Two detached houses at Land Parcel at Mill Lane, Partridge Green

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for two detached houses and garages, with access decided now and other matters reserved.

“Outline planning consent is sought for the construction of 2no. detached dwellings to be located on the existing field, with a new shared access point constructed onto Mill Lane. The Site Plan indicates that each dwelling would have a detached garage. The proposal would represent two additional new build dwellings on the site. An indicative site plan has been provided to demonstrate the scale of the proposed buildings, but no elevations or floor plans.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a 0.4-hectare undeveloped plot north of Mill Lane, outside the built-up area and between existing housing and open fields.

“The application site comprises a 0.4-hectare parcel of land on the northern side of Mill Lane. The site is located outside 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.”

“To the immediate east are three Grade II listed buildings at Potters Field and Quince Cottage. Open fields are located to the rear and in the wider vicinity to the west, southeast, and east.”

Officer report

Relevant planning history

A separate application for two detached houses and garages on land further east along Mill Lane was under consideration.

“A site further to the east on Mill Lane is subject of the following application (included elsewhere on this Agenda): -”

“DC/24/1887 Outline Application for the erection of 2No. detached dwellings and garages with all matters reserved except access. Under Consideration…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal conflicted with the development plan and would harm landscape character and visual amenity.

“The proposed development would be in conflict with the spatial strategy for housing within the development plan as set out in Policies 2 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.”

“The development would fail to reflect the pattern of surrounding built form and would represent a visually harmful encroachment into the open countryside. The development would detract from the informal rural character of the site and surroundings, therefore failing to protect, conserve or enhance the landscape character and intrinsic qualities of the countryside setting.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Conservation and landscape officers raised objections, while highways, ecology and Natural England found the proposal acceptable subject to mitigation or conditions.

“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…”

“Ecology Consultant: Recommend grant permission subject to conditions (received 29.04.2025) [Summary] On further assessment of the impacts of Hazel Dormouse, we note that the majority of the hedgerows on-site will be retained apart a very small section hedgerow to facilitate the access. The site is considered to have suitable habitat with connectivity to other larger areas of habitat.”

Officer report

Objections received

Six objection letters raised concerns about appearance, amenity, drainage, traffic, heritage, wildlife, privacy, pollution and overdevelopment.

“PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.15 Representations: 6 letters of Objection have been received from 3 addresses, objecting to the application on the following grounds: - Impact on appearance of area changed - Loss of light - Overshadowing - Noise disturbance - Pressure on water and drainage facilities - Curtilage of existing listed properties encroached upon by development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

West Grinstead Parish Council spoke against the application.

The committee decision

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

“That DC/24/1888 be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.”

Minutes