Planning Committee

Agenda

HASSOCKS PARISH COUNCIL

To:   All Members of the Planning Committee (Cllrs Kristian Berggreen, Robert Brewer, Lesley Cruickshank-Robb, Bill Hatton and Angus Neil) with copies to all other Councillors for information.

A meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE will be held on 7 October 2024 at 7.30pm in the Parish Centre, Adastra Park, Hassocks.

Parish Clerk  – 1 October 2024

AGENDA

1. TO ACCEPT APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. TO ACCEPT DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST. Disclosure by Councillors of personal and/or pecuniary interests in matters on the agenda and whether the Councillors regard their interest as prejudicial/pecuniary under the terms of the Code of Conduct.

3. MINUTES. To accept the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2024 (previously circulated).

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

5. APPLICATIONS (copies of each application can be viewed online via the Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC) Website – https://pa.midsussex.gov.uk/online-applications/

5.1 DM/24/1885 3 Reed Close Hassocks West Sussex BN6 9FG Conversion of a detached garage into home office and storage with the addition of a side door and window and a roof light window.

5.2 DM/24/2289 2 Stonepound Ridge Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8JG Beech (T1) – Reduce by 2 metres to leave a height of approximately 12 metres. Reduce the Northern and Western mid crown by up to 2 metres to leave a residual crown radius of approximately 5 metres. Reduce the remaining crown by up to 1.5 metres, to leave a balanced crown of approximately 5 metres radium. Thin by up to 25%.

5.3 DM/24/2226 10 Bonny Wood Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8HR Proposed polycarbonate tunnel style greenhouse.

5.4 DM/24/2331 11 Ewart Close Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8FJ Indian Black Tree (T1) – Reduce by 1 metre back to previous growth points.

5.5 DM/24/2346 2 Lagwood Close Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8HZ Loft conversion with rear gable and side dormers. (LDC).

5.6 DM/24/2355 52 Parklands Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8JZ Variation of condition nos 2 and 3 relating to planning application DM/24/0714 – Change of bay to fixed window and steel post and sliding windows – removal of roof light in rear extension.

6. APPLICATIONS FOR DISCHARGE OF PLANNING CONDITIONS. None

7. DECISION NOTICES.

8. GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED REFORMS TO THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK. At the Planning Committee meeting held on 16 September 2024, Members considered the consultation and noted the limited window of time remaining for the submission of comments. Therefore the Committee agreed that a partial submission should be made, which Cllr Gaudencio offered to prepare. It was AGREED to delegate the preparation of a proposed submission paper to Cllr Gaudencio, which would be circulated to Members for comments/agreement prior to a formal submission being made by the Deputy Clerk by 24 September.   Members are therefore invited to note that this action was completed and a copy of the final submission responses can be viewed in Appendix 1.

9. URGENT MATTERS at the discretion of the Chairman for noting and/or inclusion on a future agenda.

10. Date of Next Meeting. 28 October 2024 at 7.30pm

Please Note
All members of the public are welcome to attend meetings of the Parish Council and its Committees.  Item 4 – a period of 15 minutes will be set aside for the public statements and questions relating to the published non-confidential business of the Meeting.
It may be necessary to consider particular items in confidential session and where this arises, these items will be considered at the end of the agenda.

FILMING, RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS AND USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
During this meeting members of the public may film or record the Committee and officers from the public area only providing it does not disrupt the meeting. The Confidential section of the meeting may not be filmed or recorded. If a member of the public objects to being recorded, the person(s) filming must stop doing so until that member of the public has finished speaking. The use of social media is permitted but members of the public are requested to switch their mobile devices to silent for the duration of the meeting.

Appendix 1

HASSOCKS PARISH COUNCIL

To: Planning Committee                                                                     

Date: 7 October 2024

Contacts for this report: Deputy Clerk

Subject: Agenda Item 8 – Government Consultation on Proposed Reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system.

NPPF PROPOSED REFORMS CONSULTATION

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2024

HPC AGREED RESPONSES

INTRODUCTION

HPC is a parish council with limited resources and capacity to respond to the whole document and within such a short timescale.  Therefore the main focus has been directed to specific issues which are considered to be significant for Hassocks.

Q 4 Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on character and density and delete paragraph 130?

Disagree. A higher density of properties leaves less room for trees/wildlife/natural environment/communal open spaces.

Question 7

Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to continually demonstrate 5 years of specific, deliverable sites for decision making purposes, regardless of plan status?

Disagree. This may lead to speculative development.

Question 8

Do you agree with our proposal to remove wording on national planning guidance in paragraph 77 of the current NPPF?

Disagree. LPAs should continue to be able to recognise past performance in future figures

Question 22

Do you have any views on expanding the definition of PDL, while ensuring that the development and maintenance of glasshouses for horticultural production is maintained?

Extending the definition this way could create more incentive for owners of existing businesses to sell their land for residential development.

Safeguards should be put in place to protect loss of commercial horticulture / garden centres / greenhouse food production.

Question 27

Do you have any views on the role that Local Nature Recovery Strategies could play in identifying areas of Green Belt which can be enhanced?

Any green belt land which has a role or potential role in promoting biodiversity should receive a higher level of protection – whether identified through LNRS or any other relevant projects e.g./ Lost Woods Projects, Woodland Trust.

Question 29

Do you agree with our proposal to make clear that the release of land should not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole?

Agree

Question 34

Do you agree with our proposed approach to the affordable housing tenure mix?

This should not only be applied to Green Belt areas but should apply to all planning authorities.

Agree with the approach but sceptical about implementation;

a). in the case of schemes involving the provision of housing, at least 50% affordable housing, with an appropriate proportion being Social Rent, subject to viability.

Lack of viability quoted by developers currently forces a situation where developments fail to meet the current targets. If Govt wants social housing it needs to insist that they are not subject to viability calculations. Whatever process is used, the target percentage of social housing per site should be immoveable and be determined by the LPA.

Question 47

Do you agree with setting the expectation that local planning authorities should consider the particular needs of those who require Social Rent when undertaking needs assessments and setting policies on affordable housing requirements?

Agree.

Question 51

Do you agree with introducing a policy to promote developments that have a mix of tenures and types?

Agree.  Mixed tenure and types should include ground floor dwellings for older people and those with mobility difficulties.   This should apply nationally to all developments over a certain number and where properties do not have lifts; currently local developments in Hassocks have not provided any accommodation suitable for these groups.

Question 60

D23. To make very clear that national policy is strongly supportive of all upward extensions.

Disagree with upward extensions if out of character with the residential street scene and are overbearing on neighbouring properties such as bungalows.

Question 67

Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 100 of the existing NPPF?

This is empty and meaningless unless infrastructure planning is joined up between all relevant bodies; currently developers can provide the land but this should be extended to a requirement to also provide the building.  This can only happen if agencies (i.e./ education authority/academies, health services, prison service) have a duty to co-operate with LPA’s to identify local need and suitable building provision on development sites.

Question 80

Are any changes needed to policy for managing flood risk to improve its effectiveness?

Local experience shows that Current Strategic Flood Risk Policies are not adequate;

• Hassocks is located at the base of the South Downs.
• 5 streams run through Hassocks.
• Fields and land which absorb rainwater and water which flows from the Downs, have been built on and there continues to be pressure for further building on remaining fields and surrounding open land.
• Surface water flooding has increased as a result of this alongside the outdated drainage systems which are no longer adequate.
• Although new developments have to include flood mitigation measures and suitable drainage systems, these are limited to the development sites.
• The surface water still ends up in streams and drainage systems further into the village, thus creating additional pressure outside of the developments.
• Hassocks has been identified as an area of high flood risk within the WSCC (Lead Local Flood Authority) Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, however is still awaiting the implementation of action; this is partially due to lack of resources and funding.
• Domestic extensions have increased significantly adding further pressure to surface water and drainage systems.

No further housing development should be permitted in areas identified as having a high level of annual flooding and surface water flooding, as no developers or water authorities will take responsibility or put resources into area wide drainage solutions.

LPA’s should have a duty to monitor all domestic and commercial extensions to ensure there is adequate drainage and that surface water management systems are implemented and adhere to requirements.

Question 83

Are there other ways in which we can ensure that development supports and does not compromise food production?

Agricultural land should be protected and remain for agricultural/food production; this could be strengthened by the Govt having targets for national food production.

Question 86

Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Linked to Q80.  We support the concept of water recycling and water capture systems within a local area.   Developer and community SUDs initiatives are insufficient and do not cope with area wide flooding.  We should be using rainfall capture and systems to store and recycle water at a local level; if this can be facilitated within the NSIP regime we would support this.