ITEM REFERENCE LOCATION PAGE. 1 DM/16/2893 Land Parcel At, Cuttinglye Lane, Crawley Down, West Sussex, RH10 4LQ

Transcription

1 DOCUMENT B MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 23 MAR 2017 INDEX TO ITEMS REPORTED PART I - RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL ITEM REFERENCE LOCATION PAGE 1 DM/16/2893 Land Parcel At, Cuttinglye Lane, Crawley Down, West Sussex, RH10 4LQ 10 2 DM/16/3533 Land At Inces Cottage, Lewes Road, Scaynes Hill, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH17 7NG 41 3 DM/16/4840 Land To The Rear Of Firlands, Church Road, Scaynes Hill, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH17 7NH 73 4 DM/16/5369 Land Adjacent To Ladymead Care Home, Albourne Road, Hurstpierpoint, West Sussex, BN6 9ES 96 5 DM/17/0412 Finches Field Recreation Ground, Old Brighton Road South, Pease Pottage, Crawley, West Sussex, RH11 9AH 125 PART II - RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL ITEM REFERENCE LOCATION PAGE 6 DM/17/ Janes Lane, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, RH15 0QR 7 DM/17/ Janes Lane, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, RH15 0QR PART III OTHER MATTERS ITEM REFERENCE LOCATION PAGE 8 13/03476/OUT Land Parcel Adjacent Newbury, Courtmead Road, Cuckfield, West Sussex, RH17 5LP Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

2 MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 23 MAR 2017 PART I RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Worth 1. DM/16/2893 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey LAND PARCEL AT CUTTINGLYE LANE CRAWLEY DOWN WEST SUSSEX ERECTION OF 5 DETACHED HOUSES WITH GARAGES AND ACCESS THE ACRES, CRAWLEY DOWN LTD GRID REF: EAST NORTH POLICY: Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / Aerodrome Safeguarding (CAA) / Aerodrome Safeguarding (CAA) / Strategic Gaps / Tree Preservation Order / Tree Preservation Order / Tree Preservation Order / Tree Preservation Order / Tree Preservation Order Points / 10 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

3 ODPM CODE: Minor Dwellings 8 WEEK DATE: 10th November 2016 WARD MEMBERS: Cllr Phillip Coote / Cllr Bruce Forbes / Cllr Neville Walker / CASE OFFICER: Mr Stuart Malcolm PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider the recommendation of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning on the application for planning permission as detailed above. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 5 detached houses with garages and access on Land Parcel at Cuttinglye Lane, Crawley Down. Planning legislation requires the application to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material circumstances indicate otherwise. As the proposed scheme does not comply with certain aspects of the Development Plan, other material considerations need to be considered in determining the application, including the NPPF. As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not upto-date (paragraph 49 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. This is therefore the balancing exercise that must be undertaken by the decision maker. Weighing in favour of the scheme is that the development will provide 5 residential units in a relatively sustainable location at a time where there is a significant shortfall in housing supply and this should be given substantial weight. Weighing against the scheme is that the fact that dwellings are being proposed outside the built up area and would normally be restricted under the relevant local plan policies. There would also be a limited adverse impact on the landscape as a result of the proposed development on a greenfield site but this is an inevitable outcome of building on an undeveloped site. 11 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

4 Also weighing against the scheme is the future pressure the development will put on protected trees but this should be considered against the fact that any works to protected trees will need the consent of the Council and new landscaping is proposed. There will however be a neutral impact in respect of a number of issues such as highway safety, neighbouring residential amenity impact, sustainability, drainage and nature conservation. The proposal is therefore deemed to comply with the requirements of Policies C5, B1, B3, B4, T4, CS13 and H2 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policies DP1, DP6, DP19, DP24 and DP37 of the submission District Plan and Policies CDNP05, CDNP06, CDNP08, CDNP09 and CDNP10 of the Neighbourhood Plan as well as the broader requirements of the NPPF. Given the substantial weight that needs to be given to the provision of housing and the limited adverse impact of the scheme on the character of the area and the fact that works to preserved trees will require the Council's consent, officers conclude the balance falls in favour of supporting the scheme. That is because, as per the para 14 balancing exercise, it is considered that this proposal would not result in significant and demonstrable harm that would outweigh the benefits of providing what would be a contribution to the Council's current significant shortfall in housing supply. Planning permission should therefore be granted. Recommendation A It is recommended that permission be granted, subject to the conditions listed at Appendix A. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS Total of 18 different objectors raising following issues: outside bua; construction noise, traffic and parking issues; overlooking and loss of privacy; conflicts with neighbourhood plan; no need for large houses; trees cut down without consent; would set precedent; negative impact on nearby monastery; access problems and safety issues for cars and pedestrians; infrastructure insufficient; loss of valuable green area; ecological impact; drainage issues; impact on adjacent PROW; Japanese knotweed on site; 12 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

5 should avoid gated community; all residents of Fermandy Lane should have been consulted; plans not accurate; impact on trees and knock on effect to neighbouring amenity; construction damage; can additional planting be secured; can existing vegetation be secured. SUMMARY OF CONSULTEES MSDC Ecology - No objection subject to condition. MSDC Trees - Objection based on future pressure on trees subject to preservation order and impact on character. MSDC Drainage - No objection subject to conditions. MSDC Waste - No objection subject to conditions. MSDC Street Naming - Add Informative. West Sussex Highways - No objection subject to condition. Gatwick - No objection. NATS - No objection. INTRODUCTION This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 5 detached houses with garages and access. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY There is no relevant planning history on the application site. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site is a parcel of land located to the immediate west of Cuttinglye Lane which is a public footpath. There is sporadic residential development to the south, west and north with denser residential development located to the east on Fermandy Lane. The site was originally woodland before some trees and vegetation were cleared by the landowner well in advance of the submission of this application. A number of trees within the site, largely around the perimeter are subject to a preservation order (ref TP/16/0010) that was confirmed by Planning Committee A on the 26th January Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

6 In terms of planning policy the site falls outside the built up area of Crawley Down, as defined by the Mid Sussex Local Plan, and therefore falls within the Countryside Area of Development Restraint. The site also falls within the Strategic Gap. APPLICATION DETAILS The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of five dwellings on the site. The site will be accessed directly from Cuttinglye Lane just north of where it joins Fermandy Lane. A shared access drive will lead west into the site where a cul de sac arrangements sees two dwellings along the northern boundary and three plots along the southern boundary. The cul de sac extends to the western side of the site where there is a turning head to cater for larger vehicles. Plots one and two on the northern side of the access road face south whilst plots three, four and five on the southern side of the road face north. All the houses are 5 bedroom units with Plots 1, 3 and 5 being the same design and plots 2 and 4 being almost identical only with the additional use of render in places. Each property has a modest central rear balcony. Other materials include red stock facing brick and clay tile hanging/roofs. Each property also has a detached double garage and driveway. LIST OF POLICIES Mid Sussex Local Plan C1 (CADR) C2 (Strategic Gap) C5 (Nature conservation) C6 (Trees, hedgerows and woodland) B1 (Design) B3 (Residential amenity) B4 (Energy and water conservation) T4 (Transport) CS13 (Drainage) H2 (Density and mix) Mid Sussex District Plan The Submission District Plan was submitted for Examination on the 17 August The first of the Examination hearings have taken place. The Plan is a material planning consideration. Weight will be given to relevant policies in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF. Relevant policies include: DP6 - Settlement Hierarchy DP10 - Protection of Countryside DP11 - Preventing Coalescence 14 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

7 DP19 - Transport DP24 - Character and Design DP25 - Dwelling Space Standards DP28 - Housing Mix DP36 - Trees DP37 - Biodiversity DP41 - Flood Risk and Drainage Worth - Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan The Plan has been made and therefore forms part of the development plan attracting full weight. The following policies are most relevant: CDNP05 - Control of New Developments CDNP06 - Sustainable Drainage Systems CDNP08 - Prevention of Coalescence CDNP09 - Protect and Enhance Biodiversity CDNP10 - Promoting Sustainable Transport National Policy and Legislation National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the government's policy in order to ensure that the planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development, such that the planning system needs to perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. This means ensuring sufficient land of the right type to support growth; providing a supply of housing and creating a high quality environment with accessible local services; and using natural resources prudently. With specific reference to decision-taking the document provides the following advice: Para 187 states that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Para 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 15 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

8 National Planning Policy Guidance Technical Housing Standards ASSESSMENT It is considered that the main issues that need to be considered in the determination of this application are as follows; The principle of development; Character, design and visual amenity; Tree impact; Sustainable location of site; Highways, access and car parking; Residential amenity and future occupiers; Ecology; Other issues; Whether the proposal would be sustainable development; and Planning Balance and Conclusion Principle of Development Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) And local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Using this as the starting point the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Small Scale Housing Allocations Document (2008) and the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states: "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing 16 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

9 should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." This Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply for the District. The housing requirement set out in the now revoked South East Plan is no longer relevant. However, the objectively assessed housing need figure for the district is yet to be tested through the District Plan examination. As such the Council is unable at present to demonstrate the five year supply of deliverable sites, since it does not have an agreed requirement to calculate this supply against. As such, the supply of housing element of Policies C1 and C2 in the MSLP cannot be considered up to date. It is also worth referring to the recent Written Ministerial Statement in December 2016 that sets out the relevant policies for the supply of housing in a neighbourhood plan, that is part of the development plan, should not be deemed to be 'out-of-date' under paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework where all of the following circumstances arise at the time the decision is made: this written ministerial statement is less than 2 years old, or the neighbourhood plan has been part of the development plan for 2 years or less; the neighbourhood plan allocates sites for housing; and the local planning authority can demonstrate a three-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This Ministerial Statement does not impact on the Council's planning application decision making so the Statement has little bearing on the application. The reason for this is that the Council cannot demonstrate a 3 year supply of housing land because there is no agreed OAN to assess the supply against and due to the fact that the Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate any sites. In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies which states in part: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: 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 permission unless: o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted." The second bullet point of the 'decision taking' section currently applies. Thus as Policies C1 and C2 cannot be considered up to date (paragraph 49) the Council 17 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

10 should be granting planning permission unless "any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole " The approach that must be taken is that the development is assessed against paragraph 14 to see whether any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The weight to be given to saved policies of the MSLP will need to be assessed against the degree of conformity with the NPPF. In this case whilst the housing land supply element of policy C1 is out of date, the objective to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside accords with the NPPF (paragraph 17) and thus some weight may be afforded to this element of policy C1. Similarly, whilst the conflict with Policy C2 of the MSLP or CDNP08 is not a reason it itself to refuse the application, the aims of these policies to prevent coalescence are a material planning consideration. Case law has confirmed that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not an additional test for development. The sustainability credentials of the development are therefore measured within the balance of paragraph 14, as part of the weighing up process. Therefore this development must be assessed against the 3 limbed definition of sustainable development at paragraph 7 of the NPPF. If a development is found to be sustainable, that would weigh heavily in favour of granting permission in the paragraph 14 balance. If however the development is not found to be sustainable, that is not the end of the matter; the Local Planning Authority still need to go through the weighing up process between the positive benefits of the scheme against any harm that may be caused. While the Neighbourhood Plan does not seek to allocate any specific sites, Policy CDNP05 is of relevance as it relates to new developments within the Neighbourhood Plan Area. The policy states that planning permission will be granted for residential development subject to a list of criteria and to this end it is similar to the Council's own H3 policy (infill development), although the criteria set out in the Neighbourhood Plan policy is more extensive and detailed. One of the criteria states; (b) Individual developments will not comprise more than 30 dwellings in total, with a maximum density of 25 per Ha and spacing between buildings to reflect the character of the area. It could be suggested that policy CDNP05 is not a policy that 'seeks to restrict housing supply' and therefore it is not caught by paragraph 49 of the NPPF. Within the Neighbourhood Plan there is a footnote to the policy CDNP05 specifically relating to the criteria (b) set out above, which provides an explanation to the number level set. The first of five reasons states; 'ameliorate the impact of development on any single part of the village, control rate of growth and consequent impacts on community and infrastructure.' 18 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

11 It is considered that the above aspect of the policy is relevant to the supply of housing as described in paragraph 49 of the NPPF, as it seeks to control the rate of growth, and as the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites, and as the Neighbourhood Plan forms part of the 'Development Plan' for the District, it should not be considered up-to-date. Planning Practice Guidance states that when assessing applications against para 14 of the NPPF, decision makers should include within their assessment those policies in the Framework that deal with neighbourhood planning. This includes paragraphs of the Framework; and paragraph 198 which states that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted. It should be noted that a Court ruling in May 2015 relating to a site in Sayers Common made by Mr Justice Holgate confirmed that paragraphs 14 and 49 do apply to the housing supply policies in a draft development plan, including a draft neighbourhood plan, consequently, they also apply to advanced and made neighbourhood plans. Therefore the key test that must be undertaken therefore when assessing this application is as set out within para 14 of the NPPF. Although only limited weight can be afforded to it at the moment, Policy DP6 of the submission District Plan is also relevant. This states that: "Development will be permitted within towns and villages with defined built-up area boundaries. Any infilling and redevelopment will be required to demonstrate that it is of an appropriate nature and scale (with particular regard to DP24: Character and Design), and not cause harm to the character and function of the settlement. The growth of settlements will be supported where this meets identified local housing, employment and community needs. Outside defined built-up area boundaries, the expansion of settlements will be supported where: 1. The site is allocated in the District Plan, a Neighbourhood Plan or subsequent Development Plan Document or where the proposed development is for fewer than 10 dwellings; 2. The site adjoins an existing settlement edge; and 3. The development is demonstrated to be sustainable, including by reference to the settlement hierarchy." Crawley Down is classed as a Category 2 settlement that is described as: "Larger villages acting as Local Service Centres providing key services in the rural area of Mid Sussex. These settlements serve the wider hinterland and benefit from a good range of services and facilities, including employment opportunities and access to public transport." The proposal largely accords with the requirements of this policy in respect of the number of units and the location. 19 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

12 The following sections of the report will consider the relevant matters associated with the proposed development in the context of the development plan and other material considerations, including the NPPF in order to undertake the necessary assessment outlined above. Character, design and visual amenity When assessing whether or not to grant consent unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, one of the key issues is the visual impact on the character of the area. This is particularly important in this case given the site is in the Countryside and within the Strategic Gap where, as indicated above, potential coalescence needs to be considered. From a policy perspective, it has already been noted that while Policy C1 of the MSLP cannot be considered up to date, where it seeks to restrict housing supply, the objectives of the policy are still deemed consistent with one of the core planning principles of the NPPF insofar as it indicates that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised. Similarly Neighbourhood Plan policy CDNP05 (a) meanwhile requires developments to fit unobtrusively with the surrounding character of the area. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states; "take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it." Paragraph 109 of the NPPF refers to 'protecting and enhancing valued landscapes' and case law has suggested that land does not have to lie within a designated area to be 'valued' and that landscape value accrues separate to designated status and that such value is derived from some physical attributes, not mere popularity. Given that the application site is currently an undeveloped parcel of land, there will inevitably be a degree of visual change as a result of the proposal due to the introduction of built form on an undeveloped rural site. In this case however the development is not isolated as it is in close proximity to the built up area of Crawley Down with the boundary being the Fermandy Lane properties to the east. There are dwellings to the south and west which are located off Sandy Lane (some via Cuttinglye Lane) and a dwelling to the immediate north. In visual terms therefore the site relates well to the built up area boundary. The site itself is well contained by trees along each of the boundaries and where this is sparse additional planting can be secured. For example, such additional planting could be secured along part of the eastern boundary adjacent to Plot 5 as this is also where the site is most open to public views owing to the public footpath that runs up Cuttinglye Lane. The designs and layout of the houses themselves are acceptable and appropriate in this context with the palette of materials to be used on all the external finishes of the development (including house materials and hard surfaces) able to be controlled via condition. 20 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

13 The wider visual impact of the development is therefore deemed quite minimal in this case, despite the fact that part of an undeveloped site is to be built on. Officers consider therefore that there would be a limited adverse impact on the landscape as a result of the proposed development but this is an inevitable outcome of developing on any greenfield site on the edge of villages and towns and in that respect is not unique to this site. As stated above, the site is within a Strategic Gap as defined within the Local Plan. The purpose of local gaps is to prevent coalescence and retain the separate identity and amenity of settlements. Neighbourhood Plan Policy CDNP08 also seeks to prevent coalescence. There are though no specific NPPF policies indicating that development on this site should be restricted although the protection of the character of an area is a key aim. In this case the development is adjacent to the built up area of Crawley Down which is located directly across Cuttinglye Lane to the east where there are a number of properties on Fermandy Lane. Most importantly there is also established development to the south, west and north although these properties are outside the defined built up area. It is also worth noting that the majority of the perimeter screening will be retained (see tree analysis below). It should also be noted that the development of just five houses is a relatively minor development considered in the context of the size of the village of Crawley Down. The development will not therefore compromise individually or cumulatively the objectives and fundamental integrity of the gap. In such proximity to the existing built up area and given the proposal is surrounded on four sides by residential development the proposal is deemed acceptable from a landscape perspective in that there will only be a limited adverse impact on the character of the area and the aims of the Local Gap will not be significantly compromised. As indicated the aim of the Local Gap is to prevent coalescence between settlements. In this case the proposal will not lead to a lessening of the distinctiveness or amenity of the local settlements (East Grinstead and Crawley) as a result of the factors highlighted above. Overall, although there is some adverse impact on the character of the area, the other detailed design requirements of local and neighbourhood policy are met. Tree impact The number of trees around the perimeter and within the site has been noted above and many of these are now subject to a preservation order, TP/16/0010. The tree officer has therefore been consulted to help inform the assessment about the potential impact of the development on these trees. The Council's tree officer has objected to the scheme and their full comments are set out in Appendix B. Overall however there are four elements of concern: Proximity of plots 4 and 5 to Category A Oak tree and resultant future pressure on this tree; 21 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

14 Proximity of plot 1 to protected trees to rear putting future pressure on these trees and not allowing room for adequate growth; Loss of screening along boundary with PROW; Possible that access road will have adverse impact on oaks T6 and T16 The objection of the tree officer is noted and planning officers do not disagree with these findings. The adverse impact on trees, as a result of future pressure on preserved trees, is an adverse impact of the development that must be considered in the planning balance. It is important for Members to note however that the landscaping condition will secure additional planting along the boundary with the PROW and that any works to the protected trees in the future will require consent meaning that the Council will maintain control over them. These factors should be considered in the planning balance assessment conducted at the end of the report. Sustainable Location of Site The accessibility of the site, or the sustainable location of it, is a key consideration. One of the core planning principles of the NPPF, as set out in para 17, is to: "actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable." As indicated in the earlier section the village of Crawley Down is defined within Policy DP6 of the submission District Plan as a Category 2 settlement which is classed as a larger village acting as a Local Service Centre providing key services in the rural area of Mid Sussex. The proximity to the built up area, which will be accessible via Cuttinglye Lane or Fermandy Lane, means this site can be reasonably described as being in a sustainable location. Future occupiers will not therefore be wholly reliant on the private car to meet daily needs. In this respect the application therefore accords with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP19 of the draft District Plan and CDNP10 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Highways, Access and Car Parking Paragraph 32 of the NPPF is relevant in respect of transport matters and states that: " Plans and decisions should take account of whether: The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; Safe and suitable to the site can be achieved for all people; and Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe." 22 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

15 This is reflected within Policy T4 of the MSLP where new development proposals should not cause an unacceptable impact on the local environment in terms of road safety and increased traffic. Amongst other things, new development should provide convenient and safe pedestrian access which should link to the wider footway network. It should be noted that the NPPF test of a 'severe' impact is of a higher order than the policy T4 test of 'unacceptable'. Given that the NPPF post-dates the Local Plan it is considered that the relevant test in this case is of 'severe' impact, and in these circumstances the Local Plan Policy has diminished weight in this respect. As indicated, access is a matter for consideration at this stage. West Sussex has been consulted as the highways authority and their comments are set out in full in Appendix B. Following the request and submission of additional information concerning turning for refuse vehicles, West Sussex has concluded the following: "West Sussex County Council, as the Local Highway Authority (LHA), has been reconsulted on the above proposal for 5 x houses and new access on to the private 'Cuttinglye Lane'. In LHA comments dated 07/10/2016 the applicant was advised that footpath no. 52W runs along the lane and that WSCC Public Rights of Way (PROW) has been consulted. The LHA requested further information demonstrating that a Refuse Collection Vehicle can manoeuvre on site. Revised drawing no L demonstrates that a turn on site for a Refuse Collection vehicle has been demonstrated and is achievable. However, entry and exit into the site has not been demonstrated. To ascertain whether this is achievable with the access at its designed width the LHA request that the Swept Path Plan is amended to show a Refuse Collection Vehicle entering and exiting the site. Details pertaining to this can be secured via condition. Visibility splays of 2.4m by 25m have also been demonstrated on to lane. This equates to a stopping sight distance speed of 20 mph, considering the slow speed nature and road layout the LHA anticipate that visibility demonstrated is appropriate for anticipated vehicle speeds. However, these splays pass through and on to the private lane and in land not within the red edge and not in ownership of the applicant. The LHA would also advise that pedestrian visibility splays either side of the access, in land under control of the applicant, could be secured. However, the red edge plan does not indicate that the applicant has ownership that extends either side of the access. The LPA may wish to ascertain whether this land is within the applicant's ownership and thus whether such visibility splays and pedestrian visibility splays can be maintained. Considering the lightly trafficked low speed nature of the lane the LHA do not foresee a highway safety concern as a result of the development. Given the private nature of the road the LPA would be advised to consult with the proprietors of the road with regard to the impact the development would have to other users of Cuttinglye Lane." 23 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

16 There is therefore no technical objection from the highways authority on this specific issue and Members will be aware in the absence of any technical objections then such issues should generally be deemed acceptable. It is worth noting in response to these comments that proprietors of the road have had the opportunity to comment on the proposals through the consultation process that included writing to the immediate neighbours and a site notice with any comments received summarised in the earlier section. Planning officers should also confirm that, in respect of the points raised about the splays, the land referred to is also in the ownership of the applicant as confirmed by the amended site plan (which included a blue line in addition to the red) received 9th January The final point of clarification from the West Sussex comments is to confirm that comments from the Rights of Way team at West Sussex have not been forthcoming so they have chosen not to comment. The proposed works do not in any event include any alterations to the right of way itself. Taking into account the above points it can be reasonably concluded that there are no sustainable reasons to refuse the scheme at this outline stage on highways grounds as the proposal complies with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP19 of the submission District Plan and Policy CDNP10 of the Neighbourhood Plan. In terms of car parking each unit will have 2 garage spaces and driveways that could accommodate 3 or 4 cars meaning ample car parking is provided in accordance with local and neighbourhood plan (Appendix 1) standards. Residential Amenity and Future Occupiers In respect of neighbouring residential amenity Members will be aware that Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan applies. This policy states that "proposals for new development, including extensions to existing buildings and changes of use, will not be permitted if significant harm to the amenities of nearby residents is likely to be created due to noise and disturbance; loss of privacy; overlooking; reduction in sunlight and daylight; and reduction in outlook." The test therefore is whether 'significant harm' would occur or not. Similar levels of amenity protection are found within Policy DP24 of the District Plan and at clause (c) of CDNP05. Plot 5 in the south east corner of the application site is the nearest to those properties along Fermandy Lane that are located to the east thereby backing on to Cuttinglye Lane and the application site. These houses are located at least 29 metres from the dwelling at Plot 5 (29 metres being the distance to the nearest property at 29 Fermandy Lane). Given this substantial separation distance and the fact that the orientation of the properties mean that there is no direct overlooking the impact on these neighbours in terms of privacy or overlooking, would not be significant. Whilst the garage at Plot 5 is much closer to the boundary this building, at 6.4 metres in height to the pitched rood apex, is not so high or close to the neighbouring properties to the east to cause significant harm in respect of loss of light or outlook. Whilst some views will be afforded towards the rear gardens of the 24 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

17 Fermandy Lane houses from the rear balcony on Plot 5, these garden areas are not currently private as they are overlooked to some extent by the existing neighbouring houses. The landscaping condition will however seek additional planting along the eastern boundary which will help mitigate the impact on the neighbours. As indicated there are also a number of houses to the south that back on to the site. The houses at Little Court and Red Court Cottage to the south are approximately 48 metres to the south of the nearest property in the development, Plot 4. At these significant distances, coupled with the trees and vegetation in between, the proposed development will not have a significant impact on neighbouring residential amenity. It is noted that the property at Little Court is not shown as accurately as it should be on the submitted site plan as this property has an extension that comes north to a similar depth as the property next door (Red Court Cottage). However the planning officer has seen the relationship first hand and given the separation distances and vegetation between the site and the property this issue is not deemed decisive. The neighbouring houses directly to the west, that actually have a Sandy Lane street address, are located in excess of 40 metres from the west facades of Plots 2 and 3. Again, these distances and the fact there are substantial western boundary trees and vegetation, mean that the proposed homes will not have a significant impact on the amenity of the properties to the west. Redcourt Bungalow to the north east of the proposed houses is even further away from Plots 1-5 and will not be significantly affected by the development despite the proximity of the balconies on the north elevations of Plots 1 and 2 to the boundary with this neighbour. The use of part of Fermandy Lane and Cuttinglye Lane by additional traffic, as well as that which will utilise the new access drive, will not significantly impact upon neighbouring amenity in terms of noise and disturbance given that the development is only serving five dwellings. In respect of increased noise and disturbance, five dwellings is a very modest development. There are no planning reasons why the impact of this development on the nearby monastery, which is located much further up Cuttinglye Lane, would be unacceptable. A construction hours condition can be used to limit noise impact and disturbance whilst the development is being built. For future occupiers, in terms of size, the 'Technical Housing Standards - nationally described space standard' applies. The applicant's submissions appear to indicate that all dwellinghouses will be of a sufficient size and have access to suitably sized outdoor areas. The standard of accommodation for future occupiers will therefore be acceptable. Officers consider therefore that the proposal accords with Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and the relevant criteria of both Policy DP24 of the submission District Plan and CDNP05 of the Neighbourhood Plan in respect of the amenity of future occupiers and neighbouring residents. 25 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

18 Ecology The applicant has submitted Phase 1 and Phase 2 Ecological Surveys that are available to view in full on the planning file. These have been assessed by the Council's Ecologist who questioned the extent of land in the ownership of the applicant as it was not clear from the submitted plans that proposed conditions could satisfactorily mitigate the impact of the development. The applicant subsequently submitted an amended site plan that includes other land in their ownership (blue line) as well as the application site outline (red line). Following receipt of this corrected plan the Council's Ecologist has confirmed that: "Based on the additional information confirming that proposed mitigation / compensation land is within the applicant's ownership, I would consider that impacts on biodiversity can be addressed, in accordance with 118 of the NPPF subject to a condition requiring prior approval of: A detailed construction-phase wildlife protection plan; and A habitat enhancement and long-term management plan for receptor / compensation areas, including details of long-term management responsibility, funding mechanism and compliance monitoring. These details should be based on the outline set out the updated Phase 2 Ecology report (for the avoidance of doubt: File Fermandy Lane - Phase 2 ecology report_rev03_withfigs.pdf). Reason: To avoid significant impacts on species that are legally protected and of conservation concern, in accordance with 118 of the NPPF." It is evident from the submitted information and from the comments of the consultee that the proposal will not have a negative impact on important wildlife habitats or on a protected species. There exists however the opportunity to provide mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures for ecology on the site as a result of this development and this will be secured via the conditions suggested above. With such conditions in place the application accords with Policy C5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP37 of the submission District Plan and Policy CDNP09 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Drainage Policy CDNP06 of the Neighbourhood plan states that: "development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they include sustainable drainage systems designed to manage the risk of surface water flooding within their boundaries, and that they will not increase flood risk elsewhere in the Parish." The Council's drainage engineer's comments can be found in full in Appendix B. Ultimately they are satisfied that drainage matters can be satisfactorily addressed through the use of a condition requiring full details prior to commencement of development. 26 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

19 Other Issues All the other issues raised during the consultation period have been taken into account and these other issues are either considered not to warrant a refusal of permission, are items that could be dealt with effectively by planning conditions or other legislation or are not even material planning considerations. Sustainability measures can be secured for the development through the use of an appropriately worded condition ensuring adherence to agreed details. In this case the applicant has submitted a Sustainability Statement suggesting the properties can achieve a 19% reduction in CO2 emissions. Another factor to consider in the planning balance is the economic benefit provided during the construction period of the development. It should be highlighted in this case that there is no requirement for affordable housing provision within the development as the proposal does not exceed the thresholds within Policy H4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and the Planning Practice Guidance nor are there any specific requirements within the Neighbourhood plan policies applicable to this level of development. This application will not set a precedent as no two sites are identical and each case must be considered on its own merits. The disposal of Japanese Knotweed on site is a matter for the applicant under environmental regulations and not planning control. Any damage caused during construction is a private matter between the respective parties. The density and mix of dwellings is considered acceptable in this location and for this relatively limited number of units. Whether the proposal would be Sustainable Development As outlined above, the NPPF describes sustainable development as the golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. It sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 6 states that the policies in paragraphs , taken as a whole, constitute the government's view as to what sustainable development means for the planning system. In this part of the report the main factors that inform the judgement as to whether the proposal would be a sustainable form of development are summarised. In reaching that view all matters referred to in the report have been taken into account. The Economic Role Part 6 of the Localism Act was enacted on 16th January This requires the LPA to have regard to local finance considerations (so far as material to the application) as well as the provisions of the Development Plan and any other material 27 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

20 considerations. The New Homes Bonus commenced in April 2011, and will match fund the additional council tax raised for new homes and empty properties brought back into use, with an additional amount for affordable homes, for the following six years. The New Homes Bonus is now a material planning consideration and if permitted the LPA would receive a New Homes Bonus for each the units proposed. The economic dimension is met by this proposal owing to the New Homes Bonus, the provision of construction jobs and an increased population likely to spend in the community. The Social Role The NPPF seeks to promote a "strong, vibrant and healthy community by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being". The provision of 5 dwellings on the site will make a minor but positive contribution to the district's housing supply and neighbouring residential amenity will not be significantly affected. Due to the location of the site in relation to the village boundary a range of services and facilities are within easy walking and cycling distances. It is therefore considered that the development meets the social role of sustainable development. The Environmental Role The proposal will result in a neutral impact on a number of environmental factors including highway safety, sustainability, drainage and nature conservation. However, there would be a limited adverse impact on the landscape as a result of the proposed development on a greenfield site and there will be future pressure put on protected trees as a result of the proximity of the proposed dwellings. It is therefore considered that the development does not fully meet the environmental role of sustainable development. Due to this latterly highlighted conflict under the environmental role of the NPPF, the proposal does not therefore constitute sustainable development. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION Planning legislation requires the application to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material circumstances indicate otherwise. As the proposed scheme does not comply with certain aspects of the Development Plan, other material considerations need to be considered in determining the application, including the NPPF. As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not upto-date (paragraph 49 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 28 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

21 In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. This is therefore the balancing exercise that must be undertaken by the decision maker. Weighing in favour of the scheme is that the development will provide 5 residential units in a relatively sustainable location at a time where there is a significant shortfall in housing supply and this should be given substantial weight. Weighing against the scheme is that the fact that dwellings are being proposed outside the built up area and would normally be restricted under the relevant local plan policies. There would also be a limited adverse impact on the landscape as a result of the proposed development on a greenfield site but this is an inevitable outcome of building on an undeveloped site. Also weighing against the scheme is the future pressure the development will put on protected trees but this should be considered against the fact that any works to protected trees will need the consent of the Council and new landscaping is proposed. There will however be a neutral impact in respect of a number of issues such as highway safety, neighbouring residential amenity impact, sustainability, drainage and nature conservation. The proposal is therefore deemed to comply with the requirements of Policies C5, B1, B3, B4, T4, CS13 and H2 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policies DP1, DP6, DP19, DP24 and DP37 of the submission District Plan and Policies CDNP05, CDNP06, CDNP08, CDNP09 and CDNP10 of the Neighbourhood Plan as well as the broader requirements of the NPPF. Given the substantial weight that needs to be given to the provision of housing and the limited adverse impact of the scheme on the character of the area and the fact that works to preserved trees will require the Council's consent, officers conclude the balance falls in favour of supporting the scheme. That is because, as per the para 14 balancing exercise, it is considered that this proposal would not result in significant and demonstrable harm that would outweigh the benefits of providing what would be a contribution to the Council's current significant shortfall in housing supply. Planning permission should therefore be granted. 29 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

22 Time Limit APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act Pre-development 2. No development shall be carried out unless and until samples of materials and finishes to be used for external walls / roofs / fenestration/ external surfaces of the proposed development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP24 of the submission District Plan and CDNP05 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 3. The development hereby permitted shall not proceed until details of the proposed foul water drainage, surface water drainage, and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the proposal is satisfactorily drained and to accord with the NPPF requirements, Policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP41 of the Submission District Plan and CDNP06 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 4. No development shall be commenced until such time as plans and details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the site set up during construction. This shall include details for method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, all temporary contractors buildings, plant and stacks of materials, provision for the temporary parking of contractors vehicles and the loading and unloading of vehicles associated with the implementation of this development. Such 30 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

23 provision once approved and implemented shall be retained throughout the period of construction. Reason: To avoid undue congestion of the site and consequent obstruction to access safety and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP19 of the Submission District Plan and Policy CDNP10 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 5. No development shall be commenced until such time as full details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing: A detailed construction-phase wildlife protection plan; and A habitat enhancement and long-term management plan for receptor / compensation areas, including details of long-term management responsibility, funding mechanism and compliance monitoring. These details should be based on the outline set out in the updated Phase 2 Ecology report (for the avoidance of doubt: File Fermandy Lane - Phase 2 ecology report_rev03_withfigs.pdf). Reason: to avoid significant impacts on species that are legally protected and of conservation concern, in accordance with 118 of the NPPF, Policy C5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP37 of the submission District Plan and Policy CDNP09 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Construction 6. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site on Bank or Public Holidays or at any time other than between the hours 8 a m and 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 9 am and 1 pm Saturdays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP24 of the Submission District Plan and Policy CDNP05 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 7. Hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, 31 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

24 Policy DP24 of the Submission District Plan and Policy CDNP05 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Pre-occupation conditions 8. The residential units hereby permitted shall not be occupied until provision for bin and recycling storage has been made within the site in accordance with plans to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such provision shall thereafter be retained permanently. Reason: In the interests of sustainability and visual amenity and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the Submission District Plan. 9. The proposal shall not be occupied until such time as the developer has incorporated sustainable measures into the development in accordance with recommendations outlined in the Sustainability Statement (Build Energy Ltd dated 22nd June 2016) submitted with the application Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to accord with Policy B4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP39 of the Submission District Plan. 10. No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with current sustainable transport policies and to accord with Policy T5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP19 of the Submission District Plan and Policy CDNP10 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 11. No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP19 of the Submission District Plan and Policy CDNP10 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 12. No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been constructed in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide adequate on-site car parking and turning space for the development and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP19 of the Submission District Plan and Policy CDNP10 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 32 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

25 Management Conditions 13. The gates at the entrance to the site need to open automatically from 07:00 until 16:00 daily as the bins may need to be collected any time between these hours. Reason: To ensure access can be gained to the site for bin and recycling collection and to accord with Policies T4 and B4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP19 of the submission District Plan and CDNP10 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Approved Plans 14. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans listed below under the heading "Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Applications". Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning. INFORMATIVES 1. In accordance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to your duty of care not to cause the neighbours of the site a nuisance. Accordingly, you are requested that: Measures shall be implemented to prevent dust generated on site from crossing the site boundary during the demolition/construction phase of the development. No burning of materials shall take place on site at any time. If you require any further information on these issues, please contact Environmental Protection on The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and 33 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

26 developers advice can be found at or by phone on You are advised that this planning permission requires compliance with a planning condition(s) before development commences. You are therefore advised to contact the case officer as soon as possible, or you can obtain further information from: (Fee of 97 will be payable). If you carry out works prior to a pre-development condition being discharged then a lawful start will not have been made and you will be liable to enforcement action. 5. The applicant is advised to contact the proprietor of Cuttinglye Lane to obtain formal approval to carry out the site access works on the private lane. Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application The following plans and documents were considered when making the above decision: Plan Type Reference Version Submitted Date Drainage Details 8243/ Site Plan exist Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan plot 1,3 and Site Plan L prop Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan plot 2 and Location Plan Tree Survey 15363BT Worth Parish Council APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS OBJECT: The proposed site is in the Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan (CDHP) Area. The CDNP is now part of the local development plan and its policies carry full weight. If its policies cannot be considered to be up-to-date then Planning Officers and Councillors should still consider all its policies when conducting the balancing exercise demanded by para14 of the NPPF and give them full or very significant weight. The NPPG mandates that the balancing exercise must be fully documented and available for public inspection. WPC are the authors of the CDNP and as such are best placed to judge whether a planning application is in accordance with its vision, policies and definitions. Planning Officers should not contradict the assessment set out above without discussion with WPC. Worth Parish Council Worth Parish Council: Amendment. 34 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

27 OBJECT: This application is contrary to Policies C1 & C2 of the Local Plan and the Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan. MSDC Ecology Based on the additional information confirming that proposed mitigation / compensation land is within the applicant's ownership, I would consider that impacts on biodiversity can be addressed, in accordance with 118 of the NPPF subject to a condition requiring prior approval of: A detailed construction-phase wildlife protection plan; and A habitat enhancement and long-term management plan for receptor / compensation areas, including details of long-term management responsibility, funding mechanism and compliance monitoring. These details should be based on the outline set out the updated Phase 2 Ecology report (for the avoidance of doubt: File Fermandy Lane - Phase 2 ecology report_rev03_withfigs.pdf). Reason: To avoid significant impacts on species that are legally protected and of conservation concern, in accordance with 118 of the NPPF. MSDC Trees After reviewing the submitted documents and undertaking a site visit I am able to provide the following comments in relation to existing trees on site: One of my main concerns is the impact that Plots 4 and 5 are likely to have on the retained - A Category - Oak tree (T23). It is awkwardly positioned in between two dwellings and this juxtaposition is likely to induce pressure on the tree; due to fear of failure, ongoing-maintenance costs (relating to seasonal nuisance) and perceived damage to property. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) is unlikely to be able to refuse works to these trees given their proximity and this could leave the tree in poor health, or possibly felled altogether. Further, the loss of G2 will change the character of the site and Public Right of Way (PROW), with loss of screening from the adjacent PROW (Cuttinglye Lane) and the properties in Fermandy Lane; creating a very urban feel to this site. Plot 1 is fairly close to protected trees (both the dwelling and garage) and whilst the buildings may be shown to be outside the Root Protection Areas of the trees, it does not allow for adequate growth provision or natural regeneration of the Tree Preservation Order. The trees are likely to encroach further into Plot 1 and it currently has a rather small garden; so it is likely to become a dark amenity space, which is dwarfed by large trees in the not too distant future. As aforementioned, fear of failure, ongoing maintenance costs and perceived damage to property may all become contributing factors for reasons to undertake tree works. 35 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

28 In addition to the above, it is possible that the access road may have adverse effects on trees T6 and T16 in particular. This is due to their mature age and mature Oak trees are less resilient to ground works generally than young or maturing. These trees have excellent amenity value and their loss would be of detriment to the area. Overall, I feel this design does not look to safeguard the trees and allow space for natural regeneration and instead is likely to place pressure on a number of trees for pruning/felling. I feel the density of this relatively sensitive site is high and the dwellings are too large (especially having detached garages). Access is also an issue as it could lead to the loss of substantial trees and this could greatly affect the character of the area. For the reasons above I must object to this application. MSDC Drainage We do not object to this proposed development, and we will allow outstanding drainage and flood risk matters to be dealt with by condition. We understand the existing flood risks associated with this proposed development to be: 1. Low Risk pluvial flooding 2. Low Risk fluvial flooding 3. No reported flood incidents 4. Local concern of standing water on site during winter months. We would expect the flood risk to change post development in the following way: 1. Increased impermeable area creating and/or exacerbating local flood risk. The proposed development has shown the following in mitigation of the flood risk: 1. Proposed to utilise blanket soakaway for surface water disposal. 2. Proposed to utilise cess-pit holding tank for foul water disposal, for each plot. We are concerned with the local reports of standing surface water on this site. We will expect to see thorough percolation tests undertaken to identify the most appropriate method for surface water disposal from this site. We will not consider the capacity of the rainwater harvesting system to be part of the development's ability to cater for the 1:100+cc storm event calculations. Hierarchy of Surface Water Disposal and Southern Water (2016). It is exceptionally important that, at an early stage of design, the proposed development identifies how it intends to dispose of surface water. To do this, the developer will need to consider the requirements set out in Building Regulations H3 where a hierarchy for surface water disposal is established. This is: 1. Infiltration to the ground. Where this has been explored and is shown to be not reasonably practicable: 36 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

29 2. Discharge to watercourse. Where this has been explored and is shown to be not reasonably practicable: 3. Discharge to surface sewer. In our recent experience, Southern Water has provided developers with agreements to connect surface water to the existing public sewers. However, some of these agreements are for connection only and they do not confirm the discharge of water and any appropriate downstream capacity. In this scenario, MSDC Drainage Engineers cannot accept 'connection only' letters as evidence for the safe and suitable disposal of surface water and thereby meeting any outstanding drainage conditions. We therefore strongly recommend that the hierarchy of surface water disposal is followed fully early in the design stage of the development. If discharge to sewers is the only available option, we strongly advise communication is made with Southern Water as soon as possible to discuss the connection to, and available capacity within, the available sewers. Suitable conditions for this proposed development: 1. The development hereby permitted shall not proceed until details of the proposed foul water drainage, surface water drainage, and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details. MSDC Waste We have viewed the plans and Design and Access statement for this development and would like to make the followings comments. It is clear that each property has adequate space to store the required bins and we cannot see any issue with the proposal for the bins to be presented at the edges of the forecourts at each property on collection day. In order for the collection vehicle to enter the site we would need to road to be constructed to take the weight of a fully laden freighter (26 tonnes). The Council would not accept any liability for damage to the road surface if we are invited onto the site and the construction is inadequate for the collection vehicle specifications. The turning circle needs to be large enough to turn a vehicle of 10.5 metres in length. Therefore, we would like to see the swept path analysis for a refuse freighter of this size within the site. 37 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

30 The gates at the entrance to the site would need to open automatically from 7am until 4pm as we may have to collect the bins any time between these hours. MSDC Street Naming The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming & Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and advice for developers can be found at or by phone on West Sussex Highways This 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. A site visit can be arranged on request. West Sussex County Council, as the Local Highway Authority (LHA), has been reconsulted on the above proposal for 5 x houses and new access on to the private 'Cuttinglye Lane'. In LHA comments dated 07/10/2016 the applicant was advised that footpath no. 52W runs along the lane and that WSCC Public Rights of Way (PROW) has been consulted. The LHA requested further information demonstrating that a Refuse Collection Vehicle can manoeuvre on site. Revised drawing no L demonstrates that a turn on site for a Refuse Collection vehicle has been demonstrated and is achievable. However, entry and exit into the site has not been demonstrated. To ascertain whether this is achievable with the access at its designed width the LHA request that the Swept Path Plan is amended to show a Refuse Collection Vehicle entering and exiting the site. Details pertaining to this can be secured via condition. Visibility splays of 2.4m by 25m have also been demonstrated on to lane. This equates to a stopping sight distance speed of 20 mph, considering the slow speed nature and road layout the LHA anticipate that visibility demonstrated is appropriate for anticipated vehicle speeds. However, these splays pass through and on to the private lane and in land not within the red edge and not in ownership of the applicant. The LHA would also advise that pedestrian visibility splays either side of the access, in land under control of the applicant, could be secured. However, the red edge plan does not indicate that the applicant has ownership that extends either side of the access. The LPA may wish to ascertain whether this land is within the applicant's ownership and thus whether such visibility splays and pedestrian visibility splays can be maintained. Considering the lightly trafficked low speed nature of the lane the LHA do not foresee a highway safety concern as a result of the development. Given the private nature of the road the LPA would be advised to consult with the proprietors of the road with regard to the impact the development would have to other users of Cuttinglye Lane. 38 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

31 If the LPA are minded to approve the application the following conditions should be secured: Details Required Access No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety Vehicle parking and turning No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been constructed in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide adequate on-site car parking and turning space for the development. Cycle parking No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with current sustainable transport policies. Construction plant and materials No development shall be commenced until such time as plans and details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the site set up during construction. This shall include details for method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, all temporary contractors buildings, plant and stacks of materials, provision for the temporary parking of contractors vehicles and the loading and unloading of vehicles associated with the implementation of this development. Such provision once approved and implemented shall be retained throughout the period of construction. Reason: To avoid undue congestion of the site and consequent obstruction to access. INFORMATIVE The applicant is advised to contact the proprietor of Cuttinglye Lane to obtain formal approval to carry out the site access works on the private lane Gatwick The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. We, therefore, have no objection to this proposal. 39 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

32 NATS The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal. However, please be aware that this response applies specifically to the above consultation and only reflects the position of NATS (that is responsible for the management of en route air traffic) based on the information supplied at the time of this application. This letter does not provide any indication of the position of any other party, whether they be an airport, airspace user or otherwise. It remains your responsibility to ensure that all the appropriate consultees are properly consulted. If any changes are proposed to the information supplied to NATS in regard to this application which become the basis of a revised, amended or further application for approval, then as a statutory consultee NERL requires that it be further consulted on any such changes prior to any planning permission or any consent being granted. 40 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

33 Lindfield Rural 2. DM/16/3533 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey LAND AT INCES COTTAGE LEWES ROAD SCAYNES HILL HAYWARDS HEATH THE ERECTION OF FOUR DETACHED HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, PARKING AND NEW ACCESS. MR TOM SHERIDAN GRID REF: EAST NORTH POLICY: Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / Classified Roads - 20m buffer / ODPM CODE: Minor Dwellings 8 WEEK DATE: 15th November 2016 WARD MEMBERS: Cllr Chris Hersey / Cllr Linda Stockwell / CASE OFFICER: Mr Andrew Morrison 41 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

34 PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider the recommendation of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning on the application for planning permission as detailed above. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks planning permission for the erection of 4 no. 4 bedroom houses with attached garages, associated parking, landscaping and a new access at Land at Inces Cottage, Lewes Road, Scaynes Hill. As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. The provision of 4 no. family sized dwellings at a location outside of, but in close walking and cycling distance to a category 3 settlement would represent a significant social and economic benefit at a time when there is a clear identified need for housing in the district. The proposal is deemed acceptable in highways, arboricultural, ecology, sustainability, neighbouring amenity and quality of accommodation terms. Weighing against the scheme is that the fact that dwellings are being proposed outside the built up area boundary, within residential curtilage, and so would normally be restricted under the relevant local plan and neighbourhood plan policies. Overall it is considered that the limited adverse impacts of the scheme in relation to the local impact on the character and appearance of the area and non-compliance with the Neighbourhood Plan do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. It is therefore considered that the presumption in favour sustainable development applies and that the application satisfactorily complies with policies B1, B3, B7, C5, C6, T4, T5, T6 and CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, policies DP19, DP24, DP25, DP36, DP37, DP39 and DP41 of the Submission Version District Plan, and the overall aims of the NPPF, which include to significantly boost housing supply. RECOMMENDATION Recommend permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A. 42 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

35 SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS 7 letters of representation received making the following points: Outside built up area boundary (countryside); Not in compliance with Neighbourhood Plan; Unsustainable location; limited amenities in village; Not sustainable development within meaning of the NPPF; Inappropriate garden development; Would set dangerous precedent; 4 bedroom house type not in community demand; Increased traffic on a dangerous stretch of road; Harm to local wildlife, including ponds and Ancient Woodland in the locality; SSSI within nearby property Inces (note that this is incorrect); Increased surface water runoff; Detriment to local architectural history; Application for bungalow refused in SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS (Full responses from Consultees are included at the end of this report as Appendix B) WSSC Highways No objection subject to conditions. MSDC Drainage Engineer No objection subject to condition. MSDC Trees and Landscapes Officer No objection. Consultant Ecologist No objection subject to condition. MSDC Street Naming Add Informative. Lindfield Rural Parish Council The Council is of the view that the proposed development does not address the needs of the community as identified in the made Neighbourhood Plan. The design is not sensitive to either the rural setting or the surrounding properties and is considered an over development of a rural location, within an area designated as 43 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

36 'Countryside Area of Development Restraint'. It therefore contravenes policies C1 and C2 of the MSDC Local Plan. Additionally, the development presents a potential traffic hazard on the adjacent, very busy, A272 both during and after construction. The lack of a frequent public transport service and most other facilities within the village, makes a development of this type and size unsustainable. The Council considers that this planning application should be refused. INTRODUCTION The application seeks planning permission for the erection of 4 no. 4 bedroom houses with attached garages, associated parking, landscaping and a new access at Land at Inces Cottage, Lewes Road, Scaynes Hill. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY LR/014/86 (1986) One four bedroom bungalow. This proposal sought to erect a dwelling on the western (rear) part of the application site, making use of the existing vehicular access to Inces Cottage. The application was refused on countryside location, visual amenity and character and highway safety grounds. An appeal was dismissed. It should be noted that outline planning permission (with all matters reserved apart from means of access),was granted on 7 February 2017 for the erection of up to 51 dwellings (including 30% affordable) at land at Barn Cottage, Lewes Road. The application site is located immediately to the east of the Barn Cottage site (DM/16/3119), separated by a public right of way. The Barn Cottage site is outside of, but partially adjoins, the village built up area boundary. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site consists of the northern part of the residential curtilage surrounding Inces Cottage, a property located approximately 100 metres outside of the built up area boundary of Scaynes Hill. The site is broadly rectangular in shape and measures approximately 0.27 hectares. The whole of the Inces Cottage including the application site encompasses an area of approximately 1.2 hectares. The site is amenity grassland, within and bordering which are a variety of trees and hedges, as scheduled in the accompanying Arboricultural Survey. Ground levels fall away in a southerly direction. A mixture of tree and hedge cover forms the northern site boundary. Beyond this is the access to Barn Cottage, and further afield undeveloped land leading up to Anchor Pond and the Inn on the Green pub. The site is bounded to the west by a mature tree and hedge line, with a public footpath beyond and beyond that, the Barn Cottage site referred to above. A line of cypress trees and mixed hedging forms a dense evergreen screen on the eastern boundary to Lewes Road. There is a pavement on the application site side of the highway. There is a tree line on the 44 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

37 opposing side of the road. Beyond the site's southern boundary is the remaining part of the Inces Cottage property; there is no physical demarcation between the site and this. Further to the south of Inces Cottage is Inces, a grade II listed building. An area of Ancient Woodland is also situated to the southwest of the site; at its nearest point this is located 40 metres away. In policy terms the site is located in a Countryside Area of Development Constraint as defined by the development plan. There are no additional policy designations. The A272 is a classified road and has a 50 mph limit at this location. APPLICATION DETAILS The proposal has had a minor layout revision since original submission, this following discussion with the Planning Officer and Tree Officer. Proposed plans show a linear arrangement of 4 no. 4 bedroom two storey detached dwellings with single attached garages, orientated to face south. The dwellings would be served by a new access from the A272, which would be formed through removal of part of the existing boundary vegetation screen. Other than the extent of removal necessary to create the access and the associated necessary trimming works to the line of cypress to achieve the required visibility splays, no boundary tree or hedge removal is indicated in the application. A number of trees and a hedge within the site would be removed to make way for the dwellings, and of the retained trees, those nearest to the dwellings are proposed to be pruned to achieve appropriate separation. The dwellings are placed within generous plots and have a traditional vernacular. A variety of brick, render and weatherboarding facing materials are shown, together with grey tiles on gabled roofs and white timber sash windows. There is a consistent overall design approach; however no two dwellings are identical owing to differences in layout and materials. The dwellings measure 8.2 metres height, 9.1 metres width and 8.1 metres depth (excluding garages). Each dwelling would have at least 2 parking spaces and the access road is designed to provide a turning facility for large refuse collection vehicles. A post and rail fence and screening tree planting is shown along the southern site boundary. The houses would be positioned approximately 55 metres from Inces Cottage, which would retain an expansive garden curtilage of just under a hectare. LIST OF POLICIES Mid Sussex Local Plan 2004: C1 (Countryside Protection) C5 (Nature conservation) C6 (Trees, hedgerows and woodlands) B1 (Design) 45 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

38 B3 (Residential amenities) B4 (Energy and water conservation) B7 (Trees) T4 (Transport requirements in new developments) T5 (Parking standards) T6 (Cycle parking) CS13 (Drainage) Development and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document (Feb 2006) Lindfield and Lindfield Rural Neighbourhood Plan : Made as part of the development plan. 1 (A Spatial Plan for the Parishes) 2 (Housing Windfall Sites) Mid Sussex District Plan: Mid Sussex District Plan - The Submission District Plan was submitted for Examination on the 17th August Examination hearings commenced in November The District Plan is a material planning consideration. Weight will be given to relevant policies in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF. DP5 (Housing) DP6 (Settlement hierarchy) DP10 (Countryside Protection) DP13 (Housing in the Countryside) DP19 (Transport) DP24 (Character and Design) DP25 (Dwelling Space Standards) DP36 (Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows) DP37 (Biodiversity) DP39 (Sustainable Design and Construction) DP41 (Flood Risk and Drainage) National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) In particular paragraphs 7, 8, 14, 17, 32, 47, 49, 50, 53, 56, 58, 60, 61, 93, 96, 109, 115, 118, , 187, 197, 198. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government's policy in order to ensure that the planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development, such that the planning system needs to perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. This means ensuring sufficient land of the right type to support growth; providing a supply of housing and creating a high quality environment with accessible local services; and using natural resources prudently. With specific reference to decision-taking the document provides the following advice: 46 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

39 "187. Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area." Paragraph 197 states that "In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development." Planning Practice Guidance (updated Feb 2016) DCLG Technical Housing Standards March 2015 ASSESSMENT (Consideration of Key Issues) The main issues in the determination of this outline application are considered to be as follows; The principle of development; Highways, access and parking Design and impact on the character of the area Impact on trees Biodiversity / ecology Impact on neighbouring amenity Standard of accommodation Drainage Energy and water conservation (sustainability) Other issues Whether the proposal would be sustainable development (including location) Principle of development Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) And local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: 47 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

40 "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Using this as the starting point the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Small Scale Housing Allocations Document (2008), the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004) and in this case the Lindfield and Lindfield Rural Neighbourhood Plan (LLRNP) as this is a 'made' document. MSLP Policy C1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake to and restrict development outside built-up area boundaries to appropriate proposals for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, new uses in rural buildings, mineral extraction, tourism, community facilities and those that significantly contribute to a sense of local identity and regional diversity. LLRNP Policies 1 and 2 direct development proposals within the built up area boundaries of Lindfield and Scaynes Hill. In the event of conflicts between policies in these plans it is the most recent policy which takes precedence. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was issued in March 2012, is a material consideration which shall be afforded significant weight. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states: "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." This Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply for the District. The housing requirement set out in the now revoked South East Plan is no longer relevant. However, the objectively assessed housing need figure for the district is yet to be tested through the District Plan examination. As such the Council is unable at present to demonstrate the five-year supply of deliverable sites, since it does not have an agreed requirement to calculate this supply against. As such, the supply of housing element of MSLP Policy C1 and LLRNP Policies 1 and 2 cannot be considered up to date. Limited weight can therefore be afforded to these policies. The weight to be given to these policies will need to be assessed against the degree of conformity with the NPPF. In this case whilst the housing land supply elements are out of date, the objective to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside accords with the NPPF (paragraph 17). It is also worth referring to the recent Written Ministerial Statement in December 2016 that sets out the relevant policies for the supply of housing in a neighbourhood plan, that is part of the development plan, should not be deemed to be 'out-of-date' under paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework where all of the following circumstances arise at the time the decision is made: 48 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

41 this written ministerial statement is less than 2 years old, or the neighbourhood plan has been part of the development plan for 2 years or less; the neighbourhood plan allocates sites for housing; and the local planning authority can demonstrate a three-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This Ministerial Statement does not impact on the Council's planning application decision making so the Statement has no bearing on the application. In those circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies, which states in part: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: 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 permission unless: o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted" The second bullet point of the 'decision taking' section currently applies. Thus as the supply element MSLP Policy C1 and LLRNP Policies 1 and 2 cannot be considered up to date (paragraph 49 of the NPPF) the Council should be granting planning permission unless "any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted''. The Government has issued Planning Practice Guidance in respect of situations where there is a made neighbourhood plan but the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. This states as follows: ''In such instances paragraph 49 of the Framework is clear that "relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." Paragraph 49 applies to policies in the statutory development plan documents which have been adopted or approved in relation to a local planning authority area. It also applies to policies in made neighbourhood plans. Where the development plan is absent, silent or the relevant policies are out of date, paragraph 14 of the Framework states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development requires the granting of planning permission, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, 49 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

42 when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. In this situation, when assessing the adverse impacts of the proposal against the policies in the Framework as a whole, decision makers should include within their assessment those policies in the Framework that deal with neighbourhood planning. This includes paragraphs of the Framework; and paragraph 198 which states that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted.'' It has been clearly established in the High Court (WOODCOCK HOLDINGS LIMITED- and -SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, MID-SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL) that paragraph 198 of the NPPF neither (a) gives enhanced status to neighbourhood plans as compared with other statutory development plans, nor (b) modifies the application of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act Case law has therefore confirmed that paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF apply to neighbourhood plan policies. Case law has confirmed that the NPPF's presumption in favour of sustainable development is not an additional test for development. The sustainability credentials of the development are therefore measured within the balance of paragraph 14, as part of the weighing up process. Therefore this development must be assessed against the 3 limbed definition of sustainable development at paragraph 7 of the NPPF. If a development is found to be sustainable, that would weigh heavily in favour of granting permission in the paragraph 14 balance. If however the development is not found to be sustainable, that is not the end of the matter; the Local Planning Authority still need to go through the weighing up process between the positive benefits of the scheme against any harm that may be caused. The consequence of the above is that it is not appropriate to object to the principle of development based on its location within the Countryside Area of Development Restraint. Consideration needs to be given to all relevant issues, with the benefits and any adverse impacts highlighted and appropriate weight given to them in the overall NPPF paragraph14 planning balancing exercise that is required. The following sections of the report will consider the relevant matters associated with the proposed development in the context of the development plan and other material considerations, including the NPPF, in order to undertake the necessary assessment outlined above. Highways, access and parking Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan states that proposals for new development should not cause an unacceptable impact on the local environment in terms of road safety and increased traffic. Policy T5 outlines the requirements for parking provision and access to new developments, in conjunction with the council's (maximum) parking standards, as set out in the Development and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document. Policy T6 requires provision of cycle storage facilities in new developments. 50 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

43 Policy DP19 the draft Mid Sussex District Plan requires development to: be sustainably located to minimise the need for travel; promote alternative means of transport to the private car, including provision of suitable facilities for secure and safe cycle parking; not cause a severe cumulative impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion; be designed to adoptable standards, or other standards as agreed by the Local Planning Authority, including road widths and size of garages; and provide adequate car parking in accordance with parking standards as agreed by the Local Planning Authority or in accordance with the relevant Neighbourhood Plan. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states in respect of transport matters; Plans and decisions should take account of whether: The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; Safe and suitable to the site can be achieved for all people; and Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.' Given that the NPPF post-dates the Local Plan it is considered that the relevant test in this case is of 'severe' impact, and in these circumstances the Local Plan Policy has diminished weight in this respect. The development would be served by a new vehicular access onto the A272 Lewes Road, this positioned some 20 metres north of the existing access to Inces Cottage. The speed limit at this point is 50mph and there is a substantial gradient, with two lanes in a northerly direction and a single lane travelling south. Detailed access and visibility splay plans accompany the application. The shared access drive is sufficient width for two vehicles to pass and includes sufficient space for a refuse vehicle to turn within the site such to be able to enter and exit in a forward gear. The layout plan shows that three of the houses would be served by two driveway parking spaces plus a garage parking space. The other house would be served by a single parking space plus the garage. A single visitor parking space is also shown opposite to the turning head within the site. Cycle storage space is shown within each garage. Third party representations concerning existing highways conditions are noted. Initially the Local Highways Authority (LHA) objected the proposed access. The applicant subsequently submitted additional data and plans, and the LHA has confirmed that they are now satisfied with the proposed access and visibility splays (full comments at Appendix B). 51 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

44 The amount of parking provision is considered to be sufficient, with the Council's Development and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document (Feb 2006) seeking a maximum provision of three parking spaces for four bedroom units. As will be noted later in the report, the site's location is also such that a limited number of services and facilities within Scaynes Hill are also within realistic walking and cycling distance, whilst there is also an hourly bus service to Haywards Heath and Uckfield. Planning officers have no evidence to dispute the conclusions of the LHA and so there are not considered to be any reasons to refuse the scheme in regard to the impact on highway safety, access and parking. As such it is considered that the application complies with paragraph 32 of the NPPF, Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and DP19 of the Submission District Plan. The layout also demonstrates a level of parking and cycling provision which would be compliant with Policies T5 and T6 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. Design and impact on the character of the area MSLP Policy B1 promotes high quality design, construction and layout in new buildings, with proposals needing to be respectful of the character of the locality. A similar ethos is found in Policy DP24 of the Submission Mid Sussex District Plan. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out a set of core land-use planning principles that should underpin decision-taking, including the notion that planning should: "always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings." Paragraph 53 provides that Local Planning Authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area. Paragraph 56 states: "The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people." Paragraph 58 outlines the principles of good design, whilst paragraph 61 states: "Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment." It has already been noted that while Policy C1 of the MSLP cannot be considered up to date where it seeks to restrict housing supply, the objectives of the policy are still deemed consistent with one of the core planning principles of the NPPF insofar as it indicates that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised. 52 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

45 In this case, the site is not open countryside but rather part of an abnormally large residential curtilage. The setting may be described as a semi-rural in character, and there is a loose knit pattern of irregular development extending south from the built up area boundary. The site has the benefit of a strong tree and hedge screen to its northern, western and eastern boundaries, such that it is well contained from views from the public realm. Other than the removal necessary in connection with the creation of the access, the boundary screening is shown retained. Inces Cottage would retain a very spacious area of residential curtilage, and whilst four dwellings are proposed, the density is low is relation to the site area in response to the verdant, edge of settlement setting. The proposed development of any site in the countryside such as this, whether part of residential curtilage or not will inevitably change the character of the land. Whilst the site would benefit from a good degree of screening, it will not be wholly out of sight from the streetscene and public footpath, and in particular the formation of the access would disrupt the continuous line of vegetation which extends towards the built up area boundary from the existing access. The merits of this proposal in character terms relate to its screening, a straightforward layout which is responsive to the boundary constraints and highest value trees, including the different orientation of the first plot such to address the entrance, and that the scheme does not seek to overdevelop the site in density terms. The house designs are also deemed to be of a good quality, providing a distinctive yet traditional appearance to the development. It is recognised that the built up area boundary signifies an abrupt change to the density of development, and that the proposal would introduce dwellings on the approach / exit to the village in a way which is not reflected elsewhere in the locality. In overall terms, it is considered that the extent of visual harm in character and appearance terms is only limited. The development would have a relatively discreet visual impact on the public realm, the layout and density is satisfactory and the dwellings are appropriate in scale and design terms. The limited adverse impact in these terms is to be weighed up as part of the NPPF paragraph 14 balancing exercise. Impact on trees Policy B7 of the MSLP seeks to resist development resulting in the loss of trees of significant public amenity value. Policy DP36 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan states that: "The District Council will support the protection and enhancement of trees, woodland and hedgerows, and encourage new planting. In particular, ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees will be protected. Development that will damage or lead to the loss of trees, woodland or hedgerows that contribute, either individually or as part of a group, to the visual amenity value or character of an area, and/ or that have landscape, historic or wildlife importance, will not normally be permitted. The application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Survey and Planning Integration Report (updated 28 February 2017). This report summaries that there are 33 subject 53 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

46 trees (8 of which are located outside the site boundary) and 3 groups of trees/hedges. 16 of these are to be removed. The removal works are stated to be of no consequence in landscape terms given their internal nature. The Council's Tree Officer has raised no objection to the proposal (full comments at Appendix B). Whilst the loss of a number of mature trees and a hedgerow within the site is regrettable, it is acknowledged that these are not worthy of statutory protection and so could be removed at any time without recourse to the Council. The layout has been amended to increase the separation distances from the buildings to the retained trees along the western boundary and within Plots 3 and 2. Methods of protection for retained trees and hedges are detailed in the Arboricultural Report. In overall terms it is considered that the proposal does not involve any tree removal which is of such significance in public amenity terms so as to warrant an objection. No more trees are shown removed than necessary for the development and new planting is shown to establish the site's southern boundaries. The Planning Officer accepts the Tree Officer's view and so, subject to condition, the application is deemed to be acceptable in respect in arboricultural terms. Biodiversity / ecology Policy C5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, states development will only be permitted where the proposals minimises the impact on features of nature conservation importance and that the weight attached to nature conservation interests will reflect the relative significance of the designation. Chapter 11 of the NPPF advises that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve or enhance biodiversity, and that 'opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.' In particular, paragraph 118 of the NPPF states: "When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles [such as]: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged. planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh its loss." 54 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

47 Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) lists species of animal (other than birds) which are provided special protection under the Act. In addition to the protection afforded by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), certain species are also covered by European legislation. These species are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, 7c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). The application is accompanied by an Ecology Report (updated 26 February 2017). In summary the report identifies that the proposal presents no risks of impact to any designated sites or the nearby, but not adjoining, Ancient Woodland. Precautionary mitigation checks and measures together with enhancement measures are recommended to avoid the risk of indirect impacts to bats, breeding birds, great crested newt, hazel dormouse and reptiles and to promote biodiversity in line with the aspirations of the NPPF. The Council's Ecological Consultant has reviewed the Report and raises no objection to the application, subject to a suitable condition (full comments at Appendix B) In summary therefore, the proposal is deemed acceptable on ecological and biodiversity grounds in compliance with the above policies and guidance. Impact on neighbouring amenity Policy B3 of the MSLP states: Proposals for new development, including extensions to existing buildings and changes of use, will not be permitted if significant harm to the amenities of nearby residents is likely to be created due to noise and disturbance; loss of privacy; overlooking; reduction in sunlight and daylight; and reduction in outlook. A similar ethos is found in Policy DP24 of the Submission District Plan. The only neighbouring residential amenity considered to be impacted is that of Inces Cottage to the south. The applicant has served required notice on this owner of the site and no representation has been received. The layout plan indicates that tree planting and a post and rail fence would be erected to establish the division of the development site and remaining garden curtilage of Inces Cottage. As previously noted, ground levels drop in a southerly direction. This change in gradient increases the opportunity for overlooking from the development to the expansive retained gardens of the existing property. However, the distance from the western two plots towards the patio and swimming pool) immediately behind Inces Cottage is approximately 60 metres. Overall, whilst the proposal would inevitably introduce some harm to the amenity of the existing property, owing to the separation distances and proposed measures to establish the site's southern boundary, it is considered that that proposal complies with the above policy requirements. 55 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

48 Standard of accommodation Policy DP24 of the Submission Version Mid Sussex District Plan stipulates that development does not cause significant harm to the amenities of future occupants of new dwellings. Policy DP25 requires all new dwellings to meet minimum nationally described space standards, other than in exceptional circumstances, where clear evidence will need to be provided to show that the internal form or special features prevent some of the requirements being met. The government's Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards document was published in March 2015 and replaced the council's adopted Dwelling Space Standards Supplementary Planning Document on 1 October It sets out space standards for all new residential dwellings, including minimum floor areas and room widths for bedrooms and minimum floor areas for storage, to secure a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future residents. In this case, the standard for a 4-bed dwelling is 124 sq metres. Plans demonstrate that the units would comply with this standard, together with providing appropriate storage, and so the application is compliant in this respect. Each plot would benefit from a spacious rear garden and would not be the subject of undue overlooking from adjacent occupiers. Whilst tree coverage will have a limiting effect on direct sunlight, in overall terms it is considered that each property will benefit from a good quality of amenity. Drainage MSLP Policy CS13 seeks to ensure that sites on which new development is provided can be adequately drained. Policy DP41 of the draft Mid Sussex District Plan requires development proposals to follow a sequential risk-based approach, ensure development is safe across its lifetime and not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. The third party representation concern over the absence of surface water management information is noted. There is however no reason to conclude that the site could be not be appropriately drained and the Council's Drainage Engineer has recommended a suitably worded condition should the application be recommended for approval. No conflict has therefore been identified with respect to the above policies. Drainage is also a matter which is controlled by Building Regulations. Energy and water conservation (sustainability) Policy B4 of the Local Plan requires all new development proposals to maximise opportunities for efficient use of energy, water and materials and use of natural drainage. A similar ethos is found in Policy DP39 of the Submission District Plan. 56 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

49 Paragraph 93 of the NPPF states: "Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development." Paragraph 96 states: "In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to: comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption." A brief Sustainability Statement has been submitted with the application. It is considered that the measures proposed, including rainwater harvesting, sustainable drainage parking area construction, locally sourced materials and compliance with latest Building Regulations are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with these policies and guidance. The site's sustainability credentials in location terms are considered below as part of an assessment of whether the proposal would constitute sustainable development within the meaning of the NPPF. Other issues All other issues raised in third party representations have been taken into account as far as possible in the determination of the application. Given the 100+ distance between the site and Inces, including intervening development, and tree screening, it is not considered that the proposal would have any impact upon the setting of this designated heritage asset. Whether the proposal would be sustainable development As outlined above, the NPPF describes sustainable development as the golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. It sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The NPPF makes it clear that the three dimensions to sustainable development are to be sought jointly and simultaneously, as they are mutually dependent. Paragraph 6 states that the policies in paragraphs , taken as a whole, constitute the government's view as to what sustainable development means for the planning system. In this part of the report the main factors that inform the judgement as to whether the proposal would be a sustainable form of development are summarised. 57 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

50 In reaching that view all matters referred to in the report have been taken into account. THE ECONOMIC ROLE Part 6 of the Localism Act was enacted on the 16th January This requires the LPA to have regard to local finance considerations (as far as material to the application) as well as the provision of the Development Plan and any other material considerations. The New Homes Bonus commenced in April 2011, and will match fund the additional council tax raised for new homes and empty properties brought back into use, with an additional amount for affordable homes, for the following six years. The New Homes Bonus is now a material planning consideration and if permitted the local planning authority would receive a New Homes Bonus for of the units proposed. This is a factor that should weight in favour of the scheme. The proposal would also result in economic benefits in terms of the direct boost to the local economy during the construction phase and subsequent benefits from additional dwellings and businesses in the locality (residents spending in the local economy and so on). The development would also generate Council Tax receipts. These are all factors that should weight in favour of the development, and with no adverse economic impacts identified, the proposal is considered to fulfil the economic role. SOCIAL ROLE The NPPF seeks to promote a "strong, vibrant and healthy community by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being." The provision of four family-sized dwellings will make a small but useful contribution to the district's housing supply. The additional housing at a time of identified need and shortfall in supply should be given substantial weight. There is no requirement to provide small / affordable housing units for a small scale development of this nature. The site does not adjoin but is located close to the built-up boundary of Category 3 settlement Scaynes Hill where there are limited services and amenities. There is also an hourly bus service to Haywards Heath and Uckfield. It is therefore considered that the location of the site can be described as sustainable. This would not be isolated development within the countryside with a clear heavy reliance on the private car to fulfil day to day needs. It is considered that the proposal would fulfil the social role of sustainable development. ENVIRONMENTAL ROLE In locational terms, the proposal is deemed to fulfil the environmental role in so far as occupants will have limited but clear opportunities to access amenities and services without heavy reliance on the private car. 58 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

51 There is a need to ensure that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is recognised and that development should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment. Furthermore, the effect on the character of an area in which a development is proposed to take place should be afforded substantial weight in any planning decision. The site is part of a very large residential curtilage at a semi-rural situation and has mature tree and hedge screening to its external boundaries with the public realm. The land is currently undeveloped. A section of roadside boundary cypress hedge would be removed for the access and a number of trees and a hedge internal to the side would be felled. The layout, density, scale and design of the scheme is considered to be an appropriate response to the setting, however owing to the countryside location it is considered that there will be some limited harm in character and appearance terms. Subject to conditions requiring the implementation of measures set out in Arboricultural and Ecology Reports, the application is deemed to be acceptable in terms of its impact upon trees and ecology. Having regard to the above it is considered that the proposed development would constitute a sustainable form of development within the meaning of the NPPF. Case law has confirmed that the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development is not an additional test for development. Therefore when considering housing applications, Local Planning Authorities must measure the sustainability credentials of the development within the balance of paragraph 14, as part of the weighing up process. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION The application seeks planning permission for the erection of 4 no. 4 bedroom house with attached garages, associated parking, landscaping and a new access at Land at Inces Cottage, Lewes Road, Scaynes Hill. As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. The provision of 4 no. family sized dwellings at a location outside of, but in close walking and cycling distance to a category 3 settlement would represent a significant social and economic benefit at a time when there is a clear identified need for housing in the district. The proposal is deemed acceptable in highways, arboricultural, ecology, sustainability, neighbouring amenity and quality of accommodation terms. 59 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

52 Weighing against the scheme is that the fact that dwellings are being proposed outside the built up area boundary, within residential curtilage, and so would normally be restricted under the relevant local plan and neighbourhood plan policies. Overall it is considered that the limited adverse impacts of the scheme in relation to the local impact on the character and appearance of the area and non-compliance with the Neighbourhood Plan do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. It is therefore considered that the presumption in favour sustainable development applies and that the application satisfactorily complies with policies B1, B3, B7, C5, C6, T4, T5, T6 and CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, policies DP19, DP24, DP25, DP36, DP37, DP39 and DP41 of the Submission Version District Plan, and the overall aims of the NPPF, which include to significantly boost housing supply. APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans listed below under the heading "Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application". Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning. Pre-development 3. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters: the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, the parking of vehicles by 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, 60 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

53 the provision of wheel washing facilities and 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. Reason: To ensure safe and neighbourly construction in the interests of amenity and road safety and to accord with Policies B3 and T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the Submission Version District Plan. 4. The development hereby permitted shall not proceed until details of the proposed foul water drainage, surface water drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily drained and to accord with Policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP41 of the Submission Version District Plan No development shall be carried out unless and until samples of materials and finishes to be used for external walls / roofs / fenestration/ external surfaces of the proposed development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve buildings of visual quality and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and DP24 of the Submission Version District Plan. 6. No development shall take place unless and until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority full details of both hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development and these works shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the Submission Version District Plan. 61 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

54 7. Hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the Submission Version District Plan. 8. No development shall take place until details of proposed plot and site boundary walls / fences / hedges have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until such boundary walls / fences / hedges associated with them have been erected. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, neighbouring amenity and future amenity of occupants and to accord with Policies B1 and B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the Submission Version District Plan. 9. No development shall commence until the vehicular access serving the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved planning drawing. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the Submission Version District Plan. Construction 10. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site on Bank or Public Holidays or at any time other than between the hours 8 a m and 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 9 am and 1 pm Saturdays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the Submission Version District Plan. 11. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the recommendations set out in the report by Greenlink Ecology Ltd (ref 15_1199_Report_MF_TS-V3). Reason: To protect and promote biodiversity and protected species to accord with Policies C5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP37 of the Submission Version District Plan. 62 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

55 12. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the Arboricultural Survey and Planning Integration Report by Quaife Woodlands (ref AR/3499a/jq). Reason: To ensure integration of the development into the natural environment, including mature and boundary trees and hedges marked for protection and retention and to accord with Policies B7 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and DP36 of the Submission Version District Plan. Pre-occupation 13. No part of the development shall be first occupied until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 127 metres have been provided to the North and 2.4 metres by 126 metres have been provided to the South at the proposed site vehicular access onto Lewes Road in accordance with the approved planning drawings. 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. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the Submission Version District Plan. 14. No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained for their designated use. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is provided for properties and to accord with Policy T5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the Submission Version District Plan. 15. No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with the approved plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained for their designated use. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with current sustainable transport policies and to accord with Policy T6 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the Submission Version District Plan. INFORMATIVES 1. The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and developers advice can be found at or by phone on In accordance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the 63 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

56 Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 3. Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to your duty of care not to cause the neighbours of the site a nuisance. Accordingly, you are requested that: Hours of construction/demolition on site are restricted only to: Mondays to Fridays hrs; Saturdays hrs; No construction/demolition work on Sundays or Public Holidays. Measures shall be implemented to prevent dust generated on site from crossing the site boundary during the demolition/construction phase of the development. No burning of materials shall take place on site at any time. If you require any further information on these issues, please contact Environmental Protection on Section 278 Agreement of the 1980 Highways Act - Works within the Highway The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority, to cover the off-site highway works. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader ( ) to commence this process. The applicant is advised that it is an offence to undertake any works within the highway prior to the agreement being in place. Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application The following plans and documents were considered when making the above decision: Plan Type Reference Version Submitted Date Proposed Elevations PL04 B Location Plan PL01 A Planning Layout PL02 L Proposed Floor Plans PL03 C Proposed Elevations PL05 B Proposed Elevations PL06 B Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

57 Proposed Elevations PL07 B Topographical Survey S15/5113/ Proposed Floor Plans PL Proposed Floor Plans PL Proposed Floor Plans PL Access Plan J PS Access Plan J PS Access Plan 16/0706/SK01 B Lindfield Rural Parish Council APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS The Council is of the view that the proposed development does not address the needs of the community as identified in the made Neighbourhood Plan. The design is not sensitive to either the rural setting or the surrounding properties and is considered an over development of a rural location, within an area designated as 'Countryside Area of Development Restraint'. It therefore contravenes policies C1 and C2 of the MSDC Local Plan. Additionally, the development presents a potential traffic hazard on the adjacent, very busy, A272 both during and after construction. The lack of a frequent public transport service and most other facilities within the Village, makes a development of this type and size unsustainable. The Council considers that this planning application should be refused. WSCC Highways First stage The Applicant has provided a Technical Note (TN), Planning Statement and Design and Access Statement, outlining the access proposals for this site to which the LHA would like to outline the following concerns. Lewes Road (A272) to Scaynes Hill is subject to 50mph speed restrictions at the point of access to the proposal, changing to a 30mph zone 63m to the North of the site. Where speeds are in excess of 40mph, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges is considered to be the relevant design standard. Visibility at the access has been demonstrated as 105m Northbound Southbound. These visibility splays can only be achieved when measuring to an offset of 0.5m from the edge of the carriageway, which is not consistent with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges guidance. The splays do not meet the standards set out within The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) which establishes that within a 50mph limit, visibility should be 2.4m x 160m. Whilst it is recognised that the extent of the required splay- which is the point at which sufficient stopping sight distance is provided in order to avoid conflict with an 65 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

58 emerging vehicle at the site access- extends into the 30mph limit zone, the Applicant does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a reduced splay is appropriate. No data has been obtained at this location. Although in a 30mph zone, there is clear forward visibility to the change in speed limit, and drivers are likely to be accelerating towards 50mph. It is accepted that speeds are likely to be lower, but any departure from the DMRB standard should be justified with appropriate evidence. The provision of an appropriate visibility splay at this location is critical. A review of the most up to date police records establishes that there has been a road traffic collision in close proximity to the proposal, in which lack of visibility for a vehicle emerging from a private access onto the A272 was a causation factor. The A272 is identified as a Local Lorry Route within the WSCC Lorry Route Network. This road serves a high frequency of LGV and HGV traffic, as demonstrated within the ATC data. It is likely that this proportion of traffic will be heading through Haywards Heath heading west to the A23; this will therefore be the leading direction in which an emerging vehicle from the proposed would encounter oncoming vehicles. The visibility splay in this direction does not accord with the DMRB standard, with the splay based on the 85th percentile speed. This will require a formal Departure from Standards application to be made to the County Council for consideration. An application form and guidance has been attached to the covering . Conclusion Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and for the reasons as outlined above, the LHA raise an objection to the proposed development on the following grounds: Contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the application fails to demonstrate that safe and suitable access can be achieved. The application does not demonstrate that sufficient visibility for vehicles emerging onto the A272 can be achieved. It should be noted that the objection is not that of principle and that the concerns may be resolved by the provision of further evidence and data. Second stage Summary Further to the LHA response on the 8/11/2016 further information has been provided by the applicant in the form of historical information relating to a nearby site which is yet to be determined however visibility from the speed data has been accepted (DC/16/3119.) Having assessed this information the LHA consider the further justification acceptable in highway terms and would raise no objections to this application. Comments Lewes Road (A272) to Scaynes Hill is subject to 50mph speed restrictions at the point of access to the proposal, changing to a 30mph zone 63m to the North of the 66 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

59 site. Where speeds are in excess of 40mph, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges is considered to be the relevant design standard. Previously it was considered that the visibility splay in this direction does not accord with the DMRB standard, with the splay based on the 85th percentile speed. The applicant contends that the planning application DM/16/3119 would result in alterations to the layout of the carriageway to the north and introduce a pedestrian refuge island and a dedicated right-turn lane into that proposed development site. The Transport Statement for this provided drawings showing visibility splays drawn to the centre line of the carriageway in this northbound direction. The documentation prepared also identified a southbound 85th percentile speed of 35.6 miles per hour in this direction within the 30mph posted section of the A272. An additional drawing (Drawing J PS-001) has been provided which indicates the extent of a visibility splay of 127 metres to the north, measured to the centre of the carriageway. The 127-metre splay reflects the 85th percentile speed surveyed at the proposed site access and is beyond the visibility splay that would be required for a 35.6mph speed (which was observed in the speed survey) as the splay now extends 64 metres into the 30 miles per hour speed limit zone. Having considered the revisions on the above stated plan, the LHA consider the provision of the 127m splay to the North acceptable in this instance. To the south, the visibility splay is based on the observed 85th percentile speeds surveyed from the original Transport Statement provided with this application. This considers that this section of carriageway is on approach to Scaynes Hill village and the 30mph speed limit zone alongside the carriageway gradient and merging of the two lanes to a single carriageway to the south. The wet weather speed of 45.9mph equates to a metre visibility splay, which was shown on Drawing 16/0706/SK01/B submitted with the original Transport Statement. The LHA will accept the 126m visibility splay and the justification provided. Matters relating to access during the construction of the proposed would need to be agreed prior to any works commencing. Vehicular access to the site is possible only from Lewes Road. A comprehensive construction management plan would be sought through condition, should permission be granted. The LHA previously raised concern to an accident which happened adjacent to the site, and restricted visibility was a causation factor. Given the additional info provided regarding speeds on approach we are satisfied that visibility can now be provided thus addressing the concerns raised. Conclusion Based on the additional information provided by the applicant which shows the visibility meeting requirements outlined by the speed data, it is not considered that this proposal would be a severe detriment to the highway. The concerns raised previously by the LHA have been alleviated with the provision of this additional information. Should planning permission be granted, the following conditions are advised to be sealed alongside it. 67 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

60 Conditions Access (details approved, access provided prior to commencement) No development shall commence until the vehicular access serving the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved planning drawing. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Visibility (details approved) No part of the development shall be first occupied until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 127 metres have been provided to the North and 2.4 metres by 126 metres have been provided to the South at the proposed site vehicular access onto Lewes Road in accordance with the approved planning drawings. 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. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Cycle parking No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with current sustainable transport policies. Vehicle parking and turning No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained for their designated use. Reason: To provide adequate on-site car parking and turning space for the development. Construction Management Plan No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters: the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, the parking of vehicles by 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, 68 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

61 the provision of wheel washing facilities and 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. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area. Informative Section 278 Agreement of the 1980 Highways Act - Works within the Highway The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority, to cover the off-site highway works. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader ( ) to commence this process. The applicant is advised that it is an offence to undertake any works within the highway prior to the agreement being in place. MSDC Drainage Engineer We do not object to this proposed development, and we will allow outstanding drainage and flood risk matters to be dealt with by condition. We understand the existing flood risks associated with this proposed development to be: 1. Unknown flood risk. 2. No recorded flooding. 3. Development site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is deemed as 'Low Risk' fluvial flooding. We would expect the flood risk to change post development in the following way: 1. Increase in impermeable area creating or exacerbating local flood risk The proposed development has shown the following in mitigation of the flood risk: 1. No submitted details Hierarchy of Surface Water Disposal and Southern Water (2016). It is exceptionally important that, at an early stage of design, the proposed development identifies how it intends to dispose of surface water. To do this, the developer will need to consider the requirements set out in Building Regulations H3 where a hierarchy for surface water disposal is established. This is: 1. Infiltration to the ground. Where this has been explored and is shown to be not reasonably practicable: 2. Discharge to watercourse. Where this has been explored and is shown to be not reasonably practicable: 69 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

62 3. Discharge to surface sewer. In our recent experience, Southern Water has provided developers with agreements to connect surface water to the existing public sewers. However, some of these agreements are for connection only and they do not confirm the discharge of water and any appropriate downstream capacity. In this scenario, MSDC Drainage Engineers cannot accept 'connection only' letters as evidence for the safe and suitable disposal of surface water and thereby meeting any outstanding drainage conditions. We therefore strongly recommend that the hierarchy of surface water disposal is followed fully early in the design stage of the development. If discharge to sewers is the only available option, we strongly advise communication is made with Southern Water as soon as possible to discuss the connection to, and available capacity within, the available sewers. Suitable conditions for this proposed development: 1. The development hereby permitted shall not proceed until details of the proposed foul water drainage, surface water drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with such details as approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details Consultant Ecologist First stage The following information is required to determine this application in accordance with relevant biodiversity policies: Habitat value of the linear track to the immediate west of the proposed site. The nearest proposed house is very close to this feature, which could be impacted by lighting, invasive garden plants, tipping of garden rubbish over boundaries etc. Therefore, sufficient information is required on the feature so that its sensitivity to such pressures and need for a buffer can be assessed. I note that the supporting report by Greenlink Ecology Ltd (section ) refers to " an area of Ancient Woodland present directly to the west of the site ". However, I am assuming that is a reference to Anchor Wood which is close by but to the southwest and not bounding the west of the site. I also have concerns about the severance of habitat links for great crested newts between the pond near the Farmers pub and the ponds to the south of the proposed site, which do not appear to have been surveyed for the species and therefore must be considered to have the potential to support them. The site may only represent a 70 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

63 relatively small amount of low quality habitat in terms of foraging opportunities for the species, but it is in a direct line between the ponds. Without further information on the linear feature to the west, it is not possible to judge whether this is likely to be providing a suitable link. There is currently no information on whether the northern pond supports a breeding population / subpopulation, but if it does, its long-term viability may well depend connectivity to sub-populations to the south. Therefore, as a precautionary approach, it is important to ensure that an adequate habitat corridor will be maintained. Second stage Further to submission of an updated survey report by Greenlink Ecology Ltd, I have also taken the liberty of visiting the site myself to walk the wooded track adjacent to the site as the Greenlink Ecology report appears to be based only on assessment from the site itself, stating that the feature is "off-site and on private land, which was not accessible during the survey". It appears as a public right of way on my OS mapping and I had no problems accessing it. Based on this, I am satisfied that this linear feature provides connectivity between the pond and the ancient woodland to the southwest, which is also likely to be used by any great crested newts using ponds to the south of the development site and thus providing linkage. The measures included in the updated Greenlink Ecology report are also welcomed to reduce any residual risks. Based on further assessment of the linear feature, I am able to withdraw my concerns about garden rubbish dumping etc. In conclusion, there are no reasons, in my opinion, for refusal of the application on biodiversity grounds. However, if planning consent is granted I would recommend a condition to secure implementation of the recommendations set out in the updated ecological report by Greenlink Ecology Ltd (ref 15_1199_Report_MF_TS-V2). Furthermore, if there is to be any lighting of the access road, I would recommend a condition requiring prior approval of mitigation measures to minimise light spill on to boundary habitats. MSDC Tree Officer Having reviewed the amended plans, I am pleased to see that some minor changes have been made to the (now) superseded layout design; looking to benefit the existing trees on site. Of course, as these changes are minor my original comments largely stand, however; it is recognised that these trees are not currently under any statutory protection and are unlikely to merit such protection given their positioning behind a large row of Conifers (which are situated on the roadside). It is still likely that a number of trees (including two mature Oaks to the rear of plots 1/2 and 3 and the Oaks to the west of plot 4) will be placed under a considerable amount of pressure, due to shading, seasonal nuisance and fear of failure; though the dwellings have been positioned so that they remain outside of their Root 71 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

64 Protection Areas and this should reduce the risk of health issues occurring (especially when taking into account their age). In order to ensure the trees remain in situ during and post construction (though this may not necessarily be for a long period), I will reluctantly raise no objection to this application. 72 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

65 Lindfield Rural 3. DM/16/4840 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey LAND TO THE REAR OF FIRLANDS CHURCH ROAD SCAYNES HILL HAYWARDS HEATH OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF ACCESS DETAILS FOR 2 DETACHED DWELLINGS AND GARAGES. MR CRAIG LEE GRID REF: EAST NORTH POLICY: Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / Classified Roads - 20m buffer / Planning Agreement / Planning Obligation / ODPM CODE: Minor Dwellings 8 WEEK DATE: 21st March 2017 WARD MEMBERS: Cllr Chris Hersey / Cllr Linda Stockwell / CASE OFFICER: Mr Stuart Malcolm 73 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

66 PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider the recommendation of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning on the application for planning permission as detailed above. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application seeks outline planning consent for the approval of access details for 2 detached dwellings and garages on land to the rear of Firlands, Church Road, Scaynes Hill. Planning legislation requires the application to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material circumstances indicate otherwise. As the proposed scheme does not comply with certain aspects of the Development Plan, other material considerations need to be considered in determining the application, including the NPPF. As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not upto-date (paragraph 49 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. This is therefore the balancing exercise that must be undertaken by the decision maker. Weighing in favour of the scheme is that the development will provide 2 residential units at a time where there is a shortfall in housing supply and this should be given substantial weight. Weighing against the scheme is that the fact that dwellings are being proposed outside the built up area and would normally be restricted under the relevant local plan and neighbourhood plan policies. The wider visual impact of the development is deemed minimal, despite the loss of part of a green field. Planning officers consider that there would be a limited adverse impact on the landscape as a result of the proposed development but this is an inevitable outcome of developing on any green field site and in that respect is not unique to this site. There will however be a neutral impact in respect of a number of issues such as highway safety, sustainability, drainage and nature conservation. The proposal is therefore deemed to comply with the requirements of Policies C5, B1, B3, B4 and T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policies DP1, DP6, DP19, DP24 and DP37 of the submission District Plan as well as the broader requirements of the NPPF. 74 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

67 Given the substantial weight that needs to be given to the provision of housing and the limited adverse impact of the scheme on the character of the area, officers conclude the balance falls in favour of supporting the scheme. That is because, as per the para 14 balancing exercise, it is considered that this proposal would not result in significant and demonstrable harm that would outweigh the benefits of providing what would be a contribution to the Council's current shortfall in housing supply. Planning permission should therefore be granted. Recommendation A It is recommended that permission be granted, subject to the conditions listed at Appendix A. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS Total of 8 representations raising following issues: outside the village boundary and contrary to neighbourhood plan; does not follow building line; loss of open countryside and agricultural land; will adversely affect landscape; leads to a precedent; harder access on to A272; safety issues along Church Road; disturbance during construction; initially submitted location plan not accurate; encroachment of piecemeal development; no economic benefits; no need for it due to other permissions; agricultural covenant on land; does not accord with principles of the 6 dwelling approval that was infill; loss of privacy to neighbours. SUMMARY OF CONSULTEES MSDC Drainage - No objection subject to conditions. MSDC Street Naming - Add Informative. West Sussex Highways - No objections subject to conditions. INTRODUCTION This application seeks outline planning consent with access for the proposed development of 2 detached dwellinghouses and garages on the site. 75 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

68 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Most recently planning approval DM/16/4612 granted consent for the demolition of the existing barn and structures and the erection of a detached dwelling with access and parking on land adjoining the rear of Firlands. This consent effectively superseded planning permission granted in August 2016 under reference DM/16/2693 for the demolition of three outbuildings and the extension and change of use of the barn to a single residential unit with associated drive, access and parking. Planning permission had originally been granted in January 2016 under application DM/15/3952 for "change of use of rural buildings to residential (single dwelling) with associated road, access and parking." Under this application the main barn up against the western boundary was to be converted to a two storey, two bedroom dwellinghouse with the three further smaller outbuildings located to the north, east and south being converted to domestic use. Prior to this the conversion of the main barn building to business use was permitted under reference 09/01878/FUL although this application sought the retention of the outbuildings for agricultural use. This consent was extended under 12/02894/eot but subsequently expired in October Planning permission was also granted under 14/04312/FUL for the construction of 2 no. semi-detached and 4 no. detached dwellings, with associated improvements to access on land between The Willows and Firlands. These have been constructed and are occupied. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site lies to the east of the properties that are lined along the eastern side of Church Road on the northern edge of the village of Scaynes Hill. The site is however separated from the existing houses that front Church Road by the application site for DM/16/4612. The site is part of a larger field that extends to the north as well with further fields located immediately to the south and east. There is a drop in levels from west to east. In terms of planning policy the site falls outside the built up area of Scaynes Hill, as defined by the Mid Sussex Local Plan, and therefore falls within the Countryside Area of Development Restraint. APPLICATION DETAILS The application is in outline form with access being the only matter currently being pursued. This means that it is just the principle of the development and the means of access that are being assessed at this stage although the applicant has to demonstrate that such a proposal is achievable on the site. The submitted plans, other than the access plan, are therefore illustrative at this stage. 76 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

69 The proposal seeks consent for the development of the site to provide 2 detached dwellings on the land. The illustrative plans indicate that these will be sited relatively centrally in the plot and each plot will have a detached garage. The access is shown to extend to the dwellings from the access that is to serve the dwelling permitted under DM/16/4612. LIST OF POLICIES Mid Sussex Local Plan C1 (CADR) C5 (Nature conservation) B1 (Design) B3 (Residential amenity) B4 (Energy and water conservation) T4 (Transport) Mid Sussex District Plan The Submission District Plan was submitted for Examination on the 17 August The first of the Examination hearings have taken place. The Plan is a material planning consideration. Weight will be given to relevant policies in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF. Relevant policies include: DP1 - Sustainable Development DP6 - Settlement Hierarchy DP10 - Protection of Countryside DP19 - Transport DP24 - Character and Design DP37 - Biodiversity Lindfield and Lindfield Rural Neighbourhood Plan The Plan has been made and therefore forms part of the development plan attracting full weight. Policy 1 is particularly relevant. National Policy and Legislation National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the government's policy in order to ensure that the planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development, such that the planning system needs to perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. This means ensuring sufficient land of the right type to support growth; providing a supply of housing and creating a high quality environment with accessible local services; and using natural resources prudently. 77 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

70 With specific reference to decision-taking the document provides the following advice: Para 187 states that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Para 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. National Planning Policy Guidance Technical Housing Standards ASSESSMENT It is considered that the main issues that need to be considered in the determination of this application are as follows; The principle of development; Design and visual impact; Sustainable location of site Highways, access and car parking; Residential amenity and future occupiers; Ecology; Other issues; Whether the proposal would be sustainable development; and Planning Balance and Conclusion Principle of Development Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) And local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: 78 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

71 "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Using this as the starting point the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Small Scale Housing Allocations Document (2008), the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004) and in this case the Lindfield and Lindfield Rural Neighbourhood Plan as this is a 'made' document. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states: "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." This Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply for the District. The housing requirement set out in the now revoked South East Plan is no longer relevant. However, the objectively assessed housing need figure for the district is yet to be tested through the District Plan examination. As such the Council is unable at present to demonstrate the five year supply of deliverable sites, since it does not have an agreed requirement to calculate this supply against. As such, the supply of housing element of Policy C1 in the Mid Sussex Local Plan and in Policy 1 of the Neighbourhood Plan cannot be considered up to date. It is also worth referring to the recent Written Ministerial Statement in December 2016 that sets out the relevant policies for the supply of housing in a neighbourhood plan, that is part of the development plan, should not be deemed to be 'out-of-date' under paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework where all of the following circumstances arise at the time the decision is made: this written ministerial statement is less than 2 years old, or the neighbourhood plan has been part of the development plan for 2 years or less; the neighbourhood plan allocates sites for housing; and the local planning authority can demonstrate a three-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This Ministerial Statement does not impact on the Council's planning application decision making so the Statement has little bearing on the application. The reason for this is that the Council cannot demonstrate a 3 year supply of housing land because there is no agreed OAN to assess the supply against and due to the fact that the Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate any sites. In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies which states in part: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. 79 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

72 For decision-taking this means: 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 permission unless: o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted." The second bullet point of the 'decision taking' section currently applies. Thus as Policy C1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy 1 of the Neighbourhood Plan cannot be considered up to date (paragraph 49) the Council should be granting planning permission unless "any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole " The approach that must be taken is that the development is assessed against paragraph 14 to see whether any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The weight to be given to saved policies of the MSLP will need to be assessed against the degree of conformity with the NPPF. In this case whilst the housing land supply elements of Policy C1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy 1 of the Neighbourhood Plan are out of date, the objective to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside accords with the NPPF (paragraph 17) and thus some weight may be afforded to these elements of Policies C1 and 1. Case law has confirmed that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not an additional test for development. The sustainability credentials of the development are therefore measured within the balance of paragraph 14, as part of the weighing up process. Therefore this development must be assessed against the 3 limbed definition of sustainable development at paragraph 7 of the NPPF. If a development is found to be sustainable, that would weigh heavily in favour of granting permission in the paragraph 14 balance. If however the development is not found to be sustainable, that is not the end of the matter; the Local Planning Authority still need to go through the weighing up process between the positive benefits of the scheme against any harm that may be caused. Planning Practice Guidance states that when assessing applications against para 14 of the NPPF, decision makers should include within their assessment those policies in the Framework that deal with neighbourhood planning. This includes paragraphs of the Framework; and paragraph 198 which states that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted. 80 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

73 It should be noted that a Court ruling in May 2015 relating to a site in Sayers Common made by Mr Justice Holgate confirmed that paragraphs 14 and 49 do apply to the housing supply policies in a draft development plan, including a draft neighbourhood plan, consequently, they also apply to advanced and made neighbourhood plans. Therefore the key test that must be undertaken therefore when assessing this application is as set out within para 14 of the NPPF. Although only limited weight can be afforded to it at the moment, Policy DP6 of the submission District Plan is also relevant. This states that: "Development will be permitted within towns and villages with defined built-up area boundaries. Any infilling and redevelopment will be required to demonstrate that it is of an appropriate nature and scale (with particular regard to DP24: Character and Design), and not cause harm to the character and function of the settlement. The growth of settlements will be supported where this meets identified local housing, employment and community needs. Outside defined built-up area boundaries, the expansion of settlements will be supported where: 1. The site is allocated in the District Plan, a Neighbourhood Plan or subsequent Development Plan Document or where the proposed development is for fewer than 10 dwellings; 2. The site adjoins an existing settlement edge; and 3. The development is demonstrated to be sustainable, including by reference to the settlement hierarchy." Scaynes Hill is classed as a Category 3 settlement that is described as: "Medium sized villages providing essential services for the needs of their own residents and immediate surrounding communities. Whilst more limited, these can include key services such as primary schools, shops, recreation and community facilities, often shared with neighbouring settlements." The proposal largely accords with the requirements of this policy. The following sections of the report will consider the relevant matters associated with the proposed development in the context of the development plan and other material considerations, including the NPPF in order to undertake the necessary assessment outlined above. Design and Visual Impact When assessing whether or not to grant consent unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, one of the key issues is the visual impact on the character of the area. This is particularly important in this case given the site is the countryside. 81 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

74 From a policy perspective, it has already been noted that while some of the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan policies cannot be considered up to date where they seek to restrict housing supply, the objectives of the policies are still deemed consistent with one of the core planning principles of the NPPF insofar as they indicate that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states; "take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it." Paragraph 109 of the NPPF refers to 'protecting and enhancing valued landscapes' and case law has suggested that land does not have to lie within a designated area to be 'valued' and that landscape value accrues separate to designated status and that such value is derived from some physical attributes, not mere popularity. Given that the application site is currently an undeveloped green field, there will inevitably be a degree of visual change as a result of the proposal due to the introduction of built form on an undeveloped rural site. In this case however the development is in close proximity to recently permitted developments and the built up area of Scaynes Hill with the boundary being beyond the DM/16/4612 application site to the west and because the access road skirts the boundary to the side of Firlands. There is established development to the west that fronts on to Church Road but little in the way of backland development like that proposed here. As indicated above however planning permission has been granted both for the conversion of the buildings to the west (DM/16/2693) and for the demolition of these buildings and their replacement with a dwellinghouse (DM/16/4612). To the south west there is also Scaynes Hill Village Club that sits behind the houses fronting Church Road. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that the land directly behind the Church Road properties on the eastern side of the road is not wholly undeveloped. This means that the development will not be an isolated pocket of backland development which helps it integrate with the existing buildings. Another mitigating factor in terms of visual amenity is the fact that the proposal will not result in a new access point from Church Road. As indicated in the above section, access will come off the access that is to serve the adjacent development (DM/16/4612) with an extension to that permitted driveway needed to facilitate access directly to the currently proposed houses. This limits the impact of the development on the character of the area by keeping the extent of new driveway needed to a minimum whilst also not creating the need for additional access points on the Church Road frontage. It is also important to take into account the fact that site is set well back from Church Road, is screened by a number of dwellings and is down the slope from the road which means the visual impact from the public highway will be particularly limited. 82 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

75 There are no other public vantage points in the immediate vicinity of the site that would enable any significant detrimental public views to be had. The development of just two houses is a relatively minor development considered in the context of the size of the village of Scaynes Hill. The precise details of the landscaping, appearance, scale and layout of the homes are to be determined at the later reserved matters stage. At this stage however, and based on the illustrative plans, it does appear possible to site two detached dwellings on the site without being detrimental to the character of the area. For these reasons, the wider visual impact of the development is therefore deemed minimal in this case, despite the loss of part of a green field. It is your officer's conclusion therefore that there would be a limited adverse impact on the landscape as a result of the proposed development but this is an inevitable outcome of developing on any green field site and in that respect is not unique to this site. There is the opportunity for a well-designed residential development that would provide a good environment for people to live in. The significant benefits of new housing must be weighed in the planning balance when considering the limited adverse local impact on the landscape of this proposal. Sustainable Location of Site The accessibility of the site, or the sustainable location of it, is a key consideration. One of the core planning principles of the NPPF, as set out in para 17, is to: "actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable." As indicated in the earlier section the village of Scaynes Hill is defined within Policy DP6 of the submission District Plan as a Category 3 settlement which is classed as medium sized villages providing essential services for the needs of their own residents and immediate surrounding communities. Although there is not a formalised footway all the way into the village form the application site given that the proposal is in close proximity to the built up area of this settlement, the site can be reasonably described as being in a sustainable location where future occupiers will not be wholly reliant on the private car to meet daily needs. The adjacent development permitted under 14/04312/FUL was deemed to be in a sustainable location and to come to a contrary view for the current application would likely be deemed unreasonable. In this respect the application therefore accords with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the draft District Plan. Highways, Access and Car Parking Paragraph 32 of the NPPF is relevant in respect of transport matters and states that: "Plans and decisions should take account of whether: 83 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

76 The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; Safe and suitable to the site can be achieved for all people; and Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe." This is reflected within Policy T4 of the MSLP where new development proposals should not cause an unacceptable impact on the local environment in terms of road safety and increased traffic. Amongst other things, new development should provide convenient and safe pedestrian access which should link to the wider footway network. It should be noted that the NPPF test of a 'severe' impact is of a higher order than the policy T4 test of 'unacceptable'. Given that the NPPF post-dates the Local Plan it is considered that the relevant test in this case is of 'severe' impact, and in these circumstances the Local Plan Policy has diminished weight in this respect. As indicated, access is a matter for consideration at this stage. West Sussex has been consulted as the highways authority and their comments are set out in full in Appendix B. Following the request and submission of additional information concerning the access arrangements, West Sussex has concluded the following: "The LHA does not consider that this proposal would have 'severe' impact on the operation of the highway network, therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 32), and that there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal. At the reserve matters stage the applicant would be advised to consider and demonstrate the following matters: Vehicle Parking and Turning Refuse, Service and Emergency requirements." There is therefore no technical objection from the highways authority on this specific issue and Members will be aware in the absence of any technical objections then such issues should generally be deemed acceptable. Taking into account the above points it can be reasonably concluded that there are no sustainable reasons to refuse the scheme at this outline stage on highways grounds as the proposal complies with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the submission District Plan. Residential Amenity and Future Occupiers In respect of neighbouring residential amenity Members will be aware that Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan applies. This policy states that "proposals for new development, including extensions to existing buildings and changes of use, will not be permitted if significant harm to the amenities of nearby residents is likely to be 84 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

77 created due to noise and disturbance; loss of privacy; overlooking; reduction in sunlight and daylight; and reduction in outlook." The test therefore is whether 'significant harm' would occur or not. Similar levels of amenity protection are found within Policy DP24 of the District Plan. In this case the only nearby properties are those front Church Road although some consideration should be given to the fact that permission has been granted on the site immediately adjacent to the west. The rear boundaries of the nearest properties that front Church Road to the west are some 40 metres away from the western boundary of the application site whilst the nearest rear boundaries of the new builds as constructed under are located approximately 55 metres from the northern boundary of the application site. Therefore significant harm to the amenities of these residents will be unlikely although full consideration will be given at the detailed design stage. It is also at this later stage that the impact of the development on the adjacent site that benefits from planning approval will be better understood. Both sites are however within the same ownership and at this outline stage officers have no reason to consider that the detailed design of the dwellings would not be capable of ensuring the impact on neighbouring amenity will not be significant. For future occupiers, in terms of size, the 'Technical Housing Standards - nationally described space standard' applies. The applicant's submissions appear to indicate that all dwellinghouses will be of a sufficient size and have access to a suitably sized garden although the minimum space standards will only be able to be formally tested at a reserved matters stage when the detail of the homes are submitted. Therefore at this outline stage planning officers have no reason to believe that the proposal will not be able provide a high quality environment for future occupiers. Officers consider therefore that this outline application, given that all matters other than access are reserved, accords with Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and the relevant criteria of Policy DP24 of the submission District Plan in respect of the amenity of future occupiers and neighbouring residents. Other Issues All the other issues raised during the consultation period have been taken into account and these other issues are either considered not to warrant a refusal of permission, are items that could be dealt with effectively by planning conditions or other legislation or are not even material planning considerations. For example, drainage matters will be dealt with at the detailed reserved matters stage with a condition listed at Appendix A. The Council's drainage engineer is aware of the comments raised by neighbouring properties and considers that a condition is the appropriate approach. Sustainability measures can be secured for the development through the use of an appropriately worded condition. 85 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

78 The use of the site as a field in agricultural use means that the site is of low ecological value. Another factor to consider in the planning balance is the economic benefit provided during the construction period of the development. It should be highlighted in this case that there is no requirement for affordable housing provision within the development as the proposal does not exceed the thresholds within Policy H4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and the Planning Practice Guidance nor are there any specific requirements within the Neighbourhood plan policies. The proposal will not set a precedent as each case must be decided on its individual merits. A construction hours condition will be used to limit noise impact and disturbance whilst the development is being built. Any damage caused during construction is a private matter between the respective parties. The applicant has submitted amended plans to address the points raised about the accuracy of the originally submitted location and block plans. Whether or not there is an agricultural covenant on the land is not a planning issue. Whether the proposal would be Sustainable Development As outlined above, the NPPF describes sustainable development as the golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. It sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 6 states that the policies in paragraphs , taken as a whole, constitute the government's view as to what sustainable development means for the planning system. In this part of the report the main factors that inform the judgement as to whether the proposal would be a sustainable form of development are summarised. In reaching that view all matters referred to in the report have been taken into account. The Economic Role Part 6 of the Localism Act was enacted on 16th January This requires the LPA to have regard to local finance considerations (so far as material to the application) as well as the provisions of the Development Plan and any other material considerations. The New Homes Bonus commenced in April 2011, and will match fund the additional council tax raised for new homes and empty properties brought back into use, with an additional amount for affordable homes, for the following six years. The New Homes Bonus is now a material planning consideration and if permitted the LPA would receive a New Homes Bonus for each the units proposed. The economic dimension is met by this proposal owing to the New Homes Bonus, the provision of construction jobs and an increased population likely to spend in the community. 86 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

79 The Social Role The NPPF seeks to promote a "strong, vibrant and healthy community by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being". The provision of 2 dwellings on the site will make a minor but positive contribution to the district's housing supply and neighbouring residential amenity will not be significantly affected. Due to the location of the site in relation to the village boundary a range of services and facilities are within easy walking and cycling distances. It is therefore considered that the development meets the social role of sustainable development. The Environmental Role The proposal will result in a neutral impact on a number of environmental factors including highways, sustainability, drainage and nature conservation. The wider visual impact of the development is deemed minimal, despite the loss of part of a green field. Planning officers consider therefore that there would be a limited adverse impact on the landscape as a result of the proposed development but this is an inevitable outcome of developing on any green field site and in that respect is not unique to this site. It is therefore considered that the development does not fully meet the environmental role of sustainable development. Due to this latterly highlighted conflict under the environmental role of the NPPF, the proposal does not therefore constitute sustainable development. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION Planning legislation requires the application to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material circumstances indicate otherwise. As the proposed scheme does not comply with certain aspects of the Development Plan, other material considerations need to be considered in determining the application, including the NPPF. As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, it follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not upto-date (paragraph 49 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. 87 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

80 This is therefore the balancing exercise that must be undertaken by the decision maker. Weighing in favour of the scheme is that the development will provide 2 residential units at a time where there is a shortfall in housing supply and this should be given substantial weight. Weighing against the scheme is that the fact that dwellings are being proposed outside the built up area and would normally be restricted under the relevant local plan and neighbourhood plan policies. The wider visual impact of the development is deemed minimal, despite the loss of part of a green field. Planning officers consider that there would be a limited adverse impact on the landscape as a result of the proposed development but this is an inevitable outcome of developing on any green field site and in that respect is not unique to this site. There will however be a neutral impact in respect of a number of issues such as highway safety, sustainability, drainage and nature conservation. The proposal is therefore deemed to comply with the requirements of Policies C5, B1, B3, B4 and T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policies DP1, DP6, DP19, DP24 and DP37 of the submission District Plan as well as the broader requirements of the NPPF. Given the substantial weight that needs to be given to the provision of housing and the limited adverse impact of the scheme on the character of the area, officers conclude the balance falls in favour of supporting the scheme. That is because, as per the para 14 balancing exercise, it is considered that this proposal would not result in significant and demonstrable harm that would outweigh the benefits of providing what would be a contribution to the Council's current shortfall in housing supply. Planning permission should therefore be granted subject to the conditions listed at Appendix A. Time Limit APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 88 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

81 Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act Pre-development 2. No development shall be carried out unless and until samples of materials and finishes to be used for external walls / roofs / fenestration/ external surfaces of the proposed development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and DP24 of the submission District Plan. 3. No development shall be carried out unless and until samples of materials and finishes to be used for external walls / roofs / fenestration/ external surfaces of the proposed development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and DP24 of the submission District Plan. 4. No development shall take place unless and until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority full details of both hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development and these works shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the Submission District Plan. 5. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site on Bank or Public Holidays or at any time other than between the hours 8 a m and 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 9 am and 1 pm Saturdays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the Submission District Plan. 89 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

82 6. Hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the Submission District Plan. Pre-occupation conditions 7. The residential units hereby permitted shall not be occupied until provision for bin and recycling storage has been made within the site in accordance with the location shown on the approved plans subject to the elevational details being first agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Such provision shall thereafter be retained permanently. Reason: In the interests of sustainability and visual amenity and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the Submission District Plan. 8. The proposal shall not be occupied until such time as the developer has incorporated sustainable measures into the development in accordance with recommendations outlined in a Sustainability Statement that must be first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to accord with Policy B4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP39 of the Submission District Plan. 9. No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with current sustainable transport policies and to accord with Policy T5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the Submission District Plan. Approved Plans 10. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans listed below under the heading "Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Applications". Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning. 90 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

83 INFORMATIVES 1. The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and developers advice can be found at or by phone on You are advised that this planning permission requires compliance with a planning condition(s) before development commences. You are therefore advised to contact the case officer as soon as possible, or you can obtain further information from: (Fee of 28 will be payable). If you carry out works prior to a pre-development condition being discharged then a lawful start will not have been made and you will be liable to enforcement action. 3. Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to your duty of care not to cause the neighbours of the site a nuisance. Accordingly, you are requested that: Measures shall be implemented to prevent dust generated on site from crossing the site boundary during the demolition/construction phase of the development. No burning of materials shall take place on site at any time. If you require any further information on these issues, please contact Environmental Protection on In accordance with Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 91 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

84 Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application The following plans and documents were considered when making the above decision: Plan Type Reference Version Submitted Date Sections M Topographical Survey M Block Plan M03 A Location Plan M04 A Lindfield Rural Parish Council APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS The Parish Council report that this is outside the planning boundary and contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan. Construction of the new dwelling encroaches into the countryside and therefore the Council objects to this planning application. Lindfield Rural Parish Council The Parish Council has already made its comments MSDC Drainage Recommendation: No objection subject to conditions Summary and overall assessment We would expect the flood risk to change post development in the following way: 1. Increased impermeable area creating and/or exacerbating local flood risk. The proposed development has shown the following in mitigation of the flood risk: 1. No submitted detail. Intended use of soakaway. There has been a concern raised by the residents of Church Road. They have explained to us that their property utilises a septic tank that discharges to a soakaway system within the site of the proposed development. The resident's concern is that this system may be adversely affected and/or damaged by the proposed development. Therefore, as part of the information required to address the condition for drainage, we will require details of how the development will address these concerns raised. Hierarchy of Surface Water Disposal and Southern Water (2017). It is exceptionally important that, at an early stage of design, the proposed development identifies how it intends to dispose of surface water. To do this, the 92 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

85 developer will need to consider the requirements set out in Building Regulations H3 where a hierarchy for surface water disposal is established. This is: 1. Infiltration to the ground. Where this has been explored and is shown to be not reasonably practicable: 2. Discharge to watercourse. Where this has been explored and is shown to be not reasonably practicable: 3. Discharge to surface sewer. In our recent experience, Southern Water has provided developers with agreements to connect surface water to the existing public sewers. However, some of these agreements are for connection only and they do not confirm the discharge of water and any appropriate downstream capacity. In this scenario, MSDC Drainage Engineers cannot accept 'connection only' letters as evidence for the safe and suitable disposal of surface water and thereby meeting any outstanding drainage conditions. We therefore strongly recommend that the hierarchy of surface water disposal is followed fully early in the design stage of the development. If discharge to sewers is the only available option, we strongly advise communication is made with Southern Water as soon as possible to discuss the connection to, and available capacity within, the available sewers. Flood Risk We understand the existing flood risks associated with this proposed development to be: 1. Low risk fluvial flooding 2. Low risk pluvial flooding Surface Water Drainage Proposals No submitted details Foul Water Drainage Proposals No submitted details Suggested Conditions The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless and until details of the proposed foul and surface water drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No building shall be occupied until all the approved drainage works have been carried out in accordance with the approved details. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details. 93 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

86 Reason: To ensure that the proposal is satisfactorily drained and to accord with the NPPF requirements, Policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP41 of the Pre-Submission District Plan ( ) and Policy 'z' of the Neighbourhood Plan. MSDC Street Naming The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming & Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and advice for developers can be found at or by phone on West Sussex Highways This 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. A site visit can be arranged on request. I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments. This application seeks the Outline consent with all matters reserved other than Access for the erection of 2 dwellings on land to the rear of Firlands, Church Road, Scaynes Hill. Access will be achieved via the approved access arrangements of the adjacent development approved under 14/00373/FUL for 6 dwellings. I'm mindful that one additional dwelling has been granted consent for use of these access arrangements under DM/16/2693. In principle the access point onto Church Road approved under 14/00373/FUL, was considered against current guidance and standards and considered to be acceptable to be used by 6 dwellings. Use by an additional dwelling was approved under DM/16/2693. It would be difficult for the Local Highways Authority to substantiate that this proposal for use by another two dwellings would materially change the use of this point of access. There is a chance of opposing vehicle conflict within the confines of the site given the width of the private access way from the adjacent development site to the proposed dwellings. The applicant would be advised to provide a strategically placed passing place along the access way to mitigate any requirement of a vehicle to have to reverse either back into the development site to the proposed dwellings. The LHA does not consider that this proposal would have 'severe' impact on the operation of the highway network, therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 32), and that there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal. 94 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

87 At the reserve matters stage the applicant would be advised to consider and demonstrate the following matters: Vehicle Parking and Turning Refuse, Service and Emergency requirements 95 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

88 Hurstpierpoint And Sayers Common 4. DM/16/5369 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey LAND ADJACENT TO LADYMEAD CARE HOME ALBOURNE ROAD HURSTPIERPOINT WEST SUSSEX DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECTION OF 3NO. TWO BEDROOM TERRACED HOUSES WITH CAR PARKING. MR T MEADOWS GRID REF: EAST NORTH POLICY: Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Conservation Area / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / Countryside Gap / Classified Roads - 20m buffer / Aerodrome Safeguarding (CAA) / Highways and Planning Agreement (WSCC) / ODPM CODE: Minor Dwellings 8 WEEK DATE: 2nd February 2017 WARD MEMBERS: CASE OFFICER: Cllr Anthony Watts Williams / Cllr Colin Trumble / Cllr John Wilkinson / Mr Steven King 96 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

89 Purpose of Report To consider the recommendation of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning on the application for planning permission as detailed above. Executive Summary This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of three 2 bedroom dwellings on land adjacent to Ladymead, Albourne Road, Hurstpierpoint. As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land if follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ). In these circumstances paragraph 14 NPPF of the provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. It is considered that the design of the proposed dwellings is satisfactory and that the overall character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved. It is not considered that the proposal will result in a significant loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of existing properties around the site. The Highway Authority is satisfied that a satisfactory access can be achieved into the site. It is not felt that the impact of 3 additional dwellings on the local highway network would be severe. It is considered that planning conditions can be used to ensure that the site is satisfactorily drained. Whilst the proposal would conflict with the development plan on the basis that the site is outside the current built up area boundary of Hurstpierpoint, it is considered that this conflict must be given reduced weight in the planning balance in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply. The proposal would provide 3 modest dwellings in a sustainable location on the edge of the village, with no adverse impact on the wider countryside. It is therefore considered that the adverse impacts of the development do not clearly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In these circumstances the NPPF states that permission should be granted and this is a material consideration of sufficient weight to overcome the proposal's conflict with the local development plan. There are no other material considerations that would alter the above planning balance. In light of the above the application is recommended for approval. Recommendation It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the appendix. 97 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

90 Summary of Representations 4 letters of objection: proposal will increase traffic using the shared access drive and will cause a highway safety hazard; site is in a conservation area and there is a risk of the site being over developed; residents of nursing home, some of whom are palliative and chose to come to the home due to the rural setting and the peace and quiet; buildings to be demolished form an important part of the conservation area. 4 letters raising no objection in principle but some concerns regarding the following: there is an existing drainage issue with water collecting across the road; previous gateway feature on Albourne Road caused problems and any gateway feature should be moved further westwards; due to concerns about parking the occupation of the houses should be limited to staff of the nursing home would like to see existing boundary wall retained; would like to see the Potting Shed and Bothie retained as they are important to the conservation area; do not want my back gate blocked as this is the only way out with my car. Summary of Consultations Highway Authority No objection subject to condition. On balance, the proposed works are considered to offer a betterment to the existing situation. Conservation Officer I therefore consider that the proposal preserves (does not cause harm to) the setting of the Langton Conservation Area. This meets the requirements of Policy B12 of the Local Plan, and Policy DP33 of the emerging District Plan, as well as the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF. Contaminated Land Officer No objection subject to condition. Parish Council RECOMMENDATION: Refusal - overdevelopment in the Conservation area. Width of access not suitable for increased traffic therefore request a visit from Highways rather than a desk top study. If the application was to be approved we request conditions: 98 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

91 Protect the eastern boundary wall, which should be reinstated to the same height if damaged in the demolition of the adjoining building. All development vehicles to park on the application site. Introduction This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of three 2 bedroom dwellings on land adjacent to Ladymead, Albourne Road, Hurstpierpoint. Relevant Planning History There are no previous applications on the site of direct relevance to the determination of this application. Site and Surroundings The site is currently laid to grass, and is accessed via a shared driveway on the south side of Albourne Road. This driveway serves the nursing home of Ladymead (a nursing home) and a number of residential properties. The site contains what appears to be a former stable block, which has been converted into accommodation ('the bothy'). This building is single storey and fairly modest in size. The main part of the site is laid to grass. There are trees to the west boundary, and vegetation and a flint wall to the north boundary abutting the Albourne Road. The southern boundary to the grounds of Ladymead Nursing Home comprises a close-boarded fence. Ladymead is located directly to the south of the site. To the west is Loja, a large replacement dwelling which is currently being constructed. To the east is Ladymead Lodge, a single storey dwelling situated adjacent to the Albourne Road. On the opposite side of the road is a modern housing development. The site lies in the countryside area of development restraint (CADR) as defined in the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP). Application Details The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of three 2 bedroom dwellings. These would be arranged as a terrace side on to the highway with their front elevations facing east and their rear elevations facing west. The existing single storey building on the eastern side of the site would be removed with exception of the back wall of the building on the eastern boundary of the site being which would be retained to form the boundary of the site. The terrace would measure some 19m by 10m with a pitched roof 8.5m in height. The terrace would be 12m away from the eastern boundary of the site and 10m from the western boundary of the site. 99 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

92 The building would have a plain clay tiled roof, with elevations that comprises facing brickwork at ground floor level, and plain clay hanging tiles at first floor level. Joinery is proposed to comprise painted timber. The plans show that there would be 7 car parking spaces for the development located to the east of the terrace of houses. List of Policies Mid Sussex Local Plan C1 (Countryside Area of Development Restraint) C3 (Local gaps) G2 (sustainable development) G3 (infrastructure requirements) C5 (nature conservation) B1 (design) B3 (residential amenities) B4 (energy and water conservation) B12 (development in conservation areas) T4 (transport requirements in new developments) T5 (parking standards) CS13 (land drainage) Neighbourhood Plan Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common Neighbourhood Plan. Made with full weight POLICY Countryside HurstC1 Conserving and enhancing character; POLICY Countryside HurstC3 Local Gaps and Preventing Coalescence; POLICY Housing HurstH1:Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common new housing development; POLICY Housing HurstH5: development principles; POLICY Housing HurstH6: Housing sites infrastructure and environmental impact assessment; POLICY Housing HurstH7: Affordable Homes Draft District Plan The Submission District Plan was submitted for Examination on the 17 August The first of the Examination hearings have taken place. The Plan is a material planning consideration. Weight will be given to relevant policies in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF. Relevant policies include: DP11 Preventing coalescence DP19 Transport DP24 Character and design DP25 Dwelling space standards DP33 Conservation Areas DP37 Biodiversity 100 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

93 DP41 Flood risk and drainage Assessment (Consideration of key Issues) Design and impact on character of area Highways Neighbour amenity Drainage Ecology Space standards Energy efficiency Affordable housing Principle of Development Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) And local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Using this as the starting point the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004) and the Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common Neighbourhood Plan (HSCNP) (2015). In the event of conflicts between policies in these plans it is the most recent policy which takes precedence. The NPPF, which was issued in March 2012, is a material consideration which shall be afforded significant weight. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration. Para 49 of the NPPF states: "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." 101 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

94 This Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply for the District. The housing requirement set out in the now revoked South East Plan is no longer relevant. However, the objectively assessed housing need figure for the district is yet to be tested through the District Plan examination. As such the Council is unable at present to demonstrate the five year supply of deliverable sites, since it does not have an agreed requirement to calculate this supply against. As such, the supply of housing element of policy C1 in the MSLP cannot be considered up to date. The above approach has been confirmed correct by Counsel and has been found to be the case in numerous housing appeals in Mid Sussex. In those circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies which states in part: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: 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 permission unless: o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted" A recent Court of appeal case (Hopkins Homes Limited, Suffolk Coastal District Council, Richborough Estates Partnership LLP, Cheshire East Borough Council and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) has clearly set out the Courts position on what is meant by the meaning and effect of government policy in paragraph 49 of the NPPF. In particular, the judgement concerns the meaning of the requirement in the policy that "[relevant] policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites", and the way in which the policy is to be applied in the making of planning decisions. The Court of appeal stated: Our interpretation of the policy does not confine the concept of "policies for the supply of housing" merely to policies in the development plan that provide positively for the delivery of new housing in terms of numbers and distribution or the allocation of sites. It recognizes that the concept extends to plan policies whose effect is to influence the supply of housing land by restricting the locations where new housing may be developed - including, for example, policies for the Green Belt, policies for the general protection of the countryside, policies for conserving the landscape of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks, policies for the conservation of wildlife or cultural heritage, and various policies whose purpose is to protect the local environment in one way or another by preventing or limiting 102 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

95 development. It reflects the reality that policies may serve to form the supply of housing land either by creating it or by constraining it - that policies of both kinds make the supply what it is. It is therefore quite clear that polices that seek to restrict the supply of housing, such as policy C1 in the MSLP are policies for the supply of housing as defined in paragraph 49 of the NPPF. The Government has provided updated guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) in relation to situations where there is a made neighbourhood plan but the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. The updated guidance states: Neighbourhood plans are an important part of the plan-led system. The Government's policy intention when introducing neighbourhood planning was to provide a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure they get the right types of development for their community, while also planning positively to support strategic development needs. Decision makers may find themselves considering applications in an area with a neighbourhood plan that has passed referendum and been "made", and thus forms part of the development plan, but where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In such instances paragraph 49 of the Framework is clear that "relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." Paragraph 49 applies to policies in the statutory development plan documents which have been adopted or approved in relation to a local planning authority area. It also applies to policies in made neighbourhood plans. Where the development plan is absent, silent or the relevant policies are out of date, paragraph 14 of the Framework states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development requires the granting of planning permission, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. In this situation, when assessing the adverse impacts of the proposal against the policies in the Framework as a whole, decision makers should include within their assessment those policies in the Framework that deal with neighbourhood planning. This includes paragraphs of the Framework; and paragraph 198 which states that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted. As defined by the MSLP, the site is located within the local gap between Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common/Albourne (policy C3). In the same way as policy C1 is inconsistent with the NPPF and out of date insofar as it relates to housing land supply, so is policy C3. As such the weight that can be given to this policy is reduced. Policy Countryside HurstC3 in the Neighbourhood Plan also seeks to resist coalescence. It states: "Development will be permitted in the countryside provided that it does not individually or cumulatively result in coalescence and loss of separate identity of neighbouring settlements, and provided that it does not conflict with other 103 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

96 Countryside policies in this Plan. Local Gaps between the following settlements define those areas covered by this policy: Hurstpierpoint and Hassocks; Sayers Common and Albourne; Hurstpierpoint and Albourne; Hurstpierpoint and Burgess Hill." The same point applies to policy Hurst C3 for the reasons that are set out above and the weight that can be attached to this policy is reduced. Notwithstanding this, the issue of coalescence is still a material planning consideration and the specific impact of the development will need to be considered in relation to this issue. In this case it is not considered that the development contributes in any way to coalescence and therefore there is no conflict with policy Hurst C3 or policy C3 in the MSLP. In addition to the above, a recent Ministerial statement addressed the position where there was a made Neighbourhood Plan but the LPA could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. The Statement sets out that relevant policies for the supply of housing in a neighbourhood plan, that is part of the development plan, should not be deemed to be 'out-of-date' under paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework where all of the following circumstances arise at the time the decision is made: this written ministerial statement is less than 2 years old, or the neighbourhood plan has been part of the development plan for 2 years or less; the neighbourhood plan allocates sites for housing; and the local planning authority can demonstrate a three-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This Ministerial Statement does not affect the position in Mid Sussex as the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a 3 year housing land supply. This is because currently we do not have an agreed objectively assessed need to assess our supply against. The second bullet point of the 'decision taking' section in paragraph 14 of the NPPF currently applies. Thus as policy C1 cannot be considered up to date (paragraph 49) the Council should be granting planning permission unless "any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole ". Footnote 9 to paragraph 14 of the NPPF lists areas where the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. This includes policies relating to designated heritage assets (such as conservation areas). However in this case for the reasons that will be set out later in this report, it is considered that there is no adverse impact on the conservation area. As such it is considered that the 104 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

97 presumption in favour of sustainable development does continue to apply in this case. The following sections of the report will consider the relevant matters associated with the proposed development in the context of the development plan and other material considerations, including the NPPF. In order to undertake the necessary assessment outlined above. Assessment of main issues Design and impact on character of area The application site lies in a designated conservation area. Policy B12 in the MSLP advises that proposals should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. A similar ethos is found in policy DP33 of the MSDP. This reflects the statutory requirements of section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which states that "In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any powers under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of conservation preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area." Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states "When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional." Policy B1 in the MSLP seeks a high standard of design in new development and this is carried forward in policy DP24 of the MSDP. It is considered that in its own right, the proposed dwellings are of an appropriate design for the area. The building will be a suitable scale for the plot and will feature traditional materials to fit satisfactorily into the locality. It is felt that the traditional design and materials would accord with the aims of Policy Hurst H5 in the Neighbourhood Plan. By infilling an area in between existing dwellings it is considered that in relation to policy Hurst H1, the settlement pattern of the village would be enhanced as the proposal would not involve encroachment of new development into open countryside. In relation to the impact of the proposal on the conservation area, the Councils Conservation Officer states "In my opinion due to its modest nature and altered condition the existing building on the site does not make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and its loss could be 105 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

98 acceptable in principle. However it does form part of the character group with Ladymead and I would consider it appropriate that any replacement building on the site should continue this relationship. The footprint, height and design of the proposed new terrace of buildings is considered acceptable in the context and is appropriately subservient to principal building within the character group (Ladymead), as well as respectful of the scale of development along this part of Albourne Road. The architectural treatment of the terrace has been amended on Officer advice to more closely reflect that of the character group and is now considered acceptable subject to detail. I therefore consider that the proposal preserves (does not cause harm to) the setting of the Langton Conservation Area. This meets the requirements of Policy B12 of the Local Plan, and Policy DP33 of the emerging District Plan, as well as the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF." Your officer agrees with the comments of the Conservation Officer. The existing boundary wall on the northern boundary of the site would be retained. The car parking area for the new dwellings would therefore not be seen from the road. From the street the upper floor of the new houses would be visible, forming an infill between the newly rebuilt property to the west and Ladymead Cottage to the east. Matters of detail regarding the materials for the dwellings can be controlled by a planning condition. In light of the above, in relation to the impact on the character of the conservation area, it is considered that this will be preserved by the proposal, thereby complying with the policies identified above and the provisions of the Act. Highways The proposed would utilise the existing access driveway that serves Ladymead and four other properties. Policy T4 in the MSLP seeks to ensure a satisfactory access to the highway for new developments and this is carried forward in policy DP19 on the MSDP. The application proposes to make changes to the access into the site to improve visibility. These involve the realignment of Albourne Road in the vicinity of the access. This then enables the footway along the site frontage to be widened and the existing access brought forward. Adequate visibility can then be achieved for the posted 30mph speed limit. The works will involve the narrowing of Albourne Road. The retained width is though sufficient to enable two opposing vehicles to pass and would be no less than already present on the immediate approaches to the access. The plan shows that there would be 7 car parking spaces for the new dwellings, which would be located to the east of the terrace. This equates to 2 spaces per dwelling and one visitor space. The plans show a cycle store located on the northern end of the building. In terms of its location, it is considered that the site is a sustainable location. It would be possible to walk into the village to access shops and services. In this respect the 106 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

99 site is as well related to the village as the relatively recently constructed development to the north of the site. It is considered that the proposed highway works to the junction with Albourne Road would improve visibility for those leaving the site, which would be a benefit not only for prospective residents of the new homes, but also for the existing residents that use the access drive and visitors and employees of the nursing home. Whilst concerns have been raised about the increased use of the access as a result of the 3 new dwellings, it is not considered that this would make a material difference to vehicular movements from the access that would justify a refusal of planning permission on this ground. The development would certainly not have a "severe" impact, which is the test set out in the NPPF. The Highway Authority does not object to the development. They state " due consideration is given to the fact that this is an existing access with large vehicles entering and exiting the site currently. Whilst the proposed development would intensify the use of this, it would not result in any material change in the character of traffic; a refuse vehicle would visit the site at present and would continue to visit the site should the current application be refused. The proposed access works would also offer an improvement to visibility for exiting traffic. On balance, the proposed works are considered to offer a betterment to the existing situation." It is considered that there are no sustainable reasons to disagree with this assessment. The applicants have proposed a pinch point/gateway feature to the west of the site on the Albourne Road. However it is not considered that such a feature is necessary to make the development acceptable and is not directly related to the development given that this feature relates to the speed of existing vehicular traffic. As such it would not be appropriate for such a proposal to be the subject of a planning condition as it would fail to comply with the guidance in the use of conditions in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Neighbour amenity Policy B3 in the MSLP seeks to resist proposals where there would be a significant adverse impact on the amenities of existing occupiers. The front (east) elevation of the terrace of houses would be some 12m from the eastern boundary of the site. There would be 3 first floor bedroom windows facing the cottage to the east. The proposal would introduce some new overlooking into the rear garden of this property. However the existing boundary wall on the eastern boundary of the site would be retained. It is not considered that the level of overlooking would be such that it would cause a significant loss of amenity to the occupiers of Ladymead Cottage and Lady Mead Lodge. It is also considered that with the retention of the brick wall on the boundary, there would be no significant loss of amenity from the use of the car parking spaces for the new houses. A concern has been raised about the retention of the wall on the eastern boundary and questions raised about what would happen if during the demolition of the building within the site, this wall became structurally unsound and had to be removed. This matter can satisfactorily be dealt with by a planning condition to control the boundary treatment of the development. It can be a requirement that if 107 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

100 the existing wall becomes damaged and has to be removed then a new replacement wall is erected. Drainage Policy CS13 seeks to ensure that new proposals are satisfactorily drained and this is brought forward in policy DP41 of the MSDP. The proposal is to connect the 3 proposed houses to the existing foul water drain that serves Ladymead Care Home. Surface water will be drained into 3 soakaways. The Councils Drainage Officer has advised that there may be high groundwater in the vicinity of this site so the solution of soakaways may not be feasible. She has therefore advised that it would be a requirement that ground investigations and ground water monitoring are carried out in the winter months. It has been agreed with the applicants that such monitoring could take place in March. A requirement to provide the details of the proposed means of drainage can be secured by a planning condition. It will then be a matter for the developer to satisfy the LPA when they submit the technical details to discharge the planning condition. With such conditions in place it is considered that the site can be satisfactorily drained and comply with policy CS13 in the MSLP and policy DP41 in the MSDP. Ecology Policy C5 in the MSLP seeks to protect sites and features important to nature conservation. Policy DP37 in the MSDP seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity. The applicants have provided a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Internal and External Bat Inspection accompanied by a Bat Activity Survey dated May The report concludes that no evidence of badgers using the site was found within the boundary, including setts, latrines or snuffle holes. Badgers may use the site to commute across or to forage within, however the development is not considered to be constrained by the presence of badgers. The short sward grassland was not considered to provide optimal habitat for reptiles. There is one biological record for dormice present 2km west of the site and is separated from the site by the A23. The open nature of the habitat is not considered suitable, and the site is isolated from optimal woodland habitat. The species is considered unlikely to persist on site and no further surveys are recommended for dormice. Whilst a pond to the north of the site was considered to have good suitability for supporting Great Crested Newts, the report considered unlikely that the proposed development will impact upon any local population. In relation to all of these matters there are no ecological reasons to resist the application. In relation to bats, a survey has been carried out of the buildings to be demolished. The survey found the following: The dusk survey did not identify any bats emerging from the void or from any external lifted tiles. The remote recording device placed within the void did not 108 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

101 identify any bat calls within the void during the seven nights of consecutive recording. Common and soprano pipistrelles were identified foraging and commuting between the bungalow and the main care home building and within the garden habitats. It is not considered likely that pipistrelles roost within the surveyed building, however they may use adjacent buildings to roost in and foraging the local vicinity. The report concludes "As it is not considered likely that bats are using the bungalow then demolition can be carried out without further ecological input or supervision. However, if any bats are located during the works, then works should stop and the advice of an ecologist sought." The report recommends that a lighting scheme is designed to ensure that bats can continue to use the site for foraging and commuting. It also recommends that bat boxes are incorporated onto trees within the site and that boundary trees should be retained. It is considered that these matters can be dealt with by condition. The trees on the western boundary of the site would be retained. Space standards The proposal would comply with the National Dwelling Space Standards, thereby meeting policy DP25 of the MSDP. Energy efficiency Policy B4 of the MSLP requires developments to have regard to the issue of energy efficiency. The application is accompanied by a statement that can be viewed on file that sets out measures that will be incorporated in the development. These include levels of insulation exceeding those required by the building regulations, low energy light fittings, high efficiency boilers, garden composters and rainwater butts being provided. It is considered the applicants have had regard to policy B4 in the MSLP. Affordable housing The site falls below the threshold in the MSLP for affordable housing. However policy Hurst H7 in the HNP states On housing developments of 4 or more dwellings, there will normally be a 30% 'affordable' homes content, for rent and assisted purchase schemes for local people and generally, not more than 25% of affordable homes being of shared ownership. On residential developments of less than 4 dwellings and in other circumstances where on-site provision is not practicable a commuted payment towards off-site provision will normally be required equivalent to providing 30% on-site affordable housing provision. Since the Neighbourhood Plan was made, Government guidance has been amended to reflect the contents of the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of 28 November 2014 which states that there are specific circumstances where contributions for affordable housing and tariff style planning obligations (section Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

102 planning obligations) should not be sought from small scale and self-build development. Such circumstances include developments of 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 square metres (gross internal area). Planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (this is the law). As such the starting point in relation to affordable housing is to consider policy Hurst H7 and then other material considerations, such as the more recent WMS. In this case the applicants are not proposing to make payments towards affordable housing and as such there would be a conflict with policy Hurst H7. However in this case it is considered that there is a sound justification for not seeking affordable housing contributions in this instance. Firstly, there are a number of larger sites coming forward within the parish of Hurstpierpoint that are delivering 30% affordable housing. Secondly the WMS, which following judicial review proceedings was confirmed to be lawful in May 2016, is a more up to date than the Neighbourhood Plan. Therefore it is considered that these material considerations outweigh the conflict with this part of the development plan. Whether the proposal would be sustainable development As outlined above, the NPPF describes sustainable development as the golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. It sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 6 states that the policies in paragraphs , taken as a whole, constitutes the government's view as to what sustainable development means for the planning system. In this part of the report the main factors that inform the judgement as to whether the proposal would be a sustainable form of development are summarised. In reaching that view all matters referred to in the report have been taken into account. The Economic Role Part 6 of the Localism Act was enacted on the 16th January This requires the LPA to have regard to local finance considerations (as far as material to the application) as well as the provision of the Development Plan and any other material considerations. The New Homes Bonus commenced in April 2011, and will match fund the additional council tax raised for new homes and empty properties brought back into use, with an additional amount for affordable homes, for the following six years. The New Homes Bonus is now a material planning consideration and if permitted the local planning authority would receive a New Homes Bonus for of the units proposed. This is a factor that would weigh in favour of the scheme. The proposal would also result in economic benefits in terms of the direct boost to the local economy during the construction phase and subsequent benefits from additional dwellings and businesses in the locality (residents spending in the local economy and so on). These are all factors that weigh in favour of the development. It is considered that the development meets the economic role of sustainable development. 110 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

103 The Social Role The NPPF seeks to promote a "strong, vibrant and healthy community by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being". The provision of 3 new dwellings will make a small but useful contribution to the district's housing supply and will help meet the identified need for housing including that for additional affordable homes. Due to the location of the site close to the builtup edge of Hurstpierpoint a range of services and facilities are within reasonable walking and cycling distances. It is therefore considered that the development meets the social role of sustainable development. The Environmental Role There is a need to ensure that development should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment. It is considered that the proposed design of the 3 houses is satisfactory and will fit in appropriately to the area. The proposal will preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. It is therefore considered that the environmental role of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF is met. Planning Balance and Conclusions As the Council is unable to currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land if follows that the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date (paragraph 49 NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 14 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific polices in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. It is considered that the design of the proposed dwellings is satisfactory and that the overall character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved. It is not considered that the proposal will result in a significant loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of existing properties around the site. The Highway Authority is satisfied that a satisfactory access can be achieved into the site. It is not felt that the impact of 3 additional dwellings on the local highway network would be severe. It is considered that planning conditions can be used to ensure that the site is satisfactorily drained. Whilst the proposal would conflict with the development plan on the basis that the site is outside the current built up area boundary of Hurstpierpoint, it is considered that this conflict must be given reduced weight in the planning balance in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply. The proposal would provide 3 modest 111 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

104 dwellings in a suitable location on the edge of the village, with no adverse impact on the wider countryside. It is therefore considered that the adverse impacts of the development do not clearly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In these circumstances the NPPF states that permission should be granted and this is a material consideration of sufficient weight to overcome the proposal's conflict with the local development plan. There are no other material considerations that would alter the above planning balance. In light of the above the application is recommended for approval. APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act Pre-commencement Conditions 2. No development shall take place until details of proposed screen walls/fences have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings shall be occupied until such screen walls/fences associated with them have been erected. These details shall include a programme for the works required to retain the existing wall on the eastern boundary of the site and what contingency works will be undertaken should it not prove possible to retain the existing wall on the eastern boundary. Reason: In order to protect the appearance of the area and to accord with and Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version and Policy H5 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 3. No development shall take place unless and until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority full details of both hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development and these works shall be carried out as approved. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version and Policy H5 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 4. Hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of 112 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

105 any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version and Policy H5 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 5. No development shall be carried out unless and until samples materials and finishes to be used for external walls / roofs of the proposed dwellings have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality and to accord with Policy B12 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version and Policy H5 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 6. No development shall take place until detailed drawings including sections at an appropriate large scale, of typical examples of all windows and external doors, annotated to show materials and finishes, and showing the depth of reveal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All roof lights shall be flush fitting metal framed conservation style roof lights. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality and to accord with Policy B12 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version and Policy H5 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 7. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the approved Construction Management Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the construction period. The Construction Management Plan shall provide and give details for: a timetable for the commencement, construction, occupation and completion of the development the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction and directional signage for the purposes of such the siting and layout of site compounds and welfare facilities for construction workers 113 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

106 the provision of parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors the provision for the loading and unloading of plant, materials and removal of waste the provision for the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development the design, erection and maintenance of security hoardings and other measures related to site health and safety the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway, including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders a scheme to protect existing neighbouring properties from dust and noise emissions a noise management plan, to include consideration of vibration from construction work including the compacting of ground contact details of site operations manager, contracts manager, and any other relevant personnel. Reason: To allow the LPA to control in detail the implementation of the permission and to safeguard the safety and amenities of nearby residents and surrounding highways and to accord with Policies B3 and T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP19 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version. 8. The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless and until details of the proposed foul and surface water drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No building shall be occupied until all the approved drainage works have been carried out in accordance with the approved details. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the proposal is satisfactorily drained and to accord with the NPPF requirements, Policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP41 of the Submission District Plan ( ) Pre-Occupation conditions 9. The dwellings shall not be occupied until the parking spaces/turning facilities shown on the submitted plans have been provided and constructed. The areas of land so provided shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking/turning of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the accommodation of vehicles clear of the highways and to accord with Policy 114 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

107 T6 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the Pre-Submission Draft District Plan No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the details indicatively shown on drawing number 5956/100 revision D and a construction submission submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the Pre-Submission Draft District Plan No part of the development shall be first occupied until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres have been provided at the proposed site vehicular access onto Albourne Road in accordance with the details indicatively 5956/100 revision D. 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. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the Pre-Submission Draft District Plan No part of the development shall be occupied until the following matters have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a lighting plan designed to minimise light pollution of wildlife habitats and open space (informed by bat activity survey results and supported by modelled lux levels of any light spill onto these areas); the provision of bat boxes within the site The development shall be implemented in accordance with these approved details. Reason: In order to protect the biodiversity of the site and to comply with policies C5 and C6 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP37 of the Mid Sussex District plan Submission Draft. Construction phase 13. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site on Bank or Public Holidays or at any time other than between the hours 8 a m and 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 9 am and 1 pm Saturdays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 115 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

108 Approved Plans 14. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans listed below under the heading "Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application". Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning. Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application The following plans and documents were considered when making the above decision: Plan Type Reference Version Submitted Date Existing Floor and Elevations Plan Location and Block Plan 2.01 B Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan Hurstpierpoint Parish Council APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS P16/ Land Adjacent to Ladymead Care Home, Albourne Road, Hurstpierpoint (DM/16/5369) Demolition of existing building and erection of 3 no. two bedroom terraced houses with car parking. A member of the public spoke objecting to the proposal expressing concerns over the access and parking of the development. They had not been notified by MSDC of the application. The Committee then discussed the application. RECOMMENDATION: Refusal ' overdevelopment in the Conservation area. Width of access not suitable for increased traffic therefore request a visit from Highways rather than a desk top study. If the application was to be approved we request conditions:- Protect the eastern boundary wall, which should be reinstated to the same height if damaged in the demolition of the adjoining building. All development vehicles to park on the application site. Highway Authority Original comments West Sussex County Council, in its role as Local Highway Authority, has previously issued pre application advice on a proposed development of 6 dwellings on this site. A copy of this advice is included within an appendix of the transport report submitted in support of this application. The site is to be accessed by way of an existing access onto Albourne Road, which presently serves a care home and several other dwellings. The details included in 116 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

109 the transport report indicate that visibility from the access is at present restricted. This is primarily as a consequence of the existing road alignment. Improvements are consequently proposed to the access. These involve the realignment of Albourne Road in the vicinity of the access. This then enables the footway along the site frontage to be widened and the existing access brought forward. Adequate visibility can then be achieved for the posted 30mph speed limit. The works will involve the narrowing of Albourne Road. The retained width is though sufficient to enable two opposing vehicles to pass and would be no less than already present on the immediate approaches to the access. The highway works have been the subject of a Stage One Road Safety Audit. This raises two problems. With respects to the first problem, due consideration is given to the fact that this is an existing access with large vehicles entering and exiting the site currently. Whilst the proposed development would intensify the use of this, it would not result in any material change in the character of traffic; a refuse vehicle would visit the site at present and would continue to visit the site should the current application be refused. The proposed access works would also offer an improvement to visibility for exiting traffic. On balance, the proposed works are considered to offer a betterment to the existing situation. With respects to the second problem, it's unclear if the proposed carriageway narrowing is a physical or visual feature. It was also understood as part of the pre application discussions that this element had been removed, hence any safety issues were not relevant. Comments were also made in relation to the potentially inappropriate use of the 30mph roundel. Given the uncertainty relating to this element of the design, it is recommended that confirmation is provided by the applicant that this now longer forms part of the development. If these are part of the current application, plans and details of the gateway feature would need to be secured by condition. In terms of other matters, it's acknowledged that this proposal would result in a more intensive use of the access and additional trips on the highway network. These increases are not considered to be significant and any trips would quickly disperse. Reference is made within the transport report to the accessibility of the site by sustainable modes. There are facilities within walking and cycling distance of the site. These facilities and services would fulfil basic daily needs. The potential for other modes (such as the bus) to be used is considered limited due to the two hourly service frequency in each direction. Even so the National Planning Policy Framework acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas. In this location, the LHA recognise that some daily trips could be made on foot or cycle. However for certain trip purposes the private car would still be required. The Local Planning Authority may wish to consider the sustainability of the site on balance against other factors that may weight more favourably towards the development. On-site parking provision has been considered against the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator. The proposed provision exceeds those forecast demands. 117 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

110 In conclusion, there are no in principle objections with this proposal. Confirmation is however sought in connection with elements of the proposed highway works as covered within the report above. Final comments If you are minded to approve, I'd suggest the following conditions: Access No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the details indicatively shown on drawing number 5956/100 revision D and a construction submission submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Visibility No part of the development shall be first occupied until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres have been provided at the proposed site vehicular access onto Albourne Road in accordance with the details indicatively 5956/100 revision D. 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. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Car parking space No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. Reason: To provide car-parking space for the use. Conservation Officer The application site is a plot of land adjacent to the Ladymead Care Home, which is converted substantial 19th century house, situated within the Langton Conservation Area. There are a number of former ancillary buildings associated with Ladymead which include a single storey outbuilding occupying part of the application site; these buildings form an identifiable character group within this part of the conservation area. The current proposal encompasses the demolition of the existing building on the site and the erection of a new 2 storey building providing three terraced houses, with associated parking. 118 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

111 In my opinion due to its modest nature and altered condition the existing building on the site does not make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and its loss could be acceptable in principle. However it does form part of the character group with Ladymead and I would consider it appropriate that any replacement building on the site should continue this relationship. The footprint, height and design of the proposed new terrace of buildings is considered acceptable in the context and is appropriately subservient to principal building within the character group (Ladymead), as well as respectful of the scale of development along this part of Albourne Road. The architectural treatment of the terrace has been amended on Officer advice to more closely reflect that of the character group and is now considered acceptable subject to detail. I therefore consider that the proposal preserves (does not cause harm to) the setting of the Langton Conservation Area. This meets the requirements of Policy B12 of the Local Plan, and Policy DP33 of the emerging District Plan, as well as the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF. I would suggest the following conditions: Details including samples of facing and roofing materials. Detailed drawings including sections at an appropriate large scale, of typical examples of all windows and external doors, annotated to show materials and finishes, and showing the depth of reveal. All roof lights to be flush fitting metal framed conservation style roof lights. Details of hard landscaping to show proposed materials and finishes. Detailed drawings of any new or revised boundary treatments annotated to show materials and finishes. Contaminated Land Officer Due to the sensitivity of the end use i.e. residential with gardens, the following condition is appropriate in order to safeguard human health and the environment: Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority and development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements the LPA and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, 119 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

112 property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. Drainage Officer Recommendation: Further information required Summary and overall assessment Further information is required as detailed below. Flood Risk Although this site in is Flood Zone 1 and the mapping shows it is not susceptible to surface water flooding, the ground conditions are Lower Greensand which is classified as a principal aquifer by the Environment Agency. This means that there could be high ground water levels on the site and this should be investigated. Surface Water Drainage Proposals It is proposed to drain these 3 new dwellings into soakaways and the plan shows 6 in number, 3 at the rear of the new dwellings and 3 at the front. No calculations have been provided indicating the size that the soakaways would need to be as no ground investigations appear to have been carried out. The infiltration rate should be investigated on site to ensure that soakaways are feasible. I note that there is also permeable paving shown on the plan but there is no detail of where the water will drain to. Is the permeable paving to be used as an infiltration blanket or will there be an outlet for the surface water? Foul Water Drainage Proposals Proposals are that the 3 new dwellings will connect to the foul sewer via an existing manhole situated just beyond the site boundary. Evidence of agreement to connect and available sewer capacity should be provided from Southern Water as there have been a number of infill developments in the immediate vicinity, which have already increased the loading on the sewer. If the intended connection manhole is within 3rd party land then evidence should be provided of permission to connect to the sewer through that third party land. Suggested Conditions Should it be deemed to approve this application and condition the details requested above then the following condition is recommended: C18F The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless and until details of the proposed foul and surface water drainage and means of disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No building shall be occupied until all the approved drainage works have been carried 120 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

113 out in accordance with the approved details. The details shall include a timetable for its implementation and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Maintenance and management during the lifetime of the development should be in accordance with the approved details. Further Drainage Advice Applicants and their consultants should familiarise themselves with the following information: Flood Risk and Drainage Information for Planning Applications The level of drainage information necessary for submission at each stage within the planning process will vary depending on the size of the development, flood risk, site constraints, proposed sustainable drainage system etc. The table below provides a guide and is taken from the Practice Guidance for the English non-statutory SuDS Standards Pre-app Outline Full Reserved Discharge Document submitted Flood Risk Assessment / Statement (checklist) Drainage Strategy / Statement & sketch layout plan (checklist) Preliminary layout drawings Preliminary Outline hydraulic calculations Preliminary landscape proposals Ground investigation report (for infiltration) Evidence of third party agreement for discharge to their system (in principle / consent to discharge) Maintenance program and on-going maintenance responsibilities Detailed development layout Detailed flood and drainage design drawings Full Structural, hydraulic & ground investigations 121 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

114 Geotechnical factual and interpretive reports, including infiltration results Detailing landscaping details Discharge agreements (temporary and permanent) Development Management & Construction Phasing Plan Additional information may be required under specific site conditions or development proposals Useful links: Planning Practice Guidance - Flood Risk and Coastal Change Flood Risk Assessment for Planning Applications Sustainable drainage systems technical standards Water.People.Places.- A guide for master planning sustainable drainage into developments Climate change allowances - Detailed guidance - Environment Agency Guidance Further guidance is available on the Susdrain website at Guidance for the level of information required is set out below: For a development located within Flood Zone 2, Flood Zone 3, which is greater than 1 hectare in area, or where a significant flood risk has been identified: A Flood Risk Assessment (1) will need to be submitted that identifies what the flood risks are and how they will change in the future. Also whether the proposed development will create or exacerbate flood risk, and how it is intended to manage flood risk post development. (1)This level of assessment will need to be carried out to our satisfaction by a suitably qualified person. For the use of SuDS (1) (2) (3): Written Statement (HCWS 161) - Department for Communities and Local Government - sets out the expectation that sustainable drainage systems will be provided to new developments wherever this is appropriate. Percolation tests, calculations, plans and details will need to be submitted to demonstrate that the development will be able to cater for the 1 in 100 year storm event plus climate change percentages, for some developments this will mean considering between 20 and 40% additional volume for climate change but scenarios should be calculated and the worst case taken as this will be precautionary (4). A maintenance and management plan will also need to be submitted that shows how all SuDS infrastructure will be maintained so it will operate at its optimum for the lifetime of the development. This will need to identify who will undertake this work 122 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

115 and how it will be funded. Also, measures and arrangements in place to ensure perpetuity and demonstrate the serviceability requirements, including scheduled maintenance, inspections, repairs and replacements, will need to be submitted. A clear timetable for the schedule of maintenance can help to demonstrate this. (1) Suitable SuDS Guidance can be found using CIRIA Guidance Document C697 "SuDS Manual" (2) Climate Change consideration should be calculated following Environment Agency Guidance (3) Approved method of soakaway design include BRE - Digest 365 "Soakaway Design" (4) Submitted SuDS designs will need to be undertaken by a suitably qualified person For the use of attenuation, swales and soakaways (1): Percolation tests, calculations, plans and details will need to be submitted to demonstrate that the development will be able to cater for the 1 in 100 year storm event plus have 40% capacity for climate change(2). (1) Approved method of soakaway design include BRE - Digest 365 "Soakaway Design" (2) Climate Change consideration should be calculated following Environment Agency Guidance For the use of Public Sewers (1): Copies of the approval of the adoption of foul and surface water sewers and/or the connection to foul and surface water sewers from the sewerage undertaker, which agrees a rate of discharge, will need to be submitted. (1)Any design and construction of sewers should follow the standards of the WRC guidance "Sewers for Adoption" and should be agreed with the appropriate sewerage authority. For the proposal of works to an Ordinary Watercourse: If works (including temporary works) are undertaken within, under, over or up to an Ordinary Watercourse these works are likely to affect the flow in the watercourse and an Ordinary Watercourse Consent (OWC) may need to be applied for. OWC applications can be discussed and made with Mid Sussex District Council, Scott Wakely, There is guidance and a form available here: For the use of watercourse to discharge surface water (1): Calculations, plans and details will need to be submitted that demonstrate that discharge from the proposed development will be restricted to Greenfield run-off rate or QBar run-off rate, whichever provides the better rate of discharge(2). This will need to be for up to the 1 in 100 year storm event plus 40% capacity for climate change. 123 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

116 (1)In accordance with The Land Drainage Act (2)Approved methods to calculate this include: Institute of Hydrology - Report "Flood Estimation for Small Catchments" Centre for Ecology & Hydrology "Flood Estimation Handbook" - (FEH) WinDes Software - Generated FEH Output (For Highway) DMBR Standards HA106/04 - "Drainage of Runoff from Natural Catchments" For the presence of an Ordinary Watercourse running through or adjacent to the site: Consultation will need to be made with Mid Sussex District Council as there is a watercourse running through or adjacent to the proposed development. It is common practice to require the development to leave a strip of land, at least 5 to 8 metres wide, in order to provide access for future maintenance. For the presence of a Public Sewer running under or adjacent to the proposed development: Consultation will need to be made with the sewerage undertaker as there is a Public Sewer running under or adjacent to the proposed development. Building any structure over or within close proximity to such sewers will require prior permission from the sewerage undertaker (1). Evidence of approvals to build over or within close proximity to such sewers will need to be submitted. (1)Southern Water and Thames Water provide suitable online guidance notes for the building over or near Public Sewers. For the presence of a Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC) owned culvert running under or adjacent to the site: Consultation will need to be made with Mid Sussex District Council if there is a MSDC owned culvert running under or adjacent to the proposed development. Building any structure over or within close proximity to such culverts will require prior permission from Mid Sussex District Council. Normally it will be required that an "easement" strip of land, at least 5 to 8 metres wide, is left undeveloped to ensure that access can be made in the event of future maintenance and/or replacement. This matter can be discussed with Mid Sussex District Council, Scott Wakely, Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

117 Slaugham 5. DM/17/0412 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey FINCHES FIELD RECREATION GROUND OLD BRIGHTON ROAD SOUTH PEASE POTTAGE CRAWLEY NEW REPLACEMENT SINGLE STOREY COMMUNITY BUILDING ON LAND AT FINCHES FIELD. MISS SALLY MCLEAN GRID REF: EAST NORTH POLICY: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty / Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / High Pressure Gas Pipeline / Land Compensation Act Notice / Major Hazard Site / Major Hazard Site / Planning Agreement / Planning Obligation / Aerodrome Safeguarding (CAA) / Aerodrome Safeguarding (CAA) / Radar Safeguarding (NATS) / ODPM CODE: Minor Other 8 WEEK DATE: 27th March 2017 WARD MEMBERS: Cllr Gary Marsh / Cllr Andrew MacNaughton / CASE OFFICER: Miss Deborah Lynn 125 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

118 Purpose of Report To consider the recommendation of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning on the application for planning permission as detailed above. Executive Summary This application seeks planning permission to erect a new single storey community building at Finches Field, Old Brighton Road South, Pease Pottage. The previous temporary sports and social pavilion at Finches Field was demolished in Consequently, there is an established need for a permanent building which will provide sports changing facilities for people using the playing fields as well as community facilities for local residents. The building is to be funded from legal agreements that have been entered into by Mid Sussex District Council and developers of recent housing developments in Pease Pottage. The principle of the development is supported by planning policies at both a local and national level. The proposed building will be sited in the same location as the previous pavilion and will be of a similar footprint. Whilst the proposed building will be taller, reaching 6.6 metres high, it is considered that it will be well screened within the locality by established tree screening on the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. The proposal is not considered to appear obtrusive within the wider landscape, thereby conserving the scenic qualities of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Highways Authority at West Sussex County Council has requested that further information is submitted in respect of the proposed uses, parking provision, access and visibility; further comments are awaited from Highways in this respect. However, considering that there was a similar sized building with a similar use previously on the site, the local planning authority is confident that the proposal should not represent a significant increase in traffic to and from the site and that the proposal should not present a highways safety issue. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policies B1, B3, B4, B7, C4, R8, T4 and T5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, policies DP14, DP19, DP22, DP23, DP24, DP36 and DP39 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework. Recommendation Recommend permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A. Summary of Consultations (Full responses from Consultees are included at the end of this report as Appendix B) 126 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

119 MSDC Leisure We are fully supportive of this proposal which will provide sports changing for groups using the football pitch on the recreation ground and community facilities for the local residents. This project is identified as a high priority in the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy and is also listed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (SL/14) and the Slaugham Draft Neighbourhood Plan. The new building will replace the current temporary unit and will provide a fully accessible social meeting place which will enable local residents to meet and participate in community and sporting activities. WSCC Highways Further information is requested in respect of: confirmation of proposed uses to establish a suitable parking provision confirmation of parking provision and identification of additional parking areas a plan showing the access redesign including visibility splays. Gatwick Airport Ltd. Proposal does not conflict with safeguarding criteria - no objection. NATS Safeguarding Proposal does not conflict with safeguarding criteria - no objection. Summary of Representations No representations have been received. Parish Council Observations No comments received. Introduction This application seeks planning permission to erect a replacement single storey community building on land at Finches Field recreation ground, Old Brighton Road South, Pease Pottage. This application has been brought to committee to be determined as the site is located on Mid Sussex District Council owned land. Relevant Planning History There is a relatively substantial planning history on the application site. The following applications are considered relevant to this application: 127 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

120 SV/41/91 - Regulation 4 TCPA for a community room / social club for the use by the football club and local residents. Approved SV/68/92 - (1) Link between clubhouse and portacabin to house ladies cloakroom and toilet. (2) Extension to front of portacabin to house officials changing room. (3) Lean to roof over windows. Approved SV/041/96 - Regulation 3 application for renewal of temporary permission - SV/41/91 and SV/68/92 - to allow for retention of temporary community building. Approved SV/045/99 - Renewal of temporary planning permission for the existing temporary building to previous application SV/041/96. Approved /02049/FUL - Retention of temporary community building. As previously expired application ref: SV/045/99/R3. Approved /01297/FUL - Temporary changing room, shower and wc accommodation for a period of 3 years. Approved /01835/FUL - Retrospective application for a pitchside perimeter rail to enclose senior football pitch in accordance with Sussex County FA guidelines - 3ft high, 80m x 69m. Location of 3 ships containers, for storage and changing facilities. Approved /02974/FUL - Renewal of temporary planning permissions: 1. Ref: 04/02049/FUL - Retention of temporary community building. 2. Ref: 06/01297/FUL - Retention of temporary changing room, shower and WC accommodation. Approved /03794/DEMOL - Prior notification application for the demolition of timber framed building, used as leisure facility for football club. Approved Site And Surroundings The application site consists of an informal parking area off from Old Brighton Road South which serves Finches Field recreation ground situated to the west of the site. The recreation ground is home to the Pease Pottage Football Club. A temporary steel building is currently located on the site; this serves as a shower block for people using the football pitch. The previous sports and social club pavilion was demolished in 2013 as it was deemed unsafe and uneconomic to repair. The application site is located directly off Old Brighton Road South, to the west of the A23. The site is well screened from the adjacent road by established trees and vegetation on its eastern boundary. A modern housing development at The Hemsleys lies to the north of the site. Finches Shaw, an area designated as ancient woodland, lies to the south of the site. In terms of planning policy, the site is located within a countryside area of development restraint as defined by the Mid Sussex Local Plan. The site also falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 128 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

121 Application Details A new community building is proposed at the southern end of the site, to be sited in the same location as the previous sports and social pavilion that was demolished. Plans indicate that the main part of the building will measure metres wide by metres deep and 6.6 metres high with a 15 degree gable pitched roof; internally, this will consist of two social areas, an office, meeting room, kitchen and WCs. Changing rooms and showers are proposed to the south east of the main building, in a section that measures 8.37 metres wide by 8.95 metres deep and 5.3 metres high. The building will have a maximum width of metres and maximum depth of metres. It will be constructed from brick with a powder coated aluminium standing seam roof with roof lights; upvc double glazed windows and doors are proposed. The car parking area will remain to the north with low level downlighters proposed. Plans indicate a hardstanding area to the south west of the building. The building will have a dual use, support the existing outdoor sports and play provision at Finches Field and providing a community facility for local residents and groups. List of POLICIES Mid Sussex Local Plan 2004 B1 B3 B4 B7 C4 R8 T4 T5 design amenity energy efficiency and water conservation trees and development AONBs new countryside recreation facilities highways parking provision Slaugham Neighbourhood Plan There is currently no draft Neighbourhood Plan. Mid Sussex District Plan The Submission District Plan was submitted for Examination on the 17 August The first of the Examination hearings have taken place. The Plan is a material planning consideration. Weight will be given to relevant policies in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF. Relevant policies include: DP14 DP19 DP22 DP23 High Weald AONB transport leisure and cultural facilities and activities community facilities and local services 129 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

122 DP24 DP36 DP39 character and design trees, woodland and hedgerows sustainable design and construction National Policy The guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) (March 2012) is a material consideration in the determination of this application. The following paragraphs are considered relevant: 6, 7, 14, 17, 58, 70 and 115. The NPPF sets out the government's policy in order to ensure that the planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: 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 permission, unless; o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted." The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan The legal framework for AONBs in England and Wales is provided by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000 which at Section 82 reaffirms the primary purpose of AONBs: to conserve and enhance natural beauty. Section 84 of the CRoW requires Local Planning Authorities to 'take all such action as appears to them expedient for accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB'. Assessment (Consideration of Key Issues) The main issues considered relevant to this application are: the principle of the development impact on the character of the area and High Weald AONB highway, access and parking provision 130 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

123 Principle of Development Planning legislation requires the application to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material circumstances indicate otherwise. The Development Plan includes the Mid Sussex Local Plan, of which Policy R8 states that: "Permission will be granted for small scale development in the countryside associated with quiet informal recreation or the extension of existing facilities, provided that such development will not have a serious effect on the resources and character of the rural area, particularly in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The cumulative effect of such development will be taken into account. Proposals will be considered favourably if: a) a need can be demonstrated for the activity to be located in the area; b) the development makes full use of any existing buildings that are available and appropriate for the purpose; c) the development would result in recreational pressure being drawn away from Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; or d) the proposal is located so as to provide a buffer between urban and rural land use." Paragraph of the Mid Sussex Local Plan acknowledges Finches Field as being an appropriate location for a pavilion / village hall / community building that would have a dual role, serving not only the playing fields but also providing accommodation for a community facility, the need for a permanent community facility at this location having been established in the 1992 Central Mid Sussex Local Plan. Policy DP22 of the Submission District Plan states that development that provides new and/or enhanced leisure activities and facilities, in accordance with the strategic aims of the Leisure and Cultural Strategy for Mid Sussex, will be supported. In addition Policy DP23 of the Submission District Plan states that the provision or improvement of community facilities and local services that contribute to creating sustainable communities will be supported. Paragraph 70 of the NPPF states (in part) that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments. The Planning Statement submitted as part of this application emphasises the need for a permanent community facility at Pease Pottage which was established back in 131 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

124 the 1990s. This need is currently more pressing following the demolition of the previous pavilion building and with the village further set to expand. Mid Sussex District Council has entered into Section 106 legal agreements with developers of recent housing schemes in Pease Pottage with the aim of funding a new community facility for the village. The proposed multi-purpose community facility will provide facilities suitable for a range of community activities as well as showers and changing facilities for outdoor activities. The building will provide a base for local groups such as the WI, parents and toddlers and scouts and guides, and will be used for evening classes, exhibitions, fundraising events and fitness classes amongst other activities. The Council's Leisure department have confirmed that: "We are fully supportive of this proposal which will provide sports changing for groups using the football pitch on the recreation ground and community facilities for the local residents. This project is identified as a high priority in the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy and is also listed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (SL/14) and the Slaugham Draft Neighbourhood Plan. The new building will replace the current temporary unit and will provide a fully accessible social meeting place which will enable local residents to meet and participate in community and sporting activities." Whilst situated in a countryside area of development restraint, the building will be located just outside the built up area boundary of the village, where there is access to local bus services. The proposal is therefore considered to be sustainably located. In light of the above, the principle of the proposed development is deemed acceptable. Design and Impact on character of area / High Weald AONB Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan requires a high standard of design in all new buildings. A proposal should demonstrate a sensitive approach to urban design by respecting the character of the locality in which they take place, especially to neighbouring buildings, their landscape or townscape setting and the regional and/or local building style and which use materials of a quality, type and colour appropriate to the site and its surroundings, which conform to the general range in the vicinity. The exterior of the proposed building will be constructed from brickwork with a powder coated aluminium standing seam roof with roof lights. The design of the building is considered acceptable and its siting and footprint are considered to be commensurate with the previous building on the site. Whilst the proposed building will be higher than the previous building, reaching 6.6 metres high, the eastern and southern boundaries of the site are naturally screened with established trees and vegetation, ensuring that the building should not appear prominent or intrusive within the wider area. As such, the proposal is not considered to detract from the character of the area. As the site falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, under paragraph 115 of the NPPF, great weight should be given to conserving the 132 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

125 landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB. As the proposed building will be well screened within the locality, it is not considered that the building will appear obtrusive within the wider landscape, thereby conserving the scenic qualities of the High Weald AONB in accordance with policy C4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, policy DP14 of the Submission Mid Sussex District Plan and paragraph 115 of the NPPF. Impact on Highway Safety Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan states that proposals for new development should not cause an unacceptable impact on the local environment in terms of road safety and increased traffic. Policy DP19 of the Submission Mid Sussex District Plan requires development to be sustainably located to minimise the need for travel; promote alternative means of transport to the private car, including provision of suitable facilities for secure and safe cycle parking; not cause a severe cumulative impact in terms of road safety and increased traffic congestion; be designed to adoptable standards, or other standards as agreed by the Local Planning Authority, including road widths and size of garages; and provide adequate car parking in accordance with parking standards as agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The existing car park area to the north will be retained to be used in association with the building. The site plan submitted with the application shows only 8 parking spaces proposed. The Highways Authority at West Sussex County Council has been consulted on the scheme and has requested that further information is submitted in respect of the community uses that will take place on site. Further clarification has also been requested regarding parking provision and in respect of access and visibility. Highways comments are set out in full in the appendix to this report. Mid Sussex District Council as landowner will be carrying out works to the car park and further information has been sought from the Council's Property department to be relayed back to the Highways Authority. Further comments are awaited from Highways. It is noted that the proposed building is commensurate in size with the previous temporary building that was on the site for many years and whilst the proposed uses may slightly differ from the previous use of the building as a sports and social pavilion, the local planning authority does not consider that the proposal will result in a significant increase in traffic to and from the site. Furthermore, it is noted that there are no parking restrictions on Old Brighton Road South which is essentially a no through road serving properties further to the south. The local planning authority is therefore confident that the proposal should not represent a highway safety issue in accordance with policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the Submission District Plan; however further Highways comments are awaited in this respect. 133 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

126 Impact on amenities of adjacent residents Policy B3 of the Local Plan states that proposals for new development, including extensions to existing buildings and changes of use, will not be permitted if significant harm to the amenities of nearby residents is likely to be created due to noise and disturbance; loss of privacy; overlooking; reduction in sunlight and daylight; and reduction in outlook. Policy DP24 of the Submission Mid Sussex District Plan stipulates that development does not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing nearby residents and future occupants of new dwellings, including taking account of the impact on privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight. Application details submitted indicate that the building will be used from between 07:00 to 23:00 hours Mondays to Sundays. Residential properties are sited approximately 55 metres to the north of the site. Taking into account the existing use of the site, it is not considered that the proposal will be significantly harmful to neighbouring amenities in terms of creating additional noise and disturbance. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the Submission District Plan. Impact on trees Policy B7 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan relates to trees and states: "Development resulting in the loss of trees which are of significant public amenity value will be resisted." The proposed building will be sited in close proximity to the established line of trees on the eastern boundary of the site which serve as a screen to Old Brighton Road South. As the proposed building will be sited in the same location as the previous building, it is not considered that the proposal will be significantly harmful in terms of impact upon trees and that sufficient tree screening on Old Brighton Road will be retained. The building will be sited over 30 metres from the strip of ancient woodland to the south, thereby ensuring that a 15 metre buffer is retained between the proposed development and woodland in accordance with standing advice from Natural England. The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of impact upon trees and woodland. Planning balance and conclusions To summarise, the principle of the development is deemed acceptable as the proposal will meet an established need for a permanent building at Finches Field which provides both sports changing and community facilities. The building is not considered to appear obtrusive within the locality, thereby conserving the scenic qualities of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and taking into 134 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

127 account the established use of the site, it is not considered that the proposal will result in a significant increase in traffic or represent a highway safety issue. The proposal is not considered to be harmful to neighbouring amenities and significant tree screening should be retained on site. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with policies B1, B3, B4, B7, C4, R8, T4 and T5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, policies DP14, DP19, DP22, DP23, DP24, DP36 and DP39 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework. APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans listed below under the heading "Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Applications". Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning. Pre-commencement conditions 3. No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishes to be used for external walls, roof and fenestration of the proposed building have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: In order to conserve the appearance and character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to accord with policies B1 and C4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policies DP14 and DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version. 4. No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishes to be used for the proposed car park, method of surface water drainage and details of proposed lighting of the car park have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to accord with policies B1 and CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policies DP24 and DP41 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version. 135 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

128 5. No development shall be carried out until further details regarding the protection of the existing tree and vegetation screening on the eastern and western boundaries of the site during construction works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure the protection and retention of trees and vegetation which are an important feature of the locality and to accord with policy B7 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP36 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version. Construction phase 6. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site on Bank or Public Holidays or at any time other than between the hours 8 a m and 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 9 am and 1 pm Saturdays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with policy B23 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version. Post-occupation monitoring/management conditions 7. The building hereby permitted shall be not be used at any other time otherwise than between the hours of 07:00 to 23:00 Mondays to Sundays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with Policy B23 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version. INFORMATIVES 1. In accordance with Article 35 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 136 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

129 Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application The following plans and documents were considered when making the above decision: Plan Type Reference Version Submitted Date Proposed Site Plan 02 D Location Plan Existing Site Plan Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan SK-OPTION D MSDC Leisure APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS Thank you for the opportunity to comment on plans for a new replacement single storey community building with sports changing facilities on land at Finches Field Recreation Ground, Old Brighton Road South, Pease Pottage. We are fully supportive of this proposal which will provide sports changing for groups using the football pitch on the recreation ground and community facilities for the local residents. This project is identified as a high priority in the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy and is also listed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (SL/14) and the Slaugham Draft Neighbourhood Plan. The new building will replace the current temporary unit and will provide a fully accessible social meeting place which will enable local residents to meet and participate in community and sporting activities. Kind regards, Elaine Elaine Clarke Community Leisure Officer WSCC Highways West Sussex County Council (WSCC), in its capacity as the Local Highway Authority (LHA), has been consulted on the proposed development of a new community facility as Finches Field, Pease Pottage. Pease Pottage is a small settlement of approximately 500 dwellings although this is set to more than double on completion of new housing developments in the area. It is located south of Crawley and east of Horsham and close to the strategic road links; A264, A23 and M23. The site itself is located on the southern boundary of the Pease Pottage development area. There has previously been a building on the site which was used as a clubhouse/facility for the football pitch(s), however this was been demolished as it was unsafe. The need for a community facility for the area was highlighted in the consultation for the 2013 Slaugham Neighbourhood Plan. It is understood that MSDC has secured funding from newly permitted local development for a community facility for Pease Pottage. 137 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

130 Old Brighton Road is no longer a through road. There appears to be very little development south of the proposed site access with the exception of what appears to be a care facility at the southern end. Traffic flows past the access are therefore likely to be low. Proposal The 290sqm building will provide for a range of activities and will include showers and changing facilities. A playing field/football pitch is located adjacent to the site. Parking It is proposed (application form) that the development will provide 23 car parking spaces. However, only 8 parking spaces (including 3 disabled spaces) have been shown on the Site Plan. It is difficult to ascertain how many parking spaces are required without detailed information on proposed uses. However, as a guide WSCC Parking Standards require for D2 use 14 spaces (1 space per 22sqm) plus 12 spaces per hectare of pitch (6-12 spaces per pitch depending on size of pitch). It is not clear how many football pitches there are on site possibly 3 which would require between 18 and 36 parking spaces. Taking the minimum amount 14 plus 18, 32 car parking spaces would be required. The number of parking provision shown on the plan is therefore not likely to be sufficient for the proposed use. Vehicular Access The existing access onto Old Brighton Road is via a dropped crossover. Access gates are in place approximately 7m back from the edge of carriageway at a point which does not appear to be wide enough for 2 vehicles to pass. The site is bounded by a continuous footpath and good visibility is available from the access to the north and the south - some tree/shrub maintenance would be required. Traffic Generation It is not clear as to how much traffic would be generated by the proposed use and it could be argued that there is an existing established use. However, given the likely increase in demand expected due to a significant increase in housing in the locality (permitted) and by the new building itself it is reasonable to assume that traffic is likely to be significantly higher than in previous years. Conclusion It is therefore a requirement of the Highway Authority that additional vehicular parking is provided and access improvements are undertaken. In addition cycle parking should be provided and possible pedestrian/cycle links from the Helmswood site should be investigated. The access redesign will need to be a minimum of 4.5m wide to allow 2 cars to pass clear of the highway with visibility splays in accordance with measured 85%ile speeds. The access is located within a 40mph speed restriction and approximately 20m from the derestricted section, it is therefore possible that 85%ile speeds exceed 40mph requiring in excess of 120m visibility splays. It would also be beneficial for the footpath (north of the access) to continue into the site access to provide a safe access for pedestrians away from motor vehicles. 138 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

131 Please request the applicant: Confirms uses where possible to establish a suitable parking provision Confirms parking provision and identify additional parking areas Provides a plan showing the access redesign including visibility splays Debbie Farrell Strategic Planning Gatwick Airport Ltd. Thank you for your /letter dated 08 February 2017, regarding the above mentioned planning consultation. The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. We, therefore, have no objection to this proposal. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Amanda Purdye, Aerodrome Safeguarding For and on behalf of Gatwick Airport Limited NATS Safeguarding The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal. However, please be aware that this response applies specifically to the above consultation and only reflects the position of NATS (that is responsible for the management of en route air traffic) based on the information supplied at the time of this application. This letter does not provide any indication of the position of any other party, whether they be an airport, airspace user or otherwise. It remains your responsibility to ensure that all the appropriate consultees are properly consulted. If any changes are proposed to the information supplied to NATS in regard to this application which become the basis of a revised, amended or further application for approval, then as a statutory consultee NERL requires that it be further consulted on any such changes prior to any planning permission or any consent being granted. Yours faithfully, Sarah Allen Technical Administrator On behalf of NERL Safeguarding Office 139 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

132 MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 23 MAR 2017 PART II RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL Burgess Hill 6. DM/17/0320 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey JANES LANE BURGESS HILL WEST SUSSEX RH15 0QR RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE APPEARANCE, LAYOUT AND SCALE FOR A SINGLE DWELLING (UNIT 3). FOLLOWING OUTLINE APPLICATION DM/15/3931. VC PROPERTY LIMITED GRID REF: EAST NORTH POLICY: Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Built Up Areas / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / Classified Roads - 20m buffer / District Plan 140 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

133 Policy / Planning Agreement / Planning Obligation / Planning Agreement / Planning Obligation / ODPM CODE: Minor Dwellings 8 WEEK DATE: 21st March 2017 WARD MEMBERS: Cllr Colin Holden / Cllr Kirsty Page / CASE OFFICER: Mr Steven King Executive Summary Planning permission has been granted for two dwellings on this site and therefore the principle of the development is established. The issues to consider are the reserved matters of the proposed dwelling, namely the appearance, layout and scale of the site. Reserved matters consent has previously been granted for the proposed dwelling. This application seeks reserved matters consent for an alternatively designed house on plot 3. It is not considered that the design and scale of the proposed dwelling is satisfactory. It is not considered it will fit in satisfactorily into the site and will cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) and policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan (MSDP) would not be met. It is considered that the impact of the proposal in respect of trees within the site will be acceptable. There are no objections from the Tree Officer in relation to the trees that would be removed. The majority of trees around the boundary of the site would be kept and it is considered that policy B7 of the MSLP is met. Whilst the proposed new dwelling will be visible from 70 Janes Lane, it is not considered that it will be so close or large as to be overbearing. There will be some new overlooking towards number 70 but given the distance between the properties, it is considered that on balance, this would not cause a significant loss of amenity. As such policy B3 of the MSLP would be met. In light of all the above it is considered that reserved matters consent cannot be granted for this development Recommendation It is recommended that reserved matters consent be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix. 141 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

134 Summary of Representations None received. Summary of Consultations Tree Officer I am satisfied that the proposed tree removal works will not have a detrimental impact on the tree stock and character of the site and therefore raise no objection to this - although it is somewhat disappointing to see the loss of T41 in particular. Burgess Hill Town Council Recommend Refusal - it was overbearing and would be an over-development of the site. Introduction This application seeks reserved matters consent for the erection of a dwelling to the rear of 68 Janes Lane, Burgess Hill. Planning permission has been granted for this development and this application is therefore for the details of the development; the principle has been established. Relevant Planning History Planning permission for two dwellings at this site was approved on 8 January 2016 (reference DM/15/3931). The outline planning application was for the principle of the development with all matters reserved. Members requested that the reserved matters application come back to committee for determination. A subsequent reserved matters consent for the two dwellings (reference DM/16/2621) was approved by the planning committee in December Site and Surroundings The site of this application comprises part of the rear garden of 68 Janes Lane, Burgess Hill. 68 Janes Lane is a detached house that is well set back from the road (some 70m). The rear garden dog-legs round to the south and this is the site of the proposed new dwelling. There is a substantial fall in levels at the southern end of the garden. This part of the site has a number of trees within it and is quite overgrown. There is a pond at the far southern end of the garden. There is a second pond at the western end of the site. To the north of the site there is a tree and hedge screen along the mutual boundary with number 66 (this neighbouring property is also in the ownership of the applicants). To the southeast of number 68, is 70 Janes Lane which is a detached house. There is a hedge around 1.6m in height along part of the mutual boundary. 142 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

135 To the west there is a 1.8m fence along the boundary with the views of the newly completed houses at Ote Hall Park off Manor Road beyond this. The site lies in the countryside area of development restraint as defined in the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP). The built up area boundary is further to the north with 50 Janes Lane being within the built up area. The site is outside the boundary line of the Burgess Hill Neighbourhood Plan. Application Details This application seeks reserved matters approval for the appearance, layout and scale for the erection of a dwelling to the rear of 68 Janes Lane, Burgess Hill. This would be for the house on plot 3. A separate reserved matter consent for the house on plot 4 is reported elsewhere on this agenda. This would be an alternative design to the house approved under reference DM/16/2621. The submitted plans show the proposed dwelling on plot 3 would be positioned some 12m to the southwest of number 68 Janes Lane. The property would be located on an area that is currently occupied by a pond. The proposed dwelling would be a substantial two storey 5 bedroom house. It would have a footprint measuring 12.5m by 8m with a barn hipped roof 9m in height. There would be two pitched roof dormer windows on the rear elevation. Car parking would be in an integral double garage. The new dwelling would be served by the existing driveway that serves number 68. List of Policies Mid Sussex Local Plan C1 (protection of the countryside) B1 (design) B3 (residential amenities) B7 (trees and development) CS13 (land drainage) Neighbourhood Plan Not in Burgess Hill Neighbourhood Plan area. Draft District Plan The Submission District Plan was submitted for Examination on the 17 August The first of the Examination hearings have taken place. The Plan is a material planning consideration. Weight will be given to relevant policies in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF. Relevant policies include Policy DP10: Protection and Enhancement of Countryside Policy DP24: Character and Design Policy DP25: Dwelling Space Standards Policy DP41: Flood Risk and Drainage 143 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

136 Assessment (Consideration of key Issues) The main issues for consideration are: The design and visual impact of the proposal on the character of the area; The impact on neighbouring amenity; Highways matters; Drainage; Impact on trees; Planning Balance and Conclusions Principle of Development Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) And local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Using this as the starting point the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Small Scale Housing Allocations Document (2008) and the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004). In the event of conflicts between policies in these plans it is the most recent policy which takes precedence. The NPPF, which was issued in March 2012, is a material consideration which shall be afforded significant weight. Planning permission has been granted for this development and this application is therefore for the details of the development; the principle has been established. Assessment of main issues Design and impact on the character of the area This part of Janes Lane on the outskirts of Burgess Hill is characterised by detached properties with large rear gardens. Number 68 is an unusual property in that it is already set much further back from the road than other properties on this side of Janes Lane and it benefits from a large rear garden that is to the rear of 70 Janes 144 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

137 Lane. This rear garden is now bounded to the west by the new properties on Ote Hall Park. The southern extent of the application site goes just beyond the end of the rear garden of 70 Janes Lane. This site is well contained from the open countryside as it is bounded by the new development at Ote Hall Park to the west, by 68 Janes Lane to the north and by 70 Janes Lane to the east. It was not therefore considered that there would be harm to the character of the countryside or wider area from an infill development on this site and it was on this basis that planning permission was granted for 2 dwellings at the site. The location and design of the proposed dwelling is broadly the same as the illustrative plan that was provided with the original outline planning application. This outline application was reported to committee in January In respect of the design of the dwelling as it was shown on the illustrative plans submitted with the outline planning application, the report stated "Your officers do have concerns about the scale of the proposed dwellings that have been shown on the illustrative plans. It is considered that two large detached properties as shown on the illustrative plans would appear too cramped within the site. Should outline planning permission be granted the applicants would then need to submit a reserved matters application to deal with all of the reserved matters. It would be at this stage that the applicants would need to submit definitive details of the design and layout of the proposed dwellings. It is considered that two smaller dwellings, perhaps chalet style or single story would be more appropriate when the reserved matters are submitted. The Local Planning Authority would retain control of the development as the applicants would need to submit satisfactory plans to obtain reserved matters approval; if this was not obtained then the development could not go ahead." It is considered that the same concerns still arise. It is not considered that the design of the proposed dwelling is satisfactory within this context. The dwelling would be more substantial in scale than the property at 68 Janes Lane. It is considered that this would have a harmful impact. It is felt that the scale of the proposed dwelling should be more subordinate to 68 Janes Lane to reflect the fact that this is an infill development. The dwelling would also appear rather cramped next to the other larger dwelling that is proposed on plot 4. On this basis it is not felt that the proposal represents the high quality design that is sought by policy B1 in the MSLP and policy DP24 in the MSDP. This is a retrograde step in terms of design compared to the previous reserved matters approval. Impact on neighbouring amenities Policy B3 of the MSLP seeks to resist developments that result in a significant loss of residential amenity to existing occupiers. The dwelling on plot 3 would be some 29m away from 70 Janes Lane. There would be 3 first floor windows facing number 70 Janes Lane, two of which would serve bedrooms. As such the proposal would introduce new overlooking towards number 145 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

138 70. The issue is whether this causes a significant loss of residential amenity. Given the distances involved it is not felt that this would cause a significant loss of residential amenity. Given the distance between the two properties it is not considered that it could be argued that the proposed dwelling would be overbearing when viewed from number 70. The proposed new houses would be served by a driveway that would run to the south of number 68. Whilst there would clearly be vehicular movements and activity associated with the new dwellings, it is not considered that it could be reasonably argued that this situation would result in a significant loss of residential amenity. It is not unusual to have back land development such as this. It is also worth noting that the Planning Inspector allowed an appeal at the rear of 64 and 66 Janes Lane for a single dwelling (reference DM/15/4788). The Inspector did not consider that this proposal would result in a significant loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of 64 or 66 Janes Lane. The approved dwelling to the rear of these properties is on a more constrained site than the one the subject of this reserved matters consent. In light of all the above it is not considered that there is a conflict with policy B3 of the MSLP. Drainage Policy CS13 in the MSLP seeks to ensure that developments can be satisfactorily drained and not cause a risk of flooding off site. The reserved matters submission does not provide any further detail on the means of drainage beyond what was submitted at the outline stage. At the outline stage it was intended that surface water would drain into the pond at the southwestern corner of the site. There is a foul sewer that runs along Janes Lane that could be used for foul water disposal. The applicant's agent stated on the previous reserved matters submission "We are not able to provide more information about surface water drainage at this stage. That is because the applicant is not applying to discharge condition 13 at this juncture. Whilst the current scheme has been worked up and agreed with officers over the last 10 months, the reserved matters application is to be decided by committee and so there remains at least some doubt over its approval. In order to avoid unnecessary abortive work and cost, the applicant needs to establish what development would be possible before appointing a specialist consultant to design an appropriate surface water drainage arrangement for that specific scheme. The questions you mention were raised at the committee meeting at which outline permission was approved. The position remains as it was then. The erection of two dwellings would not increase the amount of water which falls on the site. The drainage officer did not object to the outline application. Drainage matters will be considered under the relevant pre-commencement conditions (12 and 13). 146 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

139 The surface water drainage condition is one of six pre-commencement conditions requiring further approvals. The council would retain control over the development until each of these conditions is discharged." It is considered that it remains the case that there is no reason why this site cannot be satisfactorily drained and those details will be secured by the pre commencement conditions that are attached to the outline planning permission. This requires details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) prior to any works commencing on site. If the LPA is not satisfied with the drainage details that have been submitted then the condition will not be discharged and no works can commence on site. As Members may know, it is well established planning case law that unless pre commencement conditions are discharged, a proper start cannot be made on implementing a planning permission. There are no grounds to come to a different view on this matter now compared to when the committee approved the previous reserved matters submission in December Impact on trees The site had many trees within it. The original outline application was accompanied by an arboricultural report that is available on file for inspection. The majority of the trees that are within the site were centrally located within the site. As such they were not widely visible from public vantage points and would therefore not meet one of the criteria for being protected by a tree preservation order, namely that they should have significant public amenity value. Many of the poorer quality trees within the site have now been cleared in preparation for the redevelopment of the site. The Councils Tree Officer has visited the site during the submission of the previous application as he was concerned about the number of trees that were originally proposed to be removed. He is satisfied with this reserved matters submission as the tree removal works will not have a detrimental impact on the tree stock and character of the site. The important trees on the boundary of the site to the east and west would be retained. It was acknowledged when outline consent was granted for this development that some trees within the site would need to be removed. It is considered that overall policy B7 of the MSLP would be met. Standard of accommodation Policy DP25 requires all new dwellings to meet minimum nationally described space standards, other than in exceptional circumstances, where clear evidence will need to be provided to show that the internal form or special features prevent some of the requirements being met. The government's Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards document was published in March 2015 and replaced the council's adopted Dwelling Space Standards Supplementary Planning Document on 1 October It sets out space standards for all new residential dwellings, including 147 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

140 minimum floor areas and room widths for bedrooms and minimum floor areas for storage, to secure a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future residents. The proposal complies with the National Space Standards. Planning Balance and Conclusions To summarise, planning permission has been granted for two dwellings on this site and therefore the principle of the development is established. The issues to consider are the reserved matters of this dwelling, namely the appearance, layout and scale of the proposal. It is not considered that the design and scale of the proposed dwelling is satisfactory. It is not considered it will fit in satisfactorily into the site and will cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such policy B1 of the MSLP and policy DP24 of the MSDP would not be met. It is considered that the impact of the proposal in respect of trees within the site will be acceptable. There are no objections from the Tree Officer in relation to the trees that would be removed. The majority of trees around the boundary of the site would be kept and it is considered that policy B7 of the MSLP is met. Whilst the proposed new dwelling will be visible from 70 Janes Lane, it is not considered that it will be so close or large as to be overbearing. There will be some new overlooking towards number 70 but given the distance between the properties, it is considered that on balance, this would not cause a significant loss of amenity. As such policy B3 of the MSLP would be met. In light of all the above it is considered that reserved matters consent cannot be granted for this development. APPENDIX A REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposed development would be too dominant in relation to the existing dwelling at number 68 Janes Lane. It would not relate satisfactorily to the surrounding dwellings and would have harmful impact on the character of the area. As such the proposal does not represent the high quality design that is sought by policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan. Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application The following plans and documents were considered when making the above decision: Plan Type Reference Version Submitted Date Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 3802-P3-100 C Site Plan Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

141 Location and Block Plan F Burgess Hill Town Council APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS Recommend Refusal ' it was overbearing and would be an over-development of the site. Tree Officer Having reviewed the submitted documents, I am satisfied that the proposed tree removal works will not have a detrimental impact on the tree stock and character of the site and therefore raise no objection to this - although it is somewhat disappointing to see the loss of T41 in particular. I would like to try and avoid conditioning items where possible and so would request that the landscaping is sent through before the reserved matters is determined. 149 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

142 Burgess Hill 7. DM/17/0325 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey JANES LANE BURGESS HILL WEST SUSSEX RH15 0QR RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE APPEARANCE, LAYOUT AND SCALE FOR A SINGLE DWELLING (UNIT 4). FOLLOWING OUTLINE APPLICATION DM/15/3931. VC PROPERTY LIMITED GRID REF: EAST NORTH POLICY: Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Built Up Areas / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / Classified Roads - 20m buffer / District Plan Policy / Planning Agreement / Planning Obligation / Planning Agreement / Planning Obligation / ODPM CODE: Minor Dwellings 8 WEEK DATE: 21st March 2017 WARD MEMBERS: Cllr Colin Holden / Cllr Kirsty Page / CASE OFFICER: Mr Steven King 150 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

143 Executive Summary Planning permission has been granted for two dwellings on this site and therefore the principle of the development is established. The issues to consider are the reserved matters of the proposed dwelling, namely the appearance, layout and scale of the proposal. Reserved matters consent has previously been granted for the proposed dwelling. This application seeks reserved matters consent for an alternatively designed house on plot 4. It is not considered that the design and scale of the proposed dwelling is satisfactory. It is not considered it will fit in satisfactorily into the site and will cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) and policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan (MSDP) would not be met. It is considered that the impact of the proposal in respect of trees within the site will be acceptable. There are no objections from the Tree Officer in relation to the trees that would be removed. The majority of trees around the boundary of the site would be kept and it is considered that policy B7 of the MSLP is met. Whilst the proposed new dwelling will be visible from 70 Janes Lane, it is not considered that it will be so close or large as to be overbearing. There will be some new overlooking towards number 70 but given the distance between the properties, it is considered that on balance, this would not cause a significant loss of amenity. As such policy B3 of the MSLP would be met. In light of all the above it is considered that reserved matters consent cannot be granted for this development Recommendation It is recommended that reserved matters consent be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix. Summary of Representations None received. Summary of Consultations Tree Officer I am satisfied that the proposed tree removal works will not have a detrimental impact on the tree stock and character of the site and therefore raise no objection to this - although it is somewhat disappointing to see the loss of T41 in particular. 151 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

144 Burgess Hill Town Council Recommend Refusal - it was overbearing and would be an over-development of the site. Introduction This application seeks reserved matters consent for the erection of a dwelling to the rear of 68 Janes Lane, Burgess Hill. Planning permission has been granted for this development and this application is therefore for the details of the development; the principle has been established. Relevant Planning History Planning permission for two dwellings at this site was approved on 8 January 2016 (reference DM/15/3931). The outline planning application was for the principle of the development with all matters reserved. Members requested that the reserved matters application come back to committee for determination. A subsequent reserved matters consent for the two dwellings (reference DM/16/2621) was approved by the planning committee in December Site and Surroundings The site of this application comprises part of the rear garden of 68 Janes Lane, Burgess Hill. 68 Janes Lane is a detached house that is well set back from the road (some 70m). The rear garden dog-legs round to the south and this is the site of the proposed new dwelling. There is a substantial fall in levels at the southern end of the garden. This part of the site has a number of trees within it and is quite overgrown. There is a pond at the far southern end of the garden. There is a second pond at the western end of the site. To the north of the site there is a tree and hedge screen along the mutual boundary with number 66 (this neighbouring property is also in the ownership of the applicants). To the southeast of number 68, is 70 Janes Lane which is a detached house. There is a hedge around 1.6m in height along part of the mutual boundary. To the west there is a 1.8m fence along the boundary with the views of the newly completed houses at Ote Hall Park off Manor Road beyond this. The site lies in the countryside area of development restraint as defined in the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP). The built up area boundary is further to the north with 50 Janes Lane being within the built up area. The site is outside the boundary line of the Burgess Hill Neighbourhood Plan. Application Details This application seeks reserved matters approval for the appearance, layout and scale for the erection of a dwelling to the rear of 68 Janes Lane, Burgess Hill. This 152 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

145 would be for the house on plot 4. A separate reserved matter consent for the house on plot 3 is reported elsewhere on this agenda. This would be an alternative design to the house approved under reference DM/16/2621. The submitted plans show the proposed dwelling on plot 4 would be positioned some 34m to the southwest of number 68 Janes Lane. The proposed dwelling would be a substantial two storey 5 bedroom house. It would have a footprint measuring 15m by 9m with a barn hipped roof 9m in height. The new dwelling would be served by the existing driveway that serves number 68. Car parking would be in a detached double garage to the northwest of the proposed house. List of Policies Mid Sussex Local Plan C1 (protection of the countryside) B1 (design) B3 (residential amenities) B7 (trees and development) CS13 (land drainage) Neighbourhood Plan Not in Burgess Hill Neighbourhood Plan area. Draft District Plan The Submission District Plan was submitted for Examination on the 17 August The first of the Examination hearings have taken place. The Plan is a material planning consideration. Weight will be given to relevant policies in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF. Relevant policies include Policy DP10: Protection and Enhancement of Countryside Policy DP24: Character and Design Policy DP25: Dwelling Space Standards Policy DP41: Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment (Consideration of key Issues) The main issues for consideration are: The design and visual impact of the proposal on the character of the area; The impact on neighbouring amenity; Highways matters; Drainage; Impact on trees; Planning Balance and Conclusions 153 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

146 Principle of Development Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) And local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Using this as the starting point the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Small Scale Housing Allocations Document (2008) and the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004). In the event of conflicts between policies in these plans it is the most recent policy which takes precedence. The NPPF, which was issued in March 2012, is a material consideration which shall be afforded significant weight. Planning permission has been granted for this development and this application is therefore for the details of the development; the principle has been established. Assessment of main issues Design and impact on the character of the area This part of Janes Lane on the outskirts of Burgess Hill is characterised by detached properties with large rear gardens. Number 68 is an unusual property in that it is already set much further back from the road than other properties on this side of Janes Lane and it benefits from a large rear garden that is to the rear of 70 Janes Lane. This rear garden is now bounded to the west by the new properties on Ote Hall Park. The southern extent of the application site goes just beyond the end of the rear garden of 70 Janes Lane. This site is well contained from the open countryside as it is bounded by the new development at Ote Hall Park to the west, by 68 Janes Lane to the north and by 70 Janes Lane to the east. It was not therefore considered that there would be harm to the character of the countryside or wider area from an infill development on this site and it was on this basis that planning permission was granted for 2 dwellings at the site. 154 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

147 The location and design of the proposed dwelling is broadly the same as the illustrative plan that was provided with the original outline planning application. This outline application was reported to committee in January In respect of the design of the dwelling as it was shown on the illustrative plans submitted with the outline planning application, the report stated "Your officers do have concerns about the scale of the proposed dwellings that have been shown on the illustrative plans. It is considered that two large detached properties as shown on the illustrative plans would appear too cramped within the site. Should outline planning permission be granted the applicants would then need to submit a reserved matters application to deal with all of the reserved matters. It would be at this stage that the applicants would need to submit definitive details of the design and layout of the proposed dwellings. It is considered that two smaller dwellings, perhaps chalet style or single story would be more appropriate when the reserved matters are submitted. The Local Planning Authority would retain control of the development as the applicants would need to submit satisfactory plans to obtain reserved matters approval; if this was not obtained then the development could not go ahead." It is considered that the same concerns still arise. It is not considered that the design of the proposed dwelling is satisfactory within this context. The dwelling would be more substantial in scale than the property at 68 Janes Lane. It is considered that this would have a harmful impact. It is felt that the scale of the proposed dwelling should be more subordinate to 68 Janes Lane to reflect the fact that this is an infill development. The dwelling would also appear rather cramped next to the other larger dwelling that is proposed on plot 3. On this basis it is not felt that the proposal represents the high quality design that is sought by policy B1 in the MSLP and policy DP24 in the MSDP. This is a retrograde step in terms of design compared to the previous reserved matters approval. Impact on neighbouring amenities Policy B3 of the MSLP seeks to resist developments that result in a significant loss of residential amenity to existing occupiers. The dwelling on plot 4 would be some 37m away from 70 Janes Lane. There would be 3 first floor windows facing number 70 Janes Lane, two of which would serve bedrooms. As such the proposal would introduce new overlooking towards number 70. The issue is whether this causes a significant loss of residential amenity. Given the distances involved it is not felt that this would cause a significant loss of residential amenity. Given the distance between the two properties it is not considered that it could be argued that the proposed dwelling would be overbearing when viewed from number 70. The proposed new houses would be served by a driveway that would run to the south of number 68. Whilst there would clearly be vehicular movements and activity associated with the new dwellings, it is not considered that it could be reasonably argued that this situation would result in a significant loss of residential amenity. It is not unusual to have back land development such as this. It is also worth noting that 155 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

148 the Planning Inspector allowed an appeal at the rear of 64 and 66 Janes Lane for a single dwelling (reference DM/15/4788). The Inspector did not consider that this proposal would result in a significant loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of 64 or 66 Janes Lane. The approved dwelling to the rear of these properties is on a more constrained site than the one the subject of this reserved matters consent. In light of all the above it is not considered that there is a conflict with policy B3 of the MSLP. Drainage Policy CS13 in the MSLP seeks to ensure that developments can be satisfactorily drained and not cause a risk of flooding off site. The reserved matters submission does not provide any further detail on the means of drainage beyond what was submitted at the outline stage. At the outline stage it was intended that surface water would drain into the pond at the southwestern corner of the site. There is a foul sewer that runs along Janes Lane that could be used for foul water disposal. The applicant's agent stated on the previous reserved matters submission "We are not able to provide more information about surface water drainage at this stage. That is because the applicant is not applying to discharge condition 13 at this juncture. Whilst the current scheme has been worked up and agreed with officers over the last 10 months, the reserved matters application is to be decided by committee and so there remains at least some doubt over its approval. In order to avoid unnecessary abortive work and cost, the applicant needs to establish what development would be possible before appointing a specialist consultant to design an appropriate surface water drainage arrangement for that specific scheme. The questions you mention were raised at the committee meeting at which outline permission was approved. The position remains as it was then. The erection of two dwellings would not increase the amount of water which falls on the site. The drainage officer did not object to the outline application. Drainage matters will be considered under the relevant pre-commencement conditions (12 and 13). The surface water drainage condition is one of six pre-commencement conditions requiring further approvals. The council would retain control over the development until each of these conditions is discharged." It is considered that it remains the case that there is no reason why this site cannot be satisfactorily drained and those details will be secured by the pre commencement conditions that are attached to the outline planning permission. This requires details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) prior to any works commencing on site. If the LPA is not satisfied with the drainage details that have been submitted then the condition will not be discharged and no works can commence on site. As Members may know, it is well established planning case law that unless pre commencement conditions are discharged, a proper start cannot be made on implementing a planning permission. 156 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

149 There are no grounds to come to a different view on this matter now compared to when the committee approved the previous reserved matters submission in December Impact on trees The site had many trees within it. The original outline application was accompanied by an arboricultural report that is available on file for inspection. The majority of the trees that are within the site were centrally located within the site. As such they were not widely visible from public vantage points and would therefore not meet one of the criteria for being protected by a tree preservation order, namely that they should have significant public amenity value. Many of the poorer quality trees within the site have now been cleared in preparation for the redevelopment of the site. The Councils Tree Officer has visited the site during the submission of the previous application as he was concerned about the number of trees that were originally proposed to be removed. He is satisfied with this reserved matters submission as the tree removal works will not have a detrimental impact on the tree stock and character of the site. The important trees on the boundary of the site to the east and west would be retained. It was acknowledged when outline consent was granted for this development that some trees within the site would need to be removed. It is considered that overall policy B7 of the MSLP would be met. Standard of accommodation Policy DP25 requires all new dwellings to meet minimum nationally described space standards, other than in exceptional circumstances, where clear evidence will need to be provided to show that the internal form or special features prevent some of the requirements being met. The government's Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards document was published in March 2015 and replaced the council's adopted Dwelling Space Standards Supplementary Planning Document on 1 October It sets out space standards for all new residential dwellings, including minimum floor areas and room widths for bedrooms and minimum floor areas for storage, to secure a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future residents. The proposal complies with the National Space Standards. Planning Balance and Conclusions To summarise, planning permission has been granted for two dwellings on this site and therefore the principle of the development is established. The issues to consider are the reserved matters of this dwelling, namely the appearance, layout and scale of the site. It is not considered that the design and scale of the proposed dwelling is satisfactory. It is not considered it will fit in satisfactorily into the site and will cause 157 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

150 harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such policy B1 of the MSLP and policy DP24 of the MSDP would not be met. It is considered that the impact of the proposal in respect of trees within the site will be acceptable. There are no objections from the Tree Officer in relation to the trees that would be removed. The majority of trees around the boundary of the site would be kept and it is considered that policy B7 of the MSLP is met. Whilst the proposed new dwelling will be visible from 70 Janes Lane, it is not considered that it will be so close or large as to be overbearing. There will be some new overlooking towards number 70 but given the distance between the properties, it is considered that on balance, this would not cause a significant loss of amenity. As such policy B3 of the MSLP would be met. In light of all the above it is considered that reserved matters consent cannot be granted for this development. APPENDIX A REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposed development would be too dominant in relation to the existing dwelling at number 68 Janes Lane. It would not relate satisfactorily to the surrounding dwellings and would have harmful impact on the character of the area. As such the proposal does not represent the high quality design that is sought by policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan. Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application The following plans and documents were considered when making the above decision: Plan Type Reference Version Submitted Date Location and Block Plan Site Plan Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 3802-P4-100 C Proposed Floor and Elevations Plan 3802-P4-G Burgess Hill Town Council APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS Recommend Refusal ' it was overbearing and would be an over-development of the site. Tree Officer Having reviewed the submitted documents, I am satisfied that the proposed tree removal works will not have a detrimental impact on the tree stock and character of 158 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

151 the site and therefore raise no objection to this - although it is somewhat disappointing to see the loss of T41 in particular. I would like to try and avoid conditioning items where possible and so would request that the landscaping is sent through before the reserved matters is determined. 159 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

152 MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 23 MAR 2017 PART III OTHER MATTERS 8. 13/03476/OUT Land Parcel Adjacent Newbury Courtmead Road, Cuckfield, West Sussex RH17 5LP Outline Planning Permission for the erection of a 5 bedroom detached house and double garage with all matters reserved granted under reference 13/03476/OUT Introduction This report is put before members in order that consideration is given to a specific matter arising from the recent judicial review of the Council s decision-making, as Local Planning Authority (LPA), in relation to the grant of planning permission under ref: 13/03476/OUT, the land parcel ( the Site ) adjacent Newbury at Courtmead Road in the Council s ownership. The Site lies at the end of Courtmead Road immediately adjacent to Newbury, a large detached two storey dwelling. The Site is roughly rectangular in shape and measures approximately 102 metres at its maximum length and has a frontage of 24 metres in width. The land slopes very gently from north to south, is grassed and is enclosed by a mixture of close board fencing, hedging, chain link fencing and post and rail fencing. Holy Trinity Church, a Grade 1 listed building lies approximately 110 metres to the west of the Site. In between the Church and the Site, lie allotments (which immediately abut the site) and the Church graveyard. The Claimant, Mrs Irving, challenged the grant by Mid-Sussex District Council ( the Council ) of a subsequent planning permission (ref: DM/15/1306) to erect a new detached house on land, the northern part of which lies within the Cuckfield Conservation Area (CCA). Mrs Irving argued inter alia that the Council s approach to balancing harm to the Conservation Area was flawed. The Judicial Review (28 June 2016) of planning permission (ref: DM/15/1306) held that the approach to determining the effect of the proposal on the CCA was flawed and quashed the grant of permission. 160 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

153 Background This report sets out the implications for the Outline Planning Permission granted under reference 13/03476/OUT resulting from matters raised in the 28 th June 2016 High Court judgment by Mr Justice Gilbart. Whilst Members will generally be aware of the extensive planning history to the Site, it is pertinent to provide the timeline and history to the various applications that have been submitted, approved and withdrawn on the site since Application 13/03476/OUT an outline planning application for the erection of a single five bedroomed dwelling house and double garage at this site was submitted in October The application was made by the Council for development of Council owned land. The application was considered by Members at Planning Committee B on 12 December 2013 and it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to various conditions and informative including Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations The decision notice was issued on 18 December Application 14/01068/FUL A detailed Full application was submitted, by the developers SDP, on 20 March 2014 for the erection of a similarly new detached house on land to the west of Newbury. Amended plans were submitted by the applicant on 28 April 2014 reducing the scale and bulk of the proposed dwelling. As originally submitted a T-shaped dwelling was proposed with rooms over an attached double garage at the front. The garage was then reduced in size during the consideration of the application to only provide attic storage in the roof space. The main bulk of the dwelling was proposed as an L-shaped building with a family room with master bedroom projecting to the rear. Whilst the application was recommended for approval, the applicant decided to withdraw the application prior to it being considered by committee. 3. Application 14/03388/FUL on 22 September 2014, a further detailed full application for the erection of a new detached house on land to the west of Newbury was submitted by the applicant, SDP. The committee report, recommending approval subject to planning conditions, was brought before Members on 13 November Planning permission for the erection of the new detached house was granted on 15 December However, proceedings by way of judicial review were brought against the Council in respect of its decision to grant the planning permission. The claim for judicial review was settled by consent between the parties, the effect of which was to quash the Council's decision to grant planning permission under reference 14/03388/FUL. The judgment by the High Court of Justice on 23 April 2015 held that the Council having concluded that the loss of open 161 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

154 space was a material consideration in the determination of the application, Officers erred in advising Members that they should not reconsider the issue on the basis that the Council had already accepted the loss in principle when it issued planning permission 13/03476/OUT on 18 December By way of a consent order the Permission was quashed and remitted back to the Planning Authority for re-determination and the planning application under ref: 14/03388/FUL was withdrawn. 4. Application DM/15/1306 An identical planning application to that submitted under reference 14/03388/FUL was submitted by SDP. No changes were proposed to the size, scale, and layout and/or access arrangement. The application was reported to Planning Committee A on the 30 April 2015 with the decision notice issued on 01 May Proceedings by way of judicial review were then again brought against the Council in respect of its decision to grant planning permission ref: DM/15/1306. The Permission was subsequently quashed on 28 June 2016 and the application withdrawn on 06 October Application DM/15/2248 an application for the approval of all reserved matters pursuant to outline permission 13/03476/OUT for the erection of a 5 bed dwelling house with double garage was submitted in the name of the Council on 02 June The application was reported to Planning Committee A on 08 October 2015 with the decision notice issued on the same day. The reserved matters planning permission has not been implemented. On 23 December 2016, the Claimant (Mrs Irving), who brought the successful challenge to the May 2015 planning permission (DM/15/1306), brought a challenge to the 2013 Outline planning permission. One of the grounds of challenge is that the Council has not considered whether to consent to the quashing of the 2013 planning permission. The Claimant contends that the Council should have done so because the report considered by Members before granting the 2013 permission suffered from the same errors identified by the High Court in relation to the 2015 permission. The Claimant has been given permission for judicial review on this ground and it is solely this ground that is the subject of this report. Planning and Procedural History The 2013 (ref:13/03476/out) planning report (Appendix 1) and 2015 (ref: DM/15/1306) planning report (Appendix 2) considered a range of planning matters including the impact of the development on the character of the CCA. This Conservation Area excludes the allotments to the immediate west of the application site, and the southern half of the application site, but extends along the entire length of Courtmead Road, and encompasses the Holy Trinity Church and yard to the west of the allotments along with an extensive area of the village 162 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

155 centre and surrounds. Before turning to the specifics of Mr Justice Gilbart s judgment (attached at Appendix 3), and your officer s recommendation at the end of this report as to whether Members should revoke the outline planning permission and/or consent to judgment; or maintain the 2013 outline planning permission, Members attention is drawn to the fact that the assessment of the impact of the proposals on the character of the CCA was identical in both the 2013 and 2015 planning committee reports see highlighted sections in Appendices 1 and 2. The point of contention arises from the fact the Council s officer s report found that there would be a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, but sought to look at in the context of the Conservation Area as a whole: the main impact of the proposed development would be on the character of the immediate vicinity through the loss of panoramic views to the south. Construction of the dwelling will obstruct long views from the western end of Courtmead Road, from the public footpath abutting the northern boundary and from within the site itself. The views across open countryside to the distant South Downs are a distinctive feature of the southern edges of the Cuckfield conservation area and they engender a particularly strong sense of place. Loss of these views will diminish an important quality of this part of the designated area and as a result this weighs against the favourable recommendation of the application proposals. Nonetheless, the report stated: However, the area in which the diminution will be experienced is limited to the western end of Courtmead Road, the public footpath and from within the site itself. From elsewhere in the southern fringes of the conservation area, similar panoramic southerly views will remain. Thus, while there is damage to a component of the heritage asset i.e. the conservation area, the special character of the conservation area as a whole will be preserved Mr Justice Gilbart did not support this approach, stating: If there is harm to the character and appearance of one part of the Conservation Area, the fact that the whole will still have a special character does not overcome the fact of harm. It follows that the character and appearance will be harmed. While I accept that the question of the extent of the harm is relevant to consideration of the effects, it cannot be right that harm to one part of a Conservation Area does not amount to harm for the purposes of considering the duty under s 72 of the PLBCAA 163 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

156 1990 This report does not seek to replicate the entirety of Mr Justice Gilbart s judgment on the way in which officers approached the determination of the 2015 (ref:dm/15/1306) application in relation to specific conservation area matters (Appendix 3 - paragraphs 40 72). However, in summary, Mr Justice Gilbart concluded that the approach to determining the effect of the proposal on the CCA was flawed and arguably unlawful amounting to a misdirection in law. Mr Justice Gilbart also noted inter alia: (paragraph 59) On the facts there set out, it follows that the development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area Given that the approach in the 2013 report was the same as in the 2015 report, the Claimant s legal representatives wrote to the Council s legal officers in November 2016 to ask the Council to consent to the quashing of the 2013 permission. The Council s legal officers, in consultation with planning officers and counsel, concluded that it was not necessary or proportionate to do so and, under delegated authority, refused the request. Now that permission has been granted by the High Court for judicial review of the alleged failure of the Council to consider whether it should seek the quashing of the 2013 Outline planning permission, officers now consider it appropriate for Members to consider whether the Council should consent to the quashing of the 2013 permission and/or whether the Council should revoke that permission. Available powers Members can direct that the Council concedes ground 2 of the ongoing judicial review and consents to judgment on that ground. The effect would be that the decision to grant planning permission is declared unlawful, and the 2013 outline planning permission would be quashed. Alternatively, Members have a power under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to revoke a planning permission if they consider it expedient to do so. Ordinarily, revocation of a planning permission would carry with it an obligation to pay compensation. However, as the landowner in this case is the Council itself, no compensation would need to be paid. Possible approaches available to Members One possible approach is for Members simply to consent to judgment or revoke the 2013 permission on the basis that the 2013 report suffers from the same error as the 2015 report. If Gilbart J s judgment is right and Members should assume it is then it is likely that the 2013 permission would have been 164 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

157 quashed by a court if challenged within the prescribed 6 week period. There is at least a respectable argument that a Council, acting responsibly, should seek to undo any act that it realises was done in error, even if it only realises that fact a long time after the event. However, Members need to think carefully before taking that option. It would not ordinarily be appropriate to revoke or quash a planning permission nearly 3 years after it was granted. The principle of legal certainty ensures that administrative acts, including the grant of planning permission, are valid until quashed. And if not challenged within the specified time period (in this case 6 weeks) those administrative acts are generally considered to be valid for all time. In the current judicial review proceedings, the High Court has refused to grant permission to the claimant to challenge the 2013 permission directly because she had delayed so long in making the claim. In the field of planning law, the principle of legal certainty is an important principle because it provides certainty to landowners and developers that they can rely on planning permissions and incur expenditure on the basis of those permissions, without fear that a court will quash the permission months or even years later. In this case, the landowner is the Council itself. On the assumption that the 2013 permission was lawful, the Council as landowner - expended around 10,000 in architect and planning advisor fees preparing a reserved matters application, and has incurred substantial further expenditure in both time and cash payments exploring the possibility of implementing the planning permission and selling the land with a house on it. Revoking the permission or consenting to judgment at this stage would therefore cause the Council as landowner prejudice. The Council as landowner should not be treated differently from any other landowner so Members should consider carefully whether it would be reasonable for the Council as LPA to revoke the permission or consent to judgment in those circumstances. Members should also consider whether the quashing of the 2013 permission would be detrimental to good administration. The Courts have held that where public resources have been expended in reliance on what is assumed to be a lawful decision, allowing a challenge out of time is detrimental to good administration. In deciding whether it is necessary or proportionate to consent to judgment or revoke the permission, Members should weigh the prejudice to the Council of quashing or revoking the permission three years out of time, and any detriment to good administration that would cause, against the harm of allowing the 2013 permission to stand. That is to say that there would be a stronger case for consenting to judgment 165 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

158 and/or revoking the permission if the erroneous approach to the impact of the proposed development on the CCA led to the grant of a permission that causes substantial harm in planning terms. Similarly, there will be a weaker case for consenting to judgment and/or revoking the permission if the erroneous approach to the impact of the proposed development on the CCA led to the grant of a permission that does not cause substantial harm in planning terms or where the correct approach to assessing the impact of the proposed development on the CCA would still have resulted in the grant of permission. To assist Members in considering these questions, officers have reviewed that part of the original 2013 report dealing with the CCA. Having regard to the correct approach set out in Mr Justice Gilbart s judgment, officers have conducted a revised assessment, based on the comments made by the Council s Conservation Officer at the time of the 2013 report. That revised assessment is set out below: IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE CONSERVATION AREA The northern part of the application site falls within the Cuckfield Conservation Area (CCA). This Conservation Area excludes the allotments to the immediate west of the application site, and the southern half of the application site, but extends along the entire length of Courtmead Road, and encompasses the Holy Trinity Church and yard to the west of the allotments along with an extensive area of the village centre and surrounds. Special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The CCA appraisal published in 2006 subdivides the designated Conservation Area into character areas and the Courtmead Road is noted for its detached dwellings set in spacious grounds, with the road and building line dictating the placement of houses. It is noted that at the western end of Courtmead Road the properties are predominantly designed by Turner following the traditional form and detailing of historic Wealden vernacular. The northern part of the application site falls within the CCA. This Conservation Area excludes the allotments to the immediate west of the application site, and the southern half of the application site, but extends along the entire length of Courtmead Road, and encompasses the Holy Trinity Church and yard to the west of the allotments along with an extensive area of the village centre and surrounds. The Council's Conservation Advisor commented on application ref: 13/03476/OUT proposals bearing in mind the potential impact on the Conservation Area. In this respect the following comments were made: 166 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

159 In its present undeveloped state, the proposal site makes a modest contribution to the open, semi- rural character of the immediate locality, with its greatest value being in allowing long views across open countryside to the distant South Downs. Loss of these views will significantly diminish an important quality of this part of the designated area. However, the area in which the diminution will be experienced is limited to the western end of Courtmead Road, the public footpath and from within the site itself. From elsewhere in the southern fringes of the conservation area, similar panoramic southerly views will remain. Thus, while there is damage to a component of the conservation area, the special character of the conservation area as a whole will not be substantially harmed. "The present character of the site is (thus) of a gently enclosed, green space and in consequence, the proposal is unlikely to significantly alter the general sense of enclosure in the immediate vicinity. The site is abutted by gardens and allotments to either side. The intended use of much of it as a private garden is thus appropriate to the local context and the new use would have minimal impact on the existing character of this part of the conservation area. Although marginally increasing the present level of development in the immediate vicinity, the new building will in effect continue the existing row of dwellings loosely enclosing the south side of Courtmead Road..." "The proposed building would thus integrate successfully into the local context, respecting the existing pattern of development and avoiding the introduction of any foreign elements to the streetscene of Courtmead Road. Other than increasing the existing level of development to some extent, the proposal would not result in harm to the streetscene character of Courtmead Road. " Conservation Areas and their settings are afforded special protection under the planning regime by virtue of section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 [PLBCAA 1990]; paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework ( NPPF ) and Policies B12 ( General Design Policy in Conservation Areas ) and B15 ( The Setting of Conservation Areas ) of the Mid Sussex Local Plan The following sections assess the proposals, having regard to comments made by the Council s Conservation Officer (as above), against this policy 167 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

160 framework. Assessment against section 72 of PLBCAA 1990 Whilst noting the Conservation Area Officer s commentary in relation to harm, it is necessary for the Council, in its wider planning assessment of the proposals, to have particular regard to the specific provisions of s 72 of the PLBCAA 1990: 72 General duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions. (1) In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Whilst the Conservation Officer has sought to balance the level of harm to a component of the Conservation Area with that on the whole, it is considered that if there is harm to the character and appearance of one part of the Conservation Area, the fact that the whole will still have a special character does not overcome the fact of that harm. It follows that in considering the Council s duties under s 72 of the PLBCAA 1990, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be harmed. This must attract significant weight as a disadvantage of the development. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development: 14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For plan-making this means that: local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken 168 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

161 as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. For decision-taking this means: 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 permission unless: o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. Limb 1 of the last bullet point of this paragraph provides for a weighted balancing exercise (that the adverse effects of permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits ). However, when considering applications that may cause harm to designated heritage assets limb 2 of the last bullet point of paragraph 14 of the NPPF disapplies the presumption in favour of granting planning permission: see footnote 9. If the NPPF is to be addressed properly, and if harm is found to be caused, the value of the asset (in this case the CCA) and the degree of harm must both be addressed. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm [my emphasis] to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. If the level of harm is substantial as stated in paragraph 132 of the NPPF, 169 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

162 then consent should be refused. Paragraph 133 of the NPPF goes on to state: Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm [my emphasis] to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. (Paragraph 134 of the NPPF). It is acknowledged there is harm to a component part of the CCA and that engages the Council s duty under section 72 of the PLBCAA However, the approach to be adopted under the NPPF depends on whether there is substantial harm or loss to the heritage asset, or less than substantial harm. In relation to harm the Council s Conservation Officer noted: Thus, while there is damage to a component of the conservation area, the special character of the conservation area as a whole will not be substantially harmed Section 134 of the NPPF states that Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. An on balance decision will need to be made as to whether the benefits of development outweigh the damage to the character of a component of the Cuckfield Conservation Area. Taking account of these comments, it is considered that there is less than substantial harm to the CAA and paragraph 134 of the NPPF 170 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

163 applies. 1 It therefore falls on the LPA to consider whether the public benefits arising from the proposal outweigh the harm. The provision of a new dwelling will make a small but useful contribution to the District s housing supply and will help meet the identified need for housing. It should also be noted that the New Homes Bonus is now a material planning consideration and if permitted the LPA would receive a New Homes Bonus for the new dwelling proposed. At a wider scale the economic contribution that house building makes to the UK economy has long been recognised by Government and is seen as a crucial driver of economic growth. A defining feature of the house building industry is its significant and complex network of supply chains and contracting relationships - the breadth and depth of these supply chains means that the domestic spin-off benefits from house building activity are far greater than for many other economic sectors. It has been reported (source: HBF Briefing October 2012) that, according to Government figures, housing supply accounts for around 3% of UK GDP and provides between 1 and 1.25 million jobs in the UK. Every 1 spent on housing puts 3 back into the economy. In this case, it could be estimated that the construction of one house would create 1.5 full-time direct jobs and at least three jobs created in the supply chain. Members are reminded that the phrase less than substantial harm covers a scale of harm ranging from the barely significant to harm falling just short of substantial. Taking all matters in the round, it is considered that the harm identified to the character and appearance of the CCA is at the medium to minor end of that scale. In those circumstances, and although it is a finely balanced question, the public benefits arising from the proposed development are considered to outweigh the harm to the CCA. Policies B12 and B15 of the Local Plan Policy B12 of the Local Plan requires the Council to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas and states: The protection of the special character and appearance of each 1 Members are reminded that in a subsequent assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the CCA, conducted for the reserved matters application, a different Conservation Officer for the Council did not identify any specific harm to the CCA arising from the proposed development and, instead, considered that the application was acceptable in terms of its impact on the CCA: see Appendix 4. Members are asked not to rely on that assessment for the purposes of the decision before them. Members are asked to rely on the assessment that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the CCA. That said, the subsequent assessment is relevant in considering the extent of the less than substantial harm that would be caused by the proposed development. 171 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

164 Conservation Area will receive high priority. When determining planning applications for development within or abutting the designated Conservation Areas, special attention will be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Given it is accepted that the proposals will give rise to harm to the CCA (see S72 of the PLBCAA 1990), it follows that the proposal is also contrary to the principles of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area as set out in Policy B12 of the Local Plan. In relation to the setting of Conservation Areas, Policy B15 of the Local Plan states: Development affecting the setting of a Conservation Area should be sympathetic to, and should not adversely affect its character and appearance. In particular, attention will be paid to the protection or enhancement of views into and out of a Conservation Area, including, where appropriate, the retention of open spaces and trees. The Council s Conservation Officer has noted that the proposed development would lead to the loss of panoramic views to the south. Construction of a two storey dwelling would obstruct long views from the western end of Courtmead Road, from the public footpath abutting the northern boundary and from within the site itself. Given that the Conservation Area officer has concluded that the loss of these views would diminish an important quality of this part of the designated area, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy B15. Summary of assessment The proposal will cause less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area and in accordance with section 72 PLBCAA Act significant weight should be attached to that less than substantial harm. However, that does not mean that any harm, however minor, necessarily requires planning permission to be refused. As set out in paragraph 134 of the NPPF, the considerable weight attached to the less than substantial harm needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. On balance, officers consider that the public benefits of the proposal set out above, and discussed in the rest of the report, do outweigh that harm, but recognise that the question is finely balanced. On the basis that the test in paragraph 134 of the NPPF is met, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF, applies to this application. 172 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

165 The question now arising for Members The report produced in advance of Members granting the 2013 outline planning permission did not direct Members clearly to section 72 of the PLBCAA Act 1990 and did not direct Members clearly to the need to apply paragraph 134 of the NPPF. The revised assessment set out above now does this. Although it reaches the conclusion that paragraph 134 of the NPPF is met, it notes that the judgment is finely balanced. In considering whether the harm caused by allowing the 2013 permission to stand outweighs the prejudice that would be caused to the landowner and the detriment that would be caused to good administration by quashing and/or revoking the planning permission now, Members should consider i. whether the revised assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the CCA, when read in the context of the 2013 report as a whole, might have led Members to refuse planning permission. If so, that will weigh in favour of consenting to judgment and/or revoking the planning permission. If not, it will weigh against consenting to judgment and/or revoking the planning permission. ii. if Members take the view that the revised assessment, read in the context of the 2013 report as a whole, might have led Members to refuse planning permission, they should also ask whether the 2013 permission is acceptable in planning terms, as assessed today. If it is not acceptable in planning terms today, then that will weigh in favour of consenting to judgment and/or revoking the planning permission. If it is acceptable in planning terms today, it will weigh against consenting to judgment and/or revoking the planning permission. Recommendation Having regard to the proposed new section of the Report, it is your officer s recommendation that Members: 1. Review and are fully cognisant of the 2013 application, supporting information, the judgment by Gilbart J dated 28 June 2016 and committee reports dated 12 December 2013 (Appendix 1) and 30 April 2015 (Appendix 2) report that was the subject of Gilbart J s judgment; 2. Consider the proposed new section above, dealing with the Impact on the Character of the Conservation Area, and read it together with the 2013 Planning Committee report, substituting it for the existing section of the 2013 report addressing the Conservation Area; and 173 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

166 3. Consider whether they wish to: I. Revoke the planning permission and/or consent to judgment simply on the basis that the officer s report for the 2013 Outline planning permission suffered from the same error as the officer s report for the 2015 planning permission; or II. III. Revoke the planning permission and/or consent to judgment on the basis that Members might not have granted permission if they had seen a report which addressed the impact on the conservation area properly, as set out in the new report (incorporating the new section); or Maintain the planning permission and defend the judicial review claim on the basis that the prejudice caused to the landowner and the harm that would be caused to good administration outweighs any harm caused by allowing the 2013 permission to stand because: i. Although the 2013 Committee Report adopted an erroneous approach to the impact on the CCA, Members would have made the same decision to grant planning permission if they had been advised of the correct approach as set out above; or ii. Although Members might possibly have reached a different conclusion at the time, Members considering the matter today consider that the permission that was granted in 2013 is acceptable in planning terms, having regard in particular to section 72 PLBCAA 1990, paragraph 134 of the NPPF, and Policy B12 of the Local Plan. On the basis of the new substituted section of the 2013 report, it is the Officer s recommendation that Members resolve to maintain the 2013 Outline planning permission for the reasons as set out in 3 (III) above. 174 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

167 MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 23 MAR 2017 PART III OTHER MATTERS APPENDIX Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

168 MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE B 12 Dec 2013 RECOMMENDED FOR PERMISSION Cuckfield 13/03476/OUT Land Parcel Adjacent Newbury Courtmead Road Cuckfield West Sussex Outline permission for one 5 bedroom dwellinghouse and double garage. Mid Sussex District Council POLICY: Ancient Woodland / Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Built Up Areas / Conservation Area / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / / ODPM CODE: Minor Dwellings 8 WEEK DATE: 6th December WEEK DATE: 29th November 2013 CASE OFFICER: Mrs Sarah Sheath EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider the recommendation of the Development Manager on the application for planning permission as detailed above. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of one five-bedroom dwelling and double garage on land adjacent Newbury, Courtmead Road, Cuckfield. The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land and therefore in this respect the Local Plan policies are not up to date. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF clearly indicates that in these circumstances planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as a whole. The NPPF also indicates that all housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The application site whilst falling outside of the built up area as defined by the Mid Sussex Local Plan lies immediately adjacent the built up area boundary and is within close walking distance of the village centre and all its amenities. It is therefore deemed to be in a sustainable location. 176 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

169 Whilst the application is in outline form with all matters reserved for future consideration, illustrative plans have been provided which indicate that a single dwelling could be designed and sited to sit comfortably in a spacious garden setting that would respect the existing building line along Courtmead Road therefore preserving the distinctive character of the designated Conservation Area. Some harm will arise from this proposal as a result of the loss of panoramic views out of and across the site to the south, and also as a result of the loss of the existing area of informal open space. However the views into/across the site are only one component of the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition the area of open space has been demonstrated to have limited recreational value and there is considered to be adequate provision of open space elsewhere in Cuckfield. It is considered that the limited harm generated by this proposal is not sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the proposal. For these reasons the application is considered to be acceptable and can be supported. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommend permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS Three petitions (one electronic and two handwritten) consisting of 108, 296 and 22 signatures respectively. All petitions seek to prevent building on the application site and its retention as open space for the community. 76 letters of objections raising the following concerns: - Site is used regularly by youth clubs, nurseries and many other members of the community and should be left that way for all to enjoy as a safe green space. - Small areas of green space should be protected. - Cuckfield is losing its identity with the amount of building that is taking place. - Infrastructure can't cope with the ever increasing population. - Traffic through the village is already a problem. - Application should not be considered in advance of the Neighbourhood Plan. - Rare site that young people can safely access without crossing busy roads. - Insufficient consultation has taken place in respect of this application. - No replacement open space being proposed. - Proposal does not accord with Mid Sussex Local Plan, District Plan or Neighbourhood Plan. - Fails to comply with Policies C1, B6, B12, B15, R2, G1, C9, B10, R7, and G1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. - Will adversely affect view of the South Downs National Park. - Proposal will adversely affect the Grade I Listed Holy Trinity Church and conservation area. - Proposed is not sustainable development in accordance with NPPF. - Fails to comply with Policies DP9, DP16 and DP33 of the District Plan. - Fails to comply with Policies CNP3, CNP5 and CNP18 of the Cuckfield Neighbourhood 177 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

170 Plan. - Would establish a precedent. - Decision should be postponed until a decision on the application for the land to be registered as an Asset of Community Value has been made. - Site fall outside the built up area and therefore should not be built upon. - Need to consider effect of Reg 9 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations Application should be referred to the Secretary of State for determination. - Site is ecologically sensitive, further survey work is required. - Outline applications in conservations area not usually acceptable. - Previous Inspector dismissed the inclusion of the site into the BUA in Site is not surplus to requirements. - Approval of this scheme goes against local wishes. - What is to stop more housing on this site if one is deemed acceptable? - Lack of 5 year housing supply is not sufficient justification. - Is there a right of access to serve a new dwelling from Courtmead Road? SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS (Full responses from Consultees are included at the end of this report as Appendix B) English Heritage The application(s) should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice. MSDC Conservation Advisor In its present undeveloped state, the proposal site makes a modest contribution to the open, semi- rural character of the immediate locality, with its greatest value being in allowing long views across open countryside to the distant South Downs. Loss of these views will significantly diminish an important quality of this part of the designated area. However, the area in which the diminution will be experienced is limited to the western end of Courtmead Road, the public footpath and from within the site itself. From elsewhere in the southern fringes of the conservation area, similar panoramic southerly views will remain. Thus, while there is damage to a component of the conservation area, the special character of the conservation area as a whole will not be substantially harmed. Section 134 of the NPPF states that 'Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.' An on balance decision will need to be made as to whether the benefits of development outweigh the damage to the character of a component of the Cuckfield Conservation Area. MSDC Environmental Protection No comments. MSDC Street Naming and Numbering Officer Standard Informative requested. WSCC Highways No concerns would be raised to this application from a highway safety perspective. 178 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

171 WSCC Ecology There is no ecological objection to the principle of the proposed development subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions to control its implementation. Ecologically, the site is limited with the main interest being confined to the margins. The margins are to remain intact and I propose that a condition is imposed to secure their protection during construction. Should the LPA be minded to approve and should there be a delay in implementation, to avoid any undue impacts on ecology I recommend that the site is kept closely mown until construction starts. SUMMARY OF CUCKFIELD PARISH COUNCIL OBSERVATIONS (The full observations are included at the end of this report as Appendix B) Cuckfield Parish Council strongly objects to this application on the following material considerations and planning policies: - Challenge whether the District Council has the requisite statutory authority to itself develop the site as a result of Reg.9 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations Unusual to validate an outline plan in a conservation area. Insufficient information has been provided to determine the outcome in such a sensitive area. - Outside BUA therefore contrary to Policy C1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. Will set a dangerous precedent. - Inspector's decision in 1993 concludes that site is not suitable for development. - Site is an important asset to the village from a social and amenity point of view and from a local heritage point of view. - Proposal fails to comply with policies C9, B6, B12, B15, R2 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policies DP16 of the District Plan. - Adequate weight and attention should be given to the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan in particular Policies CNP1, CNP3, CNP5 and CNP 18. Introduction Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of one five-bedroom dwelling and double garage on land adjacent Newbury, Courtmead Road, Cuckfield. Relevant Planning History Whilst there is no history of planning applications relating to this plot of land it is considered relevant to note the contents of the Inspectors Report dated 14th October 1994 following a period of Inquiry into the Haywards Heath Local Plan in At the Inquiry, objectors to Policy HH2/1 of the Haywards Heath Local Plan sought to see the open land at the western end of Courtmead Road excluded from the built-up area boundary. The Inspector commented as follows: "The land is not readily seen looking along Courtmead Road but, along the footpath at the end of the road, it forms a significant part of the open break between the line of houses and the Parish Church to the west giving long views to the countryside to the south. If development 179 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

172 were to take place, it would reduce the value of the open gap and bring development closer to the church which is an important building in the Conservation area. Whilst 'Newbury' stands out at the end of the line of houses, a further dwelling would not improve this situation and I am not convinced that a landscaped screen on the western boundary would be guaranteed. The site, together with the allotments and the church grounds, presently blends into the countryside towards the bypass and should be protected by Policy HH2/1." Accordingly the Proposal Map was modified to show the built-up area boundary to run along the western boundary of 'Newbury'. Site and Surroundings The application site lies at the end of Courtmead Road immediately adjacent Newbury, a large detached two storey dwelling, which is currently undergoing works of improvement/alteration. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and measures some 102 metres at its maximum length and has a frontage some 24 metres in width. The land slopes very gently from north to south, is grassed and is enclosed by a mixture of close board fencing, hedging, chain link fencing and post and rail fencing. Access to the land is currently gained at the north east corner of the site, where the land adjoins Courtmead Road. There is an existing pedestrian gate and wider vehicular gate allowing access to the site. To the north of the application site, public right of way (PROW) 22CU, runs past the site in an east west direction. This PROW extends the full length of Courtmead Road and provides access to Holy Trinity Church, a Grade I listed building that lies some 110 metres to the west of the application site. In between this church and the application site, lie allotments (which immediately abut the application site) and the church graveyard. The other side of the PROW to the north of the application the rear garden of The Old Vicarage is well screened by close boarded fencing and taller mature vegetation and trees. To the south of the application site, lies the Royal Observer Corps Post, an underground bunker which sits within a larger grassed field. In terms of planning policy the site falls outside the built up area of Cuckfield as defined by the Mid Sussex Local Plan. In addition the northern half of the site falls within the Cuckfield Conservation Area. Application Details Outline planning permission is being sought for the erection of a single detached five bedroom dwelling and double garage. All matters are reserved for future consideration and therefore only the principle of the development is for consideration at this stage. If the outline proposal is deemed acceptable details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would need to be submitted as reserved matters through a secondary application process. A number of objections in relation to this application have raised the validity of the submission of an outline application for a site that falls within a Conservation Area. There is no legislation that prevents the Local Planning Authority (LPA) from accepting an outline planning application within a Conservation Area. However, the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 does state: 180 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

173 "Where the authority who are to determine an application for outline planning permission are of the opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, the application ought not to be considered separately from all or any of the reserved matters, they shall within the period of 1 month beginning with the receipt of the application notify the applicant that they are unable to determine it unless further details are submitted, specifying the further details they require." The application has been submitted with illustrative drawings indicating the possible siting and scale of the proposed dwelling. Whilst these are illustrative details only, the LPA is satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted to allow an adequate assessment of whether the principle of the proposed development is acceptable or not. List of Policies National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the government's policy in order to ensure that the planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development, such that the planning system needs to perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. This means ensuring sufficient land of the right type to support growth; providing a supply of housing and creating a high quality environment with accessible local services; and using natural resources prudently. With specific reference to decision-taking the document provides the following advice: "Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area." Para 197 states that "In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development". District Plan The District Plan was submitted to Government on 24th July 2013 and an Inspector has been appointed to carry out the Examination of the Plan. However, the policies in this plan carry limited weight as all have received at least one objection during the publication period. Mid Sussex Local Plan Policy B1 - Design Policy B3 - Neighbour Amenity Policy B6 - Open Space in Built-Up Areas Policy B10 - Listed Buildings Policy B12 - General Design Policy in Conservation Areas Policy H11 - Housing in the Countryside Policy T4 - Transport and New Development Policy T5 - Parking Standards Policy C1 - Countryside Area of Development Restraint Policy C5 - Area of Importance for Nature Conservation Policy R2 - Protection of Existing Recreational Open Space 181 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

174 Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan The Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan was submitted to the District Council for publication and consultation in August The consultation closed on 4th October 2013 and an examiner is in the process of being appointed. Limited weight can therefore be afforded to the Policies of this plan, the following of which are deemed most relevant to the consideration of this application: CNP1 - Design of New Development and Conservation CNP5 - Protect and Enhance the Countryside CNP18 - Open Space The weight to be attached to CNP18 is reduced by the fact that objections have been received to this policy. Assessment (Consideration of Key Issues) Principle Of Development Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." The Mid Sussex Local Plan shows this site as lying within a Countryside Area of Development Restraint (Policy C1). Within this area, only certain categories of development are allowed as an exception to the general policies of restraint that apply. The proposal does not fall into one of these exceptions as the house is not required in association with an identified need for an agricultural or forestry purpose. The site is not allocated for housing within any adopted development plan documents and as such the application is contrary to local plan policy C1. Davis v SoSCLG [2013] provides significant clarity with regard to the weight to be attached to a saved development plan policy. Saved local plan policy C1 (which affords significant protection to the countryside from inappropriate development) is not "out of date" when considered in line with the guidance contained within the NPPF, this is because it governs matters wider than just 'the supply of housing'. This policy remains consistent with the environmental dimension of the NPPF and its approach to "achieving sustainable development". The policy therefore attracts significant weight. Notwithstanding the above this Council does not currently have an up-to-date 5-year housing land supply in the District, based on the housing numbers in the South East Plan. Whilst revoked, the housing figures contained therein are still the most up to date figures for the District. The current shortfall in housing is a material consideration that weighs in favour of granting permission and must be taken into account in determining this proposal. The lack of a five year supply means that where a development is found to constitute 'Sustainable Development', paragraph 14 of the NPPF is relevant. This policy states that "at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both planmaking and decision-taking." For decision-taking this means: 182 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

175 - 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 permission unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted." If the application constitutes sustainable development then the application must be considered on the basis of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and only refused planning permission if any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole, or specific NPPF policies indicate development should be restricted. If the proposal fails to constitute sustainable development then the presumption in favour of permission does not apply and the application must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As set out above the NPPF (para 7) sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. THE ECONOMIC ROLE Localism, Growth and Economic Impact Part 6 of the Localism Act was enacted on 16th January This requires the Local Planning Authority to have regard to local finance considerations (so far as material to the application) as well as the provisions of the Development Plan and any other material considerations. The New Homes Bonus commenced in April 2011, and will match fund the additional council tax raised for new homes and empty properties brought back into use, with an additional amount for affordable homes, for the following six years. The New Homes Bonus is now a material planning consideration and if permitted the LPA would receive a New Homes Bonus for the new dwelling proposed. Furthermore, whilst the development is only of a modest scale it would make a positive contribution to the building industry in the area. At a recent appeal decision (28 Gatehouse Lane) where the Inspector was considering a similar single dwelling just outside of the defined built up area of Bolney, it was determined that this would satisfy the economic dimension of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. SOCIAL ROLE The NPPF seeks to promote a strong vibrant and health community by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generation and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being. Housing supply The Council's lack of five year housing supply has already been outlined above, and the erection of single dwelling will clearly add to Council's housing stock. It has been suggested by a number of the objectors, including the Parish Council, that the addition of a single dwelling would be "too small to make a significant contribution to addressing housing shortages or other community needs". Whilst these comments are noted, and it is understood that this assessment has been drawn from a past appeal decision, the opposite view has also be taken by an Appeal Inspector at a recent appeal at Magnolia House in Albourne, where she 183 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

176 concluded that "the proposal would not result in any significant or demonstrable harm that would outweigh the benefits of providing a small but useful contribution to the Council's current shortfall in housing supply." It is clear therefore that the provision of any number of dwellings can fulfil the social role of sustainable development, especially in this time of undersupply of housing. Health, social and cultural well-being LOSS OF THE OPEN SPACE The large majority of the objections received in relation to this application are in relation to the loss of the existing open space. This piece of land is allegedly used by community groups and members of public for general informal recreational activities. Policy B6 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan states: "Proposals for development which would result in the loss of areas of public or private open space of particular importance to the locality by virtue of their recreational, historical, conservation, wildlife or amenity value will not be permitted. Where such open space is to be lost to development, for whatever reason, appropriate alternative provision may be sought elsewhere." Furthermore Policy R2 of the Local Plan states: "Proposals which would result in the loss of existing formal or informal open space with recreational or amenity value whether privately or publicly owned, will only be permitted where the applicant can demonstrate that a replacement site has been identified and will be developed to provide facilities of an equivalent or improved standard. This new site must be fully operational prior to development commencing on the original site." Paragraph 74 of the NPPF states: "Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: - an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or - the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or - the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss." The application has been submitted with an Open Space Assessment that illustrates that the land has limited recreational value, owing to its size and location. Furthermore the quantitative review of open space provision in Cuckfield demonstrates that there is adequate provision of open space in Cuckfield, whether or not the application site is retained and whether or not the application makes provision for new open space elsewhere in the village. In addition, alternative sites are well distributed in and around the village giving good coverage in terms of accessibility. The conclusions of the report are that there is no need for the site to be retained as open space, nor is there a need for its replacement elsewhere. 184 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

177 Cuckfield Parish Council has raised a strong objection to the loss of the existing open space and refer to policy CNP18 of the emerging Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan that seeks to formally allocate the site as open space. It has been suggested by other objectors that the determination of this application would be premature and would unduly pre-empt and frustrate the neighbourhood plan progress. Draft guidance published by the Government indicates that "While emerging plans may acquire weight during the plan-making process, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework - and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development - arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than in exceptional circumstances (where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account). Such circumstances are likely to be limited to situations where both: a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or neighbourhood plan; and b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but has not yet been adopted (or, in the case of a neighbourhood plan, been made)." Whilst the neighbourhood plan is at an advanced stage and the concerns of the objectors and the Parish Council have been noted, it should also be acknowledged that there are objections to the above proposed policy and as such limited weight can be afforded to it at this stage. ENVIRONMENTAL ROLE Protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan seeks a high standard of design in all new developments. This is consistent with the aims of the NPPF and the emerging policies of the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan. As an outline application with all matters reserved the actual detailed design, siting and scale of the proposed dwelling is not for consideration at this this stage. However indicative plans have been submitted to illustrate how the site may be developed in order to assist the LPA's assessment of the impact of this proposal on the character and appearance of the locality. In this respect there a number of issues to consider: a) The impact on the character of area/conservation Area b) The impact on the setting of Grade 1 Holy Trinity Church c) The impact on the wider views into/out of the village. IMPACT ON THE STREET SCENE Courtmead Road has a relatively strong building line along its southern side where the majority of the dwellings sit well back from the road frontage and sit within large spacious plots with extensive gardens to their rear. The illustrative plans indicate that the proposed dwelling could comfortably sit in a similar position and would be reflective of the adjacent dwellings in terms of footprint and plot size. Furthermore the plans indicate that it would be possible to design a dwelling of similar height to the adjacent dwelling again to reflect and respect the general scale 185 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

178 of dwellings to the east of the application site. It is considered that, if the principle of the development of this site were to be accepted a dwelling could be designed that would sympathetically blend with the existing built up character of Courtmead Road to the east. IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE CONSERVATION AREA As noted above, the northern part of the application site falls within the Cuckfield Conservation Area. This Conservation Area excludes the allotments to the immediate west of the application site, and the southern half of the application site, but extends along the entire length of Courtmead Road, and encompasses the Holy Trinity Church and yard to the west of the allotments along with an extensive area of the village centre and surrounds. Policy B12 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan seeks to protect the special character and appearance of each Conservation Area with special attention given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area and to safeguard the setting of any Listed Buildings. Cuckfield Conservation Area Appraisal published in 2006 subdivides the designated Conservation Area into 'character areas' and the Courtmead Road area is noted for its detached dwellings set in spacious grounds, with the road and building line dictating the placement of the houses. It is noted that at the western end of Courtmead Road the properties are predominantly designed by Turner following the traditional form and detailing of historic Wealden vernacular. The Council's Conservation Advisor was asked to comment on the application proposals bearing in mind their potential impact on the Conservation Area. In this respect she has made the following comments: "The present character of the site is (thus) of a gently enclosed, green space and in consequence, the proposal is unlikely to significantly alter the general sense of enclosure in the immediate vicinity. The site is abutted by gardens and allotments to either side. The intended use of much of it as a private garden is thus appropriate to the local context and the new use would have minimal impact on the existing character of this part of the conservation area. Although marginally increasing the present level of development in the immediate vicinity, the new building will in effect continue the existing row of dwellings loosely enclosing the south side of Courtmead Road..." "The proposed building would thus integrate successfully into the local context, respecting the existing pattern of development and avoiding the introduction of any foreign elements to the streetscene of Courtmead Road. Other than increasing the existing level of development to some extent, the proposal would not result in harm to the streetscene character of Courtmead Road. " IMPACT ON THE SETTING OF THE LISTED BUILDING As outlined above, the Holy Trinity Church, a Grade I listed building is located some 100 metres to the direct west of the application site. As noted by the Conservation Advisor, the proposed dwelling would appear in views to the east from the building, however, the new building would be largely screened by intervening shrubbery, and would be only partially visible against a busy backdrop of trees, shrubbery and occasional buildings. 186 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

179 It was the Conservation Advisors opinion that "the new dwelling is unlikely to stand out as an individually intrusive element and it will therefore have little impact on the visual quality of the setting of the designated heritage asset." English Heritage were consulted on this aspect of the application proposals and did not wish to make any representations, confirming that the decision should be made in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the LPA's specialist conservation advice. IMPACT ON THE VIEWS INTO/OUT OF THE VILLAGE Again as highlighted by the Council's Conservation Advisor, the main impact of the proposed development on the character of the immediate vicinity would be the loss of panoramic views to the south. Construction of a two storey dwelling will obstruct long views from the western end of Courtmead Road, from the public footpath abutting the northern boundary and from within the site itself. The views across open countryside to the distant South Downs are a distinctive feature of the southern edges of the Cuckfield conservation area and they engender a particularly strong sense of place. Loss of these views will diminish an important quality of this part of the designated area and as a result this weighs against the favourable recommendation of the application proposals. However, the area in which the diminution will be experienced is limited to the western end of Courtmead Road, the public footpath and from within the site itself. From elsewhere in the southern fringes of the conservation area, similar panoramic southerly views will remain. Thus, while there is damage to a component of the conservation area, the special character of the conservation area as a whole will be preserved. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that 'Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.' Ecology The application has been supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Phase 1 Habitat Assessment that confirms the site supports three habitats: moderately species rich amenity grassland; species rich hedgerow and a boundary fence. The report identifies that the hedgerow could potentially support suitable habitat for the following species: dormice, great crested newts, grass snakes and nesting birds. The species rich hedgerow supports the greatest biodiversity value of any of the habitats recorded and to preserve this National Biodiversity Action Plan habitat and to avoid any potential infringement of protected species legalisation, the report recommends that this habitat should remain in situ and measures should be taken to protect the hedgerow during the course of the development where possible. The site and illustrative layout provided indicates that there is ample space on the site to ensure that this is achieved. Two ponds that could potentially support breeding great crested newts were also identified within 500 metres of the site and it was recommended that a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment be undertaken in order to establish the value of these ponds for this species. This has been done and the assessment concludes that precautionary mitigation should be put in place ahead of the start of the development to ensure that the valuable habitat of the hedgerow is protected in its entirety to ensure there is no risk of construction traffic operating 187 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

180 within 1 metre of the edge of this hedge. Furthermore a repeat appraisal is recommended within 1 month of the commencement of construction to ensure that the site has been managed appropriately and to ensure that and amphibian hibernacula that any have been created can be searched and removed. The contents and recommendations of these reports have been considered by the County Ecologist who has confirmed that he has no objections to the principle of the proposed development subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions to control its implementation in line with the recommendations set out in the applicant's reports. With this precautionary approach in place and with suitably worded conditions it is considered that the impact on biodiversity is limited and that the application complies with Policy C5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and the objectives of the NPPF. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS: ACCESS/PARKING: As an outline application with all matters reserved the access arrangements are not for consideration at this stage. Notwithstanding this, WSCC Highways Authority has confirmed that they would seek provision of two parking spaces for a dwelling of this size in this area of which there is space to provide. Furthermore, access from the private road on to the highway would appear to be suitable to support this development. On this basis they have raised no concerns from a highway safety perspective. NEIGHBOUR AMENITY Similarly with no details of the development to consider at this stage, the impact on the amenities of the adjacent occupiers, specifically Newbury, cannot be determined at this stage. However the illustrative plans and size of the plot would indicate that there is sufficient space on the site to erect a single dwelling without causing significant harm to the amenities of these adjacent occupiers. THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING GENERAL REGULATIONS 1992 A number of representations have been received that make reference to Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations Regulation 9 states: "Any grant of planning permission by an interested planning authority for development [of any land by that interested planning authority] shall ensure only for the benefit of the applicant interested planning authority, except in the case of development of any land by an interested planning authority jointly with any other person where that person is specified in the application for planning permission as a joint developer, in which case the permission shall ensure for the benefit of the applicant interested planning authority and that other person." This is a matter for the applicant and is not relevant to the consideration of this planning application. EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT The applicant has carried out an Equality Impact Assessment in relation to this proposal. This concludes: "Although this land was not intended for or designed as open space, some residents, 188 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

181 especially pre-school children and a youth club group, have informed the Council that they have used it for this purpose. If it were lost and not replaced there would be some loss of amenity to those children." This impact needs to be weighed against all the other material planning considerations outlined in this report. ASSET OF COMMUNITY VALUE It is understood that an application has been made by Cuckfield Parish Council to have the application site registered as an Asset of Community Value. This is a separate process outside of the planning regulations and is not considered material to the consideration of this planning application. Conclusions The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land and therefore in this respect the Local Plan policies are not up to date. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF clearly indicates that in these circumstances planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as a whole. The NPPF also indicates that all housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The application site, whilst falling outside of the built up area as defined by the Mid Sussex Local Plan, lies immediately adjacent the built up area boundary and is within close walking distance of the village centre and all its amenities. It is therefore deemed to be in a sustainable location. Whilst the application is in outline form with all matters reserved for future consideration, illustrative plans have been provided which indicate that a single dwelling could be designed and sited to sit comfortably in a spacious garden setting that would respect the existing building line along Courtmead Road therefore preserving the distinctive character of the designated Conservation Area. Some harm may arise from this proposal as a result of the loss of panoramic views out of and across the site to the south, and also as a result of the loss of the existing area of informal open space. However the views into/across the site are only one component of the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition the area of open space has been demonstrated to have limited recreational value and there is considered to be adequate provision of open space elsewhere in Cuckfield. It is considered that the limited harm generated by this proposal is not sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the proposal. Careful attention has been paid to all the objection letters and issues they raise, but for the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and can be supported. ; APPENDIX A - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Approval of the details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of 189 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

182 the site (hereinafter called the "reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development on site. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. 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 Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act Pre-commencement conditions No development shall commence unless and until samples and/or a schedule of materials and finishes to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed dwelling have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the Conservation Area and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 3. No development shall commence unless and until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with the details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, such details to include proposed surface water and foul drainage and means of disposal. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily drained and to accord with policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 4. Prior to the commencement of development and with particular regard to the species rich hedgerow on the western boundary, all retained vegetation will be protected using Heras type fencing in accordance with BS5837:2012 and the supporting ecological reports. Reason: In accordance with NPPF (109 & 118) and Mid Sussex saved policies C5 and C6. 5. Prior to development or any preparatory works and to support the detailed applications updated ecological surveys will be completed and submitted for approval. All proposed ecological mitigation will be expected to be translated into relevant plans and reports. Reason: In accordance with NPPF (109 & 118) and Mid Sussex saved policies C5 and C6. 6. Between the date of this approval and the development commencing, the site shall be subject to a regular mowing regime. Reason: To prevent ecological enrichment and in accordance with NPPF (109 and 118) and Mid Sussex saved policies C5 & C Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

183 7. Construction phase No removal of any tree or shrub shall be carried out on site between March and August inclusive in any year, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where vegetation must be cleared during the bird breeding season a check for nesting birds by a suitably qualified ecologist will be required. Any vegetation containing occupied nests will be retained until the young have fledged. The location details of the compensatory nesting provision to be supplied to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to their erection. Reason: In accordance with NPPF (109 and 118). 8. Pre-occupation conditions The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until provision for parking has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and such provision shall thereafter be used only for the parking. Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking of vehicles clear of adjacent highways and to accord with Policy T6 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 9. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupier unless and until there has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority full details of a hard and soft landscaping scheme and these works shall be carried out as approved. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 1. In accordance with Article 31 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended), the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and developers advice can be found at or by phone on Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 191 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

184 1990 with regard to your duty of care not to cause the neighbours of the site a nuisance. Accordingly, you are requested that: - Hours of construction/demolition on site are restricted only to: Mondays to Fridays hrs; Saturdays hrs; No construction/demolition work on Sundays or Public Holidays. - Measures shall be implemented to prevent dust generated on site from crossing the site boundary during the demolition/construction phase of the development. - No burning of materials shall take place on site at any time. If you require any further information on these issues, please contact Environmental Protection on APPENDIX B - CONSULTATIONS ENGLISH HERITAGE Thank you for your letter of 25 October 2013 notifying English Heritage of the scheme for planning permission relating to the above site. Our specialist staff have considered the information received and we do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. Recommendation The application(s) should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice. It is not necessary for us to be consulted again on this application. However, if you would like further advice, please contact us to explain your request. We can then let you know if we are able to help further and agree a timetable with you. MSDC CONSERVATION ADVISOR THE SITE The site is located to the south of the western end of Courtmead Road, within the Cuckfield Conservation area. It is a greenfield, turfed open space, enclosed variously by hedges and post and rail fences, and presently used as a community amenity. A public footpath runs along the northern boundary and open countryside abuts the site to the south. A substantial dwelling in a spacious garden setting - typical of Courtmead Road - sits close to the eastern boundary, while allotments abut the site to the west, with the Grade I listed Holy Trinity Church beyond. The built form loosely enclosing Courtmead Road was developed over an extended period and incorporates several different periods and styles. At the western end of the street, many of the Arts and Crafts style dwellings are by local architect Harold Turner, who was much influenced by the Garden City movement. There is a discrete, but consistent building line, with substantial, two storey dwellings sitting comfortably in spacious, well planted settings. The street is edged with soft verges and hedges, giving a gently enclosed, semi-rural character to 192 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

185 the streetscene. Views to the west, north and east from within the proposal site are generally constrained by hedging and adjacent trees and shrubbery. However to the south, panoramic views exist across open countryside to the Downs. Similar long views across the site to the south occur from the adjacent public footpath and the western end of Courtmead Road. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT In outline, it is proposed to construct a dwelling designed and scaled to complement the neighbouring forms. The new build will sit comfortably in a spacious garden setting and respect the existing staggered building line, thereby preserving the distinctive development pattern typical of Courtmead Road. POTENTIAL IMPACTS While increasing the existing level of development at the western end of Courtmead Road, residential development of the site will end the existing community use and obstruct panoramic views to the south. The new development will appear in views to the east from the Holy Trinity Church and thus impact the visual quality of its setting to some degree. ACTUAL IMPACTS The street frontage of the site is bounded by an existing fence and a gate, and its other boundaries are well defined by fences and shrubbery. The present character of the site is thus of a gently enclosed, green space and in consequence, the proposal is unlikely to significantly alter the general sense of enclosure in the immediate vicinity. The site is abutted by gardens and allotments to either side. The intended use of much of it as a private garden is thus appropriate to the local context and the new use would have minimal impact on the existing character of this part of the conservation area. Although marginally increasing the present level of development in the immediate vicinity, the new building will in effect continue the existing row of dwellings loosely enclosing the south side of Courtmead Road. It will respect the existing building line and sit comfortably in a spacious garden setting. The built form will be designed and scaled to complement neighbouring dwellings, with an appropriate palette of locally characteristic materials. The proposed building would thus integrate successfully into the local context, respecting the existing pattern of development and avoiding the introduction of any foreign elements to the streetscene of Courtmead Road. Other than increasing the existing level of development to some extent, the proposal would not result in harm to the streetscene character of Courtmead Road. The proposed dwelling would appear in views to the east from the Grade I listed Holy Trinity Church. However, the new building will be largely screened by intervening shrubbery, and it will be only partially visible against a busy backdrop of trees, shrubbery and occasional buildings. The new dwelling is unlikely to stand out as an individually intrusive element and it will therefore have little impact on the visual quality of the setting of the designated heritage asset. The main impact of the proposed development on the character of the immediate vicinity will be the loss of panoramic views to the south. Construction of a two storey dwelling will obstruct long views from the western end of Courtmead Road, from the public footpath abutting the 193 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

186 northern boundary and from within the site itself. The views across open countryside to the distant South Downs are a distinctive feature of the southern edges of the Cuckfield conservation area and they engender a particularly strong sense of place. Loss of these views will significantly diminish an important quality of this part of the designated area. CONCLUSION In its present undeveloped state, the proposal site makes a modest contribution to the open, semi- rural character of the immediate locality, with its greatest value being in allowing long views across open countryside to the distant South Downs. Loss of these views will significantly diminish an important quality of this part of the designated area. However, the area in which the diminution will be experienced is limited to the western end of Courtmead Road, the public footpath and from within the site itself. From elsewhere in the southern fringes of the conservation area, similar panoramic southerly views will remain. Thus, while there is damage to a component of the conservation area, the special character of the conservation area as a whole will not be substantially harmed. Section 134 of the NPPF states that 'Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.' An on balance decision will need to be made as to whether the benefits of development outweigh the damage to the character of a component of the Cuckfield Conservation Area. MSDC Environmental Protection I confirm that Environmental Protection have no comments to make in respect to the above outline planning application. MSDC Street Naming and Numbering Officer I note from the weekly list that this application will require address allocation if approved. Please could I ask you to ensure that the following informative is included in any approval decision notice. Informative: Info29 "The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and advice for developers can be found at or by phone on " WSCC Highways This 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. A site visit can be arranged on request. I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments. The application seeks outline approval for the construction of a 5 bedroom dwelling to the west of an existing dwelling situated at the end of a private road (Courtmead Road), therefore we as the highway authority are limited to what we can advise and condition. The nearest public highway that WSCC maintain is Broad Street, being a class C road with a speed limit of 194 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

187 30mph. The access from the private road on to the highway would appear to be suitable to support this 1 dwelling development. With regards to parking, no details have been provided as to the amount. However going by WSCC's car parking demand calculator a minimum of 2 spaces would meet our current guidelines for a dwelling of this size in this area. Cycle parking is also advised to mitigate the need for a private vehicle and promote a more sustainable mode of transport. No concerns would be raised to this application from a highway safety perspective. WSCC Ecology There is no ecological objection to the principle of the proposed development subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions to control its implementation. Ecologically, the site is limited with the main interest being confined to the margins. The margins are to remain intact and I propose that a condition is imposed to secure their protection during construction. Should the LPA be minded to approve and should there be a delay in implementation, to avoid any undue impacts on ecology I recommend that the site is kept closely mown until construction starts. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: Site maintenance prior to development Between the date of this approval and the development commencing, the site shall be subject to a regular mowing regime. Reason: To prevent ecological enrichment and in accordance with NPPF (109 & 118) and Mid Sussex saved policies C5 & C6. Protection of boundary hedge Prior to the commencement of development and with particular regard to the species rich hedgerow on the western boundary, all retained vegetation will be protected using Heras type fencing in accordance with BS5837:2012 and the supporting ecological reports. Reason: In accordance with NPPF (109 and 118) and Mid Sussex saved policies C5 & C6. Update surveys Prior to development or any preparatory works and to support the detailed applications updated ecological surveys will be completed and submitted for approval. All proposed ecological mitigation will be expected to be translated into relevant plans and reports. Reason: In accordance with NPPF (109 and 118) and Mid Sussex saved policies C5 & C6. Breeding birds No removal of any tree or shrub shall be carried out on site between March and August inclusive in any year, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where vegetation must be cleared during the bird breeding season a check for nesting birds by a suitably qualified ecologist will be required. Any vegetation containing occupied nests will be retained until the young have fledged. The location details of the compensatory nesting provision to be supplied to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to their erection. Reason: In accordance with NPPF (109 and 118). 195 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

188 CUCKFIELD PARISH COUNCIL OBSERVATIONS Cuckfield Parish Council strongly objects to the above application on the following material considerations and planning policies: 1. We would draw the District Council's attention to Reg. 9 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 which states: "9. Effect of planning permission Any grant of planning permission by an interested planning authority for development [ of any land by that interested planning authority ] 1 shall enure only for the benefit of the applicant interested planning authority, except in the case of development of any land by an interested planning authority jointly with any other person where that person is specified in the application for planning permission as a joint developer, in which case the permission shall enure for the benefit of the applicant interested planning authority and that other person." The current application has been made by the District Council in its sole name. The effect of Reg. 9 means that any permission granted as a result of the application is personal to the District Council (it does not run with the land as a normal planning permission would and cannot be transferred to a private developer). On this basis the Parish would rightly challenge whether the District Council has the requisite statutory authority to itself develop the site. 2. In any case, we also believe that for an outline plan to be validated in a Conservation area is highly unusual and goes against MSDC's own policy regarding such applications. The plans submitted contained very little information and the use of reserved matters to determine the outcome in such a sensitive area is, in our view not following planning best practice. We believe that in conjunction with point 1 above, the application should be withdrawn and only a full application be considered. 3. The proposed dwelling would be outside the Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB); a boundary agreed and uncontested by MSDC in Cuckfield's Neighbourhood Plan. We believe that granting permission outside the BUAB not only goes against MSDC's own policy (C1), it also sets a dangerous precedent for future proposed development outside the BUAB. Previous appeal decisions reinforce this (See Appeal Decision APP/D3830/A/12/ Land at Broad Street, Cuckfield, where the inspector clearly stated that the building of one dwelling outside the Built-Up boundary 'could contribute to a cumulative undermining of the effectiveness of built-up area boundaries, which have been designated with the protection of open countryside in mind', and that, with the lack of MSDC's land supply in mind, the building of one dwelling outside the BUAB could not be justified on this grounds as the proposed scheme was 'too small to make a significant contribution to addressing housing shortages or other community needs'. 4. There is a decision by an Inspector of the Secretary of State in relation to the land which concludes that it is not suitable for development (the 1993 Haywards Heath Report). This is a material consideration for the purposes of this application and the District Council has a duty to consider the importance of consistency with this decision and fully justify any proposed departure from it. 5. This site is very clearly an important asset to the village, not only from a social and amenity 196 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

189 point of view with the open space it provides, but also from a local heritage point of view, given its proximity to the Grade 1 listed Holy Trinity Church. 6. The specific policies we would cite to support our objections are as follows: - C9 of the Local Plan - A proposal involving the incorporation of agricultural land or other open land into residential curtilages will not be permitted when it is considered that such a change would result in a reduction in the character of the locality. The building of a dwelling would change the character of this at present open space. - B6 of the Local Plan - A proposal for development which would result in the loss of areas of public or private open space of particular importance to the locality by virtue of their recreational, historical, conservation, wildlife or amenity value will not be permitted. Where such open space is to be lost, for whatever reason, appropriate provision may be sought elsewhere. This proposal clearly falls foul of this policy and we do not believe there is a viable alternative to this site. - B12 and B15 of the Local Plan. Policies protecting conservation areas are clearly relevant when assessing the above application. - R2 of the Local Plan. Recreation Proposals which would result in the loss of existing formal or informal open space with recreational or amenity value whether privately or publicly owned, will only be permitted where the applicant can demonstrate that a replacement site has been identified and will be developed to provide facilities of an equivalent or improved standard. This new site must be fully operational prior to development commencing on the original site. Obviously relevant when considering this application. Although MSDC has verbally offered mitigation for loss of Open and Play space in January 2013, we have no proposal before us to consider. - DP16 of the emerging District Plan: It was also felt the development here would adversely affect views to the National Park. We would also ask that adequate weight and attention be given to the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan (shortly to go to examination stage). MSDC has confirmed that is in conformity with the District Plan and has not proposed any changes to the Built-up Area Boundary shown in that Plan. - CNP 1 - which sets out CPC policy regarding development in Cuckfield's Conservation Areas. This application, being outline only, in no way demonstrates that the proposed new building would be designed to reflect the special characteristics of the Cuckfield Conservation Area, all matters being reserved. - CNP 3 - which defines the BUAB. - CNP 5 - regarding the protection of the countryside. This application is contrary to this policy because an important view out of the village will be blocked. The policy states that: 'Outside of the Built up Area Boundary, priority will be given to protecting and enhancing the countryside from inappropriate development. A proposal for development will only be permitted where: a) It is allocated for development in Policy CNP 6 (a) and (b) or would be in accordance with Policies CNP 10, CNP 14 and CNP 18 in the Neighbourhood Plan or other relevant planning policies applying to the area, and b) It would not have a detrimental impact on, and would enhance, landscape of substantial landscape value or sensitivity, and c) It would not have an adverse impact on the landscape setting of Cuckfield and d) It would maintain the distinctive views of the surrounding countryside from public vantage points within, and adjacent to, the built up area, in particular those defined on map 5' 197 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

190 Significantly, none of the above policies received any objections when the Neighbourhood Plan was put forward for consultation, nor was the site put forward as a potential development site. CNP 18 - and the allocation of the proposed site as an 'Open Space' 198 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

191 MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 23 MAR 2017 PART III OTHER MATTERS APPENDIX Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

192 Cuckfield 1. DM/15/1306 Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey Land Parcel Adjacent Newbury Courtmead Road Cuckfield West Sussex RH17 5LP The erection of a new detached house on land to the West of Newbury, Courtmead Road. SDP GRID REF: EAST NORTH POLICY: Asset of Community Value / Areas of Special Control for Adverts / Built Up Areas / Conservation Area / Countryside Area of Dev. Restraint / / ODPM CODE: Minor Dwellings 8 WEEK DATE: 21st May 2015 ward members: Cllr Robert Salisbury / Cllr Pete Bradbury / CASE OFFICER: Mr Steven King 200 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

193 PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider the recommendation of the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning on the application for planning permission as detailed above. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single detached dwelling with accommodation over four floors on land at Courtmead Road in Cuckfield. Application 13/03476/OUT granted outline consent for the erection of a single five bedroomed dwelling house and double garage at this site. Application 14/03388/FUL, an identical application to this one, was brought before Members on 13 November The decision notice approving the application was issued on 15 December Proceedings by way of judicial review were brought against the Council in respect of its decision to grant the said permission. It is intended that the claim for judicial review will be settled by consent between the parties, the effect of which will be to quash the Council's decision to grant planning permission under reference 14/03388/FUL. In light of the above this new planning application has been submitted to the Council for determination. There have been no changes to the proposed application in terms of its size, scale, layout and/or access arrangements to application 14/03388/FUL. Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) and local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." The development plan comprises The Mid Sussex Local Plan and the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan. The scheme would conflict with the countryside policies of the Mid Sussex Local Plan (C1) and the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan (CNP5) as the scheme proposes a new house outside of the built up area as defined in those plans. However, the NPPF is a material consideration for the purposes of s.38(6) of the 2004 Act. It carries significant weight given its status as national planning policy. 201 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

194 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is important in this context. It provides that: Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development stating that for decision-taking this means: where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. Policy C1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan is a housing supply policy for the purposes of paragraph 49 of the NPPF. It has been established in numerous appeals that policy C1 in the Mid Sussex Local Plan is not up to date insofar as it relates to the provision of housing. It is considered that the same reasoning applies to policy CNP5 of the now made Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) as this is also a policy that restricts the supply of housing on land that is not within the built up area of the CNP. It is considered that following the approach set out in paragraph 49 the application should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Whilst there are of course a number of other development policies that remain relevant to the determination of the application the approach to be taken to the determination of the application is that the scheme should be approved unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or specific NPPF policies indicate development should be restricted. As set out later in the report in relation to open space, this is not a situation where specific NPPF policies indicate that development should be restricted. The application therefore falls to be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of development set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The NPPF states that are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. Economic role. It is considered that the scheme will contribute to the economic role of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. There will be an economic benefit during the 202 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

195 construction phase of the development. There will also be a modest benefit to the local economy from having an additional residential unit in the village from the additional spend that would be generated by the occupier(s) of the property. The proposal would also generate New Homes Bonus funding, as well as additional Council Tax receipts. Social role The application site, whilst falling outside of the built up area as defined by the Mid Sussex Local Plan and the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan, lies immediately adjacent the built up area boundary and is within close walking distance of the village centre and all its amenities. It is therefore deemed to be in a sustainable location. The provision of a new dwelling will make a small but useful contribution to the district s housing supply and will help meet the identified need for housing. The NPPF seeks to promote a {\i strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being }. The proposal satisfies the social dimension of sustainable development. Due to the location of the site close to the built-up edge of Cuckfield where there are a number of services, it is considered that the location of the site is suitable and sustainable. Environmental Role The proposed dwelling is considered to be suitably designed to reflect the character of the surrounding area, and will not appear as an overdevelopment of this generous plot. Whilst it is accepted that the dwelling is substantial in size, it is not considered that its size or scale would cause harm to the overall character of the conservation area. Some limited harm may arise from this proposal as a result of the loss of panoramic views out of and across the site to the south. However the views into/across the site are only one component of the Conservation Area as a whole. Whilst there will be some impact on the character of the conservation area through the development of this site it is considered that the overall character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved. The loss of previous open space has been considered. It is considered that the loss of the open space is acceptable, having regard to policy R2 of the MSLP, policy DP22 of the emerging District Plan and paragraph 74 of the NPPF. It is also material that the land has now been appropriated for planning purposes. It is considered that the limited impact generated by this proposal by the loss of panoramic views out of and across the site to the south is significantly outweighed by the benefits of the proposal. For these reasons, taking into account the advice set out within the NPPF it is felt that this application should be granted. Careful attention has been paid to all the representations and issues they raise, but for the reasons set out above and detailed further below, it is considered that on balance the proposal is acceptable and should be granted. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommend permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS 203 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

196 2 letters of objection: - gap between the building and the adjoining building on Newbury is out of character with the spacing of buildings on Courtmead Road, giving the impression of overcrowding. -building will be a monolithic, dominating structure overshadowing and being completely out of keeping with Courtmead Road - overall footprint of the building is too large for that end of Courtmead Road -apart from a small bit of "Tudorfication" the building has the appearance of a modern building which will be unsightly in the setting in which it is placed -the building is too tall - there would be no public benefit of the type envisaged by the Framework, only detriment. - very substantial harm will result SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS (Full responses from Consultees are included at the end of this report as Appendix B) English Heritage No comments. The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice. Principal Consultant, Calyx Environmental Ltd Subject to conditions, no significant adverse impacts on biodiversity conservation are anticipated. Highway Authority To be reported. Conservation Officer The proposed development is not typical of Courtmead Road and it will result in some degree of harm to the existing spatial characteristics at the western end of the street. However, the area in which the damage will be experienced is limited to the western end of Courtmead Road. While affecting this particular component of the conservation area, the new development will not result in substantial harm to the special character of the designated heritage asset as a whole. An on balance decision should be made as to whether the benefits of development outweigh the minor damage to the character of a component of the Cuckfield Conservation Area. CUCKFIELD PARISH COUNCIL OBSERVATIONS OBJECT: Whilst the Council note some adjustment has been made to the footprint of the proposed building, no significant changes are considered to have taken place over the previous application and earlier comments made by Cuckfield Parish Council remain. The application conflicts with Neighbourhood Plan (NP) Policies: CNP 1 a) i. & d) intensive, narrowly spaced, overbearing in proximity to Grade 1 Listed Holy Trinity Church and neighbouring property. CNP 5 a), c), d), outside Built Up Area Boundary, reduces viewing point out of the village (Strategic View 10 as noted on Map 5 in the NP), results in negative impact on landscape. It is not considered a sustainable development due to significant excavation required to accommodate the property. Principle of development on this site has not been achieved for this application as Outline permission was obtained by the Local Authority only (The Town and Country Planning 204 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

197 General Regulations 1992 Regulation 9. refers). CNP 6 Housing Allocations, in relation to the stated Districts lack of a five year housing land supply (5YHLS), the Neighbourhood Plan shows that Cuckfield does not have a shortage; it has identified its own needs in excess of local need. A single site will not make a significant contribution to 5YHLS (APP/D3830/A/12/ demonstrates this). Adopted Neighbourhood Plans form part of the Development Plan and can outweigh lack of 5YHLS (we reference the appeal recovered by the Secretary of State: APP/F2415/A/12/ ). The Parish Council strongly emphasises the material change that has taken place in relevant planning policy with the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan having been made by the Secretary of State on 1 October It is now the most up-to-date policy in planning terms and should be given full weight. We also refer to our previous submissions and the copy of the Councils letter to Mrs Sheath dated 13 January 2014 in relation to development of the land in question, our points remain extant. PLEASE NOTE: As the Parish Council own Courtmead Road it will be requesting that, in any development of the plot, the developer &/or owner must first obtain a Licence from Cuckfield Parish Council for access, other rights and to repair accordingly. Introduction Planning permission is sought for the erection of a new detached house on land to the west of Newbury, Courtmead Road, Cuckfield. A previous identical application was brought before Members on 13 November The decision notice approving the application was issued on 15 December Proceedings by way of judicial review were brought against the Council in respect of its decision to grant the said permission. It is intended that the claim for judicial review will be settled by consent between the parties, the effect of which will be to quash the Council's decision to grant planning permission under reference 14/03388/FUL. This application is identical to that submitted under reference 14/03388/FUL. There have been no changes compared to the previous application in terms of its size, scale, layout and/or access arrangements. Regardless of the site s planning history, including the Council s resolution to grant application on application reference 14/03388/FUL last year, this application must be determined on its own merits. Relevant Planning History Application 13/03476/OUT granted outline consent for the erection of a single five bedroomed dwelling house and double garage at this site. As the application was made by the Council for development of Council owned land Regulation 9 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 prevent this consent being relied upon by anyone other than the applicant i.e. the Council. A subsequent planning application (reference 14/01068/FUL) was due to be reported to committee on 16 May The application was recommended for approval but the applicants decided to withdraw the application prior to it being considered by the committee. As set out above, planning permission for the erection of a new detached house on the site was granted on 15 December 2014 under reference 14/03388/FUL. It is intended that the 205 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

198 claim for judicial review will be settled by consent between the parties, the effect of which will be to quash the Council's decision to grant planning permission under reference 14/03388/FUL. Site and Surroundings The application site lies at the end of Courtmead Road immediately adjacent to Newbury, a large detached two storey dwelling, which is currently undergoing works of improvement/alteration. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and measures some 98 metres at its maximum length and has a frontage some 24 metres in width. The land slopes very gently from north to south, is grassed and is enclosed by a mixture of close board fencing, hedging, chain link fencing and post and rail fencing. Access to the land is currently gained at the north east corner of the site, where the land adjoins Courtmead Road. There is an existing pedestrian gate and wider vehicular gate allowing access to the site. 206 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

199 To the north of the application site, public right of way (PROW) 22CU, runs past the site in an east west direction. This PROW extends the full length of Courtmead Road and provides access to Holy Trinity Church, a Grade I listed building that lies some 110 metres to the west of the application site. In between this church and the application site, lie allotments (which immediately abut the application site) and the church graveyard. The other side of the PROW to the north of the application the rear garden of The Old Vicarage is well screened by close boarded fencing and taller mature vegetation and trees. To the south of the application site, lies the Royal Observer Corps Post, an underground bunker which sits within a larger grassed field. In terms of planning policy the site falls outside the built up area of Cuckfield as defined by the Mid Sussex Local Plan and the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan (CNP). In addition the northern half of the site falls within the Cuckfield Conservation Area. Application Details This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single detached dwelling with accommodation over four floors. The building has a broadly rectangular footprint with a projecting wing to the south-western side of the property. It would feature an integral garage on the north-western side of the house. The building would have a single storey element on the eastern side of the building adjacent to Newbury. The house would have a footprint measuring some 20m by 11m with a pitched roof 8.7m in height. The external elevations of the dwelling would be brick, clay tiles with exposed timber fame and render to the gable elevations. The proposed house would be a substantial dwelling and would feature a basement. Whilst the dwelling is described as five bedroomed, within the roof space a 'playroom' is indicated which could easily be used as a bedroom and therefore it is considered more accurate to describe the dwelling as a six bedroom unit. The building would feature accommodation in the roof served by two dormer windows and a roof light on the rear elevation. It would have an integral garage. At the front of the site would be a 1.8m brick wall, with 1.8m timber gates attached to 2m brick piers. List of Policies Mid Sussex Local Plan Policy B1 Design. This policy requires a high standard of design in new developments. Policy B3 - Neighbour Amenity. This policy seeks to resist development where there would be a significant adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Policy B6 - Open Space in Built-Up Areas. This policy seeks to resist the loss of open space. Where such space is lost to development appropriate alternative provision may be sought elsewhere. Policy B10 - Listed Buildings. This policy seeks to protect listed buildings and their settings. Policy B12 - General Design Policy in Conservation Areas. This policy states that within or 207 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

200 abutting conservation areas special attention will be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area and to safeguard the setting of any Listed Building. Policy B15-Setting of Conservation Areas. This policy seeks sympathetic development where it affects the setting of conservation areas and protecting or enhancing of views into and out of a Conservation Area. Policy H11 - Housing in the Countryside. This policy allows dwellings in the countryside where they are for agricultural or forestry workers. Policy T4 - Transport and New Development. This policy requires developers to have a safe vehicular and pedestrian access and to minimise increases in private car trips. Policy T5 - Parking Standards. This policy relates to car standards and sets out where reduced provision could be acceptable. Policy C1 - Countryside Area of Development Restraint. This policy places a general presumption against new development in the countryside. Policy C5 - Area of Importance for Nature Conservation. This policy seeks to minimise the impact on features of nature conservation importance. Policy R2 - Protection of Existing Recreational Open Space. This policy seeks to resist the loss of formal or informal open space Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) The CNP was formally made on 1 October As such the CNP is now a part of the adopted development plan for determining planning applications for the CNP plan area. The following policies in the CNP are relevant to the determination of this application. CNP1 - Design of New Development and Conservation CNP5 - Protect and Enhance the Countryside District Plan On 18th March 2015 Council approved the Pre Submission District Plan for public consultation in May The Plan will then be submitted for examination in July The Pre-Submission version of the Plan takes into account the comments received on the Consultation Draft Plan and includes a housing target. Policy DP 5 of the Pre - Submission Plan sets a housing requirement of 11,050 homes at an average of 650 homes per annum. The Plan is a material planning consideration but little weight can be given to the Plan at this stage. DP910 Protection and Enhancement of the Countryside. This policy permits development in the countryside provided it maintains or where possible enhances the quality of the rural landscape, subject to a number of criteria including that it is necessary for the purposes of agriculture or is supported by a specific policy reference elsewhere in the plan. DP19-Transport. This policy permits development subject to a number of criteria, including that it does not cause a severe impact in terms of road safety, provides adequate car parking, facilitates the use of alternative means of transport to the private car and minimises the need to travel. 208 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

201 DP22-Leisure and Cultural Facilities and Activities. This policy as well as relating to new leisure facilities, seeks to resist the loss of open space unless as assessment has been made to show that the open space is surplus to requirements. 209 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

202 DP24-Character and Design. This policy seeks to ensure that development is of a high quality design, contributes positively to the public realm, does not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity and protects open spaces that contribute to the character of the area. DP32-Listed Buildings and Other Buildings of Merit. This policy seeks to protect listed buildings and their settings. DP33-Conservation Areas. This policy states that developments in conservation areas will be required to preserve and enhance its special character and appearance. DP37-Biodiversity. This policy seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity by incorporating biodiversity features within developments, avoiding disturbance to sensitive habitats and offsetting unavoidable damage to biodiversity. National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The NPPF sets out the government's policy in order to ensure that the planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development, such that the planning system needs to perform an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. This means ensuring sufficient land of the right type to support growth; providing a supply of housing and creating a high quality environment with accessible local services; and using natural resources prudently. With specific reference to decision-taking the document provides the following advice in paragraph 187: "Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decisiontakers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area." Para 197 states that "In assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development". In turn, paragraph 14 of the NPPF states: At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For plan-making this means that: - local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; - Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or 210 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

203 specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. 211 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

204 For decision-taking this means: - 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 permission unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out the 12 core principles that should underpin the planning system. This includes planning being genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. Paragraph 185 of the NPPF states Outside these strategic elements, neighbourhood plans will be able to shape and direct sustainable development in their area. Once a neighbourhood plan has demonstrated its general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and is brought into force, the policies it contains take precedence over existing non-strategic policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood, where they are in conflict. Local planning authorities should avoid duplicating planning processes for nonstrategic policies where a neighbourhood plan is in preparation. Paragraph 198 of the NPPF states Where a Neighbourhood Development Order has been made, a planning application is not required for development that is within the terms of the order. Where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted. Principle of Development Planning legislation holds that the determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Specifically Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states: "In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to: a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to application, b) And local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and c) Any other material considerations." Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides: "If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Using this as the starting point the development plan in Mid Sussex consists of the Small Scale Housing Allocations Document (2008), the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP) (2004) and the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) (2014). The scheme would conflict with the countryside policies of the Mid Sussex Local Plan (C1) and the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan (CNP5) as the scheme proposes a new house 212 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

205 outside of the built up area as defined in those plans. The scheme would therefore be contrary to the development plan. 213 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

206 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is however a material consideration for the purposes of s.38(6) of the 2004 Act. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF is important in this context. It states that: "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites." This Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply for the District. The housing requirement set out in the now revoked South East Plan is no longer relevant. However, the objectively assessed housing need figure for the District is yet to be tested through the District Plan examination. As such the Council is unable at present to demonstrate the five year supply of deliverable sites, since it does not have an agreed requirement to calculate this supply against. As such, the Council s housing supply policies should not be considered up to date. It has been established in numerous appeals that policy C1 in the Mid Sussex Local Plan is not up to date insofar as it relates to the provision of housing. It is considered that the same reasoning applies to policy CNP5 of the now made Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) as this is also a policy that restricts the supply of housing on land that is not within the built up area of the CNP. In those circumstances paragraph 14 needs to be considered. It states that: "At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means: 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 permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. The second bullet point of the decision taking section is relevant to the determination of this application. Thus as policy C1 cannot be considered up to date (applying paragraph 49 of the NPPF) the Council should be granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. As set out later in the report in relation to open space, this is not a situation where specific NPPF policies indicate that development should be restricted. The approach that should be taken is that the development is assessed against the policy criterion set out in paragraph 14 to see whether any adverse impacts the scheme would 214 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

207 have would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 215 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

208 Recent case law has confirmed that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not an additional test for development. Therefore the sustainability credentials of the development are measured within the balance of paragraph 14, as part of the weighing up process. In deciding how to strike the balance set out in paragraph 14 it is still appropriate to consider the extent to which the scheme complies with the policies of the development plan that remain up to date. This Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply for the District. On this basis, despite the fact the application site falls just outside of the defined built up area of Cuckfield where policies C1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and CNP5 of the CNP are applicable, and despite the fact that housing development is not one of the listed types of development permissible under these policies, the weight afforded to them is diminished on the basis that they are out of date for the purposes of NPPF paragraph 49. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN It is considered that the same point applies to policy CNP5 of the CNP. The CNP forms part of the development plan now that it has been made by the District Council. Therefore, this policy is now out of date insofar as it relates to housing land supply in the same way as policy C1 in the MSLP is out of date insofar as it relates to housing land supply. This approach to Neighbourhood Plan policies was confirmed by a recent appeal decision relating to an outline planning application for 211 residential units in Winslow (appeal reference APP/J0405/A/13/ ). This appeal was determined by the Secretary of State (SoS) on 20 th November In his decision letter the SoS states: " The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector s assessment of housing land need issues at IR He has had regard to the Council s position, stated in its letter of 28 October 2014 that it cannot demonstrate a Framework-compliant 5 year housing land supply, and that it estimates the supply to be about 4.4 years. Having regard to Framework paragraph 49, the Secretary of State therefore considers that the relevant development plan policies for the supply of housing are out of date. This includes saved Policy RA14 in the Adopted Aylesbury Vale Local Plan and the relevant policies in the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan, notably Policies 2 and 3, even though that Plan was made very recently. The Secretary of State considers that the presumption at paragraph 14 of the Framework applies to this appeal. He agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would provide sustainable homes that would have economic, social and environmental benefits (IR135), and that in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply the resulting social benefits attract significant weight in favour of the development (IR136)". The Government recently undertook a consultation exercise on various aspects of the planning system. This consultation closed on 29 September Paragraph 1.3 of this consultation states It is important that communities have confidence in positively prepared neighbourhood plans. The government s view is that neighbourhood plans, once made (and so part of the development plan), should be upheld as an effective means to shape and direct development in the neighbourhood planning area in question; for example to ensure that 216 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

209 the best located sites are developed. Therefore the government s view is that the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with key policies in a neighbourhood plan is likely to be substantial. This should be taken into account by decision-makers, even where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. This is a consultation document so the weight that can be attached to it is very limited. It is also considered that in this instance, because the proposal is not a major development (it is for one house) that it would not be reasonable to argue that any conflict with policy CNP5 of the CNP would result in a substantial adverse impact in this instance. The existing planning permission for a dwelling at this site adds weight to this view. On 10 July 2014 Nick Boles released a Ministerial Statement relating to Neighbourhood Planning. This stresses the importance the Government places on Neighbourhood Planning. This is reflected in paragraph 198 of the NPPF. The Governments Chief Planning Officer Steve Quartermain sent out a planning update letter in March Within this update it states Ministers would like to draw attention to some appeal decisions which demonstrate the careful balance of considerations required by the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of a 5 year housing supply. A link is then provided to 6 appeal cases where appeals were dismissed even though there was not a 5 year housing land supply. The circumstances of these decisions which all related to major house building schemes are not comparable to this application. The decisions simply highlight the fact that simply because there is not a 5 year housing land supply, it does not automatically follow that a housing scheme will be acceptable. Reference was made in the challenge to the previous grant of planning permission at this site to a Secretary of State appeal decision dated 4 September 2014 at a site in college Lane, Hurstpierpoint (reference 13/01250/FUL). This application sought consent for the erection of 81 dwellings. At the time of determining this appeal the Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was not made. The Secretary of State in his decision letter gave significant weight to the fact the emerging NP has identified housing allocations elsewhere within the NP area. The Secretary of State dismissed this appeal. This appeal decision is noted but is not considered to have any significant bearing on the determination of this application. The more recent Secretary of State decision in Winslow referred to above clearly states that where there is no five year land supply the relevant development plan policies for the supply of housing are out of date. In this case the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan is made and is therefore part of the development plan. Reference was also made in the challenge to the previous grant of planning permission to a decision by the Secretary of State at Malmesbury in Wiltshire dated 8 September 2014 for a development of 77 dwellings (appeal reference ). In this decision the Secretary of State gave significant weight to the fact that the emerging Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan (MNP) had identified housing allocations elsewhere within the MNP area and that the Council had yet to complete an up-to-date objectively assessed housing land supply analysis against which to measure the overall MNP proposals. The Secretary of State dismissed this appeal. Again, whilst this appeal decision is noted it is not considered to have any significant bearing on the determination of this application for the same reason as outlined above. Assessment of the three dimensions of sustainable development in the NPPF As set out above, the NPPF (para 7) sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 8 goes on to say that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependant. 217 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

210 THE ECONOMIC ROLE Localism, Growth and Economic Impact Part 6 of the Localism Act was enacted on 16th January This requires the Local Planning Authority to have regard to local finance considerations (so far as material to the application) as well as the provisions of the Development Plan and any other material considerations. The New Homes Bonus commenced in April 2011, and will match fund the additional council tax raised for new homes and empty properties brought back into use, with an additional amount for affordable homes, for the following six years. The New Homes Bonus is now a material planning consideration and if permitted the LPA would receive a New Homes Bonus for the new dwelling proposed. Furthermore, whilst the development is only of a modest scale it would make a positive (albeit marginal) contribution to the building industry in the area. At a recent appeal decision (28 Gatehouse Lane) where the Inspector was considering a similar single dwelling just outside of the defined built up area of Bolney, it was determined that this would satisfy the economic dimension of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. SOCIAL ROLE The NPPF seeks to promote a strong vibrant and healthy community by providing a supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generation and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and supports it health, social and cultural well-being. Housing supply The Council's lack of five year housing supply has already been outlined above, and the erection of single dwelling will clearly add to Council's housing stock, albeit only a marginal contribution. Health, social and cultural well-being Appropriation If a local authority acquires land for a statutory purpose, it must hold the land for that purpose until it either appropriates or disposes of the land in accordance with its statutory powers. "Land appropriation" in this context means transferring the use of land from one purpose to another. The Council has a general power to appropriate land from one statutory purpose to another under Section 122(1) of the 1972 Local; Government Act (LGA) which provides that: Subject to the following provisions of this section, a principal council may appropriate for any purpose for which the council are authorised by this or any other enactment to acquire land by agreement any land which belongs to the council and is no longer required for the purpose for which it is held immediately before the appropriation; but the appropriation of land by a council by virtue of this subsection shall be subject to the rights of other persons in, over or in respect of the land concerned. The Council must be satisfied that: (a) the land is no longer required for the purpose or function for which it is held immediately before the appropriation; and (b) the purpose for which they intend to appropriate the land is a purpose for which the Council is authorised by statute to acquire land by agreement. 218 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

211 A principal council can only appropriate land under s.122 (1) Local Government Act 1972 if the land is no longer required for the purpose for which it is currently held. In reaching this decision, the council must consider the public need within the area for the existing use. The council's decision cannot be challenged unless it was made in bad faith or if it was a decision that no reasonable authority could possibly have taken. By way of background the site was acquired by the Council s predecessor in 1938 to provide allotments. Following the creation of Cuckfield Parish Council in 1986, the Council s allotment functions passed to the Parish Council and the Council voluntarily transferred various parcels of land to the Parish Council for allotments and a burial ground. The Courtmead Road Land, which had never been used for allotments, was retained by the Council as the site of a potential building plot. Consent to the appropriation of the Courtmead Road Land from allotments to housing was obtained from the Secretary of State for the Environment in April No formal appropriation took place at that time, but the consent remains valid. In the meantime the Courtmead Road Land was used informally as open space. A report was taken to Cabinet on 23 December 2013 recommending that the Council appropriate the said land from statutory allotment land to housing land, and then from housing land to planning purposes pursuant to Section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 with immediate effect. This recommendation was agreed by Cabinet. If land is held or appropriated for planning purposes by the Council, then Section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( the TCPA ) provides that the land can be developed and used by the Council (or any person deriving title from the Council) if it is developed and used in accordance with a valid planning permission, and this is the case, notwithstanding that it interferes with certain private rights such as covenants and easements. When the decision to appropriate the land was taken, there was a planning permission in place (reference 13/03476/OUT) for a single dwelling to be built on the site. The effect of this decision is that after the 23 December 2013 the site was no longer available as allotments or for public open space because it had been appropriated for another purpose by the Council. On the 24th December 2013 the land was then padlocked to prevent any public access to it. It is considered that the appropriation of the land for planning purposes means that it is no longer open space and therefore local plan policy R2 and paragraph 74 of the NPPF are not engaged LOSS OF OPEN SPACE But in any event (i.e. even ignoring the fact that the land has been appropriated), as set out below, the scheme would not breach policies B6 and R2 of the MSLP or policy DP22 of the emerging District Plan or paragraph 74 of the NPPF. Objections to previous applications on this site have been in relation to the loss of the existing open space. This piece of land was said to be used by community groups and members of public for general informal recreational activities. It was registered as an asset of community value on 30 December Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

212 Policy B6 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan states: "Proposals for development which would result in the loss of areas of public or private open space of particular importance to the locality by virtue of their recreational, historical, conservation, wildlife or amenity value will not be permitted. Where such open space is to be lost to development, for whatever reason, appropriate alternative provision may be sought elsewhere." Furthermore Policy R2 of the Local Plan states: "Proposals which would result in the loss of existing formal or informal open space with recreational or amenity value whether privately or publicly owned, will only be permitted where the applicant can demonstrate that a replacement site has been identified and will be developed to provide facilities of an equivalent or improved standard. This new site must be fully operational prior to development commencing on the original site." Paragraph 74 of the NPPF states: "Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: - an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or - the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or - the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss." As noted above permission was granted on 18 December 2013 for the development of this site with a single dwelling. Whilst this approval can solely be implemented by the Council as landowner and applicant, the loss of the open space was accepted at that time. The current application must be determined on its own merits, but it is relevant to note that the Council has previously accepted the principal of the loss of open space. The approved application reference 13/03476/OUT was accompanied by an Open Space Assessment that illustrates that the land has limited recreational value, owing to its size and location. Furthermore the quantitative review of open space provision in Cuckfield demonstrates that there is adequate provision of open space in Cuckfield, whether or not the application site is retained and whether or not the application makes provision for new open space elsewhere in the village. In addition, alternative sites are well distributed in and around the village giving good coverage in terms of accessibility. The conclusion of the report was that there was no need for the site to be retained as open space, nor was there a need for its replacement elsewhere. As such the test in paragraph 74 of the NPPF (namely that an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements) has been met. This was accepted by the Council and planning permission was granted to build on the site. It is considered that the conclusions of this report remain valid and there have not been material changes in circumstances that would warrant a different decision being made in relation to the Open Space Assessment. As such there is no conflict with policies B6 and R2 of the MSLP or policy DP22 of the emerging District Plan or paragraph 74 of the NPPF. 220 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

213 ENVIRONMENTAL ROLE Protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan seeks a high standard of design in all new developments. This is consistent with the aims of the NPPF and the emerging policies of the Cuckfield Neighbourhood Plan, in particular CNP1. The proposed dwelling is quite substantial in size, both in terms of footprint and overall bulk, however this is a large plot, set at the end of a road of large dwellings sat in similarly large plots. As a result it is not considered that it can be suggested that the proposed dwelling would result in an overdevelopment of the plot. However the design and scale of the dwelling in terms of how it sits within the general street scene still needs to be considered. DESIGN AND IMPACT ON THE STREET SCENE The applicants have chosen to adopt a traditional aesthetic for the proposed dwelling, utilising traditional stock bricks, a tile hung upper and plain tiled roof. This design approach is considered reflective of the general character of the existing dwellings along Courtmead Road. From the front elevation the dwelling will have the appearance of a two storey dwelling. The second floor accommodation is contained entirely within the roof slope and served by rear facing dormer windows only, and the basement accommodation is largely below ground. Whilst the proposed dwelling will be one of the tallest within the street (8.7m), there are dwellings of similar height further along the road (Newstead for example), which sit adjacent to lower dwellings and as such the height of the dwelling is not considered particularly uncharacteristic. Courtmead Road has a relatively strong building line along its southern side where the majority of the dwellings sit well back from the road frontage. The main front elevation of the proposed dwelling follows this informal building line and will be set back behind the front elevation of the neighbouring dwelling, Newbury. It is considered that the gap between the proposed dwelling and Newbury to the east is sufficient to mean that the dwelling will fit in satisfactorily within the street scene. The fact that there will be a single storey section on the eastern side of the site adjacent to Newbury will mean that the two properties will not appear cramped together. The proposal therefore complies with policy B1 of the MSLP and policy DP24 of the emerging District Plan. IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE CONSERVATION AREA As noted above, the northern part of the application site falls within the Cuckfield Conservation Area. This Conservation Area excludes the allotments to the immediate west of the application site, and the southern half of the application site, but extends along the entire length of Courtmead Road, and encompasses the Holy Trinity Church and yard to the west of the allotments along with an extensive area of the village centre and surrounds. Policy B12 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy CNP1 of the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to protect the special character and appearance of each Conservation Area with special attention given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area and to safeguard the setting of any Listed Buildings. 221 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

214 Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area by the decision maker. 222 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

215 Cuckfield Conservation Area Appraisal published in 2006 subdivides the designated Conservation Area into 'character areas' and the Courtmead Road area is noted for its detached dwellings set in spacious grounds, with the road and building line dictating the placement of the houses. It is noted that at the western end of Courtmead Road the properties are predominantly designed by Turner following the traditional form and detailing of historic Wealden vernacular. The Comments of the Council s Conservation Officer are summarised at the start of the committee report and set out in full in the appendix (she refers to her previous comments on application 14/03388/FUL). The Conservation Officer states: The proposed development is thus not typical of Courtmead Road and it will result in some degree of harm to the existing spatial characteristics at the western end of the street. However, the area in which the damage will be experienced is limited to the western end of Courtmead Road. While affecting this particular component of the conservation area, the new development will not result in substantial harm to the special character of the designated heritage asset as a whole. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that 'Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.' These comments have been taken into account by your officer. Your officer agrees with the Conservation Officer that any impacts will be limited to the western end of Courtmead Road and certainly amounts to less than substantial harm. The public benefits of the proposal (such as providing an attractive family dwelling in a sustainable location and the economic benefits of constructing a new dwelling in this sustainable location) clearly outweigh the less than substantial harm to a small component of the heritage asset. Overall it is your officer s view that whilst there will be some impact on the character of the conservation area through the development of this site it is considered that the overall character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved. The application therefore complies with policy B12 of the MSLP and policy DP33 of the emerging District Plan and policy CNP1 of the Neighbourhood Plan. The rear (southern) part of the application site is outside of the conservation area boundary. Paragraph 4.54 of the preamble to policy B15 which relates to the setting of conservation areas states Particular attention will also be given to the impact of development located outside but adjacent to a Conservation Area. Such development, if constructed unsympathetically, could have a seriously detrimental impact on the character and appearance of a Conservation Area by affecting its setting and thus views into and out of the area. As the proposed house, driveway and access are within the conservation area the correct approach is to assess this application against policy B12 of the MSLP. With regards to policy B15, as the southern part of the site is a grassed area of land and this would become part of the rear garden of the proposed house, there would be little material change to the appearance of this area. As such the setting of the conservation area would be preserved. 223 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

216 IMPACT ON THE SETTING OF THE LISTED BUILDING As outlined above, the Holy Trinity Church, a Grade I listed building is located some 110 metres to the direct west of the application site. The proposed dwelling would appear in views to the east from this listed building. The intervening shrubbery will provide some screening to the new dwelling and it will of course be seen against the existing backdrop of trees, shrubbery and occasional buildings. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. It is considered that the new dwelling will be unlikely to stand out as an individually intrusive element and due to the distance between the site and the Holy Trinity Church (some 110m) it is not considered that the proposal affects the setting of the designated heritage asset i.e. the listed church will be preserved. English Heritage has not objected to the application, confirming that the decision should be made in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the LPA's specialist conservation advice. The application therefore complies with policy B10 of the MSLP and policy DP32 of the emerging District Plan. IMPACT ON THE VIEWS INTO/OUT OF THE VILLAGE When the earlier outline application was considered it was highlighted that the main impact of the proposed development would be on the character of the immediate vicinity through the loss of panoramic views to the south. Construction of the dwelling will obstruct long views from the western end of Courtmead Road, from the public footpath abutting the northern boundary and from within the site itself. The views across open countryside to the distant South Downs are a distinctive feature of the southern edges of the Cuckfield conservation area and they engender a particularly strong sense of place. Loss of these views will diminish an important quality of this part of the designated area and as a result this weighs against the favourable recommendation of the application proposals. However, the area in which the diminution will be experienced is limited to the western end of Courtmead Road, the public footpath and from within the site itself. From elsewhere in the southern fringes of the conservation area, similar panoramic southerly views will remain. Thus, while there is damage to a component of the heritage asset i.e. the conservation area, the special character of the conservation area as a whole will be preserved. As such there is no conflict with policy B12 of the MSLP. ACCESS/PARKING: Access to the site is to be from the end of Courtmead Road formed by extending the tarmac roadway over the grassed area towards the entrance of the site. The entrance will be formed with timber gates set within a brick wall. Along with the proposed double garage, driveway parking and turning space will be provided to the front of the dwelling. 224 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

217 On this basis the application is deemed to comply with the requirements of Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP19 of the emerging District Plan. 225 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

218 NEIGHBOUR AMENITY Policy B3 of the Local Plan aims to protect the amenity of existing neighbouring residents. Newbury, to the east, is the only adjacent neighbouring property to the application site. The proposed dwelling has been positioned on the application site so that it will sit approximately 1.3m from the mutual boundary at the closest, widening to 2.74m towards the front. The front elevation would be set back from the front elevation of Newbury by some 2.4m. The eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling has been design with a single storey element adjacent to the boundary and then a hipped roof with an eaves height of 5.5m and a ridge height of 8.7m. Two ground floor side facing windows are proposed, which will serve a living room and dining room. Newbury has one ground floor west facing window serving a study and two first floor west facing windows, one serving a bedroom and one serving an ensuite. All of these windows are secondary windows. Whilst therefore the proposed dwelling will be very visible from these openings it is not considered that significant harm would be caused to the amenities of the adjacent occupiers on the basis that the primary aspect for all of these rooms faces away from the proposed development. In terms of the rear projection of the dwelling, again whilst the dwelling will be notable, it is officers opinion that the spacing and orientation and positioning of the dwelling will ensure that no significant harm will be caused through loss of light, loss of privacy of general unneighbourliness. For these reasons the application is deemed to comply with Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. ECOLOGY The original outline application was supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Phase 1 Habitat Assessment that confirmed that the site supports three habitats: moderately species rich amenity grassland; species rich hedgerow and a boundary fence. The report identifies that the hedgerow could potentially support suitable habitat for the following species: dormice, great crested newts, grass snakes and nesting birds. The species rich hedgerow supports the greatest biodiversity value of any of the habitats recorded and to preserve this National Biodiversity Action Plan habitat and to avoid any potential infringement of protected species legalisation, the report recommended that this habitat should remain in situ and measures should be taken to protect the hedgerow during the course of the development where possible. The site and illustrative layout provided at the outline stage indicated that there was ample space on the site to ensure that this is achieved. Two ponds that could potentially support breeding great crested newts were also identified within 500 metres of the site and it was recommended that a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment be undertaken in order to establish the value of these ponds for this species. This was done and the assessment concluded that precautionary mitigation should be put in place ahead of the start of the development to ensure that the valuable habitat of the hedgerow is protected in its entirety to ensure there is no risk of construction traffic 226 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

219 operating within 1 metre of the edge of this hedge (the mixed species hedge to the east and south of the site has the potential to support terrestrial habitat for great crested newts). 227 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

220 Furthermore a repeat appraisal was recommended within 1 month of the commencement of construction to ensure that the site has been managed appropriately and to ensure that any amphibian hibernacula that may have been created can be searched and removed. The contents and recommendations of these reports are stated as being still 'in date' by the applicants Ecologist and as such the previous conclusions still apply. As such the Councils Ecological Consultant has confirmed that he has no objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions to control its implementation in line with the recommendations set out in the applicant's reports. With this precautionary approach in place and with suitably worded conditions it is considered that the impact on biodiversity is limited and that the application complies with Policy C5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, policy DP37 of the emerging District Plan and the objectives of the NPPF. Conclusions Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The site lies outside the built up area boundary of Cuckfield as defined in the MSLP and the CNP. As such the scheme would conflict with policy C1 of the MSLP and policy CNP5 of the CNP, both of which indicate that development should be restricted in this location. It has however been established in numerous appeals that policy C1 in the MSLP is not up to date insofar as it relates to the provision of housing. It is considered that the same reasoning applies to policy CNP5 of the now made CNP as this is also a policy that restricts the supply of housing on land that is not within the built up area of the CNP. In light of the Council's lack of a five year supply of housing, para's of the NPPF are engaged and as such the application needs to be considered in the context of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. This paragraph sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Therefore the development should only be refused if any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole, or specific NPPF policies indicate development should be restricted. The application site, whilst falling outside of the built up area as defined by the CNP and MSLP, lies immediately adjacent the built up area boundary and is within close walking distance of the village centre and all its amenities. It is therefore deemed to be in a sustainable location. It is considered that the development constitutes sustainable development. The proposed dwelling is considered to be suitably designed to reflect the character of the surrounding area, and will not appear as an overdevelopment of this generous plot. Whilst it is accepted that the dwelling is substantial in size, it is considered that the character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved and the setting of the Holy Trinity Church will not be affected. Whilst there is some limited harm to a small component of the conservation area this certainly amounts to less than substantial harm. Overall it is your officer s view that taken as a whole character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved. The loss of the open space has been considered in relation to policy R2 of the MSLP, policy DP22 of the emerging District Plan and paragraph 74 of the NPPF. It is considered 228 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

221 that it has been demonstrated that there is not a need for the site to be retained as open space nor is there a need for its replacement elsewhere. 229 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

222 It is considered that the limited harm generated by this proposal is not sufficient to outweigh its benefits. It is also material that planning permission has already been granted for a residential development on this site. For theses reason, taking into account all relevant development plan policies as well as the advice set out within the NPPF it is felt that this application should be approved. APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act Pre-commencement conditions No development shall commence unless and until samples and/or a schedule of materials and finishes to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed dwelling have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the Conservation Area and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 3. No development shall commence unless and until all drainage works have been carried out in accordance with the details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, such details to include proposed surface water and foul drainage and means of disposal. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily drained and to accord with policy CS13 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 4. Prior to the commencement of development and with particular regard to the species rich hedgerow on the western boundary, all retained vegetation will be protected using Heras type fencing in accordance with BS5837:2012 and the supporting ecological reports. Reason: In accordance with NPPF (109 & 118) and Mid Sussex saved policies C5 and C6. 5. Prior to development or any preparatory works and to support the detailed applications updated ecological surveys will be completed and submitted for approval. All proposed ecological mitigation will be expected to be translated into relevant plans and reports. Reason: In accordance with NPPF (109 & 118) and Mid Sussex saved policies C5 and C6. 6. Between the date of this approval and the development commencing, the site shall be subject to a regular mowing regime. Reason: To prevent ecological enrichment and in accordance with NPPF (109 and 118) and Mid Sussex saved policies C5 and C6. 7. No work shall be carried out on the site unless and until an effective vehicle wheel- 230 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

223 cleaning facility has been installed in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority and such facility shall be retained in working order and operated throughout the period of work on the site. To ensure that vehicles do not leave the site carrying earth and mud on their wheels in a quantity which causes a nuisance or hazard on the road system in the locality and to accord with Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 8. No development shall take place until details of existing and proposed site levels have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall not be implemented otherwise than in accordance with such details. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development does not prejudice the amenities of adjacent residents or the appearance of the locality and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan 9. Construction phase No removal of any tree or shrub shall be carried out on site between March and August inclusive in any year, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where vegetation must be cleared during the bird breeding season a check for nesting birds by a suitably qualified ecologist will be required. Any vegetation containing occupied nests will be retained until the young have fledged. The location details of the compensatory nesting provision to be supplied to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to their erection. Reason: In accordance with NPPF (109 and 118). 10. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site on Bank or Public Holidays or at any other time except between the hours of 8 a m and 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 9 am and 1 pm Saturdays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with Policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 11. Pre-occupation conditions The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking spaces/turning facilities/and garages shown on the submitted plans have been provided and constructed. The areas of land so provided shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking/turning/and garaging of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the accommodation of vehicles clear of the highways and to accord with Policy T6 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. 12. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until there has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority full details of a hard and soft landscaping scheme and these works shall be carried out as approved. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any 231 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

224 variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. INFORMATIVES 1. In accordance with Article 31 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended), the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The proposed development will require formal address allocation. You are advised to contact the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Officer before work starts on site. Details of fees and developers advice can be found at or by phone on Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to your duty of care not to cause the neighbours of the site a nuisance. Accordingly, you are requested that: - Measures shall be implemented to prevent dust generated on site from crossing the site boundary during the demolition/construction phase of the development. - No burning of materials shall take place on site at any time. If you require any further information on these issues, please contact Environmental Protection on APPENDIX B CONSULTATIONS English Heritage Our specialist staff have considered the information received and we do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. Recommendation: The application(s) should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice. Principal Consultant, Calyx Environmental Ltd Subject to conditions, no significant adverse impacts on biodiversity conservation are anticipated. Recommended conditions: No development shall commence until protective fencing meeting or exceeding the default 232 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

225 specification for tree protection fencing as shown in Fig. 2 of BS5837: 2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction Recommendations) has been erected between the construction site and boundary hedgerows. The fencing shall be maintained until practical completion of all construction works other than soft landscaping. Reason: to protect important habitats and avoid potential impacts on protected species in accordance with para. 118 of the NPPF and saved Policy C6 of the Local Plan. Grassland within the site shall kept short (to within several cm) by regular mowing throughout the growing season until development is completed. No piles of grass cuttings (which provide potential egg laying sites for grass snakes) will be created on site unless in an area where they will be undisturbed by the development and can be left to naturally decompose. Reason: to prevent colonisation of the site by protected species, which could subsequently be harmed by construction operations, in accordance with para. 118 of the NPPF and saved Policy C6 of the Local Plan. Comments The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Phase 1 Habitat Assessment report by Azure Ecology dated 31 October 2013 indicates that the only habitat of biodiversity significance potentially affected by the proposal is a species rich hedgerow along the southern and western boundaries. This constitutes a habitat of principal importance under S. 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act It also has the potential to support dormice, great crested newts and is likely to provide foraging habitat for bats as well as a possible movement corridor for grass snakes. The proposed layout avoids the need to remove this hedgerow, but the proposed dwelling is very close in places. Therefore, high levels of protection will be required during construction. Two ponds have been identified in the vicinity of the site, which have the potential to support great crested newts (although their presence is not confirmed). However, the grassland within the site is assessed as having low value for foraging by this species and no suitable terrestrial refuges have been identified other than the hedgerow. Therefore, subject to protection of the hedgerow, no significant impacts on the favourable conservation status of this species are anticipated and, subject to the grassland being kept short, the risk of any individual animals occurring within the site and being harmed by construction activities is considered to be low. The contents of this memo are provided under a service level agreement between Calyx Environmental Ltd and Mid Sussex District Council. They do not constitute a view for or against a proposal, but represent independent ecological advice on the biodiversity implications of a planning application so that it may be determined in accordance with relevant planning policies and legal obligations. Highway Authority To be reported. Conservation Officer No further comments to those set out in the conservation consultation for 14/03388/FUL, dated 13 October Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

226 The development site is located to the south of the western end of Courtmead Road, within the Cuckfield Conservation area. It is a greenfield, turfed open space, enclosed variously by hedges and post and rail fences, and formerly used as a community amenity. A public footpath runs along the northern boundary and open countryside abuts the site to the south. A substantial dwelling in a spacious garden setting - typical of Courtmead Road - sits close to the eastern boundary, while allotments abut the site to the west, with the Grade I listed Holy Trinity Church beyond. 234 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

227 The built form loosely enclosing Courtmead Road was developed over an extended period and incorporates several different periods and styles. At the western end of the street, many of the Arts and Crafts style dwellings are by local architect Harold Turner, who was much influenced by the Garden City movement. There is a discrete, but consistent building line, with substantial, two storey dwellings sitting comfortably in spacious, well planted settings. The street is edged with soft verges and hedges, giving a gently enclosed, semirural character to the streetscene. Views to the west, north and east from within the proposal site are generally constrained by hedging and adjacent trees and shrubbery. However to the south, panoramic views exist across open countryside to the Downs. Similar long views across the site to the south occur from the adjacent public footpath and the western end of Courtmead Road. Easterly views across the proposal site also occur from the grade I Listed Holy Trinity Church. Impacts on views were assessed at Outline Permission stage and residential development of the site was approved under 13/03476/OUT. At that time, it was envisaged that a new dwelling would be designed and scaled to complement the neighbouring forms as well as sit comfortably in a spacious garden setting and respect the existing staggered building line, thereby preserving the distinctive development pattern typical of Courtmead Road. (Conservation consultation dated 11 November 2013, 13/03476/OUT) Although the present proposal maintains a spacious garden and respects the existing building line, it departs from the preceding conservation design guidance in the following areas: - The ridge height of the new build is higher than those of the neighbouring dwellings. It is acknowledged that an occasional ridge height of a comparable level exists further to the east in Courtmead Road. However, those buildings are located at a considerable distance from the proposal site, are few in number and form an exception in the streetscene. - Dwellings at the western end of Courtmead Road are interspersed with generous gaps which allow views between buildings and lend a spacious, gentle sense of enclosure to the street. The ratio of solids (built form) to voids (open spaces) is an important characteristic of the immediate vicinity and the gap between the new dwelling and its neighbour is atypically narrow. The proposed development is thus not typical of Courtmead Road and it will result in some degree of harm to the existing spatial characteristics at the western end of the street. However, the area in which the damage will be experienced is limited to the western end of Courtmead Road. While affecting this particular component of the conservation area, the new development will not result in substantial harm to the special character of the designated heritage asset as a whole. Section 134 of the NPPF states that Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. An on balance decision should be made as to whether the benefits of development outweigh the minor damage to the character of a component of the Cuckfield Conservation Area. 235 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

228 MID SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE A 23 MAR 2017 PART III OTHER MATTERS APPENDIX Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

229 237 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

230 238 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

231 239 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

232 240 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

233 241 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

234 242 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

235 243 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

236 244 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

237 245 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

238 246 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

239 247 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

240 248 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

241 249 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

242 250 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

243 251 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

244 252 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

245 253 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

246 254 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

247 255 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

248 256 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

249 257 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

250 258 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

251 259 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

252 260 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

253 261 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

254 262 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017

255 263 Planning Committee A - 23 March 2017