Agenda item

DM/19/0404 - High Trees, 41 Hickmans Lane, Lindfield, RH16 2BZ

Minutes:

Katherine Williams, Planning Officer, introduced the report which sought permission for the part demolition of the existing detached house and the proposed erection of single and two storey extensions to the front, side and rear elevations at 41 Hickmans Lane, Lindfield. She noted that the previous application was refused due to the overbearing and unneighbourly nature of the previously proposed 2-storey elevation. She drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which detailed a revision to the wording on P.35 of the report.

 

Martin Kenward, local resident, spoke against the application.

 

Graham Middle, speaking on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Michelle Harper, planning consultant for Ellen Associates, spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor Ash-Edwards, Ward Member for Lindfield, spoke neutrally on the application. He invited Members to consider the work that has been done to address the objections that were raised at the previous Planning Committee and the changes made to the extension to make it less overbearing. He also drew attention concerns raised by the resident of No.43 who highlighted the applicant’s intention to remove the hedge row on the boundary between their properties, creating a loss of landscape.

 

Steven King, Planning Applications Team Leader, addressed the comments made by the speakers. He highlighted that it was for Members to consider the application afresh, whether it overcomes the reasons for the refusal on the previous application and whether the current scheme is acceptable in relation to its design and impact on neighbouring properties.

 

A Member sought clarification on the distance between the revised application and the properties surrounding it.

 

The Planning Officer directed the Member’s attention to P.63 which detailed the separation distance between the proposed extension and the neighbouring properties. She confirmed that the distance between the application and No. 35 is 11.5m; between No. 37 is 9.8m and between No. 39 is 12.5m.

 

A Member noted that he had walked down the footpath adjacent to the property and could not find any issue with the property potentially being overbearing. He raised his concerns over the provision of parking and how the garage is of a poor design and layout. He also raised his concerns over the proposed balcony and the possible effect it may have on the neighbouring properties. He believed the issue of parking and balcony contributed to the significant harm of amenity and therefore conflicted with Policy DP.26 of the District Plan.

 

 A Member sought the officer’s advice over a comment made by a public speaker in which it was stated that there is an intention to remove the hedge which provides screening between the properties. He noted that in the report the officer relied on the hedge to provide the screening.

 

The Planning Applications Team Leader confirmed that the boundary line of the planning application went through the centre of the hedge. The Planning Applications Team advised that the applicant will not be able to remove hedging that   is not within their ownership.

 

A Member noted the concerns raised over car parking however highlighted the consultation with West Sussex County Council (WSCC) Highways in the report who did not raise an objection to the scheme.

 

In response to a query from a Member the Planning Applications Team Leader advised that as the property is located in the end of a cul-de-sac, vehicle speeds would be low and there would be no highway safety issues from the proposed access arrangements. He advised that if vehicles had to manoeuvre within the site to access the garage, this would not constitute a highway safety problem. He referred to the fact that WSCC Highways have no objection to the application.

 

The Chairman moved to the recommendation to approve the application which was agreed with 9 votes in favour of the application and 3 against.

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A.

 

Supporting documents: