Agenda item

Andrew Watt, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application which sought approval for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 3 x 4 bedroom dwellings and 1x 4 bedroom replacement dwelling with associated parking, amenity space and landscaping. He noted that the site consists of 6 buildings formerly in use as a nursery and the site is overgrown with one building fire damaged, one glass house in disrepair, one demolished, and one former dwelling that is abandoned. He drew Members attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which contained amended conditions and a letter from Southern Water.

He noted that a previous application for a similar number of properties had been refused as the Inspector felt that the design was too urbanised for the rural locality. He noted that the new application is contrary to the Development Plan but the appeal decision for the previous scheme constitutes a material consideration which outweighs this conflict as the Inspector concluded it was a suitable location for development. It is located within the local gap between Hassocks and Burgess Hill but the Inspector did not consider that it would result in coalescence of the two settlements. The main reason for refusal was limited to the design which has now been addressed with a barn style of appropriate scale which fits well with the replacement dwelling.

Councillor Claire Tester spoke on behalf of Hassocks Parish Council against the application citing concerns over coalescence and damage to the character of the area.

Chris Barker spoke in favour noting that the principle of development is acceptable given the Inspector's comments and redesign.

Ward Member Councillor Hatton spoke against the application noting that both previous applications were refused by the Planning Officers as they were contrary to District Plan policy 12 as visual impact of buildings would go against the rural nature of the site. She expressed surprise that the architect’s panel was not involved in the decision on the design and queried if the Tree Officer had commented on the dense screening proposed in the application. She queried the fallback position mentioned by the Inspector and noted that the new application is similar in mass and whether the Inspector's concerns regarding ungracious encroachment on the countryside should still be applicable.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the fallback position referred only to the 2 buildings in the southeast corner of the site, one of which has since burnt down so it could be debatable whether the prior approval could be implemented in full as it related to a building conversion, not demolition and rebuild.  If it had been implemented, it would be juxtaposed with the derelict dwelling to north and the nursery buildings.  The new application has come forward in response to the Inspector's decision which is centred around design concerns rather than the position of buildings on site. These concerns have been addressed with the new application. The proposed buildings will converge around soft landscaping to reduce the concern around the extent of hard standing previously expressed by the Inspector, and the proposed scheme excluding the garage is 860m2 as opposed to the existing buildings which are 1302m2. In terms of the volume of the new buildings, the proposed scheme is reduced from 3054m3 to 2238m3 and the buildings are a more traditional design, appropriate for this rural location.

Two Members noted that the site is a brownfield site which is derelict and required cleaning and that the proposed development would address this.  A Member requested that the developer look to include sustainable heating options rather than wood burners.

Two Members expressed concern around coalescence and whether the location was sustainable, and felt that the application contravened District Plan Policy 6, 12, 15 and 21, as well as the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan.  The Team Leader noted that the Inspector had considered policy 1 and 9 of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan and was satisfied that there was not a risk of coalescence of settlements, and that that the site was in a sustainable location.

The Chairman took Members to the vote to approve the application in accordance with the Officer Recommendations and the Agenda Update Sheet. This was proposed by Councillor Coote and seconded by Councillor Sweatman. A recorded vote was carried out by the Legal Officer and the application was approved with 6 in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

It is agreed that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out

in Appendix A and the Agenda Update Sheet.

Councillor Eggleston left the meeting at 6.53pm