Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2019

(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 of the Committee held on 5 March were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/19/0355 – Councillor David Skipp declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item because he was related to the applicant.  He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the determination of this item.

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: Nuthurst

Applicant: Ms Elaine Barter

The Head of Development reported that this application sought to regularise the existing use of the site as kennels and rehoming centre for stray and pound dogs with overnight accommodation.  The site also provided for rescued, sick or foaling horses. The application also sought retrospective consent for an extension to a detached single-storey former tack room with mezzanine floor.  The extension provided additional staff facilities.

The application site was located in rural countryside with sporadic residential and commercial buildings in the wider area. The former stables and tack room were adjacent to an area of hardstanding with direct access to Hammerpond Road to the north.  There was established vegetation on the front and side boundaries and a paddock in the southern part of the site.  The site was between two residential properties.

Members were advised that Condition 5, which restricted use of the site to kennels and rehoming centre, should be amended to reflect the fact that the site also accommodated horses and chickens. 

The Parish Council supported the application.  In response to public consultation there had been 15 objections and 38 representations supporting the proposal. One member of the public spoke in support of the application and the applicant and applicant’s agent both addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.  

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; the character and appearance of the development; impact on neighbouring amenity; and highway considerations.

Members recognised the community benefit of the proposal, and noted that the applicant had put in place provision for waste management.  They were also reassured that, whilst there was no condition restricting the number of dogs, this would automatically be limited by the size of the facility.  

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/17/2086 be granted subject to the conditions as reported, with the following amendment to Condition 5:

The hereby approved use shall be used as a kennels and rehoming centre, as set out in the Design and Access Statement dated September 2017, and for the keeping of horses and other small animals and shall not be used for any other purpose without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Ward: Broadbridge Heath

Applicant: Innes, Distin and Vaughan

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of two 3-bedroom detached dwellings with parking and landscaping. (Paragraph 1.2 of the report incorrectly stated that one of the dwellings was 4-bedroom.)   A shared access from an existing crossover on Corsletts Avenue was proposed. 

The application site was located in the built-up area of Broadbridge Heath and was made up of the gardens of 89 and 91 Corsletts Avenue. These were on the south side of a prominent bend in the road and had larger gardens than other dwellings in the vicinity. There was a public footpath to the rear of the site and a number of mature trees including a large one adjacent to the southwest boundary of the site. Residential development in the vicinity included Shelley Drive to the southwest.

The Parish Council objected the application.  There had been 61 representations objecting to the proposal. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.  The applicant’s planning consultant and the applicant both addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of the 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 and appearance; its impact on neighbouring amenity; and highways considerations. 

Members discussed how the development would relate to neighbouring dwellings and concluded that it would lead to cramped overdevelopment to the detriment of the streetscene and neighbouring properties.  

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/2002 be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would represent a cramped overdevelopment of the site which would contrast with the prevailing pattern of surrounding development, be detrimental to the character and appearance of the site and wider surroundings and result in an overbearing impact on adjoining properties.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 32 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

Ward: Rusper & Colgate

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Maynard

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a single storey side extension, which would replace a lean-to on the north side of the house.

This application had been considered by the Committee in December 2018.  Members had been concerned that the scale of the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property, and resolved to defer the item to allow discussions with the applicant to seek a reduction in the height of the proposed extension (Minute No. PCN/68 (04.12.18) refers).

As a result of these discussions, the proposal had been amended, with the ridge height reduced by approximately one metre.

Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the original proposal. 

The Parish Council strongly objected to the amended proposal, and a representation objecting to the amended proposal had been received from a neighbouring resident.  One member of the public spoke in objection to the application.  A representative of the Parish Council had registered to speak in objection but had been unable to attend.

Members considered whether the amendments to the proposal overcame their concerns regarding the impact on neighbouring amenity and concluded that the size of the extension would have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property.  Members also concluded that the proposal would be out of keeping with the character of Rusper Conservation Area.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/1742 be refused for the following reasons:

The projection of the proposed extension would dominate the existing building and fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Rusper Conservation Area or the setting of the adjoining Grade I Listed Building, and would appear visually overbearing from neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 32, 33 and 34 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

Ward: Forest

Applicant: Mr and Mrs A Burt

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a two storey side extension, part of which would be above an existing attached single storey double garage.  The application also included a single storey rear extension, a canopy over the front door and garage, and new fenestration and external finishes.

The application site was located at the southern end of Grebe Crescent on its northern side. There were neighbouring properties to the sides and behind.  There was no development to the south, with open space and trees on the other side of the crescent.  There were predominantly two storey detached dwellings in the locality.

The Neighbourhood Council raised no objection to the application.  Since publication of the report one representation raising no objection had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were the character and appearance of the proposal and neighbouring amenity.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/19/0355 be granted subject to the conditions as reported.