Two detached dwellings at Potters Field, Mill Lane, Partridge Green

The site and surroundings

The site is a 0.3-hectare undeveloped field outside the built-up area, between housing, listed buildings, open fields and a public footpath.

“The application site comprises a 0.3-hectare parcel of land on the northern side of Mill Lane in Littleworth. The site is located outside of the built-up area boundary with the larger settlement of Partridge Green further south, and Littleworth, a smaller settlement, closer to the site. The site comprises a small undeveloped infill plot lying between existing housing and benefits from an existing access gate.”

“Field and Quince Cottage. Open fields are located to the rear and in the wider vicinity to the west, southwest, and east. A public footpath (PRoW 1824/2) runs north-south to the east of the site, outside of the site itself.”

Officer report

Planning history

A bullock shelter, feed and implement store was permitted in 1993, while another two-home application nearby remained under consideration.

“WG/23/93 Erection of bullock shelter, feed & implement store Site: Potters Field Mill La Littleworth Partridge Green Application Permitted on 12.08.1993.”

“DC/24/1888 Outline application for the erection of 2 no. detached dwelling houses and garages with all matters reserved except access. Under Consideration…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the housing and sustainable-location benefits were not significantly outweighed by policy conflict or identified heritage harm.

“The proposed development would be in conflict with the spatial strategy for housing within the development plan as set out in Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the HDPF. In addition, the proposal would not meet any of the exceptions as identified within Policy 26 of the HDPF. The proposal would not therefore provide a suitable location for housing with regard to the spatial strategy within the Development Plan.”

“Considering the outline application, it is considered that the harm afforded by the conflict with Policies 2, 3, 4 and 26 of the HDPF would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of a new dwellings in this sustainable location. The application is recommended for approval accordingly, subject to the conditions as set out below and S106 legal agreement to secure the water neutrality credits and the biodiversity net gain.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Landscape and conservation officers raised concerns, while highways, ecology and Natural England had no objection subject to safeguards or mitigation.

“It is our judgement that the proposals do not address landscape concerns expressed within pre-application advice, and though a document titled, ‘LVIA’ has been provided, it is not compliant with the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’, Third Edition (GLVIA3, 2013) prepared by the Landscape Institute (LI) and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) and does not provide a transparent assessment of the likely landscape and visual…”

“Natural England: No Objection – subject to appropriate mitigation being secured. The delivery, management and maintenance of any measures identified in the applicant’s water neutrality statement that are required to ensure that the proposed development will not result in increased levels of abstraction within the Sussex North Water Supply Zone.”

Officer report

What people said

Six objections cited countryside, heritage, traffic, privacy, drainage, wildlife, noise, light pollution and overdevelopment; one representation supported the housing contribution.

“Curtilage of existing listed properties encroached upon by development. • Development clearly visible from road and footpath • Significant level of development in the hamlet • Drainage issue – soakaways not adequate to mitigate risk • Lane already seen increase in traffic • Reduce privacy for residents • Increase noise and light pollution in the area • Impact local wildlife • Proposal fails to respect historical and environmental significance of Littleworth •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

One member of the public spoke against the application, and West Grinstead Parish Council also spoke in objection.

Members’ concerns

Members discussed urban creep, great crested newts, the wildlife corridor, rural character, the tilted balance and the absence of affordable housing.

“The Committee raised concerns regarding the potential harm to Great Crested Newts, impact on the wildlife corridor and impact on the rurality of the location.”

“Members also questioned whether the development met the tilted balance and noted it failed to provide affordable housing.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application in accordance with the officer recommendation and asked officers to consider an informative about dwelling sizes at reserved matters.

“That DC/24/1887 be approved in accordance with Officer recommendation. Members requested that officers consider the wording of an informative to be added to the decision relating to the size of…”

Minutes