Up to 9 dwellings at Delta, Shoreham Road, Small Dole, Henfield

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought to demolish existing buildings and build up to nine single-storey homes, with an illustrative layout showing eight net additional dwellings.

“Permission in Principle is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and buildings on the site, and the erection of up to 9x dwellings (net 8x). The submitted illustrative layout indicates two detached single storey dwellings in place of the existing dwelling, which would remain in line with the established building line on the street, a detached single storey dwelling to the rear of the front-most dwellings, a further two detached buildings towards the centre…”

Officer report

The site

The site included an existing dwelling and land west of Shoreham Road, with the front within Small Dole’s built-up area and the rear in the countryside.

“The application relates to an existing dwelling (Delta) and associated land to the rear of the dwelling, to the west of Shoreham Road, Small Dole. The dwelling and its curtilage resides within the defined Built-up Area Boundary of Small Dole, with the wider associated land to the rear located within a countryside location. The rear of the site is currently laid to grass and scrub, with sporadic self-seeded tree clusters.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals included a refused dwelling application, one permitted agricultural building conversion, another refused conversion, and three refused housing applications.

“DC/22/2293 Prior Notification for the change of use of an agricultural building to residential (Class C3) to form 1No. dwellinghouse. Prior Approval Required and PERMITTED 31.01.2023”

“DC/23/0449 Prior Notification for change of use of an agricultural building to residential (Use Class C3) to form 1no dwellinghouse. Prior Approval Required and REFUSED 04.05.2023”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval in principle, subject to considering Natural England’s response, with five single-storey homes considered suitable but nine considered unacceptable.

“Two development scenarios were considered. The minimum scheme proposes five dwellings, resulting in a net gain of four homes. This scenario is deemed acceptable, provided the dwellings are single-storey and confined to plots 1 through 5. The maximum scheme proposes nine dwellings, with a net gain of eight homes.”

“In conclusion, the site is considered suitable for up to 5x single-storey dwellings located within or adjacent to the built-up area boundary. Development of plots 6 to 9 is not supported under current planning policies. Final approval will depend on the details submitted at the technical consent stage.”

Officer report

The main planning issue

The front five homes were considered acceptable in principle, while four rear homes were considered harmful because they would extend development into the countryside.

“Given the above, the development within this general area (between plots 1-5) would be considered acceptable in principle, and the indicative layout does demonstrate (subject to detailed design considerations) that this portion of the site can accommodate 5 dwellings.”

“Summary 6.26 As above, Officers are satisfied that the site is capable of accommodating 5x (4x net) single storey dwellings as the minimum proposed development, and that 9x (8x net) dwellings would be unacceptable. However, that is not to say that 5x dwellings on the wider site as whole (as indicated within the wider red line) would be acceptable.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The landscape officer objected to nine homes, while Natural England and highways raised no objection subject to mitigation or later technical information.

“HDC Landscape Architect: Objection [Summary] While layout details reserved for future consideration, important to recognise existing constraints. Given site location and immediate context, some form of development could be accommodated. However, scale currently proposed is not considered to sit comfortably within the site or landscape and urban setting.”

“WSCC Highways: No Objection [Summary] LHA is limited in its ability to comment on an application for permission in principle. In principle, would not raise any objection to an application at this site, subject to submission of sufficient information at technical details stage.”

Officer report

What people said

Objectors raised concerns about views, privacy, overdevelopment, access, ecology, infrastructure, pollution and trees; supporters cited housing need and better site use.

“Representations: 3.7 13 letters of Objection received from 12 separate addresses, on the following grounds: • Loss of views • Loss of privacy • Overdevelopment • Dangerous access • The site is not allocated for development • Questionable water neutrality strategy • Uncharacteristic development • Adverse ecological impact • Proposal does not meet local housing needs • Insufficient infrastructure in the area • Increased pollution • Impact on trees…”

Officer report

Who spoke

One member of the public spoke in support of the application.

What members discussed

Members noted the site’s planning history and that technical details would be considered later through a subsequent application.

“Members noted the planning history of the application site.”

“It was discussed that as an application for Planning Permission in Principle, technical details of the development would be addressed at a later stage through subsequent application.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee approved the application in accordance with the officer recommendation, and the two ward members did not vote.

“[As Ward Members for Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote Councillor Mike Croker and Councillor Roger Noel did not vote on this application]”

“That DC/25/0849 be approved in accordance with officer recommendation.”

Minutes