Agenda item

DC/18/2244 - Land adjacent to 1 Tea Caddy Cottages, Worthing Road, West Grinstead

Ward: Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead

Applicant: Mr Henry Pannell


The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of a commercial building and a dwelling, and the erection of one 4-bedroom dwelling and one 3-bedroom dwelling.  They would have pitched rooves and gables and include stone, brick, clay tiles and slate.  Each would have a garden to the rear and two parking spaces.  A retaining wall on the western boundary adjacent to the old A24 was also proposed. 


The application site was located outside the built-up area to the east of the A24 and south of the Buck Barn crossroads. The two buildings to be demolished were single storey, with the commercial building occupying a large area of the site. The surrounding area was largely open countryside with sporadic development. 1 and 2 Tea Caddy Cottage were to the south, and four other dwellings about 130 metres to the north.  There were several equestrian and commercial developments nearby.  


Since publication of the report and applicant had submitted a number of documents: ecological appraisal survey; bat roost assessment; habitat suitability index; further information on contamination; and a technical note in respect of highway related issues. 


The Ecology Consultant had advised that the additional documents did not provide sufficient information and the fourth reason for refusal was still relevant, with a minor amendment to reflect the submission of the ecology appraisal survey and other documents.


WSCC raised no objections to the application.  Whilst they acknowledged that loss of the employment use would result in fewer heavy goods vehicle movements over the A24, there was no evidence of safety issues with the present arrangement. In response to the contamination information submitted, the Environmental Health Officer advised that additional works would still be required.


The Parish Council objected to the application. Seventeen representations had been received (not 12 as stated in the report).  Fifteen representations supported the application, and two objected to it.  


Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development, which led to the loss of a commercial unit and new residential accommodation; its impact on the character and visual amenities of the street scene and countryside location; the amenities of neighbouring occupiers; and parking and traffic conditions.


Members agreed that the proposal was unacceptable for the reasons as set out in the report.




That planning application DC/18/2244 be refused for the following reasons:


01   The proposed development would be located outside of a built-up area boundary on a site not allocated for development within the Horsham District Planning Framework, or in an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan. The proposed development would therefore be inconsistent with the overarching strategy for development set out within the Horsham District Planning Framework. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) and to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).


 02  The site lies within a rural location outside the limits of any existing settlement and does not constitute a use considered essential to such a countryside location. The proposal would therefore conflict with Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and with policies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015.      

 03  The application site is in employment use and no justification has been provided to demonstrate that the premises are no longer needed or unviable for continued employment use. The loss of the employment use would therefore be contrary to policies 9 and 10 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015), which seek to encourage sustainable rural economic development within the District.


 04  There is insufficient information on which to consider the potential impacts of the proposed development proposal on protected species in accordance with Policy 25 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 or as required by the Bat Conservation Trust's Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2016) and Circular 06/2005. In the absence of this information it has not been possible to demonstrate that the proposal would comply with the provisions of Policy 31 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Supporting documents: