Seven homes at Dippen Hall, Blindley Heath, Lingfield

What was proposed

The application proposed seven dwellings, car parking and associated landscaping behind Dippen Hall, arranged as chalet-style semi-detached and terraced homes.

“The application is for the erection of 7 dwellings, car parking and associated landscaping to the rear of Dippen Hall, Eastbourne Road. The proposals would comply with the provisions of the NPPF in Green Belt terms. There are no objections in terms of character and appearance, neighbour amenity and the amenity of future occupiers, biodiversity, sustainability, highway safety and parking, drainage, archaeology, renewables, trees and landscaping.”

“The development proposal is for the erection of 7 dwellings, car parking and associated landscaping to the rear of Dippen Hall. The dwellings would comprise two sets of semi-detached chalet style dwellings and one set of three chalet style terraced dwellings.”

Officer report

The site

The site lies outside settlement areas in the Green Belt, beside Eastbourne Road, with a converted building, paddock, stable and homes nearby.

“The application site is located outside all settlement areas and within the Green Belt. The A22 (Eastbourne Road) lies to the west of the site and, beyond that is Blindley Heath, a defined village in the Green Belt. There is a disused stable building to the north, a small paddock to the east and a residential property with generous gardens to the south.”

“The front (west) of the site includes a substantial traditionally built property that is currently being converted to 10 flats under a Prior Approval application referenced 2022/1618/NC. The application site includes the amenity space to the rear of this property and is accessed via the A22.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Twenty-eight objection letters raised concerns including Green Belt harm, traffic, wildlife, drainage, infrastructure, sustainability, construction and the loss of a mature oak.

“Lack of infrastructure • No affordable housing • Loss of mature oak tree • Increase in traffic • Impact on local wildlife • Impact on Green Belt and no Very Special Circumstances • Inconvenience during construction • Road safety issues • Unsustainable location • Out of character with the area • Overdevelopment • Lack of housing need • Inappropriate scale and density • Poor precedent • Drainage concerns • Application doesn’t meet Golden Rules • Application is not Grey Belt…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector spoke on behalf of local residents, and the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

Members’ concerns

Members considered that the proposal harmed Green Belt openness, occupied an unsustainable location and raised Golden Rules concerns.

“The proposal would fail to meet the exceptions under paragraph 154 or 155 of the NPPF. The proposal would result in substantial harm to openness with the introduction of development into an area that currently has none, along with associated residential paraphernalia and the introduction of a large area of hardstanding. This would result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would be harmful to openness and conflicts with the purposes of the Green Belt.”

“The application contain matters for consideration which are within the blue line edging that have to be included within the application site. As such, the development is required to meet the ‘Golden Rules’ as the site area would be in excess of 0.5ha and no information has been provided to demonstrate they have been met.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee accepted the motions for refusal when they were put to the vote.

“Councillor Crane requested that the committee consider the following motions for refusal:”

“The motions were proposed by Councillor Chris Farr and seconded by Councillor Stringer. Upon being put to the vote the motions were accepted.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused.

“R E S O L V E D – that planning permission be refused. Rising 10.24 pm…”

Minutes