One replacement dwelling at Winstons Farm, Ashington, Pulborough

What was proposed

Permission in Principle was sought to demolish the existing stables and build one dwelling on the same footprint, using the existing access.

“The application seeks Permission in Principle for 1no. dwelling on land at Winstons Farm (formerly known as Jinkes Farm) near Sullington. The proposed site plan indicates the existing stables building on the site will be demolished and replaced with the proposed dwelling, which is to be on the same footprint as the demolished stables. The proposed dwelling would be accessed via the existing access gate onto Muttons Lane.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is countryside outside a built-up area, near a Grade II listed building, with protected trees, mature boundaries and a public right of way.

“The application site is a parcel of land within Winstons Farm (formerly known as Jinkes Farm), east of Muttons Lane. The site is 40m southwest of Jinkes Farmhouse, a Grade II listed building. The site is outside of any designated built-up area boundary, with the nearest built-up area boundary (Storrington and Sullington) being 0.21km away to the west. The site is therefore located within the countryside in policy terms.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions included the stables, while a two-storey dwelling was refused in 2018 and a later Permission in Principle application was refused and dismissed on appeal.

“DC/18/0267 Erection of a two storey dwelling Application Refused on 11.04.2018”

“DC/25/0003 Permission in Principle for demolition of existing stables building and erection of a single dwelling on the footprint Application Refused on 12.03.2025. Appeal dismissed on 22.09.25.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the site was unsustainable, outside the settlement and unallocated, and the limited housing benefit did not outweigh the harm.

“The application site is located on Mutton’s Lane, which is a single-track rural road, which is unlit and does not benefit from a dedicated pedestrian footway. The surrounding roads, Newhouse Lane and Park Lane, are the same and all roads are subject to a 60mph speed limit. Even if traffic levels are low, it is unlikely that this would be an attractive walking or cycling option for future occupiers, particularly in the dark or in poor weather.”

“Whilst the contribution of one market dwelling would bestow socio-economic benefits in the form of housing delivery, the proposed development would result in adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the very limited benefits arising from the contribution of a single dwelling to the Council’s housing supply. No other discernible benefits would arise from the granting of this permission in principle.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no principle objection, while consultees sought information about drainage, contamination, tree protection and the historic character of any replacement.

“Previous Comments under DC/25/0003: The proposed replacement dwelling is acceptable in principle. Any replacement should reflect the historic character of the former Winstons Farm holding.”

“WSCC Highways: Advice There are no visibility concerns at the existing access onto Muttons Lane. Collision data over the past five years shows no recorded incidents in the vicinity, indicating the access operates safely and the proposal would not worsen any safety issues.”

Officer report

What people said

Eight households objected over countryside impact, design, traffic and precedent, while supporters cited the existing building, access, local benefits and limited effects.

“Outside the built-up area • Inappropriate development given the site sits adjacent to a listed building • Inappropriate and disproportionate scale and design • Removal of water neutrality requirements has no impact on this proposal • Stables constructed solely to enable and justify a residential dwelling on the site • Intrusive and out of keeping with character of local landscape • Muttons Lane, a single-track road, cannot cope with the increase in traffic, nor…”

“Existing building is looking aged • Benefits from an existing access and would not impact amenities • Site could accommodate more than one dwelling • Enhance the site, whilst respecting the locality • No impact on neighbours…”

Officer report

Who spoke

One member of the public spoke against the application.

Members’ discussion

Members noted the planning history and agreed with the officer recommendation because the location was unsuitable, outside the settlement and unallocated.

“Members noted the planning history of the application.”

“Members agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse the application due to the proposed development being in an unsuitable location, outside the defined settlement and not allocated in the Development Plan.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to refuse the application in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“That DC/25/2014 be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.”

Minutes