Agenda item

Ward: Chanctonbury (Historic Ward)

Applicant: Mr Walls and Steel

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for a variation to a number of conditions attached to permission DC/15/0193 (the erection of eight new dwellings, comprising six detached and two semi-detached houses with related accesses, garaging and car parking).  Variation of conditions 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 15 would allow pre-construction/occupation conditions to be dealt with by each individual plot owner. Variation of condition 2 would allow: plots 7 and 8 to be merged to provide one market dwelling rather than two affordable units; plot 1 to be split to provide two market dwellings; and amendments to siting and design of the dwelling proposed for plot 5.

The proposal would allow the plots to be sold off separately as self-build sites.  A new legal agreement would be required because only plots developed by developers, rather than self-build, would require an affordable housing contribution.

Officers advised of a proposed amendment to Condition 6 to require agreement of materials at pre-slab level rather than pre-commencement level, and conditions 8 and 9 would be updated to be regulatory rather than pre-commencement conditions

Members noted that the application site was in the West Chiltington, Thakeham & Ashington Ward, not the Chanctonbury Ward as incorrectly stated in the report.

The application site was located outside the built-up area on the east side of Threals Lane and comprised two plots; the larger one to the south was in the parish of Thakeham and the smaller one was within the parish of West Chiltington. There was a single property between these two plots.  The built-up area of West Chiltington Common was on the opposite side of Threals Lane. 

Both Thakeham and West Chiltington Parish Councils objected to the application.  There had been eight representations objecting to the application including one from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE Sussex).  A representative of West Chiltington Parish Council and a representative of Thakeham Parish Council both spoke in objection to the application.  A representative of the CPRE also spoke in objection to it.  A representative on behalf of the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal was the loss of affordable housing as a result of the provision of custom-build housing and the impact of the proposed amendments to the design and layout of the scheme. 

Details of the appeal decision to grant DC/15/0193 were noted, in particular the weight given by the Inspector to the provision of affordable housing. Members discussed the loss of the two affordable housing units in this countryside location and concluded that the proposal was unacceptable as the benefit of housing, proposed as self/custom build, did not outweigh the policy conflict of new housing in the open countryside.   

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/19/0720 be refused for the following reasons:

The proposed dwellings are located in a countryside location, outside of any defined built-up area boundary, on a site not allocated for development within the Horsham District Planning Framework or an adopted neighbourhood plan. Consequently, the proposed development would be contrary to the overarching strategy and hierarchy approach of concentrating development within the main settlements of the District, and the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the harm caused by this policy conflict, in particular the non-provision of affordable units, by any means, to meet an identified local need. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 1, 3, 4, 16 and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015), Policy Thakeham1 of the Thakeham Neighbourhood. Plan (2017), Policy EH1 of the Pre-Submission Version of the West Chiltington Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).