Planning Committee

Minutes

HASSOCKS PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of the informal meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held remotely on Monday 22 November 2021 at 7.30pm

Attendees: Parish Councillors: Carolyn Barton, Kristian Berggreen (Chair), Bob Brewer, Leslie Campbell, Bill Hatton, Nick Owens and Claire Tester.

In Attendance: Deputy Clerk: Tracy Forte; Cllr Sue Hatton (observing only)

P21/103 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE.  There were no apologies for absence.

P21/104 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST.  There were no declarations of interest.

P21/105 MINUTES. Members noted the Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 November 2021 (previously circulated), for approval at the next Committee meeting.

P21/106 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.  There were 5 members of the public present.

P21/106.1 Mr Harry Powell, Wellhouse Lane, Burgess Hill spoke in opposition to application DM/21/3750 Land At Wellhouse Lane Burgess Hill West Sussex.  Mr Powell informed the Committee that he was speaking on behalf of the residents of Wellhouse Lane who all object to the application.  Wellhouse Lane is a private lane which currently has 9 houses along it, all on the north side of the lane.  The upkeep and maintenance of the lane is paid for by the residents.  Mr Powell presented the following reasons for objection.

1. The site of the proposed development is agricultural land to the south of Wellhouse Lane. This land is on the immediate border of the South Downs National Park (SDNP) and it was understood that the SDNPA had objected to the site SA13 in the District Plan Site Allocations, and it is therefore assumed that it is highly unlikely it would be in favour of this application.
2. Wellhouse Lane is also a public footpath; south of the lane is farmland and has a clear view of the South Downs. This footpath has become increasingly well used and much enjoyed, particularly during the recent lockdowns during the pandemic. A development of 10 dwellings on this site would change these views for residents and walkers alike.
3. The site is well beyond other built up areas in Hassocks and Burgess Hill, and permitting this development could set a precedent for further development in this area. This would then pose the risk of coalescence.
4. The development is not sustainable. Wellhouse Lane is a narrow lane with no lighting. Access to Ockley Lane is dangerous with obscured views at the access point. The visibility splays are unsafe on both sides. Ten dwellings would more than double the amount of traffic entering and exiting the lane. There are no formal footpaths or pavements on Wellhouse lane, nor on the main road. Therefore access to amenities from Wellhouse Lane by foot is extremely dangerous.
5. The area is part of the Dark Skies Reserve and the addition of ten further dwellings would create a lot of further light and would have a big impact on the National Park Dark Skies Reserve.
6. The built up boundary is currently to the north of the lane in Burgess Hill. If SA13 is accepted the current properties in Wellhouse Lane would become the built up boundary. Therefore it is more important than ever to protect the land to the south of the lane.
7. The proposed development would have a significant environmental impact and would be damaging to the wide range of wildlife.
8. The development would also impact negatively on the current residents in Wellhouse Lane. The fact that the proposed ten plots would be self-build means that the construction could take place over many years. There would be a long term impact of disruption, noise and additional construction traffic; the lane would also become less safe for both residents and walkers using the public footpath.

P21/106.2 Mr Roy Ticehurst and Mr Jay Bishop both spoke in objection to application DM/21/3842 8 Bonnywood Road, Hassocks.

P21/106.3 Mr Ticehurst noted that the reaction of neighbours to the applications to extend this property have remained unchanged over the year.  The proposal is an overdevelopment in a small garden which will adversely affect the outlook and privacy of adjacent neighbours.  Mr Ticehurst referred to the Neighbourhood Plan which focusses on the street scene however noted that there was no reference to back gardens which are equally as important. This application if permitted would adversely affect many rear gardens making the development unneighbourly.  Mr Ticehurst informed the committee that the almost complete extension to the neighbouring property, 10 Bonnywood Road, was neighbourhood friendly and should be used as a guide to all other extensions in small gardens.

P21/106.4 Mr Bishop quoted the points made by MSDC in refusing the previous application for this property DM/21/0052. ‘The proposed extensions, by virtue of their design, form and scale are considered to cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenities, appearing visually intrusive and creating undue overlooking onto the property at no. 12 Lagwood Close, reducing privacy. The proposal would also appear overbearing and dominant in relation to no. 10 Bonny Wood, reducing outlook and creating a sense of enclosure. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy 9 of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan’  Mr Bishop and his wife were looking forward to new plans which would address the concerns raised, however this has not been the case.  Instead, the current application is for an even longer second storey extension and a further overlooking window, so therefore it is difficult to see how the application addresses the issues raised by MSDC.  The application therefore continues to be unneighbourly.

P21/107 The Chair proposed changing the order of consideration of applications to enable DM/21/3750 and DM/21/3842 to be considered first.  This was supported by the Committee.

P21/108 APPLICATIONS

DM/21/3750 Land At Wellhouse Lane Burgess Hill West Sussex Outline application for 10x self-build plots for 6x 2-bedroom, 4 person bungalows and 4x 3-bedroom, 6 person bungalows. All matters to be reserved except for Access. Response: RECOMMEND REFUSAL. This proposed application is on agricultural land outside of the built up area boundaries and is not contiguous with an existing built up area. It intrudes on the countryside and is in the local gap between Keymer/Hassocks and Burgess Hill.  The application is not sustainable; there is no safe pedestrian access from the site to local amenities and there is no evidence that the development would be energy efficient.  Therefore the application is in conflict with District Plan policies DP6: Settlement Hierarchy, DP12: Protection and Enhancement of Countryside, DP15: New Homes in the Countryside and DP39 Sustainable design and Construction and Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan policies: Policy 1: Local Gap, Policy 5: Enabling Carbon Zero and Policy 14: Residential development within, and adjoining, the built up area boundary of Hassocks.

Furthermore, the proposed site is immediately adjacent to the boundary of the South Downs National Park and the building of ten additional dwellings in this rural area will negatively impact on the visual and special qualities of the Park including Dark Skies.  Hence the application is contrary to District Plan Policies DP18: Setting of the South Downs National Park and DP29: Noise, Air and Light Pollution and Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan Policy 6: Development Proposals affecting the South Downs National Park.

There is considerable concern over the safety of vehicular access from Wellhouse Lane onto Ockley Lane.  The combination of poor visibility at the access point and the speed at which oncoming traffic travels along Ockley Lane already poses a challenge for vehicles entering and exiting Wellhouse Lane. To potentially double the number of vehicles using this access would increase the risk of an accident significantly.

Finally, the application is for 10 self-build plots and there is a likelihood that the construction period could last over an extended period of time.  The negative impact of prolonged disruption and access difficulties for the current residents is considered to be unacceptable.

DM/21/3842 8 Bonny Wood Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8HR Proposed two storey rear extension, with dormer roof extension. Response: RECOMMEND REFUSAL. Hassocks Parish Council acknowledges that the applicant has endeavoured to address some of the issues raised from their previous application for this property (DM/21/0052).  However, despite the amendments, the Council’s previous concerns remain unchanged.  This application remains unneighbourly and represents overdevelopment of the site, and is therefore contrary to Character and Design, Policy 9, of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan and Policy DP26 of the District Plan. The proposed dwelling would be highly detrimental to the amenities of the existing nearby residents, impacting on privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight.  The application does not respect the character or scale of the surrounding buildings and would be detrimental to the street scene.  Furthermore, the proposed design of this extension and the negative impact it would have on neighbouring properties, make it contrary to principles DG49 and DG50 and DG52 of the Mid Sussex Design Guide.

3 members of the public left the meeting.

DM/21/2841 Land North Of Clayton Mills Hassocks West Sussex Approval of reserved matters (appearance, layout, landscape and scale), for 500 dwellings, (Class C3), with associated infrastructure, open space and landscaping, pursuant to outline planning permission DM/18/4979. (Amended plans received 4th November relating to the design and layout of the scheme, including the submission of a sustainability statement). Response: RECOMMEND REFUSAL.

Land Ownership And Access Concerns

Despite assurances from Nexus Planning that the ongoing land ownership and access issues are being addressed, it appears that these still remain unresolved and an area of concern.  The Parish Council would therefore reiterate its previous comments and ask that these are addressed and a satisfactory resolution attained.

Sustainability

On 16 March 2020 MSDC granted permission to the Outline Application for this site (DM/18/4979) subject to compliance with specified conditions.  Condition 14 was as follows:

A Sustainability Statement shall be submitted in support of any reserved matter application(s) setting out the measures that will be included within the development to support sustainable design and construction. The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of sustainability and to accord with Policy DP39 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014 – 2031.

Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan was made on 24 June 2020, however the Sustainability Statement provided by Taylor Wimpey makes no reference to the Neighbourhood Plan at all, in particular to Policy 5: Enabling Carbon Zero.  The Neighbourhood Plan is part of the statutory Development Plan for Hassocks and planning applications must be determined in accordance with it unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy 5 of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan confirms that ‘support will be offered for development proposals that maximise the opportunity to include sustainable design features’. Furthermore DP11 of the District Plan sets out that development in this location will ‘Wherever viable, incorporate on-site ‘community energy systems’, such as Combined Heat and Power, ground source heat pumps or other appropriate low carbon technologies, to meet energy needs and create sustainable development. The development shall also include appropriate carbon reduction, energy efficiency and water consumption reduction measure to demonstrate high levels of sustainability.’

The Sustainability proposals do not result in the proposed development achieving net zero carbon emissions.  The opportunities for sustainable design have not been maximised and the requirements of Policy DP39 have not been addressed, the plans fail to:

“Minimise energy use through the design and layout of the scheme including through the use of natural lighting and ventilation; Explore opportunities for efficient energy supply through the use of communal heating networks where viable and feasible; Use renewable sources of energy; Maximise efficient use of resources, including minimising waste and maximising recycling/re-use of materials through both construction and occupation; Demonstrate how the risks associated with future climate change have been planned for as part of the layout of the scheme and design of its buildings to ensure its longer term resilience.” (the most egregious omissions being marked in italics).

It is most inappropriate that a development should be allowed to emit 772.4 tonnes of CO2 per annum – over a 60 year life this would mean unnecessary carbon emissions of over 46,000 tonnes of CO2 – contrary we believe to the Climate Change Act 2008 (as amended) which requires net zero by 2050.

It is thus considered that the developer has not complied with Policy 5 of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan nor Policies DP11 and DP39 of the District Plan. It is therefore maintained that condition 14 of the Planning Permission has not yet been met and is not ready for discharge.  In order to comply with Policy 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan and DP11 and DP39 and allow the development to proceed, Hassocks Parish Council would suggest that the following specific mitigating conditions should be met:

1. Require that electricity is used as the fuel source for heating and cooking, as this is being decarbonised fast and would allow wholly zero carbon fuel source to be used in time – this is in line with the Government’s longer term Net Zero Carbon 2050 strategy as enshrined in the Climate Change Act 2008. No gas will be required on site, a saving for the developer.
2. Require that heat pumps are used for heating, with no gas boilers. These heat pumps could be air source or ground source, and will reduce the average CO2 emissions from 772.4 tonnes of CO2 per year to around 260 tonnes CO2 per year.
3. Require the 500 homes to be built to the LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide standard for medium and large scale housing. (252d09_dfa8ae10c10144d9828b0caf6e7b7aa1.pdf (filesusr.com) The Passivhaus Trust estimates that the additional cost of building to that comparable standard is no more than 4%, or less than 9 months’ house price inflation currently and a good value investment if it makes the houses liveable-in over the next 50 years with less than 10% overheating. If this is not done, who is going to pay in future for the houses to meet the zero carbon requirements? Social housing costs will fall to MSDC and/or housing associations – and be a lot higher than 4%, with a complex decant-and-retrofit programme within the next 5 – 9 years.
4. Require a Passivhaus-qualified energy consultant to be employed at the developer’s expense, to monitor the build to ensure that the as-built homes actually meet the LETI design standard as regards energy efficiency, carbon emissions and overheating, and approved and to report directly to Mid Sussex Council. This monitoring should cover a sample of no less than 10% of the built homes, should cover a range of design styles, and the consultant should pick which ones are to be tested so that the developer does not selectively build some to a higher and others to a lower standard. This will mean that MSDC is made aware of whether the agreed build standard is being met. (This will also entail air-tightness tests being conducted on the built homes).  This will not materially increase cost for the home-owners – they will instead stand a better chance of actually getting what they have paid for, so it will save money on snagging and downstream legal disputes and save money on their heating bills.

1 member of the public left the meeting.

DM/21/3782 St Annes Gardens Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8RA Replacement of timber balcony balustrades to flats with glass and metal balustrades. Response: RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

DM/21/3714 23 Fir Tree Way Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8BU Two storey side extension, extension of existing porch and internal alterations. Response: RECOMMEND REFUSAL. This application is overdevelopment of the site and it would have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property.  It would also negatively impact on the character of the street scene. Therefore this application is contrary to Character and Design, Policy 9, of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan and Policy DP26 of the District Plan.  Furthermore, the loss of the rear garden would result in much of the remainder being affected by shade from the trees.  Therefore it is likely that the longer term consequence of this extension would be a need to remove, or significantly reduce, perfectly healthy trees, which would be insupportable.

The remaining two members of the public left the meeting.

DM/21/3268 4 Parklands Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8JZ Proposed dormer to the rear and rear and side extension. Amended Plans received 11.11.2021 to show retention of shared chimney and reduced depth of side extension to 3m (LDC). Response: NOTED

DM/21/3451 21 Grand Avenue Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8DA Two storey rear extension. Response: RECOMMEND APPROVAL.  The applicant is advised that Government has committed to adopt a ‘Future Buildings Standard’ during 2021 which will change the Building Regulations requirements for alterations and extensions to homes to bring these alterations closer to that of a ‘zero energy building’.  This is supported by Policy 5 ‘Enabling Zero Carbon’ of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan which states that proposals that modify existing buildings (including extensions) should seek to maximise the inclusion of energy-saving measures and renewable energy generation.  Energy saving measures include floor, roof and wall insulation, and low u-value windows (which may need to be triple glazed).  These requirements may require amendments to your design which could affect the drawings submitted for planning permission. The applicant may wish to note that alterations that are built to a Nearly Zero Energy standard, are unlikely to need further retrofitting to minimise the carbon emissions that the nation is required to reduce to zero by 2050.  As retrofitting an existing home to be highly energy efficient is more complex than doing so for a new building, applicants may wish to look at the ‘EnerPHit’ standard that the Government is understood to be considering as the applicable “Nearly Zero Energy’ standard in this context, or at the Architypes published by the London Energy Transformation Initiative for u-values for your extension walls, windows etc. and for ventilation and overheating prevention standards to be achieved.

Cllr Sue Hatton left the meeting.

DM/21/3784 14 London Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 9NT Proposed single storey extension to front elevation and two storey extension. Response: RECOMMEND REFUSAL.  The quality of the plans for this application were poor and difficult to read. This application is unneighbourly and represents overdevelopment of the site, and would be detrimental to the street scene. Therefore the application is contrary to Character and Design, Policy 9, of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan and Policy DP26 of the District Plan.

DM/21/3733 36 Ockenden Way Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8HS Erect a single story rear extension. Create a rear raised terrace with level access from the main property that has a glazed balustrade and stairs leading down to the existing garden area. Response: RECOMMEND APPROVAL subject to the Case Officer being satisfied that there are no privacy or overlooking issues.

DM/21/3888 30 Keymer Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8AN Variation of Condition 1 and 2 for DM/19/3690 to allow for changes of requirements relating to the fenestration/external materials and orientation alteration to the existing staircase. Response: RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

SDNP/21/05225 Clayton Court Farmhouse Underhill Lane Clayton BN6 9PJ Replacement of three-quarter span greenhouse. Response: RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

P21/109 APPLICATIONS FOR DISCHARGE OF PLANNING CONDITIONS. None.

P21/110 It was noted that the observations on the planning issues as recorded above be submitted to the relevant Planning Authority for consideration in line with the Parish Council’s Standing Orders.

P21/111 PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISION NOTICES

The following decisions were noted:

Application details	Hassocks PC recommendation to Planning Authority	Planning Authority Decision (MSDC/SDNP)
DM/21/3233 Principals House, 6 Ewart Close, Hassocks.	Recommend Refusal	Permission Refused
DM/21/3255 Garage Block, Clerks Acre, Hassocks .	Recommend Approval	Permission Granted
DM/21/3441 17 Semley Road, Hassocks	Recommend Approval	Permission Granted
DM/21/3131 7 Lodge Lane, Hassocks	Recommend Approval	Listed Building Consent Granted
DM/21/3230 Broadhill Cottage, Ockley Lane, Hassocks	Recommend Approval	Permission Granted

The following notifications of Certificate of Lawful Use or Development (LDC), General Permitted Development (GDP) and/or Prior Approval were noted:

Application details	Hassocks PC recommendation to Planning Authority	Planning Authority Decision (MSDC/SDNP)
SDNP/21/04496/LDP	Not consulted.	Approved
DM/21/3254 Cotfield, London Road, Hassocks (LDC)	Noted	Certificate of Lawful Development issued
DM/21/3295 23 Little Copse Road, Hassocks (LDC)	Noted	Certificate of Lawful Development issued

The following appeal decision was noted:

Application details	Hassocks PC recommendation to Planning Authority	Planning Inspectorate Decision
APP/D3830/D/21/3279361 67 Downs View Road, Hassocks (DM/21/1838)	Recommend Approval subject to the resolution of privacy issues.	Appeal dismissed.

 

P21/112 Urgent Matters at the discretion of the Chairman for noting and/or inclusion on a future agenda.  The Chair proposed to Members that given the continuing increase in Covid numbers in Mid Sussex meetings continue as remote until at least the New Year.  This was fully supported by the Committee.

With the agreement of the Chair, Cllr Bob Brewer informed the Committee that Network Rail were holding a remote community information session on Wednesday 24 November regarding the planned work to be carried out in preparation for the installation of a new pedestrian subway in place of the existing level crossing.

P21/113 DATE OF NEXT MEETING.   Monday 13 December 2021 at 7.30pm. To be held remotely.

There being no other business the Chair closed the meeting at 8.50pm.