Parish: Southbourne. Ward: Southbourne SB/14/04213/FUL

Transcription

1 Parish: Southbourne Ward: Southbourne SB/14/04213/FUL Proposal Proposed change of use of land to provide four travelling showmans yard family plots (comprising a total of 12 no. mobile homes). Site Land South Of Fair Acre Priors Leaze Lane Hambrook Chidham West Sussex Map Ref (E) (N) Applicant Mr Alfie Matthews RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT WITH S106 NOT TO SCALE Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No

2 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit 2.0 The Site and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is located at the southern end of the existing grouping of permitted Travelling Showperson pitches on the southern side of Priors Leaze Lane. The site is within the defined rural area, with open fields to the east and west, with a new large residential development to the south. 2.2 The site is accessed via an unmade track from Priors Leaze Lane, and passes the existing permitted Travelling Showpeople's sites to the east and west of the access road. The proposed site is framed to the north by a mature line of conifers, and is presently laid to grass as paddocks. There is an existing permitted Plot with associated stables and barns to the east of the site. 3.0 The Proposal 3.1 The application proposes the sub-division of the site into 4no. plots (comprising 12no. mobiles homes) which would be made available to the wider Traveller Showpeople community. Each plot would make provision for 3no. static mobile homes, together with space for touring caravans, car parking, a maintenance and storage yard for their equipment and a private recreational area. The design and layout of the plots accords with the provisions of the Governments Design Guide for such pitches. Additional landscaping would be provided to the boundaries to limit views of site from the surrounding existing and future housing developments. 4.0 History None 5.0 Constraints Listed Building Conservation Area Rural Area AONB Strategic Gap Tree Preservation Order South Downs National Park NO NO YES NO YES NO NO EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 NO - Flood Zone 3 NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

3 6.0 Representations and Consultations 6.1 Southbourne Parish Council Objection: The application site was outside the Settlement Policy Area. 6.2 Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council - neighbouring Parish Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council strongly objects to the Application on the following grounds: 1. The site of the proposed development is within the Parish of Southbourne. However, the development would have negative consequences for Chidham and Hambrook Parish. 2. The site is in the Chichester to Emsworth Strategic Gap. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy 12 of the emerging Local Plan, especially with regard to the final bullet point which states: 'The individual identity of settlements, actual or perceived, is maintained and the integrity of predominantly open and undeveloped land between settlements is not diminished.' 4. The proposed development would constitute a further encroachment into the Strategic Gap in this rural area outside a Settlement Policy Area. 5. Access to the site is along Priors Leaze Lane. This is a narrow lane and will not sustain the significant additional traffic or cars and large travelling showmen's vehicles that the development would generate. 6. Planning applications for housing should be assessed with respect to the adequate provision of amenities, including schooling, social, recreation and leisure facilities, public open spaces and public transport. Sustainability is an important factor. 7. The proposed development would not be sustainable. The application refers to good pedestrian access to facilities. Priors Leaze Lane is dangerous for pedestrians and, in any event, all the amenities listed above, with the exception of a small very limited shopping facility in Broad Road, Hambrook, are certainly not within a convenient walking distance. 8. The site is in an unsustainable location and the proposal is in direct contravention of the National Planning Policy Framework. 9. The proposed development constitutes an entirely unsustainable venture that would increase existing traffic difficulties in a narrow country lane and cause nuisance to residents living between the site and Broad Road. The Parish Council strongly recommends refusal of the application. 6.3 Environment Agency I can confirm that we have no objections to the proposal as submitted. 6.4 WSCC Highways Initial Consultation - 12 January 2015 West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application SB/13/02886/FUL to which no objections were raised.

4 The proposal has been considered by means of a desktop study, using the information and plans submitted with this application, in conjunction with other available WSCC map information. This proposal would see a total of 12 pitches created for travelling showpersons. West Sussex County Council policy for proposals creating 10 or more units where it is anticipated to cause an intensification of the existing access is that a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit should be completed and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for inspection. Second Consultation - 11 March 2015 West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under this planning application number, to which further information was requested, including a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. The audit that whilst carried out by engineer, did not appear to explicitly state that the engineer was certified to carry out an audit, highlighted an area of concern regarding the position of a tree within the nearside visibility splay. The presence of this tree is a serious concern, and an increase in movements using this access would be detrimental to other highway users. Within the designer's response it was stated that the tree was located in land outside the control of the applicants. An alternative of relocating the access was also deemed not available. Therefore for the application to progress, the applicants' shall be required to contact the land owner with whom the tree belongs for permission to remove the tree. The tree may also be supported by a Tree Preservation Order, so all correspondence with the landowner should also be sent to the Local Planning Authority. Whether or not the neighbouring land owner agrees for permission for the tree to be felled, the Highway Authority shall be in a position to further advise the applicants as to how to further progress their application. Please re-consult with the Highway Authority after correspondence with the neighbouring landowner has been established regarding removal of the tree. Third Consultation - 14 May 2015 As there have been two suggestions with the access I shall try and deal with them separately. The original submission where the tree issue was raised in the RSA, we should be able to secure an Exception [to the RSA] Report, but I think we need to do a few more things before that is possible. I have seen the revised RSA incorporating a slightly modified access by means of moving the mouth further into the carriageway. I have no issue with that, but there hasn't been a Designers Response included within that report, and I need that before I can continue. As the revised RSA does not highlight any significant issues, I think we will in time withdraw our objection to the proposal. 6.5 CDC - Land and Coastal Drainage Officer Surface water drainage should be implemented in accordance with the 'Drainage' section of the Good Practice Guide submitted with the application. Surface water infiltration drainage should be investigated for the site, incorporating winter groundwater monitoring and percolation testing. The surface water system

5 should contain the 1 in 100 year storm event plus 30% for climate change, for all impermeable areas on site. Condition suggested. 6.6 CDC - Planning Policy The proposal is for a change of use of land for 4 family plots. Each plot incorporates the stationing of three mobile homes, two touring caravans and one specialist Showman caravan together with a storage and maintenance area; each pitch with include a suitable area for parking and manoeuvring. It is considered that the main considerations are whether there is a need for the development and coalescence. The Development Plan The Development Plan currently comprises saved policies in the Chichester District Local Plan There is not a saved policy which relates specifically to travelling showpeople. The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission document contains Policy 36 Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The policy sets out a criteria based approach to identifying sites within the plan area as part of a forthcoming Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocation DPD and for determining planning applications. This is consistent with paragraph 10 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) which says "Criteria should be set to guide land supply allocations where there is identified need " The application should be judged against the criterion within Policy 36 of the emerging Local Plan, the site is considered to be related to Hambrook and within easy distance of facilities at Southbourne and Emsworth which provide a number of services. Advice should be sought from West Sussex Highways Authority in respect of vehicular access. Policy 48 is relevant in that the individual identity of settlements, actual or perceived is maintained. Consideration should be given to the recent residential planning permission at Hambrook, however as the proposal is for a modest extension to an existing site on balance it is not considered that its development will lead to coalescence. Other relevant Local Plan policies include: 1, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 49 and 50. Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) and Five Year Supply As part of the Council's assessment of need, the Council in partnership with the Coastal West Sussex Authorities (Arun, Adur and Worthing) and the South Downs National Park Planning Authority with support from West Sussex County Council, commissioned a Coastal West Sussex Authority Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Assessment (GTAA) (2012/13). The GTAA identified a total need for 59no. pitches for gypsies and travellers and 18no. plots for travelling showpeople within the Plan area during the plan period; with a specific need for 11 travelling showpeople plots before The Council has permitted 7no. plots since 2012 with a remaining shortfall of 4no. plots between when compared to the GTAA requirements (as outlined in Policy 36).

6 As the Five Year Supply is rolled forward we currently have 2 years supply of plots. There is therefore a need for 6no. plots for the period Conclusion It is acknowledged that there is a need for travelling showpeople sites within the plan area. There is a need however to plan positively through the preparation of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocation DPD in order to select the most suitable sites for the District. Nonetheless the proposal is for an extension to an existing site in a sustainable location, there is therefore not a policy objection to the proposal subject to development management considerations e.g. access. 6.7 CDC - Tree Officer I refer to the issue of the 1 no. Oak tree (T1) now provisionally subject to SB/15/00068/TPO and part of a well tree'd area of Priors Leaze Lane which has a reasonable amount of amenity within the locality. The Oak tree is within the verge area on the eastern side of the entrance into Fair Acre off Priors Leaze Lane. It is a mature specimen of its kind and the tree does shows signs of stress and/or possible decline - due to compaction of the ground to the north (road), west (driveway/entrance), to the east compaction of the ground due to vehicular movement. There is a drain cover to north-west which may have damaged roots when installed. The tree's canopy overhangs the road to the north and entrance to the site to the west. At the time of my inspection there was the evidence that a Ganoderma spp. bracket (fruiting body) which had been attached on the tree (now detached) - this fungus causes root and butt rot in living trees. The tree was starting to flush (foliate) but there was significant die back (deadwood) around the crown and canopy edge which can indicate that the roots may be damaged/in decline. There were signs of storm damage and possibly high sided vehicles had knocked a couple of limbs on the north/north-west sectors. The Tree report from (PJC Consultancy, dated 1 April 2015) notes that the tree has a viable life span of up to 20 years. This could be considered a reasonable amount of time for its retention. However, the tree could have further testing (sonic test/resistograph) to assess the impact that the Ganoderma fungus has on the tree (strength of the wood within the butt and lower stem area) and/or deadwood the tree to assess how significant the tree's decline is with the canopy. This could help determine whether to fell and replace the tree is a more prudent option at this time. The issue is the tree's retention impacts on the sightlines for the coming and going into the site and is impacted by vehicular movement into the adjacent grain store site which is eroding the verge area adjacent to the tree. The tree is in decline due to the vehicular movement. However, the planting of another Oak tree to the south by the hedge would enhance the area in the future and would possibly mean that the District Council should consider not to confirm the current provisional order on the tree.

7 6.8 Third Party Letters of Objection 2no. third party objection letter received from a local resident and the Hambrook District Residents Association. They highlight concerns regarding traffic generation, the relationship with the settled community, sustainable transport, and the amount, scale, appearance and layout of the proposal. 6.9 Third Party Letters of Support 6no. third party letters of support have been received from the Showmen's Guild and from Traveller's supporting the provision of additional plots, and also highlighting a desire to take up a plot should planning permission be granted Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information The planning application has been supported by a detailed Planning, Design, Access, and Utilities Statement. The Statement includes details regarding the history of travelling showpeople in the Country together with the identified need for additional permanent plots within the Chichester District area. The statement also includes details regarding the design, amount, layout, scale of the development proposal, together with planning policy considerations, sustainability of the site, access and landscaping, flooding and infrastructure within the site. Following a request from WSCC, a detailed Stage 1 Road Safety Audit was also provided together with a detailed Tree Survey of the mature oak tree at the site's entrance. 7.0 Planning Policy The Development Plan 7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for Southbourne Parish at this time. 7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999: RE1 Rural Area Generally RE6 Strategic Gaps RE21 Safeguarding Existing Travelling Showpeople's Sites RE23 Safeguarding Existing Gypsy Sites TR6 Highway Safety R4 Public Rights of Way and Other Paths 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and Modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant. Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and Proposed Modifications 2014:

8 Policy 1: Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area National Policy and Guidance 7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decisiontaking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted. 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles). 7.6 In addition to the overarching policies of the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites, published at the same time as the NPPF. Other Local Policy and Guidance 7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are: B1: Managing a changing environment B2: Greener living B3: Environmental Resources C3: A culturally enriched and empowered community D4: Understanding and meeting community needs E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level 8.0 Planning Comments 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Level of current provision; ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site; iii) Impact on the landscape of the area; iv) Impact on the amenities of surrounding properties;

9 v) Highway implications and means of access; and, vi) Impact on Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area. Assessment i) Level of current provision 8.2 There is an accepted need for a minimum of 18no. plots for travelling showpeople in the District by 2027, including 11no. pitches before This figure was established after the Council, together with the other West Sussex coastal authorities commissioned a Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment. The report was undertaken by Opinion Research Services and Peter Brett Associates and was completed in April It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of travelling showpeoples plots. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 6no. plots in order that the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply between 2015 and This application would provide a further 4no. permanent plots to contribute towards meeting this requirement. 5no. permanent plots have been provided by the grant of planning permission or at appeal since September This need must therefore be weighed against other material considerations, including landscape harm. ii) Principle of development, including the sustainability of the site 8.3 Policy H of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) documents relates to determining planning applications for traveller sites and requires planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Paragraph 20). It also advises that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and the planning policy for traveller sites (paragraph 21). 8.4 Paragraph 22 advises that planning authorities should consider a number of issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites; a) The existing level of local provision and the need for sites b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections 8.5 As set out in paragraph 8.2 above, there is an accepted need for a minimum of 18no. travelling showpeoples plots in the District by 2027, including 11no. plots before Whilst the District Council has now permitted 7no. plots since September 2012, (including 3no. new plots on land to the northwest of this application site) there remains a significant shortfall in provision. It is incumbent on the Council to ensure that there is an on-going 5 year supply of travelling showpeople plots. There is currently a requirement for the provision of a further 6no. travelling showpeople plots in order that the council can demonstrate a 5 year supply up until the end of 2020.

10 8.6 The plots would be occupied by the Applicant and his family, who presently reside in part at Fair Acre. Fair Acre has become increasingly overcrowded in recent years and the provision of these additional plots would enable the family group to remain together, whilst enabling the group to spread out onto 2no. adjoining plots. The remaining three plots would be made available to other Showmen, and the applicant has had several letters of interest from practising Travelling Showpeople who are member of the Showman's Guild. The level of interest clearly shows a high demand for additional suitable plots within the Chichester District area. No other available permanent sites have been identified either by the applicant or the Council. 8.7 Paragraph 23 of Policy H advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. LPAs should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure. Although the application site is comparatively large in terms of its area at over 1ha, the Settlement Policy Areas for Nutbourne and Hambrook are around 300m away. The site layout is based on the Model Standards with each plot providing a recreation area, and the remaining land to the south, east and west of the site remaining open. Furthermore, there is a demonstrated need for a site and the expansion of an existing site is considered to be a reasonable approach to meeting some of the shortfall. 8.8 Paragraph 24 advises that in considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to 4 matters, which will be assessed below: a) Effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land 8.9 The majority of the site is considered to be agricultural land and not brownfield but is adjacent to an existing site used predominantly by Travelling Showpeople. The majority of the views of the site would be against this backdrop. b) Sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness 8.10 The new plots are proposed to be designed in accordance with the Model Standards advocated by the Showmen's Guild, and are considered acceptable in terms of their landscaping and design. The boundaries of the plots and the access road would be softened with hedgerow planting, with the main storage and maintenance areas located on the northern parts of the plots, ensuring they are further away from the boundaries, to lessen their impact. The surrounding land would remain as open agricultural land, which would act as a buffer between the settled residential communities to the south and east. c) Promote opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as adequate landscaping and play areas for children 8.11 Each plot would be well landscaped and provide a recreation space. The plots as stated above would be bounded by landscape planting and complies with the Model Standards in terms of provision of open space for the residents. d) Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community

11 8.12 As stated above the plots would be bounded by landscaping (hedging to be conditioned) rather than fencing/walls or other hard landscaping. It is anticipated a degree of secure fencing will be required in order to secure the storage and maintenance area, however, this would be softened by hedging to minimise its visual impact on the wider landscape setting. Policy H encourages the use of planning conditions or planning obligations The proposal is therefore generally considered to be in conformity to the four above criteria, and given the urgent need for additional permanent accommodation, it is considered that the scheme is acceptable, which is well designed and supported by the Showman's Guild. Further enhancements could be achieved by the imposition of relevant conditions relating to landscaping, and fencing details In terms of compliance with the current Development Plan, there is no current adopted policy in the Local Plan 1999 for new sites and due to the advanced stage of the emerging Local Plan, Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and proposed modifications 2014 carries significant weight. Given the relevance of Policy 36 and its general conformity to PPTS, further regard to this policy is set out below Policy 36 specifically sets out 6no. criteria for assessing the suitability of sites, criteria 1, 2, 5 and 6 relate to the principle of development. Considering these in turn; they require that the development should: 1) be well related to existing settlements/close to major roads and/or public transport; 2) safe and convenient vehicular access; 5) avoid areas of Flood Risk; and 6) not dominate the settled community Whilst the site is located outside and away from any defined Settlement Policy Area (as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review, 1999), Priors Leaze Lane is within 500m of Broad Road, and is therefore only 525km from the nearest local shop (Hambrook Post Office and Store). Broad Road provides direct access to Nutbourne Railway Station, is served by buses and is within walking distance to Main Road, which is well served by regular buses connecting Havant and Chichester Having regard to the definition of sustainability as set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF, and paragraph 11 of the PPTS, the site would not be sustainable for most forms of residential use and would not meet the requirements set put in paragraphs of the NPPF for permanent settled residential accommodation. However, given the relative nomadic habit of life associated with Travelling Showpeople, and given the existing presence of other Travelling Showpeople in this location, the suitability of the site to accommodate additional travelling showpeople, there are other material considerations which would outweigh this, coupled with the fact that the location would meet with their specific sustainability requirements In respect of the access arrangements, the site is a well-established Travelling Showmans location, having been used by Showpeople since the 1980s. The County Council has raised no objections to the increased use of the site in the past. The current objection relates to the impact of a mature oak tree at the site entrance, which obstructs the east visibility splay. The applicant cleared the surrounding vegetation and undertook a further assessment of the visibility where it was agreed that the

12 Chichester Grain Store (whose entrance lies opposite the application site) had eroded the roadside verge up to the tree trunk, therefore demonstrating that the verge actually extends a further 1.8m beyond the tree trunk, enabling a clear view before and after the tree trunk. However, the removal of the tree, which has already been considered to be in declining health by the Council's Tree Officer, within an area already well tree'd, would see the objection from the County Council removed, and provide sufficient visibility onto Priors Leaze Lane The site is not located within any known area of flood risk and no objection has been received from the Environment Agency In addition to criteria 6 of Policy 6 to the emerging local plan, Policy C of the PPTS (Sites in rural areas and the countryside) seeks to ensure that 'the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community'. The site is located in an established area of Travelling Showpeople, who have, for the past 30 years lived harmoniously with the surrounding settled community. With the development of the Lion Park estate (80no additional houses), coupled with the recent Appeal Decisions for a further 60no. houses to the east of the site along Broad Road, the number of people in the settled community of Hambrook is likely to increase significantly, and therefore it is considered that the provision of 4no. additional Travelling Showpeople plots along Priors Leaze Lane is unlikely to overwhelm the settled community In conclusion, on this point, the current scheme is not considered to conflict with the objectives of the PPTS and Policy 36 of the emerging Local Plan. It is therefore considered, given the existence of this existing Travelling Showpeople plots along Priors Leaze Lane, and the clearly identified need for the District Council to provide additional plots, that the premise of allowing this on a permanent basis is considered acceptable. iii) Impact on the landscape of the area 8.22 Criteria 4 to Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires that development does not compromise nationally important features. Paragraph 23 of Policy H to the PPTS advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. However where sites are within the rural area LPAs should ensure that sites respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure The site is located outside any specific landscape designations, although does lie within the Chichester to Emsworth Strategic Gap. Strategic Gaps are policy designations not being carried forward in the emerging Local Plan, although Policy 48 highlights the need to maintain the separate identity of individual settlements. Given the relatively flat nature of the prevailing landscape, additional development in the open countryside could have the potential to significantly impact on the character and appearance of the rural landscape. However, given the existing travelling showpeople plots to the north of the site, which has been well established for the past 30 years, and the additional development permitted along Broad Road, against which the proposals would be set and in the context in which they would be viewed, the proposals would not have a significant impact on the visual landscape. Additionally, there are public rights of way located to the east and west of the site. Both are located almost 100m away from the site, and whilst these offer views across the open field to the site, the provision of enhanced landscaping to the boundaries of the site

13 would ensure a good level of mitigation against the visual impact of the proposal. It should also be noted that the planning permission granted in 2013 for the 3no. additional plots to the northwest of the current application site included detailed landscaping conditions to enhance the landscaping buffer between the public right of way to the west of the site and the permitted plots. This would ensure a significant improvement to future users of this public right of way Southbourne Parish Council raised no objection to the landscaping impact of the development, neither did the neighbouring Parish (Hambrook and Chidham). Whilst the proposal does increase the level of development within the identified rural area, the siting of Travelling Showpeople's sites within or immediately adjacent to settlements could result in increased conflict, in terms of visual impact and noise and disturbance. The current site is long established as a travelling showpeoples site, and its divorced nature from the settled community enables a better coexistence between the two. The area of open land between the two, particularly to the south and in the future, to the east would be retained as a suitable buffer, and would ensure the visual impact is minimised, in part due to the separation and the proposed level of additional boundary landscaping proposed. iv) Impact on the amenities of surrounding properties 8.25 Policy BE11 of the adopted Chichester District Local Plan requires that the relationship between existing and proposed development would be harmonious. Criteria 3 of Policy 36 of the emerging Local Plan requires that development would provide for a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for occupiers and neighbours The closest neighbouring residential properties would be the new residential estate of Lion Park to the south of the site, the nearest property of which lies almost 150m away. The Travelling Showpeople community have lived and worked from this location for the past 30 years, and the number of permanent residents of the settled community has grown significantly over this time. The relative level of separation would be reduced by the addition of these plots, however, the main storage and maintenance areas are located to the northern part of the plots, to ensure minimal impact on the amenity of the surrounding occupiers. The occupiers to the north are existing travelling showpeople who are familiar with the potential noise and disturbance issues associated with such sites. No objections have been received for the other occupiers of Priors Leaze Lane, and only 1no. third party objection has been received, from a resident some 320m to the east. To the east, 58no. additional dwellings on the western side of Broad Road were allowed by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal (applications 12/04778/FUL and 13/03376/OUT). This would for the most part obscure views of the site from Broad Road, but all the new occupiers would be located over 270m from the eastern edge of the application site. The land in between already includes two agricultural buildings (belonging to the applicant) and would, together with the additional landscaping, reduce the impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Over time, both the Travelling Showpeople community at Priors Leaze Lane and the settled community in the Hambrook area has grown (particularly since the implementation of the 86no. dwellings at Lion Park). This slow growth has reduced the overall impact of the Travelling Showpeople site's development on the settled community, and allowed for a gradual integration into the locality, without significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

14 8.27 It is therefore considered that the proposal would be sufficiently distanced, orientated and designed so as not to have an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, in particular to their outlook, privacy, available light or additional noise generated by the development, which is also residential in nature. iv) Highway implications and means of access 8.28 Criteria 2 to Policy 36 of the emerging local plan requires, amongst other things that development would provide for safe and convenient vehicular access. The access has been assessed by WSCC Highways which has been used by the existing occupiers of the site since the 1980s. WSCC has raised concern regarding the location of a mature oak tree within the eastern visibility splay. The surrounding vegetation has been cut back enabling clear views along the eastern visibility splay before the tree, and following further examination of the junction onto Priors Leaze Lane, it was evident that the heavy vehicles entering and exiting the Chichester Grain Store (on the northern side of Priors Leaze Lane) had heavily eroded the southern roadside verge, up to the truck of the tree. Therefore the applicant undertook a further Highway Assessment to determine the exact edge of the adopted highway, establishing that it was actually sited almost 1.8m north of the tree trunk. This would enable sufficient space for vehicles leaving the application site to have clear views along Priors Leaze Lane. WSCC Highways have now acknowledged that subject to a designers response to this realignment, the objection would be withdrawn. However, whilst the objection from WSCC remains, should planning permission be granted, the tree obstructing the visibility splay could be felled, ensuring unimpeded eastern views along Priors Leaze Lane, which would address the objection from WSCC Further, following the initial comments from WSCC regarding the imposition of the tree, a Provisional Tree Preservation Order was placed on the tree. This was a precautionary measure to ensure the tree's retention whilst its suitability for a TPO was assessed. Having considered further details by the applicant and undertaken a detailed visual inspection of the tree, it is the view of the Council's Tree Officer that the tree is not in a good condition, and of declining health, partly due to the fungal infection and the continued compaction of the root systems. Further, whilst the large tree does have a visual amenity presence, given its location within a relatively well treed setting, its loss would not materially harm the character and appearance of the street scene. v) Impact on the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas 8.30 The site is located within 5.6km of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas, where it has been identified that additional permanent residential accommodation will have significant environmental effects on the Harbours. The applicant has provided mitigation in the form of a S106 agreement and made appropriate payment to overcome this impact. Significant Conditions 8.31 Conditions are recommended to limit the occupation of the site to Travelling Showpeople given the special circumstances of the case. These include; a limitation of the number of mobile homes to be present on the site to 12no. mobile homes and 12no. touring caravans, a condition limiting the uses of the storage areas, the recreation area and the materials proposed for the permanent works (to limit the

15 impact on visual amenity, the withdrawal of permitted development rights for fencing to limit the impact on visual amenity), the submission of a detailed landscaping scheme in the interests of visual amenity and promoting the use of native species, parking and access and conditions to secure foul and surface water drainage. Finally a condition will be imposed restricting external lighting, given the rural location. Conclusion 8.32 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that although the proposal conflicts with adopted development plan policies, the unmet need for Travelling showpeople plots in general is afforded weight in favour of the proposal, it complies with draft policy advice and the advice in the NPPF and PPTS and therefore the application is recommended for approval. Human Rights 8.33 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of any affected parties have been taken into account. The proposal requires engagement of the1998 act, however, taking account of rights under Article 8 of Section 1 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate. Equalities 8.34 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant. "In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty: (1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act. (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level.

16 8.36 However, the duties do not require a particular outcome. What the decision making body chooses to do once it has had the required regard is for it to decide subject to the ordinary constraints of public and discrimination law In conclusion, the actual needs of the applicant need to be weighed against the harm that this development would cause to neighbours, along with all of the material planning considerations. The decision must be proportionate in the light of all the circumstances of this case". RECOMMENDATION PERMIT WITH S106 1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U No Departure from Plans 3 U Occupation limitation 4 U Mobile home and tourer limit 6 U Siting of plots 7 U Use of plots 8 U Surfacing Materials 9 U No fencing pd rights 10 U Landscaping 11 U Landscaping implementation 12 U Foul drainage scheme 13 L04F Surface Water Scheme 14 U Refuse disposal facilities 15 U Height restriction on development 16 U Limitation on hours of work 17 U External lighting scheme 18 U Parking 19 U93884 U Access INFORMATIVES 1 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions 2 For further information on this application please contact Peter Kneen on