Agenda and minutes

            RESOLVED

That Councillor Brian Donnelly be elected Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing municipal year.

            RESOLVED

That Councillor Tim Lloyd be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing municipal year.

            RESOLVED

That meetings of the Committee be held at 2.30pm for the ensuing municipal year.

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2021

(Note: If any Member wishes to propose an amendment to the minutes they should submit this in writing to committeeservices@horsham.gov.uk at least 24 hours before the meeting.  Where applicable, the audio recording of the meeting will be checked to ensure the accuracy of the proposed amendment.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2021 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee or the Chief Executive

There were no announcements.

The list of appeals lodged, appeals in progress and appeal decisions, as circulated, was noted.

Ward: Henfield

Applicant: Mr Mike Gamble  

The Head of Development & Building Control reported that this application sought permission to erect a first-floor side extension over garage, erection of a single storey rear extension and enlargement of existing side dormer / projection. The proposal would extend the footprint along the eastern elevation, close by to the Gardeners Arms Pub to the west.

The application site was located to the south of Nep Town Road. The site was within the built-up area of Henfield and the Henfield Conservation Area.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application.  There had been 17 letters from 12 householders objecting to the application and none received in support. The nature of these objections included Privacy, Light, Noise; Design Out of Keeping with a conservation area; Overdevelopment; Highway access & parking; loss of natural light; loss of general amenity.

One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and one addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; design and appearance; amenity impacts; and heritage impact.

            RESOLVED

That Planning Application DC/21/0016 be approved subject to the conditions as listed in the officer’s report.

Ward: Pulborough, Coldwaltham and Amberley

Applicant: Purple Pepper Partnership Ltd  

The Head of Development & Building Control reported that this application sought full planning permission for four detached dwellings with associated access, parking, and landscaping.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Pulborough and the Church Place Conservation Area, located on the western side of Church Hill (A29) on land to the south of the existing dwelling, the Coppice Hanger.

Members noted the planning history of the site, in particular DC/05/2679 for eight dwellings and five apartments which had been refused, and a subsequent application DC/07/2695, which went to appeal for non-determination of the application but was then withdrawn by the Appellant with no formal decision being issued.

Pulborough Parish Council had objected to Proposal. There had been 11 letters of objection received from 9 separate households/bodies within the district.

One Member of the public spoke in objection to the application. The Applicant, Applicant’s Agent and Applicant’s Architect addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: principle of development; heritage and visual impacts; landscape; trees; amenity; highways and parking; ecology; and climate change.

It was noted that the draft Pulborough Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 consultation ended 7^th June.

Members raised concerns regarding highways safety, especially for pedestrians and cyclists surrounding access to the site and after careful consideration resolved to refuse this application.

            RESOLVED

            That Planning Application DC/20/2481 be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal fails to preserve the character or appearance of the historic environment, including the conservation area, contrary to Policy 34 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015. 

2. The proposal fails to preserve the landscape character of the area and detracts from the setting of the South Downs National Park contrary to Policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015. 

3.    The proposal fails to provide safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists contrary to Policy 40 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.   

Ward: Storrington and Washington

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Hooper

The Head of Development & Building Control reported that this application sought full planning permission for the demolition of an existing bungalow and ancillary accommodation, and construction of a replacement two storey four-bedroomed detached property and ancillary accommodation with associated external works. This proposal also included an extension to the driveway.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Storrington and located on a circular loop at the eastern end of Sandgate Lane.

15 letters of objection had been received from 8 separate households and one letter of support.

The two applicants addressed the committee in support of the application. A representative of Storrington and Sullington Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; character, appearance and landscape impact; amenity impacts; parking and highway considerations; ecology; and climate change.

            RESOLVED

That planning application DC/20/2488 be approved subject to the conditions as stated in the officer’s report and one additional condition:

Prior to development commencing, details of any existing asbestos and how it will be safely removed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the safe removal of asbestos in accordance with Policy 24 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.    

Ward: Henfield

Applicant: Mr Robert Dunckley

The Head of Development & Building Control reported that this application sought part retrospective permission for a change in use of the premises to mixed use purposes for Use Classes B8, E and as a base for a garden design and landscaping business. The retrospective permission related to class B8 use (storage and distribution), both inside and in designated open areas, retaining the landscape business of ‘Jack Dunckley Designs’ and an area of associated storage.

The application site was located to the north of the Henfield Built Up Area Boundary, in a rural setting.

83 written representations had been received, 65 of which objected to the application and 18 expressed support to the application.

Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application. A representative of Henfield Parish Council addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: enforcement background; the principle of development; design and appearance; impact on landscape and biodiversity; impact on neighbouring amenity; highways impacts; and climate change.

Members raised concerns regarding the intensification of the application site and the harm that would be caused to the rural character of the surrounding area.

            RESOLVED

            That Planning Application DC/20/1906 be refused for the following reason:

The proposal, by virtue of its scale and nature of proposed uses, would be in an inappropriate location and would be harmful to the rural character, landscape and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policies  10, 25 and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).