County Council as the Local Highway Authority.
The Travel Plan once approved shall thereafter be implemented as specified within
the approved document and in accordance with the agreed timescales. The Travel
Plan shall be completed in accordance with the latest guidance and good practice
documentation as published by the Department for Transport or as advised by the
Highway Authority.
30. No dwelling hereby permitted shall have a Finished Floor Level lower than 4.9m
AOD.
31. The implementation of this planning permission shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with the mitigation and enhancement strategy detailed in the submitted
Great Crested Newt Survey (October 2019) and the Reptile Presence/Likely
Absence Survey (October 2019), by the Ecology Partnership.
32. Any works to the trees or vegetation clearance on the site shall only be undertaken
outside of the bird breeding season (which takes place between 1st March to 1st
October). If works are required within this time an ecologist must check the site
before any works take place (within 24 hours of any work).
33. Prior to the first occupation of the development, a footpath through the open space
to the north-east corner of the site (as shown on plan no.PL-06/RevA), linking to
the existing footway to the north-east along the eastern side of Church Road shall
be constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with plans and details that
shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, in consultation with WSCC PROW and Highways.
34. The proposed development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the
approved works, to be secured via a Section 278 (S278) agreement, have been
completed generally in accordance with drawing no. [103606-T-005/RevA (as
included in the Pell Frischmann Transport Assessment (ref: 103606) dated 25
September 2020].