Agenda item

Stuart Malcolm, Senior Planning Officer introduced the outline application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and dilapidated nursery buildings and construction of up to 6 dwellings with the creation of new access onto Cansiron Lane and the provision of a lay-by. He noted that the site lies just over 0.5km from the built-up area of Ashurst Wood, with a public right of way across the northern boundary and Cansiron Lane itself being a bridleway.  The application site is allocated for residential development in the Ashurst Wood Neighbourhood Plan.  The 6 new dwellings would give a net increase of 5 dwellings on site, with the new access more centrally located and a lay-by to be used as a passing place.  He noted that there would be some impact to trees on the site which are mainly category C but confirmed that 2 Oak trees referred to in the representations will be retained. There are no objections from the Highways Authority or the rights-of-way team and the ecological consultant is content with the measures put in place.  

Councillor Jennie Forbes spoke in objection, as Chair of the Village Council Planning Committee, noting that although the Council supports development on the site they have concerns around the number of units proposed, the wording of conditions and the impact to the trees and bridleway.

Councillor John Belsey spoke as Ward Member in objection noting the 28 objections received and supporting the concerns of the Village Council. He wished to support the Ashurst Wood Neighbourhood Plan which originally allocated 3 units to the site and he raised concerns regarding construction traffic around school times. He also asked for the S106 monies to be used for projects within Ashurst Wood.

In response to questions from the speakers, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that condition 3 and 4 are correct from a planning procedural perspective, with no reason for the wording to be the same due to the different nature of the content of the conditions. He also confirmed that any making-good of road damage during construction would be a private matter between the parties involved.

Regarding the S106 contributions, he drew Members attention to the proposals on p.34 of the report but confirmed that there is room for alternatives, subject to meeting the relevant tests, if Members wished to propose a different use.

A Member noted that the net gain of 5 units was addressed in the report in terms of reflecting the density of adjacent plots but he raised concern over the loss of trees, seeking clarification on the category of all trees to be felled. He also queried why the application was not considered under delegated powers due to the number of units involved.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that it was before the committee as officers felt that it would be prudent for the committee to determine given the number of objections and the Neighbourhood Plan allocation. Regarding the Neighbourhood Plan, he noted that the approximate capacity of 3 units on site is only referenced in the pretext of ASW5 and not in the actual policies of ASW5 or ASW7.  Furthermore Policy ASW5 states that indicative numbers of dwellings for each site will be reviewed at the application stage. The criteria of ASW7 also says that a proposed development should respect the low density of existing dwellings in the immediate locality of the site, which this application accords to. Regarding the trees, he confirmed that there are 39 to be removed of which 2 are Category ‘U’, 28 are Category ‘C’ and 9 are Category ‘B’. On p.26 of the report, the Tree Officer requests that like-for-like replacements are provided and in this case 45 trees will be replanted.

A Member expressed support for the application but requested that condition 6 relating to hedgerows be specifically considered at the next planning stage, if this application be approved. He also requested that S106 monies be allocated in conjunction with the Parish Council and Ward Member.

The Chairman took Members to recommendation to approve as set out in the report which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning permission is granted subject to the recommendations below:

Recommendation A

It is recommended that, subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 planning obligation securing the necessary financial contributions towards infrastructure, SAMM mitigation and the inclusion of an appropriate affordable housing formula (including required Affordable Housing provisions), as set out in the Assessment section below, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A.

Recommendation B

It is recommended that if the applicants have not completed a satisfactory signed

planning obligation securing the necessary infrastructure payments, SAMM

mitigation and affordable housing formula by the 11th July 2019, then it is

recommended that permission be refused, at the discretion of the Divisional Leader

for Planning and Economy, for the following reason:

'In the absence of a signed legal agreement the application fails to deliver the

necessary infrastructure, SAMM mitigation and affordable housing required to serve

the development and as such conflicts with Policies DP17, DP20 and DP31 of the

Mid Sussex District Plan as well as the Council's SPD's entitled 'Development

Infrastructure and Contributions' and 'Affordable Housing'.