Up to 9 dwellings at New Orchard, Small Dole, Henfield

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought to remove the polytunnel and hardstanding and build between five and nine dwellings.

“The application seeks permission in principle for a minimum of 5 and maximum of 9 dwellings on the site. The indicative layout indicates the site would be accessed from an existing road known as The Beeches, which is a private residential road serving 5 single storey dwellings.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The approximately 0.48-hectare former plant nursery lies outside Small Dole’s built-up area, beside housing, fields and gardens.

“The Site is located within Small Dole, accessed from A2037 Shoreham Road via The Beeches. The land sits to the rear of properties along Shoreham Road. Residential plots are located to the east and south of the Site, and rear gardens and small fields are located to the north and west.”

“The application site is approximately 0.48 hectares and was previously a plant nursery, which the submission notes nursery ceased operating 8 years prior. The site comprises a polytunnel, sheds and other surfacing associated with the nursery.”

Officer report

Planning history

No directly relevant planning history was identified.

“PLANNING HISTORY AND RELEVANT APPLICATIONS None directly relevant to this application.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission in principle because the previously developed site adjoined the settlement, could provide housing, and was considered suitable at this stage.

“The above approach is intended to facilitate housing development in the most sustainable locations, with those being sites with a direct relationship to the edges of settlements, and the proposal would benefit from the provisions of the SDPAN.”

“The application would remove the existing polytunnels within the site which were in use as part of the previous nursery. The application site would meet the definition of previously developed land (as set out in the NPPF): -”

Officer report

The main planning issues

The proposal conflicted with countryside and settlement policies, but officers considered housing benefits and the site’s location outweighed that conflict.

“The application site lies outside of any defined built-up area boundary, has not been allocated for development, and the scheme is not essential to its countryside location. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 1, 3, 4 and 26 of the HDPF.”

“The application site, although in a countryside location, immediately adjoins the built-up area boundary of Small Dole and is adjoined by existing residential development to the south and east. The site is a former nursery, which contains existing structures such as a polytunnel and greenhouses, and represents previously developed land with clearly defined defensible boundaries.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The landscape officer raised concerns about overdevelopment, while highways raised no objection and drainage information was still required.

“Landscape Officer: Some development may be acceptable within the site context given it is previously developed and so is less sensitive to change from a landscape perspective. The site is well contained by vegetation and housing. The site sits on the edge of the settlement and relates well to it. From a landscape perspective the site has capacity for residential development as it would not be out of character.”

“HDC Drainage officer: No Drainage Information has been provided – as such HDC Drainage are unable to determine whether the site drainage meets the requirements of the NPPF and PPG, National standards for sustainable drainage systems (June 2025), and the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) – Policy 35 and Policy 38.”

Officer report

What residents said

Forty-one representations objected, citing access, pedestrian safety, overdevelopment, amenity, parking, drainage, ecology and cumulative effects.

“Highway Access: Existing private driveway was designed for 5 dwellings and is considered too narrow and unsuitable to safely accommodate traffic from a further 9 homes, deliveries, construction vehicles and emergency services. • Pedestrian Safety: No footways are provided along the access route, meaning increased vehicle movements could create safety risks for pedestrians, including children and residents walking to local facilities.”

“Drainage and Flood Risk: Existing drainage infrastructure is said to be under pressure already, with concerns that further development could worsen flooding and drainage issues. • Waste Collection: Concerns that refuse and recycling storage and collection arrangements may be inadequate and could obstruct access. • Private Road Management: Questions raised regarding future maintenance, liability and management of the private access road following increased use.”

Officer report

Who spoke

One member of the public spoke against the application.

What members discussed

Members discussed access, highway safety, the number of dwellings, layout, design and possible crowding on the site.

“Members discussed the proposed access arrangements, highway safety and the suitability of the quantum of development. Further discussion included…”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee resolved to approve the application in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“That DC/26/0638 be approved in accordance with officer recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission in principle was granted for between five and nine dwellings, with detailed matters reserved for a later technical details application.

“That permission in principle be granted for a minimum of 5 and maximum of 9 dwellings.”

“Note to Applicant Technical Details Consent (TDC) Requirements This Permission in Principle establishes only the location, land use and amount of development. All detailed matters, including access, layout, design, drainage, ecology, landscaping and infrastructure requirements, must be addressed through a subsequent Technical Details Consent (TDC) application.”

Officer report