Five detached houses at Land adjacent to 117 South Street, East Hoathly

What was proposed

Five detached houses, comprising one two-bedroom, two three-bedroom and two four-bedroom homes, with garages and access.

“Proposal Full planning permission is sought for the erection of five detached dwellings with associated garages and access. The access would be routed through the development to the south of the proposed dwellings (see planning history) and be accessed via South Street. The dwellings would comprise of 1 two bed dwelling, 2 three bed dwellings and 2 four bed dwellings.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an undeveloped paddock behind South Street, with access through development to the south and an approved 55-home scheme to the east.

“Site and Surroundings The site relates to an undeveloped parcel of land to the rear of the dwellings fronting onto the southern section of South Street which vary in terms of their size, scale, form and age which results in a somewhat mixed street scene. There is development to the south of 4 dwellings, through which access would be provided to the site (see site history).”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Three homes to the south were being built, while permission for up to 55 homes to the east had been allowed on appeal and later approved in detail.

“Relevant Planning History To the south of the site (adjacent to the site access from South Street). WD/2023/3155/F - Renovation and extension to existing dwelling. Demolition of existing barns and associated structures and erection of three dwellings - Approved 11 April 2024 (currently under construction).”

“The advice noted the permission to develop housing immediately to the east of the site (see associated planning history) for up to 55 dwellings, which was allowed on appeal. The advice provided acknowledges the sustainability and the backland nature of the site, the density proposed and access requirements for the site. Also, the proximity to the Waste Water Treatment Works (WwTW) and potential for odour for future occupiers.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because five homes would help address the housing shortfall and their benefits would outweigh limited landscape and policy harm.

“Housing Land Supply Paragraph 78 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing. This supply should be measured against the housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies, or against local housing need where such policies are more than five years old.”

“In this context, the current shortfall in the five-year housing land supply is a significant material consideration that weighs heavily in favour of the proposed development. Housing Mix The Policy 1 of the EHHNP requires a greater mix of housing to meet local needs to rebalance the housing stock in the NP area. It seeks to provide a greater proportion of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. The scheme provides one 2 bed unit, two 3 bed units and two 4 bed units.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The parish council objected, while 26 representations from 21 households raised concerns including overdevelopment, habitat loss, drainage, access, privacy, noise and infrastructure.

“Consultation Responses The following consultation responses and representations have been received. These responses are summarised. Full versions of the consultation responses and representations are available on the case file available on the Council’s website (link above). Statutory Consultees Parish Council – object on the following grounds: • Ecological impact relies on outdated photographs. • Supporting documents for transport impact appear to relate to previous scheme.”

“Overlooking, loss of privacy and overbearing impact on the existing South Street dwellings due to the siting, scale and height of the proposed houses. • Light pollution from houses, security lighting and car headlights. • Noise and general disturbance from extra vehicle movements and occupation of the site. • Effects on peaceful enjoyment of home and land. • Access to the site is too narrow and constrained by the existing and approved development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two members of the public and a resident spoke against the application; the planning agent and someone on behalf of the landowner spoke in favour.

The committee’s concerns

The committee’s refusal reasons focused on the site’s density, habitat information and whether surface water could be managed without increasing flood risk.

“By virtue of the loss of the undeveloped site, the development would result in the loss of suitable habitat for protected and notable species which is not adequately assessed due to insufficient information from the applicant and would therefore be contrary to policies WCS12 and WCS13 of the Core Strategy, Policy 5 of the East Hoathly with Halland Neighbourhood Plan and paragraphs 187 and 193 of the NPPF.”

“Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that surface water arising from the development can be safely and sustainably managed without increasing flood risk on the site or elsewhere. As a result, the Local Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed drainage strategy is feasible or that the development would not increase flood risk to neighbouring land.”

Minutes

The vote

Six councillors supported refusal, one councillor abstained, and the motion was contrary to the officer recommendation.

“A motion was proposed by Councillor Clark, seconded by Councillor Gadd to refuse full planning permission, contrary to officer recommendation.”

“Recorded Vote: Councillors Clark, Howell, Stephen Shing, Glynn White, Redman, Gadd, Alison Wilson voted in favour of the motion to refuse full planning permission, Contrary to officer recommendation.”

Minutes