Four barn-style homes at Greenacres, Saucelands Lane, Shipley

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing existing buildings and erecting four barn-style detached homes with garages, existing access and landscaping.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the erection of four dwellings, with units 1, 2 and 3 having detached double car ports incorporating a bike and refuse store. Unit 4 would have an integral double garage and bike and refuse store.”

Officer report

The site

The commercial site lies in the countryside outside built-up boundaries, with existing employment buildings, rural surroundings and a public footpath nearby.

“The application site comprises a commercial site with a number of Class E(g)/B8 use buildings positioned within it, located on the southern side of Saucelands Lane, Shipley. The site is not located within any defined built-up area boundaries and is therefore considered to be located in the countryside.”

“The site is accessed via an existing access from Saucelands Lane which runs south to a large area of hardstanding with the existing buildings positioned around. There is a Public Right of Way (PROW) located to the west of the site which runs from north to south. The surrounding area is considered to be rural in nature with only sporadic development present within the vicinity.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the location was unsustainable and the proposal would conflict with countryside and employment policies.

“The application site does not constitute a sustainable location for new residential development. The nearest defined Built-Up Area Boundary (West Chiltington), which provides access to essential goods, services, and employment opportunities, lies approximately 3.7 miles from the site. Travel to this settlement on foot would take in the region of 1 hour and 13 minutes and would necessitate walking along unlit rural roads.”

“As such, taking into account all relevant material considerations, it is considered that the harm arising from the proposed development in this unsustainable location would not be significantly or demonstrably outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal. The development would be contrary to Policies 2, 3, 4, 9, and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) and the benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the harm and conflict as identified.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, environmental health, arboriculture, ecology and landscape officers raised no objections subject to matters being addressed, while the rights of way officer sought further information.

“Environmental Health: No objections subject to conditions…”

“WSCC Public Rights of Way Officer: Objection subject to further information…”

Officer report

Public views

Nineteen letters supported the proposal, while five objected overdevelopment, flooding, ecology, drainage, countryside location and loss of commercial uses.

“- Overdevelopment - Flood water impacts - The application has been previously refused and the applicant has not overcome these reasons for refusal - The Ecological impact assessment does not make a correct assessment of the bat roosts on site - No drainage method proposed - Development outside the built up area boundary - Loss of commercial uses within the locality…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three members of the public spoke in support, and the ward councillor also spoke before leaving the room for the debate and not voting.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the planning history, site sustainability, employment land, remote location and access to local services.

“Members noted the planning history of the application. The Committee discussed the sustainability of the site, the proposed change of land use in relation to employment, its remote location, and access to local services. RESOLVED”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“That DC/25/2131 be refused in accordance with officer recommendation.”

Minutes