19 homes at Hawthorne Cottage, Loxwood Billingshurst

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing a bungalow, garage and outbuilding to build 19 market homes with access, parking, landscaping and ecological measures.

“Proposal Demolition of 1 no. existing bungalow, garage and outbuilding and redevelopment of the site to provide 19 no. dwellings, associated access and landscaping.”

“Demolition of existing house, garage and outbuilding • 19 open market houses with no affordable housing (based on viability - discussed further below) • Vehicular access to Guildford Road, internal estate road and car parking • Pedestrian access to Guildford Road • Sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) • Hard and soft landscaping • 10m ecology buffers to southern and western boundaries • Ecology enhancements and BNG • Public open space of approximately 0.2ha • Footpath…”

Officer report

The site

The site was a 1.04-hectare plot at Loxwood’s western edge, between housing developments and outside but next to the settlement boundary.

“The application site is 1.04ha in size and is located to the western edge of the village of Loxwood. The site is accessed via Guildford Road to the east and currently comprises a single dwellinghouse and garage in a large plot. The garden of the property is partly used as a paddock for horses and there is a small stable building on site. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is long and narrow.”

“The application site is located outside, but adjacent to the settlement boundary of Loxwood on its eastern and southern edges. The site is within the Sussex North Water Resource Zone. The site is also within the buffer zones of The Mens and Ebernoe Common SACs.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier proposal for 18 homes was refused because it could not demonstrate water neutrality and lacked a signed legal agreement.

“The previous application on the site was refused as it was unable to demonstrate water neutrality at that time. As such, it was found that the scheme would have has a likely significant effect on the Arun Valley SAC, SPA and RAMSAR in combination with other developments in the Sussex North Water Supply Zone. As a result of the…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended deferral for a legal agreement followed by permission, saying housing delivery and the sustainable location outweighed the policy conflict.

“Whilst the Council can currently demonstrate a 5-year HLS, due to the recent adoption of the CLP, from 1 July 2026 the NPPF requires the Council to demonstrate an additional 20% buffer on top of its housing land requirements. This application is submitted in full, with a condition reducing the implementation time period to 18 months, and therefore the early housing delivery of 18no.”

“Apart from its non-compliance with the Council’s Development Strategy, the application broadly complies with all other policies of the CLP. A substantial benefit of the application is the provision of 18no. (net) new dwellings in a sustainable and well-contained location, together with a variety of landscaping related works including the provision of an ecological buffer and over 10% Biodiversity Net Gain. The application does not provide any on-site affordable housing.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Residents raised concerns about sewage, water, traffic, public transport, utilities, amenities, overdevelopment, design, wildlife and community effects.

“Sewage: Overwhelming concern about the inadequate sewage system, with reports of existing issues like sewage pumping, unpleasant smells, and sewage running down roads. Southern Water confirmed insufficient capacity. • Water: Concerns about the lack of water supply and the ability of the current system to handle increased demand. • Traffic: Increased traffic volume and speeding are major concerns, with existing traffic calming measures deemed ineffective.”

“Broadband/Phone: Outdated phone cables and poor broadband connectivity are highlighted as existing issues that could be exacerbated. • Amenities: Lack of a local shop (a new one is planned but not yet built) and pressure on the doctor's surgery and school capacity. • Overdevelopment: The proposed development is seen as excessive, exacerbating existing infrastructure problems and unbalancing the village.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a parish council representative, an objector and the agent, followed by officers’ answers to questions.

What members debated

Members discussed viability, affordable housing, bat corridors, drainage, delivery, density, materials, housing mix, space standards and sustainability measures.

“Addressing the issue of affordable housing and why the scheme was not viable, [name withheld] acknowledged concerns raised. She explained there were two key factors which made the site unviable. The first factor was the high benchmark of the land value i.e. what the site could be sold for in its current use. The second factor was high build costs in the current market. The two issues combined meant the site was not viable.”

“Regarding the existing bat corridors, [name withheld] assured the Committee that officers were aware of the importance of the corridors and the protected species in the SAC. She explained a dark corridor along the northern boundary had not been considered necessary for this development, due to the open space remaining undeveloped with no lighting permitted and there was already an existing gap in the vegetation on the northern edge.”

Minutes