APPLICATION ITEM LW/14/0350 NUMBER: NUMBER: 4 APPLICANTS. PARISH / Wivelsfield / Thakeham Homes Ltd NAME(S):

APPLICATION ITEM LW/14/0350 NUMBER: NUMBER: 4 APPLICANTS PARISH / Wivelsfield / Thakeham Homes Ltd NAME(S): WARD: Chailey & Wivelsfield Planning Application for demolition of Sunnybrae and Medway Gardens and erection of 29 residential homes, with associated PROPOSAL: amenity space, access, car parking, cycle parking, refuse/recycling facilities and landscaping SITE ADDRESS: Sunnybrae Valebridge Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0RP GRID REF: TQ 3220

1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL 1.1 The application site is located on the east side of Valebridge Road, Burgess Hill, covering approximately 1.33 hectares. The site boundary includes Sunnybrae, fronting the road and Medway Gardens, which is set behind 96 Valebridge Road and accessed by a short un-made track. The boundary with Mid-Sussex District (MSDC) and West Sussex County Councils (WSCC) runs approximately along the rear boundary of Sunnybrae; the latter being the Highway Authority. The site was formerly used as a nursery and there are vestiges of that use in the form of dis-used greenhouses on the site. 1.2 The site is virtually flat and bounded on all sides by residential plots. The plots on the west (road) frontage are 96 Valebridge Road, Sunnybrae, Kinson and New Dean; to the north, Dunroamin which fronts Valebridge Road, Valentine, Hillsboro, Fox Grove and The Homestead, all accessed via Homestead Lane, a narrow un-made road; to the east Oakfields, accessed via Theobald s Road, again an unmade road; and to the south, Amberley, accessed via Theobald s Road and 94 Valebridge Road, accessed via the track that leads to Medway Gardens. Although bounded by residential plots, there is mature tree screening on the part of the north, south and most of the east boundaries. The site is subject to Tree Preservation Order (No.4) 2010. 1.3 Valebridge Road runs in a north-south direction between Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath, running parallel with the railway line for part of the way. Close to the application site, there is residential development along the east side of the road, mainly low rise properties in substantial plots. Wivelsfield Station is 800m to the SW of the site. 1.4 Full planning permission is sought to construct 29 dwellings on the site, involving the demolition of Sunnybrae and Medway Gardens a net gain of 27 units. Access to the site will be at the south eastern corner of the site, adjacent to number 96 Valebridge Road. A new bungalow will be located on the site of Sunnybrae fronting the road. The mix, type and tenure of dwellings proposed are as follows: Dwelling type No of beds No of units Market Affordable House 3 12 11 1 House 4 3 3 0 Bungalow 2 5 5 0 Bungalow 3 3 3 0 Flat 1 4 0 4 Flat 2 2 0 2 29 22 7 1.5 The affordable quotient roughly equates to 25%. Two of the affordable flats and the affordable house are proposed for Shared Ownership, the other units for rent. The density of the scheme equates to 21 dwellings per hectare. 1.6 A separate planning application was submitted to MSDC to cover the part of the proposal that falls within that authority s boundary the replacement dwelling on the site of Sunnybrae and the access to the site. The application (ref. 14/01673/FUL) was approved on 8 th August. 1.7 A new access to the site will be formed north of 96 Valebridge Road. The new dwellings will be laid out around the periphery of the site boundaries in mainly detached plots, with 2 pairs of semi-detached houses and an L shaped block containing the flats.

One of the detached plots a two bedroom bungalow will front Valebridge Road. All of the dwellings will have garages and/or off-street parking, with 7 visitors spaces and 6 unallocated spaces. The total number of parking spaces (garages and on-street) will be 72. Each dwelling will be provided with a cycle store. In the centre of the site, there will be a communal open space, including an LAP, which is envisaged for informal play. All of the bungalows and houses have private front and rear gardens, the flats have access to semiprivate shared space. 1.8 The application has been submitted following extensive pre-application discussions with Lewes District Council (LDC) and WSCC. The applicants also undertook local consultations in the form of a targeted leaflet drop, as well as informing the relevant Parish Councils in Mid-Sussex and LDC. 1.9 The application was accompanied by the following documents: Planning Statement Design and Access Statement Access Statement Archaeology and Heritage Assessment Flood Risk Assessment Utilities/services appraisal Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Tree Survey Landscape and Visual Appraisal and Landscape Strategy Geotechnical and environmental ground appraisal report S106 Heads of Terms 1.10 The S106 Heads of Terms document indicates the applicants commitment to comply with the District and the two County Council s requirements for developer contributions. 2. RELEVANT POLICIES LDLP: CT01 Planning Boundary and Countryside Policy LDLP: ST03 Design, Form and Setting of Development LDLP: ST11 Landscaping of Development LDLP: T01 Travel Demand Management LDLP: - RES09 Affordable housing 3. PLANNING HISTORY LW/07/1410 Erection of 4 detached houses on the site Refused - on 31 st January 2008 due to i) inadequate visibility and sub-standard access and ii) development in the countryside contrary to policy CT1. 4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES Wivelsfield Parish Council Objection - Currently Wivelsfield Parish Council are a good way in to producing their neighbourhood plan, planning for their community on the basis of modest planned development of up to 30 dwellings and the community benefits which will arise. Our Neighbourhood Plan will be based on this approach. However, we feel that that

this application is by passing our ability to plan. We acknowledge the applicants asking for us to consult with them but as you will be aware we are prevented from consultation until we have reached the appropriate stage in our plan. We also note that this site has not as yet been put forward for inclusion under the sites to be considered. The Parish Council have reacted very positively to Localism, and it would make little sense if we were not allowed to exercise our right under the Localism Act to decide the location of planned growth within our Parish. It is of crucial importance to note that there may be more acceptable locations for allocations of up to 30 dwellings and the final choice of allocated site(s) is a non-strategic matter, which is for the Parish Council and its Neighbourhood Plan. We have also considered the loss of this open green space. Part of the NPPF guidelines are to promote healthy communities. The local area has already had substantial development and has a lack of recreational and play facilities. The introduction of 29 dwellings in this location will exacerbate this existing problem. The proposed site also looks to be overdeveloped and is not in keeping with existing architecture and landscape, which also contravenes NPPF policy of Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. Mid Sussex District Council As you are aware, the above application was submitted jointly to Mid Sussex District Council, and this council granted planning permission on 8 August for the proposed access to the site and demolition of Sunnybrae and replacement with 1 no. dwelling and detached double car barn/garage (Plot 1). In relation to the application under the jurisdiction of Lewes District Council, I can confirm on behalf of Mid Sussex District Council that no objection is raised to the above proposal. The site is currently derelict but was understood to have been occupied by a nursery. It is surrounded by mature trees on the northern and eastern boundaries in particular and landlocked by residential properties on all sides from agricultural land. So while the site is located outside the built-up area of Burgess Hill, it is considered to be sustainably located to public transport and local services in the town, and would be socially, economically and environmentally sustainable, in accordance with paragraphs 7, 14 and 197 of the National Planning Policy Framework. I attach the infrastructure comments from the council s Leisure team and West Sussex County Council, and I would be grateful if these could be incorporated into your legal agreement with the developer. Burgess Hill Town Council The Committee felt that the development was in keeping with the surrounding area. There was a concern about highway safety as additional traffic would be joining Valebridge Road near the brow of the hill. The residents would be using Burgess Hill facilities and a S106 monies contribution by Lewes District Council would be welcomed. Environmental Health A Phase I and II Ground Appraisal Report (Geo-Environmental, Ref: GE9923-GARv1JK080414, Dated April ) was submitted in support of the above application.

We have reviewed the above report and are satisfied with the methodology employed and the conclusion of the report that no remedial works are required on site subject to the following recommendations: A watching brief for potentially asbestos containing materials is maintained on site and that all potential asbestos containing materials are removed from the site by an appropriately qualified contractor (Section 6.2, Page 20); Dust suppression techniques, such as damping down exposed soils, are employed during the demolition and construction phases on site to minimise the potential for off-site migration of dusts to adjacent land users (Section 6.3, Page 20); Clean granular backfill is used in service runs (Section 6.5, Page 21); A watching brief is maintained on site for undiscovered contamination (Section 6.10, Page 23). To ensure that the above measures in relation to dust control are employed on site we consider that a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) should be developed for the site. We consider that a CEMP would also be required to protect the amenity of the surrounding residential properties during the demolition and construction phases of the proposal. (To be secured by condition). Tree & Landscape Officer Comments The development seeks the removal of the woodland identified as W1 of the above Order, but seeks to retain the peripheral groups of trees identified as G1, G2 and G3 of the above Order. The woodland area comprises of young to semi-mature Oaks which were probably planted circa 40 50 years ago. Their value as forming part of a woodland habitat could be regarded as limited. The applicants make the point that the woodland makes little strategic contribution to the wider visual amenities of the area. The existing mature trees provide structure and visual screening on the northern and eastern edges of the site. Retention of the woodland would make little difference in this respect. For the record, it is acknowledged that the applicant s agents removed part of the woodland without written authorisation from this Council, which is an offence. It is, however, without prejudice to this fact that I am in broad agreement that the loss of the woodland as an integral part of the development proposal. For the remainder of the trees contained in G1, G2 and G3 of the Order, I am content that the applicants have taken on board our comments in relation to the sun aspect to the house and gardens of properties on the northern and eastern boundaries. Whilst there is always scope for greater distance between the buildings and the existing trees, the reorientation of the some of the buildings will alleviate the inevitable complaints about shade cast by the trees. Before any works commence on site, including demolition, an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) should be submitted for Approval and implemented in full. There must be no changes in levels, service routing, machine activity, storage of materials or site hut positioning within the Root Protection Areas (RPS). The tree protection measures must remain in position for the duration of the construction process.

Overall, however, I have no real material objections to make about the proposed development in relation to existing trees. Landscaping & Communal Areas A detailed landscape scheme should be secured by condition, together with of the arrangements to manage and maintain the communal areas. In the event planning permission is granted, the applicant should consider ways to enhance the biodiversity of the site in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. I note that Natural England also advocate this policy. Similarly, this application will provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment. The applicants, in preparing a landscaping should ensure that the development makes a positive contribution to the character and functions of the landscape. Planning Policy Development outside of the Planning Boundary The applicant s site is on predominately greenfield land outside of a Planning Boundary and therefore policy CT1 applies to this application. This policy stipulates that development outside of planning boundaries should not be granted planning permission. Whilst there are exceptions in the policy which allow certain developments to be permitted, this application does not meet any of these exceptions. As a result, the application is contrary to the policy. However, paragraph 49 of the NPPF states 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. As reported on 1 st April, the District Council only has a housing land supply of 1.8 years. In light of paragraph 49 of the NPPF policy CT1 can be considered out of date in relation to this application and should carry no weight. Consequently, it is not justifiable to refuse the application on the basis of CT1. Instead, a conclusion should be reached taking into account the presumption in favour of sustainable development as outlined by paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The presumption indicates that permission should be given when the relevant policies are out of date, unless doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as whole. Whilst the proposal is outside the Planning Boundary it is adjacent to the town of Burgess Hill which has a wide range of services and could therefore be considered a sustainable location. Given the above it is considered that approving the application would be in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Housing Strategy I have looked at the need for the surrounding villages, 1 and 2 bed are by far the greatest need, therefore I would propose 4 x 1 bed and 3 x 2 bed, total = 7. I am also happy with the proposed rented/shared ownership split.

ESCC Highways I do not wish to raise an objection to the principle of the proposed development as the traffic and accessibility implications primarily impact upon transport networks under the responsibility of West Sussex County Council. The vehicular access points into the site also involve connections to the highway network that fall within West Sussex. It is recognised that there is likely to be residual cumulative impact filtered to the south into East Sussex villages, particularly Ditchling village. 1) Road Layout It is acknowledged that this site is not an allocated within the Lewes District and is not included within the proposed core strategy with access from the West Sussex network, and if the roads within the site are adopted, they would be within the East Sussex Network. The submitted plans indicates a road layout generally conforming to adoptable standards. 2) The Haywards Heath Relief Road In light of recent development commitments for housing in the Haywards Heath/Burgess Hill area, and the gradual filtering of additional traffic from both these towns in a southerly direction towards Brighton and Lewes, there has been a notable increase in traffic in the peak periods that have had an adverse impact on the village of Ditchling in particular. A more detailed response from ESCC highways was provided for the 2012 planning application at Kings Way, Burgess Hill highlighting the same issues and has led to a secured financial contribution for mitigation measures the local area, thus establishing and recognising the need to address this issue. Ideally for this application, it is recommended that the HHRR be constructed and completed prior to the commencement of development on this site. The reason for this is that because the HHRR is currently incomplete, the redistribution benefits cannot as yet be identified and it is considered that highway mitigation for Ditchling village and surrounding should be recognised as part of the overall strategy to redistribute traffic along routes best suited (i.e. making routes through Ditchling Village less attractive and alternatives more attractive). It is recommended that measures for mitigation are secured by financial contribution within a suitable legal agreement similar to that secured for Kings Way, Burgess Hill to enable a suitable scheme to be implemented. It should be noted that any new development in the east/southeast quadrants of both Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath and Wivelsfield Green are likely to contribute to additional vehicular trips filtering into the less major routes within East Sussex as opposed to the more desirable connections to the south coast via A roads. It is recommended that West Sussex County Highways impose appropriate highway conditions given that the impact of development would primarily be on their network, whilst ensuring that East Sussex Highways have Ditchling Village protection secured through appropriate legal agreement. Whilst the accumulative effects of the developments from West Sussex [i.e. Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath] are unknown ESCC requires a contribution to towards mitigation measures to improve Ditchling village. These works are assessed as being approximately 300,000 and the cost per dwelling is 75.82, thus the development of 29 [minus 2 existing] dwellings amounts to a total contribution of 2,047.14. This would be put towards improving facilities for cyclists at the one way build outs at the northern end of the village. 3) Parking The proposal includes 72 parking spaces which is in accordance with the ESCC car parking guidelines 2012. However, your attention is drawn to the proposed various sizes of

the garages which do not meet ESCC s current guidance in order to be considered as parking spaces. The recommended internal dimensions of a single garage is 6 metres x 3 metres and for a double garage 6 metres x 6 metres. Some of the garages therefore need altering accordingly. It should also be noted that cycle parking can only be accommodated within a garage if they are enlarged from the quoted dimensions. 4) Drainage Although the proposed pumping station is a matter for Southern Water Authority the layout of the estate roads should be sufficient to accept a large tanker from Valebridge Rd to the proposed pumping station. WSCC Highways In summary, there would be no objection in principle. It is noted that the site straddles the West and East Sussex border. The majority of the internal carriageways are within East Sussex, whilst the vehicular access and approximately 50 metres of the access road are within West Sussex. Given the presence of the border, these comments relate only to the principle of vehicular access arrangements as well as that stretch of access road within West Sussex. Comments are also made in respects of the accessibility and potential capacity issues in light of the fact that these impacts will be most noticeable on the highway network in the immediate vicinity of the site. These matters have been considered within the supporting Transport Statement (TS). The site is to be accessed by a new 5.5 metre wide priority junction onto Valebridge Road. Given the quantum of development, and the respective level of vehicular traffic generated, the principle of the access arrangement is acceptable. Any existing disused vehicular access points should be closed and temporary construction access arrangements agreed prior to development commencing. Valebridge Road in the vicinity of the access is subject to a 60mph speed limit, the limit drops to 30mph a short distance to the south. Vehicles may be expected to be accelerating as they exit the 30mph speed or decelerating as they enter it. The use of 30mph or 60mph to inform the sightline and visibility splay requirements may then under or over-estimate the sightlines required. The applicant has therefore undertaken two 7 day automatic speed surveys (one to the north of the access and one to the south). These surveys have then been used to determine the 85 th percentile wet weather vehicle speeds to inform the sightline and visibility splay requirements. The use of 85 th percentile wet weather speeds is an accepted means of determining design speeds for existing roads. Based on the surveys, design speeds of 39mph northbound and 44mph southbound have been used. The sightlines and visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 120 metres are satisfactory based on the recorded 85 th percentile speeds. Whilst East Sussex County Council should comment on the majority of the internal access roads, plot 1 would fall within West Sussex. With regards to this plot, the parking is somewhat divorced from the dwelling. This raises the possibility of parking occurring on the access road in the vicinity of the Valebridge Road junction. Whilst the RSA will no doubt comment on such matters if appropriate, as part of the detailed design, it may be necessary to consider measures to prevent parking from occurring within the immediate vicinity of the junction.

In terms of impact upon capacity, trip generation has been estimated using TRICS. TRICS is a database of surveys from other similar developments that can be refined to best reflect the location and size of the proposed development. There are a few potential issues with some of the TRICS criteria used, for example, the WSCC Transport Assessment Guidance advises that surveys from Ireland should not be used. While not a problem, the assessments have also been based upon all of the proposed dwellings being private houses, whereas a scheme of mixed tenure and dwelling types is proposed. The estimated vehicular trip generation for the proposed dwellings is high (8 vehicular trips per dwelling per day are forecast) and as such the assessments are considered to be based upon a worst case. It should also be noted that the trip generation relates to a net gain of 27 units, given that two existing dwellings are to be demolished and replaced as part of this development. Based on the TRICS trip rates, the development is forecast to generate 19 movements in the AM network peak (6 arrivals, 13 departures) and 25 movements in the PM network peak (14 arrivals, 11 departures). The impact upon the network peak hours (8-9am and 5-6pm) have been considered as this when the highway network is most sensitive to any increase in vehicular traffic. The WSCC Transport Assessment Guidance requires junctions to be assessed where a development is forecast to result in increased entry flows of 30 or more vehicle movements. Whilst the means of distributing traffic and anticipated increased traffic flows on the highway network are noted, given the level of vehicular trips generated, this proposal would not meet the criteria to require any off-site junction capacity assessments. The NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused where the impacts would be severe. This proposal would not be expected to result in any capacity impacts that could be defined as severe. The site is recognised as being on the periphery of Burgess Hill. It is accepted that walking and cycling have the potential to replace the use of the car for trips of up to 2km and 5km respectively. Whether trips are undertaken by these modes of course depends on the purpose of the trip. There are continuous walking routes to potential destinations, such as Wivelsfield train station and other local retail and education uses. A wider range of facilities can be reached by cycling with there being various routes available. Whilst there is a gradient for cyclists traveling into Burgess Hill, this is not considered a significant barrier. The location of the site has the potential to encourage trips by walking and cycling, and reduce dependency on the use of the private car. A Stage One Road Safety Audit was carried out and is and considered to be acceptable. ESCC Archaeology Further to my previous correspondence, the applicant has now commissioned and carried out an archaeological geophysical survey of the site. This has not identified any archaeological features of potential national importance, but has identified anomalies of local interest, which will require further investigation. In the light of the potential for loss of heritage assets on this site resulting from development the area affected by the proposals should be the subject of a programme of archaeological works. This will enable any archaeological deposits and features, disturbed during the proposed works, to be adequately recorded. These recommendations are in line with the requirements given in the NPPF (the Government s planning policies for England. Conditions are requested. In furtherance of this recommendation, we shall be available to advise the applicant on how they can best fulfil any archaeological condition that is applied to their planning permission and to provide a brief setting out the scope of the programme of works. It is expected that the written scheme of investigation will confirm the action to be taken and accord with the

relevant portions of the East Sussex County Council document Recommended Standard Conditions for Archaeological Fieldwork, Recording and Post-Excavation In East Sussex (Development Control) (2008) including Annexe B. Sussex Police - C.P.D.A. The level of crime and anti-social behaviour in Lewes District is below average when compared with the rest of Sussex and I have no major concerns with the proposals; however, additional measures to mitigate against any identified local crime trends may be required. In general terms I support the proposed layout which provides for a single access road with no through routes. This will give residents a sense of ownership and community and will deter trespass. The orientation of the dwellings allows for overlooking and natural surveillance of the road and footpath layout and other communal areas. In the main, provision for car parking has been made within the curtilage of the dwellings, with any additional areas benefiting from overlooking. The Design and Access Statement, by reference to the seven attributes of safe, sustainable places, acknowledges the importance of including appropriate crime prevention measures in the design and the layout of the development and I am satisfied that this will create a safe and secure environment for future residents. Southern Water PLC A public foul rising main and foul sewer cross the site; a plan showing the approximate locations is provided. The exact positions must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. Standard precautions are advised. If any other sewers are found during construction, an investigation will be required to ascertain its condition, number of properties served and potential means of access before any further works commence on site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Southern Water. Initial investigations indicate that Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public sewer to be made by the applicant or the developer. If the applicant or developer proposes to offer a new on-site sewerage pumping station for adoption as part of the public foul sewerage system, this would have to be designed and constructed to the specification of Southern Water Services Ltd. A secure compound would be required to which access for large vehicles would need to be possible at all times. The compound will be required to be 100 square metres in area or of some approved lesser area as would provide an operationally satisfactory layout. No habitable rooms should be located less than 15 metres from the pumping station compound facility, in order to protect the amenity of prospective residents. Initial investigations indicate that there are no public water sewers in the area to serve the development. Alternative means of draining surface water from the development are required. This should not involve disposal to a public foul sewer. The application details for this development indicate that the proposed means of surface water drainage for the site is via a pond/lake. The council s technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local watercourse. The council s Building Control officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of the soak ways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

Conditions are requested. Environment Agency The site is located in Flood Zone 1, defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as having a low probability of flooding. In this instance, we have taken a risk based approach and will not be providing bespoke comments or reviewing the technical documents in relation to this proposal. Please be aware all applications between 0-5 hectares within flood zone 1 shall be left to the Local Planning Authority to provide comments. We recommend you also consult and liaise with the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) regarding the surface water aspects of this site. Southern Gas Standard response enclosing plans of the area showing location of SG pipes and drawing attention to good excavation practice with regard to safeguarding these pipes. Natural England This application is in close proximity to the Ditchling Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England. The consultation documents indicate that this development includes an area of priority habitat, as listed on Section 41 of the Natural Environmental and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. The National Planning Policy Framework states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. 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. 5. REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS Two representations have been received from local residents; 94 Valebridge Road concerns raised about overlooking, seeking assurance that the boundary planting will be retained to protect privacy. Amberley, Theobolds Road also raise concerns about overlooking and have been in direct contact with the applicants to seek a resolution. At time of writing the report, this resident still has concerns about lack of definite planting plan. 6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Principle of development 6.1. As noted in the Planning Policy Team comments, the proposal is contrary to policy CT01 as the site is on predominately greenfield land outside of a Planning Boundary and

does not meet any of the policy exceptions. However, given LDC s lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, policy CT01 cannot be afforded weight in the light of paragraph 49 of the NPPF. Instead the proposal falls to be considered under paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Layout and design 6.2 The applicants have responded to the pre-application discussions and the layout of the proposal makes the best use of the natural features and constraints of the site. As noted in the consultation comments, the scheme also demonstrates adherence to Secure by Design principles. The submitted Design and Access Statement sets out a detailed character analysis of the properties in the area and it notes that the dominant dwelling type in Valebridge Road is the bungalow. No specific architectural style can be identified, but positive features that were identified in the analysis have been utilised, together with the use of facing bricks and hanging tiles to the external walls and clay tiles to the roofs. The resulting, broadly traditional, appearance is considered sympathetic to the surroundings. Impact on amenity 6.3 The main issues arising from amenity are generally overlooking, overshadowing and provision of refuse/recycling facilities. Careful consideration has been given to the impact in the surrounding properties to ensure that potential overlooking and overshadowing has been mitigated. The two most sensitive boundaries with two of the properties to the south have been addressed. Equally, the layout ensures that none of the new dwellings will be overlooked or overshadowed. On the pre-application advice of the Landscape and Trees officer, the siting of the dwellings has been pulled away from the planted boundaries to avoid excessive shadowing from the existing trees. An area of hardstanding will be provided in the rear gardens for refuse and recycling bins. Highways/traffic 6.4 The Highway Authority for the site is WSCC, although the development will have an impact within East Sussex. As noted above, WSCC Highways is broadly satisfied with the junction and the parking arrangements, subject to recommended conditions. 6.5 ESCC Highways have requested a contribution of 2,047.14 towards mitigation measures in arising from impacts of trip generation from the development on Ditchling. The levels of parking proposed and the garage sizes are in line with ESCC guidance. A number of conditions are recommended regarding estate road design and cycle parking. Sewerage and storm water drainage strategy 6.6 Foul drainage will be handled via a private package underground pumping station, located beneath the central open space. The station will be connected to the main sewerage system located close to the site. Southern Water has confirmed that foul sewerage disposal arising from the site can be accommodated in the local network. 6.7 The site is located within flood zone 1, with a low probability of flood risk. Storm water will handled by way of SuDS techniques, utilising the existing pond and ditch adjacent to the north site boundary and a series of underground holding tanks to cater for 1 in 30 year and 1 in 100 year, including 30% climate change, flood event. 6.8 It is considered that the FRA and drainage strategy complies with the requirements of the NPPF and that the proposal is satisfactory in all aspects of the handling of sewerage and storm water.

Trees, ecology and landscaping 6.9 There is no objection to the removal of trees on the site to accommodate the development. Details of the measure to protect the remaining trees during construction are requested by condition. 6.10 The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey concludes that the site does not display any evidence of protected species habitats. Enhancement measures are suggested in the survey report to encourage birds and insects and to improve the general bio-diversity of the site. 6.11 A landscape strategy was included in the application and a detailed scheme, to include the recommended ecological enhancements, replacement tree planting; treatment of the communal open space and all boundaries is required by condition. Archaeology 6.12 The archaeological geophysical survey of the site did not identify any archaeological features of potential national importance, but did reveal anomalies of local interest, which will require further investigation. The County Archaeologist has asked for conditions to secure a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation and implementation of same to safeguard any heritage assets that come to light as a result. S106 6.13 If permission is granted, a decision should not be released until a S106 agreement has been signed to secure the following: Total Access Demand 59,799 WSCC Ditchling improvements 2,047.14 ESCC Early Years 19,236 ESCC Primary Schools 68,719/ 57,230 ESCC/WSCC Secondary Schools 72,490/ 61,596 ESCC/WSCC 6 th Form 14,429 WSCC Rights of Way 638 ESCC Kerbside recycling 551 LDC Local Community Infrastructure 15,911 MSDC Libraries 5,730 MSDC Affordable Housing 7 identified dwellings 25% LDC Response to representations 6.14 It is anticipated that fine tuning of the boundary planting to satisfy the concerns of the neighbours in respect of privacy will be secured by condition. Conclusion 6.15 Although the site lies outside of the defined planning boundary, there are compelling reasons in favour of the proposal, not the least of which is LDC s current housing land supply situation. As the Joint Core Strategy has not reached the point where weight should be afforded it in the determination of planning applications, the application falls to be considered against the NPPF.

6.16 In terms of sustainable development as defined in the NPPF, the proposal would meet: a) the social role by providing a significant contribution towards meeting the present and future housing needs. This will be accompanied by a commensurate contribution towards the social and physical infrastructure of the community and off-site environmental measures that will also benefit the wider area; and b) the environmental role by providing enhancements to the ecology of the site and protection of any identified archaeological features. 6.17 The final scheme has responded well to the constraints of the site and the characteristics of the local area. The application was accompanied by a comprehensive set of supporting documentation covering key issues associated with the site highways, drainage, flood risk, landscape, trees, ecology and archaeology. It is considered that all relevant matters arising from the development of the site have either been addressed within these documents or can be secured by condition. 6.18 Approval is therefore recommended, subject to the conditions and the successful completion of a s106 agreement. 7. RECOMMENDATION In view of the Council's position in terms of deliverable housing land, the proposal is considered to represent a reasonably well designed and sustainable housing development, and therefore is recommended for approval, subject to a legal agreement (the details of which are set out within the report) and the conditions as set out below. The application is subject to the following conditions: 1 No development shall take place until a Construction Environment Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved plan shall set out the arrangements for managing all environmental effects of the development during the construction period, including traffic (including a workers travel plan), temporary site security fencing, artificial illumination, noise, vibration, dust, air pollution and odour, including those effects from the decontamination of the land, 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, site illumination and shall be implemented in full throughout the duration of the construction works, unless a variation is agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework. 2 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. 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, 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 [in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework, sections 120 and 121]

3 No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the archaeological and historical interest of the site is safeguarded and recorded to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 4. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the archaeological site investigation and post investigation assessment (including provision for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition) has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 3 to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the County Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the archaeological and historical interest of the site is safeguarded and recorded to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 5 Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of on-site drainage and maintenance of this area, and to prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site, having regard to Policies within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 6 Prior to commencement of the development, the developer must advise the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to protect the public sewers and work shall be carried out in accordance with the measures as approved. Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of on-site drainage and maintenance of this area, and to prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site, having regard to Policies within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 7. No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicular access serving the development has been constructed in accordance with the details indicatively shown on drawing number 13-173-003 Revision A. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and for this benefit and convenience of the public at large. 8. No development shall commence until such time as temporary arrangements for access for construction traffic has been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and for this benefit and convenience of the public at large. 9. No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the existing vehicular access onto Valebridge Road has been physically closed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and for this benefit and convenience of the public at large.

10. No part of the development shall be first occupied until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 120 metres have been provided at the proposed site vehicular access onto Valebridge Road in accordance with the details indicatively shown on drawing number 13-173-003 Revision A. 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 highway safety and for the benefit and convenience of the public at large. 11. The new estate roads shall be designed and constructed to a standard approved by the Planning Authority in accordance with Highway Authority s standards with a view to their subsequent adoption as publicly maintained highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and for this benefit and convenience of the public at large. 12 Before house building commences, the new estate roads shall be completed to base course level, together with the surface water and foul sewers and main services to the approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with this Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and for the benefit and convenience of the public at large. 13. The development shall not be occupied until parking areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans or details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the area[s] shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles. Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway. 14. The development shall not be occupied until cycle parking facilities have been provided in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of cycles. Reason: In order that the development site is accessible by non car modes and to meet the objectives of sustainable development. 15. The development shall not be occupied until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the turning space shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway. 16. No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall commence until tree protection details, relating to all stages of development, for the protection of all trees, including trees subject to Tree Preservation Order (No.4) 2010, hedges and shrubs to be retained on site, and those trees off site where root protection areas extend into the site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by Lewes District Council s Planning Authority. These details shall observe the principles embodied within BS 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction Recommendations), shall be implemented prior to any works commencing on site, shall be retained during the course of development, and shall not be varied without the written

agreement of the District Planning Authority. In any event, the following restrictions shall be strictly observed unless otherwise agreed by the District Planning Authority: a) No bonfires shall take place within the root protection area (RPA) or within a position where heat could affect foliage or branches. b) No further trenches, drains or service runs shall be sited within the RPA of any retained trees. c) No further changes in ground levels or excavations shall take place within the RPA of any retained trees. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and the character of the locality having regard to Polices ST03 and ST11 of the Lewes District Local Plan. 17 No development shall take place until an arboricultural method statement, to include details of all works within the root protection area, or crown spread [whichever is greater], of any retained tree, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. Thereafter, all works shall be carried out and constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall not be varied without the written consent of the District Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and the character of the locality having regard to Polices ST03 and ST11 of the Lewes District Local Plan. 18 No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall commence until a scheme to ensure the implementation of the arboricultural protection measures required by Condition 16 has been approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. This scheme will be appropriate to the scale and duration of the works and will include details of: a) Identification of individual responsibilities and key personnel b) Personnel induction and training in awareness of arboricultural matters c) Delegation of responsibilities and powers d) Timing and methods of site visits e) Record keeping, including updates f) Procedures for dealing with variations and incidents g) Supervision by a qualified arboriculturist instructed by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and the character of the locality having regard to Polices ST03 and ST11 of the Lewes District Local Plan. 19 No development shall commence until a detailed scheme of site design, hard and soft landscaping, Local Area of Play (LAP), planting for areas of communal open space and ecological enhancements based on the recommendations within the hereby approved Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey by PJC Ecology dated March and Landscape Strategy by Enderby Associates dated April have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be completed before the buildings are occupied or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter, the scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and mitigation strategy. If within a period of two years from the date of the planting any tree, or shrub, any tree or shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted destroyed or dies, another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.