SOUTH AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 TH MAY 2011

Transcription

1 1. DELEGATED DECISION LIST SOUTH AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 TH MAY 2011 DOCUMENT C 1.0 The Delegated Decision List - showing decisions issued by the Head of Economic Promotion and Planning is attached. The Committee is requested to note this report. 1

2 DELEGATED DECISION LIST Application No. Address/Proposal Decision AE/11/00017/FUL AE/11/00189/FUL AE/11/00300/FUL AE/11/00301/LBC AE/11/00316/FUL AE/11/00353/FUL Demolition of existing concrete and asbestos cement garage. construction of timber framed garage The Arches The Street Albourne Hassocks Variation of consent 10/00767 to include minor amendment to two elevations. Replacement of the garage doors with windows and insertion of additional window. North Pottersfield Cottage Henfield Road Albourne Hassocks A new and traditionally constructed Timber Orangery Extension with some related modifications to the existing house host wall. Nortons Cottage The Street Albourne Hassocks A new and traditionally constructed Timber Orangery Extension with some related modifications to the existing house host wall. Nortons Cottage The Street Albourne Hassocks Construction of paintball arena with ancillary changing and storage facility with extensive landscaping Q Leisure The Old Sand Pit London Road Albourne Build a barn (Timber frame) to store small farm equipment, seeds, grain and other agriculture elements for small hold farm and also erect a polytunnel. Wick Farm Smallholdings Truslers Hill Lane Albourne West Sussex AE/11/00844/TCA Yew (1) Reduce overall canopy by 1-2m. Yew (2) Reduce Height of northern most stem by 30% and reshape higher branches to balance Cupressus fell. Bounty Cottage And Finches The Street Albourne Hassocks NO OBJECTION BH/10/01975/NON MAT BH/10/03750/NON MAT BH/11/00080/FUL South elevation - 2nd dormer added over new bedroom to match existing to give balance. East elevation - Top infill section of the conservatory to be glazed not brick. 4 Fry Crescent Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 8TP Amendment to first floor window (west elevation) from 940mm wide to 1200mm wide and non obscured. 10 Churchill Way Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0ES First floor side extension. 18 Erin Way Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 9PN 2

3 BH/11/00114/ADV BH/11/00241/FUL BH/11/00282/ADV BH/11/00307/ADV BH/11/00337/FUL BH/11/00339/FUL BH/11/00345/FUL BH/11/00427/FUL BH/11/00428/FUL BH/11/00436/FUL BH/11/00452/COU BH/11/00471/TEL5 6 BH/11/00500/FUL Proposed change of signage/advertisements for use as Foreign exchange in connection with planning application 11/00113/COU. 16 Church Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 9AE Lower Curb in preparation for a 2 car driveway. 135 Junction Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0JL Non illuminated information board. (Retrospective) 56 Denham Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 9TG Erection of 1no. internally illuminated fascia sign and 1no. internally illuminated projecting box sign. Clarks 80 Church Walk Burgess Hill West Sussex Raise main warehouse roof at eaves. New external windows/doors and render wall finishes. 35 Victoria Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 9LB Single storey side extension to provide increased trading area, new gents toilet and new ladies/disabled toilet The Watermill Inn 1 Leylands Road Burgess Hill West Sussex Two storey side extension 8 Colmer Place Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 8PU Side extension 33 The Wickets Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 8TG Electricity substation and electricity meter kiosk 25A Cyprus Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 8DX Proposed single storey rear extension 25 Greenlands Drive Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0AZ Change of use from A3 to A5 (hot food takeaway) and installation of associated equipment. The Corner House 45 Church Walk Burgess Hill West Sussex Installation Of New Exterior Green Shell On Telecoms Cabinet Treetops Keymer Road Burgess Hill West Sussex Land to the North of Maltings Park, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, (the addition of a Footpath/Cycle Way. To be read in conjunction with previously approved application Ref: 09/00602/FUL. Land To The North Of Maltings Park Southway Burgess Hill West Sussex APPROVAL - TELECOM. DETERMINATION 3

4 BH/11/00516/FUL BH/11/00517/FUL BH/11/00522/FUL BH/11/00552/FUL Two storey side extension 16 Bramber Way Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 8JX Extension to existing conservatory 73 Leylands Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 8AF Erection of a 2 storey rear extension 4 Alexandra Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0EW Build a new room above existing Garage - 1st floor side extension (description amended on ) 24 Warelands Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 9QD BH/11/00565/TCA Maple - Trim back lower canopy on eastern side by 1m. Prescott Gardens Upper St Johns Road Burgess Hill West Sussex NO OBJECTION BH/11/00569/TRE E BH/11/00570/TRE E BH/11/00610/LDC BH/11/00687/EOT BH/11/00688/FUL BH/11/00695/FUL BH/11/00787/TRE E BH/11/00719/FUL Oak (T22) - trim back canopy by 2m on southern side. Land Rear Of 64 To 70 Kings Way Burgess Hill West Sussex Two Horse Chestnuts (T1 and T2) - remove lowest branch on southern side of each tree. 28 Inholmes Park Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0JE Extension to existing loft conversion. This is an application to establish whether the development is lawful. It will be a legal decision and the planning merits of the development cannot be taken into account 60 Priory Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 9HB Extension of Time application for ground floor front extension to kitchen and two storey rear extension to lounge and bedroom Cleves Keymer Road Burgess Hill West Sussex Proposed rear single storey kitchen extension. Bramley House 29 Janes Lane Burgess Hill West Sussex Relocation of previously approved garage in application ref:pp ; new erection of front gate. 10 Folders Lane Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0DR Reduce crowns of two Oaks (within Group G1) by 20% Oakmeeds Gospel Hall Station Road Burgess Hill West Sussex Demolition of existing garage. New Garage. 2nd Storey Extension. Pitched roofs to porch and conservatory. 249 Chanctonbury Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 9HQ 4

5 BH/11/00735/LDC BH/11/00782/TCA BH/11/00792/TRE E BH/11/00793/TRE E BH/11/00832/FUL BH/11/00855/TRE E BH/11/00859/TCA BH/11/00860/FUL BH/11/00862/FUL BH/11/00899/FUL BH/11/01042/TRE E Construction of new garage/garden room. This is an application to establish whether the development is lawful: this will be a legal decision where the planning merits of the proposed use cannot be taken into account. 77 Dunstall Avenue Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 8PJ Fell two small trees (species unknown) 4 Park Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 8ET Oak (T10) - reduce crown by up to 25% 21 The Nursery Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0LF Ash (T1) - fell Mill Park Park Road Burgess Hill West Sussex Form dropped kerb access to front of property 121 Junction Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0JL T1 Oak Remove epicormic growth to height of first main limbs. Reduce canopy by 20% 9 Avonhurst Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0RY Fell one Leylandii 48 Ferndale Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0HG Refurbishment of shop to create cafe/creche 22 Church Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 9AE Single storey rear extension 3 Curf Way Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0GD Replacement pitched roof over existing garage and proposed turning head to front drive 33 Ferndale Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 0HB Oak - Remove three lowest branches Land At Sunset Lane Franklands Way Burgess Hill West Sussex NO OBJECTION GRANTED UNCONDITIONAL NO OBJECTION BH/11/01074/TCA Goat Willow - Reduce overall canopy by 20% 30 Crescent Road Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 8EG NO OBJECTION BH/11/01117/TRE E BK/09/03600/NON MAT Oak (T1) - Remove branches overhanging 17 and 19 Marle Avenue 10 Sheddingdean Close Burgess Hill West Sussex RH15 8JQ Introduction of an en-suite bathrooms to both bedrooms in each dwelling by reducing the size of the first floor landing shown on the approved drawings. Land Parcel Former Car Park To Queens Head Pub London Road Bolney West Sussex 5

6 BK/10/02337/NON MAT BK/11/00052/FUL BK/11/00198/FUL BK/11/00375/FUL BK/11/00465/LDC BK/11/00854/FUL BK/11/01040/TCA FK/11/00371/EOT HA/09/03858/NON MAT Alterations to the position of the entrance hall (moved westwards) omit glazing over entrance door, replace with face brickwork. Minor changes to position of windows to entrance hall. The Field House The Street Bolney Haywards Heath Equestrian menage for private use only Foxhole Farm Foxhole Lane Bolney Haywards Heath Single storey Side and Rear extension to North and West of Fernwood Cottage Fernwood Cottage The Street Bolney Haywards Heath Demolition of existing conservatory and new ground floor single storey extension to dining room and living room with 2 no. lanterns over and to add family bathroom at first floor level with 3 no velux windows. Little Grove Cross Colwood Lane Bolney Haywards Heath Application for land use to be changed to residential uses. This is an application to establish whether the development is lawful: this will be a legal decision where the planning merits of the proposed use cannot be taken into account. Park Farm Cottage Broxmead Lane Bolney Haywards Heath Substitution of balcony and steps by raised decking linking with existing terrace and garden. 400mm increase in the lenght of the entrance hall to improve flow and design and proportion. Increase in the parking area to provide a turning facility. The Field House The Street Bolney Haywards Heath 3 Oaks and 1 Maple - Reduce overall canopies by aprox. 20% Butchers Ryecroft Road Bolney Haywards Heath Proposed extension and alterations to existing detached garage to provide new living accommodation for ancillary use in connection with the existing house. Perching Sands Farmhouse Edburton Road Fulking Henfield Various amendments to windows and elevations 49 Kings Drive Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8DY NO OBJECTION 6

7 HA/09/03886/NON MAT HA/10/03368/FUL HA/10/03478/FUL HA/10/03948/FUL HA/10/03966/NON MAT HA/11/00045/FUL HA/11/00240/FUL HA/11/00391/FUL Reduce width of rear sliding/folding doors. High-level gable end window with central mulllion and slightly lowered sill. Gable glazing to rear dormer to include a mullion (previously glazed without a mullion). Amended parapet wall detail to party wall (no increase in height). Additional timber weatherboarding to the rear elevation. 56 Hurst Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 9NL Proposed replacement 4 bedroom dwelling. (Amended plans received 31/01/11) 12 Hurst Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 9NJ Dormer window and replacement window, both at second floor level. The Tower St Marys Mead Ockley Lane Hassocks 4 Bay Oak Frame outbuilding to be erected to allow agricultural land to be used for agricultural purposes. 19 Beacon Hurst Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8RE Realignment of approved extension relative to existing house. 40 Silverdale Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8RD New access to plot 60 from London Road (amended plans and certificate received on 15 February 2011) 60 London Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 9NU Alterations and two storey extension Sungate Ockley Lane Hassocks West Sussex Removal of existing extension and erection of single storey extension to rear 11 Queens Drive Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8DF HA/11/00437/FUL Erection of a satellite dish (description amended on 18 February 2011) 113 Parklands Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8LE HA/11/00498/TCA HA/11/00553/FUL HA/11/00622/FUL Beech - reduce canopy by 30%. 5 Malus - Fell St John The Baptists Church Underhill Lane Clayton West Sussex Loft conversion and single storey rear extension 68 Church Mead Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8BW Proposed erection of 2 storey, 4 bedroom detached dwelling including attached single storey car port. Land To The West Of Sandbanks South Bank Hassocks West Sussex NO OBJECTION 7

8 HA/11/00623/LDC HA/11/00636/LDC HA/11/00771/FUL HA/11/00817/FUL HA/11/00913/C3R EG HP/10/02887/FUL HP/10/03930/FUL HP/11/00211/FUL HP/11/00252/FUL HP/11/00338/LDC Single storey side extension. This is an application to establish whether the development is lawful: this will be a legal decision where the planning merits of the proposed use cannot be taken into account. 7 Oldlands Avenue Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8DJ Erection of a single storey rear extension and internal alterations. This is an application to establish whether the development is lawful: this will be a legal decision where the planning merits of the proposed use cannot be taken into account. 93 Mackie Avenue Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8NJ Two storey south west side extension and replacement roof to existing rear conservatory. Amended plans received 28/3/ Ockley Cottages Ockley Lane Hassocks West Sussex Installation of a Solar Photovoltaic (PV) system on an existing agricultural building. Lodge Farm New Road Hassocks West Sussex Provision of an additional Modular single classroom to give additional teaching space for a 3 year period. Hassocks Infant School Chancellors Park Hassocks West Sussex Construction of All Weather Pitch with associated infrastructure including car parking, footpaths and landscaping. Hurstpierpoint College College Lane Hurstpierpoint Hassocks Extensive renovation of the existing 3 bedroom dwelling including the construction of a new family wing to the west and a garage, studio and family unit to the east.(amended PLANS received 26th January 2011). Cornercroft Halton Shaws Hurstpierpoint Hassocks Conservatory to rear of property. 11 The Grange Hurstpierpoint Hassocks West Sussex Erection of 2 storey side extension, front porch, 2m high front boundary wall and timber gates and alterations to vehicle hardstanding. 66 Wickham Hill Hurstpierpoint Hassocks West Sussex Dormers to sides and rear extension. This is an application to establish whether the development is lawful: this will be a legal decision where the planning merits of the proposed use cannot be taken into account. 21 Spinney Close Hurstpierpoint Hassocks West Sussex 8

9 HP/11/00346/FUL HP/11/00387/FUL HP/11/00402/EOT HP/11/00420/FUL HP/11/00430/LDC HP/11/00455/FUL HP/11/00474/FUL HP/11/00488/FUL HP/11/00555/FUL HP/11/00561/LBC HP/11/00574/FUL HP/11/00706/FUL To install 12 solar PV panels to pitched roof of property. The Granary Hassocks Road Hurstpierpoint Hassocks Two single storey extensions, replacement garage and link to existing dwelling. Mallards House Mill Lane Sayers Common Hassocks Conversion of existing stable block and garage to form additional garage and single residential unit, flat over. Norfolk House 75 High Street Hurstpierpoint Hassocks Proposed conservatory Brendon 100 Wickham Hill Hurstpierpoint Hassocks Proposed extension to existing loft accommodation including the addition of two rooflights (east and south elevation) and proposed side facing window (ground floor, east elevation). This is an application to establish whether the development is lawful: this will be a legal decision where the planning merits of the proposed use cannot be taken into account. Brendon 100 Wickham Hill Hurstpierpoint Hassocks Proposed single storey garage. Please note amended address. Land To Rear Of 175 High Street Hurstpierpoint West Sussex Proposed attached 3 bedroom house 9 Kemps Hurstpierpoint Hassocks West Sussex Single storey rear extension 5 Cuckfield Road Hurstpierpoint Hassocks BN6 9RP Insertion of rooflights into front and rear roof slopes as part of loft conversion works. 31 The Grange Hurstpierpoint Hassocks West Sussex To install 12 solar PV panels to pitched roof of property. The Granary Hassocks Road Hurstpierpoint Hassocks Conservatory at rear 17 The Grange Hurstpierpoint Hassocks West Sussex Installation of swimming pool Kents Farmhouse Malthouse Lane Hurstpierpoint Hassocks PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT HP/11/00613/TCA Yew - reduce lateral limbs by 30%. Box House Farm Langton Lane Hurstpierpoint Hassocks NO OBJECTION HP/11/00812/FUL Installation of a 28m x 5m canopy. Hurstpierpoint College College Lane Hurstpierpoint Hassocks 9

10 HP/11/00818/LBC HP/11/00827/FUL HP/11/01006/TCA HP/11/01111/TCA NT/11/00547/FUL PN/11/00545/FUL PN/11/00676/EOT PN/11/00875/FUL PY/11/00254/FUL To replace front door. 125 High Street Hurstpierpoint Hassocks BN6 9PU Single storey side & rear extension 9 College Lane Hurstpierpoint Hassocks BN6 9AB Fell a Norway Spruce 116 High Street Hurstpierpoint West Sussex BN6 9PX Holm Oak - Lift crown to 5m above ground. Yew - Lift crown to 5m above ground. Loja Albourne Road Hurstpierpoint Hassocks Demolition of existing garage construction of a two storey extension and car port. Erection of a single storey rear extension with balcony. (Description amended on ) Fox Ash The Street Poynings Brighton Demolition of Rear Elevation including existing ground floor extensions, rebuilding rear elevation with new ground and first floor extension new roof to both new and existing construction. Including a balcony and basement. (Description amended on ) Pond Bey Mill Lane Poynings Brighton Extension of time application for the upgrading of existing access onto Henfield Road (A281) Land At Park Wood Henfield Road Poynings West Sussex Replacement workshop and garden store. Pond Bey Mill Lane Poynings Brighton Single storey rear garden room extension 17 Pyecombe Street Pyecombe Brighton West Sussex NO OBJECTION NO OBJECTION PY/11/00612/FUL New 3 bed attached dwelling. Land Adj. 1 Church Cottages The Wyshe Pyecombe Brighton PY/11/00638/FUL TW/11/01000/FUL TW/10/03872/FUL New 4 bed detached dwelling. (Description amended 17th March 2011) Land Adj 1 Church Cottages The Wyshe Pyecombe Brighton Installation of a solar panel array to the south facing roof of the clients barn. Hookers Farm Bolney Chapel Road Twineham Haywards Heath Construction of a timber single storey heritage breeds poultry rearing shed Green Field Farm London Road Hickstead West Sussex 10

11 APPEALS UPDATE Reference: 09/03600/FUL Date Decided: 3 February 2011 Site: Car park to the former Queens Head Public House, London Rd, Bolney Description: Erection of 3 houses together with parking and associated landscaping Decision: Appeal allowed Procedure: Written Representation This application was recommended for approval at the south area planning committee on 13 May 2010 but was refused by Members, who were concerned about the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the property immediately to the north of the site. The Council did not refuse the application on the basis that the site was outside the built up area boundary. At the time of the Councils decision it was noted that the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year land supply for housing as required by PPS3 and this weighed in favour of the officers recommendation to approve the application. The Inspector considered that the main issue was the impact of the proposal on the living conditions of the adjoining property, The Old Police House, with particular regard to visual impact, outlook and sunlight. The Inspector noted that the two windows in The Old Police House facing the site were secondary windows and that the main aspect for the living room was from windows in the east and west of the adjacent property. Whilst the appeal proposal would result in a noticeable change in aspect, the Inspector considered that a reasonable amount of open sky would remain visible. The Inspector placed weight on the sunlight and daylight report submitted by the appellant, which indicated that the impact of the proposal on these secondary windows would be acceptable. The Inspector also noted that planning policy does not protect a right to a view. He therefore concluded on this issue that the proposal would not have an overbearing visual impact on the main outlook from the neighbours house or unacceptable reduce the amount of sunlight to their property. In respect of potential over looking, the Inspector considered that the relationship would be similar to that which already existed from the existing line of properties to the north. On this basis there was no conflict with policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. In relation to other matters, the Inspector considered that the design of the properties was acceptable and would not amount to an over development of the site. Car parking and garden sizes were adequate for the small dwellings proposed. The Inspector considered that this brownfield site made no positive contribution to the character of the area. He noted that it was separated by woodland and a main road from the land to the east and is not seen in the context of open countryside. The proposal would make beneficial use of the land for housing and would not harm the setting of the settlement of Bolney. In light of the above the Inspector allowed the appeal. 11

12 Reference: 10/01345/FUL Date Decided: 21 February 2011 Site: Land rear of 95 London Road, Burgess Hill Description: Erection of 3 x 2-bed houses Decision: Dismissed Procedure: Written Representations The application was recommended for approval at the South Area Planning Committee on 8 July 2010 but was refused by Members, who were concerned about the over development of the site and the impact on neighbouring amenities. The Inspector considered that the main issues were: the impact on the locality resulting from the proposed on-site parking arrangements; and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers with respect to privacy and visual impact. The Inspector noted that the appeal site is well within the built-up area of Burgess Hill, close to a local shop and bus routes and within reasonable reach of mainline railway stations. Together with the modest size of the houses, he felt it unlikely that 2 permanent car parking spaces would necessarily be required for each dwelling. He found that there was no conflict with policy T5 of the Local Plan, and that it was unlikely overspill parking would be a significant problem for the area. The Inspector did not find there would be any harmful overlooking to no. 26 Fairlea Close and nor would the proposal cause undue harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of no. 27 Fairlea Close. However, he considered that the proposed side (east-facing) first floor bedroom window would allow oblique overlooking and to The Coach House (to be built) and to 97 London Road, whereby the usefulness of the rear garden as an amenity space would be significantly reduced. He concluded that the proposed development would conflict with policy B3 of the Local Plan. He dismissed the appeal. Reference: 10/00104/FUL Date Decided: 6 April 2011 Site: 5 Clayton Avenue, Hassocks Description: Erection of one detached highly sustainable eco dwelling Decision: Dismissed Procedure: Written representations This application was refused under delegated powers due to concerns that the proposal was a harmful over development of the site. The Inspector considered that the main issue was the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector noted that the definition of previously developed land in PPS3 had changed so that the site (part of a rear garden) was no longer previously developed land. He also noted that the site was in a sustainable location. The Inspector considered that the proposal, being hard up against the northern site boundary would appear cramped within the plot. He was also concerned that the position of the car parking space immediately in front of the proposed dwelling and extending across the width of the site would mean that the proposal would be a car-dominated development. This combination of features would result in a building that would not make a positive contribution to the street scene. The Inspector concluded that the development would be contrary to policies B1 and H3 in the Mid Sussex Local Plan. He dismissed the appeal. 12

13 Reference: 10/02988/EOT Date Decided: 10 May 2011 Site: Magpies, Gatehouse Lane, Burgess Hill Description: Demolition of Magpies and the erection of part-one part-two storey building with roof accommodation comprising 8 No. 2 bed apartments, provision of 8 parking spaces, cycle store, and formation of new access onto Gatehouse Lane Decision: Allowed Procedure: Written representations This application sought consent to extend the period of time to implement the above scheme, which was originally allowed on appeal in The extension of time application was reported to the south area planning committee on 28 October where it was recommended for approval. However Members resolved to refuse the application on the basis of the change in the definition of previously developed land in PPS excluding garden land and the Councils adoption of a dwelling space standards supplementary planning document (SPD after the original appeal had been allowed. The Inspector noted the fact that as this was an application to extend the period of time for implementing a planning permission, by definition the development was considered acceptable in On this basis the question before the Inspector was whether policies in the development plan or other material considerations changed significantly since the original grant of planning permission. The main issues in the appeal were 1) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area 2) whether the proposed apartments would provide adequate living space for future residents and 3) whether the financial contributions sought in relation to public services, community facilities, public art and open space are necessary top enable the development to go ahead. Issue 1 In respect of the first issue, the Inspector stated that notwithstanding the change in national policy in relation to the definition of previously developed land, the issue was whether the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector concurred with the views of his colleague who allowed the original appeal, finding that the development would complement the character and appearance of the area and therefore comply with policies B1, H2 and H3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan (MSLP). Issue 2 In respect of the second issue, the Inspector noted that two of the flats would fall marginally below the adopted dwelling space standards document. He stated that it was clear from Government guidance in relation to applications for the extension to time limits for implementing a permission that a positive and constructive approach should be taken. With that in mind he concluded that the shortfall in the two units was not so significant as to warrant refusal of the application on the basis of the limited adverse impact on living conditions that would result. Issue 3 In respect of the third issue The Inspector noted that requests for infrastructure contributions must have regard to the requirements of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL). The Inspector concluded that as the flats had 2 bedrooms, in principle they could accommodate families. No private gardens were provided on site. Nearby playgrounds had been identified. The potential increase in use as a result of the appeal proposal justified the need for investment in public play space provision. The Inspector stated that public art was not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Playing pitch provision covers a relatively large geographical area and the additional 8 flats would make a marginal impact on such provision. He reached the same conclusion in relation to community facilities. The Inspector also considered that the blanket charging approach adopted by 13

14 the County Council in relation to library, school and transport services failed to identify whether a local shortfall of those services exists. He concluded on this issue that only the financial contribution relation to public play space provision met the tests of the CIL Regulations. As such only this element of the Unilateral Planning Obligation could be taken into account. The Inspector concluded by stating that the proposal would make a small but useful contribution to new housing identified for the District. He allowed the appeal. There are a number of points to be drawn from this decision. Firstly, the change in the definition of previously developed land in PPS3 is not in itself, a reason to resist proposals for development. Secondly the importance of compliance with the CIL Regulations is emphasised. In this case at the appeal stage the appellants challenged the necessity of providing the infrastructure payments that were being requested, having previously agreed to pay them on the scheme when it was originally approved in 2008 and when the application to renew this consent was made. The effect of this is that the Council has now lost out on all the infrastructure payments, with the exception of play space monies. Costs decision The applicants made a separate application for an award of costs against the Council. The costs Circular advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. The Inspector noted that the test to apply was whether the Council was able to substantiate each reason for refusal at the appeal stage with reference to the development plan and all other material considerations. In respect of the first reason, whilst the definition of previously developed land had changed in PPS3, for permission to be refused on the grounds of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area harm must be demonstrated. It was clear from the reasoning of the previous Inspector that the scheme was well designed and that the status of the land at the time as previously developed land was not a critical factor in granting planning permission. In light of the previous Inspectors findings that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area, the Council acted unreasonably in reusing criticisms of the size of the building and the increase in residential activity to substantiate its first reason for refusal. In respect of the second reason, the Inspector considered that the Council was able to substantiate this reason for refusal and did not act unreasonably. In light of the above the Inspector concluded that the Council had acted unreasonably in relation to the first reason for refusal. On this basis a partial award of costs against the Council was justified. The appellants have stated that the total cost to them of pursuing the appeal was 3, and have submitted a claim to the Council for 2, Reference: EF/07/081 Date Decided: 1 March 2011 Site: 7 Gladstone Road, Burgess Hill Description: Without planning permission the material change of the use of the Land from purposes ancillary to a dwelling house to the use of the building on the Land as a separate dwelling house Decision: Dismissed. Enforcement notice upheld, subject to corrections Procedure: Written representations 14

15 Planning permission has been granted for the conversion of 7 Gladstone Road into 2 flats in 2007 (07/02824/FUL). The appellant had erected an outbuilding in the rear garden of the property, which at the time, he asserted was permitted development. Following a compliant it was ascertained that the applicants was living in the outbuilding whilst implementing the planning permission for the conversion of 7 Gladstone Road. A previous appeal against a planning application that sought to use this building in the garden for residential use during course of implementing the permission for the conversion of 7 Gladstone Road into flats was dismissed on 8 June Following this decision an enforcement notice was issued to remedy this breach of planning control. The Inspector noted that an enforcement notice directed at a material change of use may require the removal of operational works integral to and solely for the purpose of facilitating the unauthorised use, irrespective of whether they might be immune from enforcement action. The Inspector noted the appellants assertions that when the building was originally erected it was for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house at No 7 before the lawful conversion of the flats was underway, and was thus permitted development. The Councils position was that upon inspection in 2006 the outbuilding was under construction and it was considered to be permitted development. However an inspection of the completed building in 2007 revealed a self contained unit of accommodation. In light of the conflicting accounts and uncertainty about the initial purpose of the outbuilding, the Inspector considered that it was not appropriate for the enforcement notice to seek the removal of the building and that the intention to target the building itself should have been expressly stated in the alleged breach of planning control. The Inspector formed the view that the notice should be corrected to seek the cessation of the use of the building as a separate dwelling house only rather than also requiring its removal. The Inspector considered that the size of the building was inappropriate for a separate dwelling house. Its use as such would also adversely affect the neighbour s amenities. The Inspector did not consider that a period of compliance of 24 months as suggested by the appellants was appropriate and saw no reason to depart from the period of compliance of 9 months as set out in the notice. The Inspector upheld the enforcement notice with corrections. The effect of this decision is that the use of the outbuilding as a separate dwelling must cease but the outbuilding itself can remain. Reference: 10/03341/FUL Date Decided: 5 April 2011 Site: 15 Park Avenue, Hassocks Description: Demolition of existing garage and rear extensions. Construction of part single and part two storey side extension. Part single and part two storey rear extension Decision: Allowed Procedure: Written representations This application was refused under delegated powers due to a concern that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the adjacent property at No 14. The Inspector agreed that this was the main issue in determining the appeal. The Inspector noted that the neighbouring property had two kitchen windows facing the appeal site with a conservatory to the rear, used as a dining room/lounge that provides an appreciably larger space and is more significant to the quality of the environment for the occupiers of No 14 than the kitchen. 15

16 The Inspector concluded that there would not be significant harm caused to amenities of No 14 and therefore the scheme complied with policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan. The Inspector also found that the appearance of the extended dwelling would be compatible with the variety of dwelling designs in the street. The gap to the adjacent bungalow and remaining garden area would also fall within the range found in the locality and so that proposal would not result in over development. The appeal was allowed. Reference: 10/01655/FUL Date Decided: 25 February 2011 Site: 3 Keymer Lofts, 3-4 Keymer, Burgess Hill Description: New Eco-home with work accommodation Decision: Dismissed Procedure: Written representations This application for a new dwelling was refused under delegated powers as it was considered that the proposal would have a poor relationship with the adjoining flats and would be harmful to their amenities. The Inspector considered that the main issues were the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, whether it would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers and the effect it would have on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The Inspector noted that irrespective of whether the land was described as garden land or used scrubland, it did not fall within the definition of previously developed land as set out in PPS3. In respect of the first issue the Inspector considered that the proposed house would be in an isolated location, would not form part of any street frontage and would be an incongruous feature. On this basis it would be harmful to the character of the area. The Inspector noted that the proposed dwelling would be significantly over looked by existing flats. Whilst agreeing that as the site was in a town centre some over looking is to be expected, the degree of over looking in the appeal scheme would be unacceptable for both future occupiers of the proposed development and neighbouring occupiers. In light of the above the proposal was unacceptable and the appeal was dismissed. Reference: 10/03310/TREE Date Decided: 23 February 2011 Site: 9 South Lodge Close, Burgess Hill Description: Ash (T1) - Reduce height by 30% Decision: Dismissed Procedure: Written representations This application was refused under delegated powers as it was considered that this was a prominent tree which makes an important and significant contribution to visual amenity in the locality. The proposed reduction would spoil the look of the tree and reduce its visual amenity value. Furthermore, it was considered that there was no justification for the proposed reduction. The Inspector considered that the main issues were the effect of the pruning on the character and appearance of the area and whether the reasons given for pruning the tree were sufficient to justify that course of action. The Inspector considered that the pruning proposed by the appellant would not reduce the crown overhang which is the main cause of inconvenience posed by the tree and would result in a 16

17 fundamental alteration of the crowns profile from pleasantly domed to a flat topped, somewhat squat shape. This would leave the appeal tree with an odd an incongruous form and be detrimental to its visual appearance, with a correspondingly adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area. On this basis the Inspector dismissed the appeal. Reference: 09/03645/FUL Date Decided: 18 March 2011 Site: 78 Keymer Road, Hassocks Description: Demolition of existing fire damaged house and the construction of 2 detached houses. Decision: Dismissed with costs awarded to the appellant Procedure: Hearing This application was refused by the South Area Planning Committee held on the 11 March Members considered that the proposal was unacceptable as the proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site as a result of increased parking pressure within the site and the immediate area due to the design of the roof and the associated accommodation within. In addition, Members considered that the additional access to the site would be damaging to the landscaped verge and screening causing harm to the street scene. The Inspector considered the main issues to be the impact on the character and appearance of the locality and the impact on car parking and highway safety in Keymer Road. The Inspector considered that whilst the roof design proposed would not be alien or out of keeping with the locality, there would be a significant increase in the apparent bulk of the houses at roof level. This bulk would infill much of the open area between the previously approved hips. Due to the separation between the two units he felt that the houses would read as one block. He felt that the increase in the bulk at roof level would be hard to be concealed by screening and the creation of an additional access would perpetuate the view into the site. This would result in the more bulky houses now proposed appearing uncharacteristically prominent in the street scene. In respect of the second issue concerning parking and highway safety, he considered that there appears to be sufficient space at the site to accommodate car parking. He noted that the site was well located in respect of shops and services, and due to its sustainable location there would be no need for occupiers to rely on the use of vehicles for all trips. The Inspector noted that there were no on street parking restrictions and casual parking was evident opposite the site. He considered that there is adequate visibility and so on-street parking would not cause harm in highway safety. Although the proposal would not be harmful to the local environment in terms of car parking and highway safety, nor would it form an overdevelopment of the site. He concluded that the additional bulk at roof level and the visual impact of the second access would be detrimental to the semi-rural appearance of the area. In addition the proposal would not be of a high standard of design which would harm the street scene and the character and appearance of the locality. The appeal was therefore dismissed. Costs decision The applicant made a separate application for an award of costs against the Council. Although the Inspector dismissed the appeal, he considered that the Council had acted unreasonably, as there was no specialist evidence relied upon by the Council in respect of the car parking and highway issue, and the Highways Authority had no objection to the proposal. He concluded that a partial award of costs be awarded to the appellant. 17

18 Reference: 10/00732/FUL Date Decided: 18 March 2011 Site: 78 Keymer Road, Hassocks Description: Demolition of existing fire damaged house and the construction of 2 detached houses. Decision: Allowed and costs awarded to the appellant Procedure: Hearing Members approved the application at the South Area Planning Committee on the 10 th June 2010 and agreed with Officers recommendation and suggested conditions including two conditions concerning the removal of permitted development for windows and alterations/extensions. An appeal was lodged due to these two conditions. The Inspector considered that in respect of condition 4 regarding windows, that the condition exceeded what is necessary through removal on all elevations as there would be no significant impact to neighbouring amenities on some elevations. He removed and replaced the condition with one limiting control on windows to the east and west (side) elevations. In respect of the removal of permitted development allowances for enlargements and alterations set out in condition 16, he agreed that there is a need to have control over dormer windows and roof alterations. However, he considered that the impact of other extensions and porches would be mitigated by conditions and restrictions in the General Permitted Development Order. He therefore, removed the condition and replaced with a less onerous one relating only to roof extensions. The Inspector therefore, allowed the appeal. Costs decision The applicant made a separate application for an award of costs against the Council. The Inspector considered that the Council were unreasonable in the degree of control set out in the conditions attached to the planning permission and did not comply with Circular 11/95. This states that conditions restricting permitted development should be imposed exceptionally. He considered that the failure to refine conditions 4 and 16 attached to the permission to relate only to matters significant enough to justify the removal of permitted development resulted in the appellant to incur unnecessary expense of contesting the conditions. The Inspector concluded that as a result the Council acted unreasonably and, therefore, considered that a full award of costs to the appellant is justified. Reference: 10/01672/FUL Date Decided: 16 February 2011 Site: Greystoke, Oakwood Road, Burgess Hill Description: Erection of detached dwelling with detached garage and shared vehicular access Decision: Dismissed Procedure: Written representations This application was refused under delegated powers on 27 July The Inspector determined the main issue was the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality. He found that an appeal decision for a similar scheme of 12 April 2010 was a material consideration in the determination of this appeal and noted that that appeal was of similar design and siting to the current appeal, although 2 metres wider. The access arrangements were similar, albeit divided from Greystoke throughout its length. The Inspector observed that the locality was mixed but backland development was not a characteristic. He felt that the presence of a second tier of development behind the frontage properties would be evident in the street scene. 18

19 He agreed with the previous Inspector that the access would form a cramped and pinched setting for the driveway at the point where it would pass the flank wall of Greystoke. However, he stated that it would be sufficient to allow the safe passage of a car and would not be hazardous to highway safety. The Inspector stated that the proposed development would appear awkward and intrusive on the retained rear garden to Greystoke and that its value as an amenity to Greystoke would be reduced by the intrusive presence of the proposed house and the enclosing and somewhat overbearing impact that the proposed development would have. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would fail to respect the spaciousness and distinctive character and appearance of the locality and dismissed the appeal. Reference: 10/02199/FUL Date Decided: 15 March 2011 Site: Keymer Road, Hassocks Description: Erection of a shop and 4 flats, together with a rear garage and 1 flat Decision: Dismissed Procedure: Written representations This application was recommended for refusal at the South Area Planning Committee meeting on 2 September 2010 and was accepted by Members subject to additional reasons for refusal. The Inspector considered that the main issue was whether the proposals would represent an overdevelopment of the site, having regard to the implications of: - The appearance of the proposed buildings and the provision of refuse facilities for the character and appearance of the area; and - Off-street car parking and servicing provision for the free flow of traffic on the public highway. He noted that there was substantial unrest about the proposed development which appears to arise from concerns about potential occupation of the proposed retail unit by a national supermarket chain, with consequent implications for existing businesses within the village and the free flow of traffic on the public highway. He stated that the proposed development must be assessed against the provisions of the development plan and relative material considerations and that retail competition does not feature as a relative consideration. The Inspector noted that the proposed two-storey building fronting onto Keymer Road would be broadly in keeping with the appearance of other buildings fronting Keymer Road and hence there would be no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and no obvious overdevelopment of the site. He also felt that the re-occupation of the upper floors would enliven the main street and a viable retail or similar business would enhance the vitality of the retail frontage. The Inspector considered that the proposed rear building (consisting of car parking below and a flat above) would be top-heavy and incongruous, bearing little relationship to its surroundings, and so would contribute to the overdevelopment of the site. He expressed reservations about the proposed refuse storage arrangements. He felt that those for the 4 flats in the front building would be relatively inaccessible, which could lead to the inappropriate handling of rubbish and associated environmental problems. He considered that those for the retail unit (being internal) could result in recurring failures to retrieve refuse containers from the public footway after emptying. That they could be left in the public realm for filling and emptying would be to the significant detriment of the character and appearance of a prominent position in attractive surroundings. The Inspector felt that this would result in an overdevelopment of the site. The Inspector noted that no dedicated retail parking spaces would be provided, notwithstanding its increase in retail floorspace. He observed that there is a lay-by immediately outside, nearby retail units enjoy on-street servicing and, most importantly, there was no objection from the Highway Authority. 19

20 He saw that, while Keymer Road can be heavily trafficked at certain times and appears to experience fairly heavy on-street parking, surrounding streets were better supported by off-street parking provision and that the appeal site is sustainably located close to the railway station. He stated that although the attitude of the Highway Authority might be regarded by some as surprising, there is insufficient evidence of potential interference to the free flow of traffic to conclude that inadequate parking or servicing provision would amount to overdevelopment. The Inspector considered splitting the appeal decision by allowing the retail component and associated 4 flats while dismissing the appeal in respect of the rear building. However, he did not believe that as designed, the former element could stand alone. There would be layout and structural implications, and there would be a need to reconsider the site as a how and how a less intensive proposal could be satisfactorily accommodated and serviced. Consequently, he reached the view that the entire appeal should be dismissed. 20

21 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PERFORMANCE 1 st April st March INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report provides members with information about Development Management performance for year 2010/ PERFORMANCE 2.1 No. of decisions delegated to officers as a percentage of all decisions Quarter % of Delegated Decisions No.of Decisions YTD Average Q1 89% % Q2 91% % Q3 89% % Q4 89% % 100% 80% Percentage 60% 40% 20% 0% % of Delegated Decisions Local Target = 85% Q1 Q2 QuarterQ3 Q4 National Target 91% % of Delegated Decisions 2.2 Appeals Allowed Appeals Allowed against Local Planning Authority Decisions Quarter % of Appeals Allowed No.of Appeals YTD Average Q1 43% 23 43% Q2 8% 18 28% Q3 67% 15 37% Q4 29% 21 35% Percentage 60% 40% % of Appeals Allowed Local Target 33% Target 30% 20% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Quarter National Target 33% %Appeals Allowed 21