Agenda and draft minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2024

(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 3 September were 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 were noted.

Ward: Colgate and Rusper

Applicant: Stonebond Properties (Guildford) Limited

The Head of Development and Building Control reported that full planning permission was sought for the demolition of existing structures currently comprising Millfields Farm, and the construction of a residential development comprising the provision of 43 dwellings, (including at least 22 affordable dwellings) with the creation of new access, supporting infrastructure, public open-spaces, landscaping and drainage.

The proposed development would be accessed by way of a newly created junction onto East Street, include the upgrade of the surface of the footpath north of the site, highways work on Horsham Road and East Street to provide an informal pedestrian crossings, and a raised table on Horsham Road to improve highway safety.

The site is located outside of the built-up area boundary though bounds the defined built-up area of Rusper to the adjacent northwest where this aligns with the southern extent of Cooks Mead cul-de-sac.

Since the publication of the committee report, an additional letter of representation had been received raising concern regarding the use of an existing access to the site for construction works. Officers further clarified that the basis of the officer recommendation was based on a revision to pre-commencement Conditions 4 and 9 in the report.

Twenty-seven letters of representation were received regarding the proposal from 19 addresses, 23 letters objected, and 4 letters were received in support. Rusper Parish Council objected to the application.

The agent spoke in support at the Committee and one member of the public and Rusper Parish Council spoke in objection.

Members noted the planning history of the site.

It was acknowledged that the proposed development involved land beyond a defined built-up area boundary not allocated for development within the existing and/or emerging Local Plan. However, with the Council being unable to demonstrate a 5-year land housing supply, it was acknowledged that the proposal must be considered in the context of the ‘tilted balance’, with the benefits of the development deemed to outweigh any resultant harm.

Members discussed the affordable housing provision, the likely highway impacts associated with the proposal, the upgrade of footpaths, pedestrian access arrangements and the provision of public open space. It was considered that the scale of the development was proportionate to Rusper and would preserve local views.

Following discussion regarding the previous Planning Appeal dismissed on this site in 2017, clarity was provided on the Inspectors reasoning and previous reasons for dismissal. Changes since the previous appeal decision were discussed, including that planning policy had changed since 2007, the lack of the Council’s  5-year land housing supply and that the current scheme would provide at least 51% affordable housing on site. In light of these changes in circumstance the application was considered acceptable.

            RESOLVED

That DC/24/0699 be approved in accordance with Officer recommendation as set out in the report, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and a revised wording of Conditions 4 and 9, as follows:

4.    Pre-Commencement Condition: With the exception of works of demolition, no development shall commence until the following components of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCN/5

Ward: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

Applicant: Mr Kenneth Pritchard Jones

The Head of Development & Building Control reported that part retrospective planning permission was sought for the deposit of topsoil and chalk for biodiversity and agricultural improvement with improved access.

The application was deferred at Planning North Committee in June 2024 and requested to return to committee within 4 months, to gain further information from the applicant on flood risk and to re-consult West Sussex County Council (WSCC) as the Lead Local Flood Authority.

This information had now been received and reviewed by WSCC and confirmed that the land raising works would not increase the flood risk on the development site and wider area.

The application was recommended for refusal for two reason which relating to the flooding impact (which was now resolved) and the adverse impact of the proposed access track on the landscape.

Field Place is a Grade 1 Listed Building and the agricultural land and grounds surrounding the mansion form part of the wider area known as Field Place Estate, which is situated to the north of the A281 Old Guildford Road and to the west of Broadbridge Heath Road. Access has been formed in the southeast corner from Old Guildford Road West and principal access to the Field Place Estate is from Byfleets Lane to the north.

The application sought permission for the formation of earthen walls, two ponds, new hedges, construction of a tract from the existing tract on the eastern boundary, an agricultural temporary track, preservation of an existing vehicular track, planting of seedlings and installation of wheel washers and electric gates to Old Guildford Road West.

Members noted the Planning history of the application. It was also confirmed that following an error in the previous report (which had since been rectified and minuted), Broadbridge Heath Parish Council objected to the proposal.

A member of the public, the applicant and Warnham Parish Council spoke in support of the application at the meeting.

Members were pleased that concerns relating to flood issues had been addressed. The Ward Member generally felt that the work on site was essential, increased biodiversity, encouraged wildlife and would benefit the whole community.

Some concerns were still raised about the number of lorries visiting the site, and the associated impact on local highways. Officers clarified that previous highways issues had been associated with permitted development works which were now complete and unauthorised works on the site. Officers also clarified that this proposal could not control the access route for vehicular movements outside of the remit of this proposal. Members also noted that the track would be temporary and restored to its prior condition after seven years.

Some concerns were discussed regarding the planning history of the site and the applicant contravening conditions.

An alternative motion was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to Officer recommendation, as the development would result in many ecological benefits and cause no permanent harm.

            RESOLVED

That DC/24/0220 be approved, contrary to Officer recommendation, subject to the conditions listed at Appendix 2, for the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCN/6

Ward: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

Applicant: Ms Niccola Millar-Foy

The Head of Development & Building Control reported that full planning permission was sought for the demolition of existing barn and the erection of 5 residential dwellings, comprising four 3-bedroom dwellings and one 2- bedroom dwelling.

The current proposal was submitted as an alternative to DC/21/1878 which has extant prior approval consent for the conversion of the barn to five dwellings. This application has all pre-commencement conditions discharged and can demonstrate water neutrality, so represents a viable fallback to the current proposal.

The site currently comprises a 450sqm agricultural building located on the northern side of Marches Road, approximately 2km to the north of Warnham, and within the open countryside.

One representation had been received objecting to the proposal and Warnham Parish Council also objected.

One speaker spoke in support at the meeting and Warnham Parish Council spoke in objection.

Members discussed traffic concerns and were keen to gain clarity on the new proposal being of a comparable size to the existing approval. It was acknowledged that consideration was being given to whether the new application provided a better design and layout to the existing approved application.

It was generally felt that the new proposal was aesthetically better and consultation with West Sussex County Highways had raised no concerns regarding visibility on Marches Road.

            RESOLVED

That DC/23/1141 be approved in accordance with Officer recommendation, subject to appropriate conditions as detailed in the report.  

Ward: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham

Applicant: Mrs Emma Grundy

The Head of Development & Building Control reported that planning permission was sought to replace an existing hedge and timber close boarded fence along the northern side boundary of the property, with a replacement wall with close boarded fence panels.

The application site comprises a detached house occupying a corner plot between two branches of Six Acres, a residential cul-de-sac located within the built up area of Slinfold. The dwelling is part of a development of detached houses varying in scale, design and appearance. The house has a detached double garage to the front (west) side of the house.

The application was brought to Planning North Committee, as the applicant is an employee of Horsham District Council.

Representations had not been received regarding the application from neighbours or Slinfold Parish Council.

Members viewed the Officer presentation and raised no questions or objections.

            RESOLVED

That DC/24/0967 be approved in accordance with Officer recommendation as detailed in the report.