Seven homes at Land At Tuppenny Barn, Main Road, Southbourne, Emsworth

What was proposed

The application proposed seven two-storey homes, a new access from the A259, landscaping and associated works.

“The application seeks planning permission for the erection of seven dwellings, the creation of an access from the south of the site onto the A259, landscaping and associated works.”

“All seven dwellings are proposed to be two-storey in scale. Plots 1-4 feature asymmetric pitched gable ended roofs; Plots 5-7 feature pitched gable roofs and single storey flat roof garages. The materials would comprise slate roofs, and walls featuring a light grey/buff brick, knapped flint stone, hanging slate tile cladding and projecting brick details.”

Officer report

The site

The site was an orchard at Tuppenny Barn outside the settlement boundary and within the setting of the Chichester Harbour National Landscape.

“The application site is an area of land at Tuppenny Barn. The application site is located to the north side of Main Road within Southbourne, although outside of any defined settlement boundary and therefore within the countryside. The site is located to the north of the Classified A-road of the A259.”

“The area of the application site is a largely rectangular area of land at Tuppenny Barn, 0.27ha in area, with the overall Tuppeny Barn site (including the application site) having an area of 0.90ha. The application site comprises an orchard across most of the site, with an area of bee hives, rainwater tank and shed to the north of the site. Hedging and trees form the boundary to the south, with hedging along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions allowed Tuppenny Barn’s educational agricultural use and later a community café and shop.

“Planning permission was granted for Tuppenny Barn in 2010 under application reference 09/05122/FUL - for "Change of use from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and the teaching/demonstration of organic farming and related topics to children and adults. With construction of a barn/classroom, associated parking and widening of the access road". In September 2022 planning permission was granted for a community café and shop at Tuppeny Barn.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval after concluding that housing benefits outweighed limited countryside harm and other impacts could be mitigated.

“Any modest harm caused by encroachment into the countryside would be mitigated by the high-quality design and layout, and through conditions to ensure appropriate landscaping and materials. The development would not adversely impact upon the setting of the National Landscape nor would it be detrimental to the community facility of Tuppenny Barn. The development would be acceptable in terms of impact upon protected species, trees, flood risk and highway safety.”

“The ‘titled balance’ is engaged in this instance. There is no strong evidence of harm with regards to any of the material considerations that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposals in the present circumstances, due to the current lack of a 5-year land supply (2.01 years as of 1 April 2025). The contribution that the proposed development would make to the Council’s housing land supply, is given overriding positive weight.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and Chichester Harbour Conservancy objected, while consultees generally raised no objection subject to conditions.

“Chichester Harbour Conservancy maintains its objection to this application and considers that the financial situation of the owner is not sufficient justification to override established planning policies in place to safeguard the countryside gap and the rural setting and natural beauty of the Chichester Harbour National Landscape, both of which would be undermined by the proposed housing development, as set out in our comments dated 15th July 2024, as well as the ecological…”

“No objection subject to conditions requiring a construction management plan to be agreed prior to commencement and the delivery of the access, car parking and cycle parking to be secured prior to first occupation. They comment that no objection is raised from a highway safety or capacity standpoint. There would be no severe cumulative impact on the operation of the highway network.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Speakers included the parish council, Conservancy, Tuppenny Barn, supporters, the agent and the ward member.

The committee debate

Members discussed the landscape gap, National Landscape, settlement boundary, housing need and flooding, with a possible native-species planting amendment.

“Regarding concerns the development would be outside the settlement boundary; [name withheld] agreed the proposal was outside the defined settlement boundary. However, weight was given to the fact there was intervening residential development between the site and settlement boundary.”

“On the matter of housing need; [name withheld] confirmed the Council did have a housing need, she referred to the emerging Local Plan and the housing trajectory included. She explained the Council were given a housing need figure which they were required to meet, upon adoption of the Local Plan the Council would have a five-year housing plan (5YHLS), but by July 2026 the Council may not have a 5YHLS.”

Minutes

The vote

The officer recommendation was not carried, and the chairman used the casting vote on both decisions.

“Following a vote, by show of hands the Officer’s recommendation to defer for S106 then permit, including the amendment to condition 8 was not carried. The Chairman used their casting vote.”

“Following a vote, by show of hands, the Committee supported Cllr Todhunter’s proposal to Refuse the application for reasons set out above. The Chairman used their casting vote.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application for harm to the National Landscape setting, erosion of the landscape gap, conflict with Policy 45 and no S106 agreement.

“Cllr Todhunter proposed the application be refused for the following reasons;”

“- Harm to the setting of the Chichester Harbour National Landscape - Erosion of the landscape gap - Conflict with Policy 45 of the current Local Plan - The absence of a S106 agreement.”

Minutes