Agenda item

Steve King, Planning Applications Team Leader, introduced the report which sought retrospective planning permission for a replacement dwelling at 41 Hickmans Lane, Lindfield. He drew Member’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which detailed an additional letter of objection, revision to the application details, a minor amendment to the details of a consultation and an additional condition. The Planning Applications Team Leader highlighted the minimal differences between the scheme before Members and what would have been constructed on site if the previous consent had been implemented.

Ben Dempster, local resident, spoke against the application.

Martin Kenward, local resident, spoke against the application.

Jeff Borrows, applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Graham Middle, local resident, spoke in favour of the application.

The Chairman requested that the Officer clarify the comments made by the public speakers in relation to the retrospective change to the garden facing window for it to become a door and in relation to planning enforcement’s involvement in the application.

In response to the Chairman’s query the Planning Applications Team Leader showed the difference between the approved plan on the previous consent which showed a ground floor window on the side elevation facing the neighbour to the north and the scheme now before Members which showed a door on the ground floor side elevation facing the neighbour to the north. The Planning Applications Team Leader advised that he did not consider that this change  caused any harm. He added that the Council does not condone work being carried out without the required planning permission being in place however legislation does allow for retrospective applications to be made and retrospective applications had to be considered on their own merits. The fact that an application was retrospective was not a reason to refuse it. 

The Planning Applications Team Leader explained the timeline for events on the site. The Council’s records showed that a complaint was received on 8 August 2019 that the house that was on the site had been completely demolished. No site visit was required at this point in time as the house had been demolished. A site visit on 27 August 2019 established that works were taking place to erect a replacement dwelling. The retrospective application was validated on 9 September 2019.

The Chairman also noted that a condition ensures that the Juliet balcony in actually constructed.

A Member noted that the application is similar to the one previously approved and felt it would irrational to reject the application.

A Member stated that he could not see any demonstrable harm and that changing the ground floor garden window to a door would not cause any harm. He believed that there were no substantial planning reasons to refuse the application.

The Chairman noted that no Member wished to speak so moved to the recommendation to approve, proposed by Councillor Coote and seconded by Councillor Walker, which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A and the additional condition set out in the Agenda Update Sheet.