Planning Committee

Minutes

HASSOCKS PARISH COUNCIL

Minutes of the informal meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held remotely on Monday 28 March 2022 at 7.30pm

Attendees: Parish Councillors: Carolyn Barton, Jane Baker, Kristian Berggreen (Chair), Leslie Campbell and Claire Tester.

In Attendance: Deputy Clerk: Tracy Forte; 3 members of the public.

P21/172 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE. Apologies were received from Cllr Bill Hatton

P21/173 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST. There were no declarations of interest.

P21/174 MINUTES. To note Minutes of the Meeting held on 7 March 2022 (previously circulated), for approval at the next Committee meeting.  These were noted by the Committee.

P21/175 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.  Two members of the public addressed the Committee.

P21/175.1 Mr Jon Jayal spoke in objection to application DM/21/1653 Byanda Brighton Road Hassocks.  Mr Jayal explained to the Committee that his primary reasons for objecting were the continued size and scale of the application, drainage and flood risk and access to the site.  Full details of these objections are included in Mr Jayal’s letter of objection to MSDC (Appendix 1).  Having sought professional legal and consultant advice, Mr Jayal voiced concerns that the gradient of the driveway is too steep to allow wheelchair access and therefore is potentially in conflict with the requirements of the 2010 Equality Act.

P21/175.2 Mr David Campion spoken in objection to application SDNP/22/01262/FUL Clayton Green Recreation Ground Pavilion, Underhill Lane Clayton West Sussex BN6 9PJ, citing noise and traffic issues as key concerns.  Full details of the objections are included in Appendix 2.

P21/176 The Chair proposed considering applications DM/21/1653 Byanda, Brighton Road Hassocks and SDNP/22/01262/FUL Clayton Green Recreation Ground Pavilion, Underhill Lane Clayton first.  This was supported by the Committee.

P21/177 APPLICATIONS

DM/21/1653 Byanda Brighton Road Hassocks West Sussex Demolition of Byanda (a single residential property and ancillary buildings) and the erection of a 66 bedroom residential care facility, with associated access, ground works, car parking, servicing, private amenity space, landscaping and boundary treatment. (Changes to design including elevation, roof and landscaping, received 12/10/2021 and 17/02/2022).

Response: RECOMMEND REFUSAL.

Members were in agreement that despite the amendments, the previously submitted reasons for refusal by HPC remained unchanged and therefore it was agreed to RECOMMEND REFUSAL for the following reasons:

1. Scale and Character of Design. The scale and design of the proposed development is too large for the site and thus represents significant overdevelopment and as such will impact negatively on the amenities of neighbouring properties. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DP26: Character and Design of the District Plan and Policy 9: Character and Design of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan.

Hassocks Parish Council would request that the concerns raised by neighbouring residents about the impact on their properties are considered very carefully by the Planning Officer.

Furthermore, this site is outside the Built Up Boundary of Hassocks as defined in the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan where development should be restricted; District Plan Policy 12, Protection and Enhancement of Countryside.

2. Traffic and Access. The access to the proposed development site joins the busy A273, very close to Stonepound Crossroads, which is already the only Air Quality Management Area in Mid Sussex due to the high levels of air pollution. It is already notably challenging for vehicles trying to exit the B2112, New Road, and Underhill Lane in Clayton safely; the additional traffic generated by the proposed Care Home will most likely negatively impact further on the traffic safety in this area. In addition to the safety concerns, Hassocks Parish Council considers that the proposed Care Home will generate a significant level of additional traffic and it is likely that this will adversely impact on the levels of pollution at Stonepound.  Therefore the proposed application cannot be supported on the basis that it is contrary to Policy 8, Air Quality Management, of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan and DP29, Noise, Air and Light Pollution, of the District Plan.  Furthermore, it is requested that the issues raised by local residents regarding traffic and access to the site are carefully considered, including concerns regarding the gradient of the access road.

Driveway Access.  The gradient of the driveway is too steep to safely allow wheelchair access; therefore it is likely that this is in conflict with the 2010 Equality Act.  The steepness will not allow access to or from the care home by wheelchair users, other than in vehicles.

3. Lack of Parking Provision. Hassocks Parish Council would challenge the applicant’s assertion that only 15 members of staff will be on site at any given time. The proposal is for a 66 bedroomed care home, including provision for high dependency clients, therefore it is considered highly unlikely that the ratio of care staff to clients could be approximately 1:4.  It is also assumed that in addition to care staff, there would be a need for domestic staff such cleaners, cooks, maintenance and so on.  The proposed provision of only 20 parking spaces for all visitors and staff would therefore appear to be wholly inadequate.

4. Flooding and Drainage. Concerns over flooding and drainage have been raised by residents who live in the immediate vicinity of the development site and are familiar with issues around flooding in the area. It is requested that all concerns raised are reviewed in detail.

5. Impact on the South Downs National Park. Hassocks Parish Council is not satisfied that the impact of the proposed development on the South Downs National Park has been adequately addressed, including the impact of lighting. The location of the site is very close to the SDNP and will be clearly visible from the South Downs and it is considered that the development would have an adverse impact on the South Downs National Park, thus contrary to Policy 6 of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan; Development Proposals Affecting the South Downs National Park and Policy DP18 of the District Plan; Setting of the South Downs National Park.

6. Impact on Hassocks Health Centre. There is a concern that the proposed development could lead to the current health care facilities in Hassocks being significantly overstretched and create a need which cannot be met.

7. Insufficient Evidence of Need For C2 Provision. Based on pre-application advice provided by MSDC a need for C2 provision in the area has not been proven. Therefore Hassocks Parish Council is not satisfied that such a need exists.

8. ustainable Design. The application provides insufficient information to be certain of compliance with HNP Policy 5 – Enabling Zero Carbon; therefore Hassocks PC would also recommend refusal on the basis that the application is currently not compliant with Policy DP39 of the District Plan – Sustainable Design and Construction and Policy 5 of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan. A design which only complies with Approved Document L2A of the building regulations (2013 edition with 2016 amendments) is not sustainable, contrary to the assertion made by the developer.

SDNP/22/01262/FUL Clayton Green Recreation Ground Pavilion, Underhill Lane Clayton West Sussex BN6 9PJ Retrospective Planning Application for the change of use of the sports pavilion to flexible sports and day nursery, and for ancillary external structures, and change of use of land from open space to external space associated with the nursery.

Response:  RECOMMEND REFUSAL

Despite concerns being raised by local residents, it has taken almost eighteen months for a change of use planning application to be submitted for this application.  A key element of the South Downs Local Plan Development Management Policy SD43, New and Existing Community Facilities, is the requirement for prior local engagement.  Clearly there has been no local engagement, and in fact the concerns of local residents in this quiet rural locality have been all but ignored.  Furthermore Strategic Policy SD7: Relative Tranquillity states that

1. Development proposals will only be permitted where they conserve and enhance relative tranquillity and should consider the following impacts: a) Direct impacts that the proposals are likely to cause by changes in the visual and aural environment in the immediate vicinity of the proposals; b) Indirect impacts that may be caused within the National Park that are remote from the location of the proposals themselves such as vehicular movements; 2. Development proposals in highly tranquil and intermediate tranquillity areas should conserve and enhance, and not cause harm to, relative tranquillity.

In addition Development Management Policy SD54: Pollution and Air Quality states that ‘Development proposals will be permitted provided that levels of air, noise, vibration, light, water, odour or other pollutants do not have a significant negative affect on people and the natural environment now or in the foreseeable future’.

This application is contrary to both policies. The level of noise which the nursery is generating is impacting considerably on the aural environment of the nearby residents and indeed on the cherished tranquillity of the National Park. Given that the working hours of the nursery are shown as being 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday throughout the year, the respite from such impact is limited.

It is also of great concern that a noise assessment has not been a requirement as part of this application.

Because of its rural setting, virtually all children attending the nursery will be transported by car.  The Sports Pavilion is situated along Underhill Lane, a narrow rural lane which is not suitable for the associated increase in traffic.  An increase which creates more noise and congestion and is thus of further detriment to the amenities of local residents, and contrary to Strategic Policy SD19: Transport and Accessibility which supports development proposals provided that they are located and designed to minimise the need to travel.

The increase in traffic visiting the nursery will also add to highway safety issues which local residents already face.  Exiting the nearby junction from Underhill Lane onto the main A273 Brighton Road at the foot of Clayton Hill is treacherous at most times of the day and even more so at peak times.

Finally Hassocks NP Policy 6 supports development within the South Downs National Park which has regard to the purposes and duty of the Park Authority.  However, the level of noise, the additional traffic and highway safety concerns generated by this application are considered to be of great detriment to the tranquillity of the park and amenities of nearby residents; and as such in contravention of several of the policies of the South Downs Local Plan and cannot be supported by Hassocks Parish Council for this reason.

The 3 members of the public and Cllr Jane Baker left the meeting.

DM/22/0680 34 Mackie Avenue Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8NN Proposed single storey rear infill 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.

DM/22/0376 1 Parklands Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8JY Single 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.

DM/22/0753 73 Lodge Lane Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8LX Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension with associated alterations. 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.

DM/22/0645 16 Damian Way Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8BH First floor extension increasing size of master bedroom. Raising rear part of existing flat roof to garage to facilitate partial conversion. Response: RECOMMEND REFUSAL.  The proposed application is overbearing, unneighbourly and detrimental to the street scene and is therefore contrary to Policy DP26: Character and Design of the District Plan and Policy 9: Character and Design of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan.  Furthermore the application does not make any reference to compliance with Policy 5, Enabling Zero Carbon, of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan or DP 39, Sustainable Design and Construction, of the District Plan.

DM/22/0702 31 London Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 9NT First floor extension to rear over existing single storey rear extension. Response: RECOMMEND REFUSAL. The quality of the plans for this application were poor and difficult to read. This application is unneighbourly and therefore contrary to Character and Design, Policy 9, of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan and Policy DP26 of the District Plan.  Furthermore the application does not make any reference to compliance with Policy 5, Enabling Zero Carbon, of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan or DP 39, Sustainable Design and Construction, of the District Plan.

DM/22/0825 57 Lodge Lane Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8LU Reducing Poplar beyond old pollard point and creating a new pollard point at a major union approximately 5 meters up. Response: NO OBJECTION.

DM/22/0751 Land North Of Clayton Mills Hassocks West Sussex Construction of a sales pod with associated parking and landscaping (Planning permission sought for a temporary 12 month period). Response: RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

DM/22/0778 1 Five Oaks Way Hassocks West Sussex BN6 9ZU Single storey utility room side 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.

DM/22/0779 24 Kings Drive Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8DZ Demolish existing garage and erect a single 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.

DM/22/0859 7 Parkside Hassocks West Sussex BN6 8BL T10 – Horse Chestnut – Lop tree to approximately 9m in line with neighbouring tree (T7, T8) at 5 Parkside. Several Horse Chestnuts in Parkside have snapped and fallen recently during storms and wish to prevent this happening to this tree. Response: RECOMMEND REFUSAL.  Whilst the Council understands the concerns of the resident, it is felt that the application to reduce the whole canopy will virtually destroy the tree. An alternative measure would be to cut back to the main trunk the 2 largest branches in the canopy, both coming towards the house. This will not destroy the overall appearance and health of the tree, but will reduce the weight of the canopy particularly in the direction of the house, thus striking a good balance between the resident’s concerns and the amenity value of the tree on the edge of a public park. It is recognised that this may therefore require a new application.

DM/22/0791 Mill Nursery London Road Hassocks West Sussex BN6 9NB Proposed demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 3no.four-bedroomed and 1no. four bedroom replacement dwelling with associated parking, amenity space and landscaping. Minor amendments to the previously approved scheme ref: DM/21/0165.  Response: RECOMMEND REFUSAL.  The proposal to widen the access road to 5 metres is excessive for a rural agricultural setting, a narrower access with passing places would be far more in keeping with the locality.  Such a wide access road does not demonstrate a sensitivity to the character of the area and would create a feeling of urban development.  Furthermore the materials proposed for the dwellings, buff bricks, bath stone and slate, are not locally distinctive materials and therefore conflict with the Sussex barn style design which this development was supposed to represent. Therefore it is considered that this application is contrary to District Plan Policy DP 15 New Homes in the Countryside, District Plan Policy DP26 and Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan Policy 9, Character and Design.

P21/178 APPLICATIONS FOR DISCHARGE OF PLANNING CONDITIONS. None

P21/179 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.

P21/180 PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISION NOTICES

The following decisions were noted:

Application details	Hassocks PC recommendation to Planning Authority	Planning Authority Decision (MSDC/SDNP)
DM/22/0297 Weald House, Ockley Lane, Hassocks, Burgess Hill	Recommend Approval	Permission Granted
DM/22/0247 Montrose, 32 Woodsland Road, Hassocks	No Comment submitted	Permission Granted
DM/21/2628 Land to the Rear of Friars Oak, London Road, Hassocks	Recommend Refusal	Permission Granted
DM/22/0155 8 Park Avenue, Hassocks	Recommend Approval	Permission Granted
DM/21/4222 35 Ockenden Way, Hassocks	Recommend Approval	Permission Granted
DM/22/4212 40 Adastra Avenue, Hassocks	Recommend Approval	Permission Granted
DM/22/0335 8A Woodsland Road, 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)
DM/21/3330 Hammonds Mill Farm, London Road, Hassocks	Recommend Refusal	Prior Approval Given
DM/22/0093 70 Ockley Way, Hassocks	Noted	LDC certificate issued.

 

The following application has been withdrawn: DM/21/4323 60 Dale Avenue, Hassocks BN6 8LS

P181 Urgent Matters at the discretion of the Chairman for noting and/or inclusion on a future agenda.

P181.1 Road Names. The Deputy Clerk informed Members that MSDC had confirmed the names which would be used for the roads in the first phase of the development North of Clayton Mills.

Main Spine Road

• Avenue de Warenne (William de Warenne Pre-17^th century landowner)

Other Roads.

• Frederick John Wellman – who developed The Orchard Pleasure Gardens in Hassocks.

Other Pre-17^th century the landowners:

• (Richard and Thomas) Fitzalan
• (John) Mowbray
• (Edmund) Lenthall
• (Elizabeth) Nevill
• Walter (de Okeleue)
• John Wood

Four 20^th century names have been selected by the developer from the list provided by HPC. The Deputy Clerk confirmed that the next of kin have all given their permission for these names to be used, and that the response has been very positive about the decision to recognise the contribution of their family member in this way. The names are as follows:

• Tony Barton – Previous Parish Council Chair.
• Geoff Copley – Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan.
• Grace Fry – Christmas lunch and numerous community charity activities.
• Lorraine Langridge – Longstanding Guide Leader.

P181.2 LI/22/0425 DownsFest, North Field, Adastra Park, Keymer Road, Hassocks, West Sussex. New Premises Licence Application. (Appendix 3) Members were invited to note the new premises application which had been submitted for the Downsfest event in Adastra Park later in the year. This was noted.

P182 DATE OF NEXT MEETING. Tuesday 19 April 2022 at 7.30pm. To be held remotely.

There being no other business the Chair closed the meeting at 8.40 pm.

 

Appendix 1

Subject: Byanda, Brighton Road, Hassocks. Planning Ref DM/21/1653 – Objection

Mr Jon Jayal

I write in objection to the above referenced application. Having reviewed the additional correspondence and supporting information provided by the applicant, I do not consider that the revised information adequately addresses any of the concerns which I raised in my letter dated 6th October 2021.

Visual Impact

• The site is in a semi-rural area on the boundary of the built-up area of Hassocks and close to the South Downs National Park. The South Downs National Park Authority’s consultation response notes the “building’s height, scale, massing and appearance”, none of which have been addressed by the revised elevations.
• In the MSDC Urban Design consultation response dated 24th September 2021, Mr Dorman notes:

“While the site is outside the defined settlement boundary, it is surrounded by existing development that is mainly characterised by suburban houses. The proposed 3 storey building will be bigger and taller than the surrounding two storey houses. Nevertheless, its size and scale will be mitigated by the following:

• “The topography and set back arrangement of the site in relation to Brighton Road ensures that the building should sit comfortably with its surrounds. In particular, the site is set down the equivalent of one storey below the level of North Dean and South Dean Houses that are positioned between the application site and Brighton Road. Because the ground floor will be one storey lower, the proposed building will not appear to be higher than the houses.”

This assessment seems to ignore the impact of the structure on Highdown House, Stackley House and Faerie Glen, all of which sit at the same level or lower than the ground floor of the proposed building.

I would question whether, due to COVID, it was possible for the Urban Designer to conduct a site visit and fully appreciate the significant detrimental visual impact the development will have on neighbouring properties and amenity space?

• The applicant previously advised that the roof line would not exceed the maximum height of the existing tower on the site. This is a somewhat glib comparison because the apex of the tower occupies less than 10m2 whereas the proposed care home has over 64m2 of roof space at this height.
• The proximity of the northern side of the building structure to the access driveway, when combined with tree cover to the north of this driveway, will create a dark “tunnel” upon entrance to the existing properties to the east of the sight. It is difficult to establish this without physically visiting the site and I would challenge if this had been considered in the Urban Designer’s assessment?
• I request the applicant confirms the fixed ridge heights to be provided on all buildings.

Drainage and flood risk

• I have written separately challenging the drainage strategy which I believe is inadequate. The applicant has submitted contradictory and incomplete information which does not address the serious drainage and flood issues in the area. Without a permeability test conducted in accordance with BRE365, how is it possible for the applicant to conclude in correspondence dated 12th October 2021 (in contradiction to their own drainage strategy dated March 2021) that infiltration is feasible, given that this application is a Major Development?

Access

• Our solicitors have previously represented several legal issues associated with the proposed access in their letter dated 5th November 2021. This letter is written in consideration of the 11th October 2021 WSCC Highways Authority response and continues to challenge the access due to several issues including:
• The gradient for the drive, which gives rise to a potential legal challenge under the Equality Act 2010.
• Ability of the applicant to secure access to the driveway in its current form in perpetuity. The Council’s Garden Waste Team have advised that all green waste collections must now be made from the junction between the access driveway and the Brighton Road due to issues with refuse vehicles accessing the properties to the east of the site. Therefore it may be necessary for the driveway’s owner to narrow the access to accommodate a bin store. Should this be built, how would this affect the access arrangements?
• At present there are typically 7 vehicles which regularly use the driveway. The development makes provision for 20 car parking spaces. This will heavily intensify usage of the driveway and potentially result in traffic build up to exit onto the Brighton Road. Not only will this encumber access to the existing properties but in light of the steepness of the western section of the driveway will require dangerous hillstarts to be made.

Eastern Boundary Hedgerow

• We own a section of conifer hedgerow on the eastern boundary of the site.
• A root protection area report conducted by Landscape Vision Ltd recommends that existing ground levels should not be disturbed within 3m of the conifer hedge stems, or within the area above the low retaining wall leading to the existing underground car park on Byanda. It would appear from the application that the structure would infringe on this area undermining our hedgerow. This concern has not been addressed by the Arboriculturally Report dated November 2021.
• I reiterate that, these trees are a critical privacy factor and cannot be guaranteed to be maintained. Any damage to their screening would materially worsen the visual impact of the site compared to the submissions.

Conclusion

I believe the proposal under DM/21/1653 remains unacceptable and we are therefore in objection.

 

Appendix 2

SDNP/22/01262/FUL

Presentation to a meeting of HPC planning committee meeting David Campion on behalf of a number of residents of Clayton Village

In September 2020, in response to residents’ questions relating to the use of the sports pavilion and adjoining open areas by the Apple Tree Montessori Nursery School, Mid Sussex District Council replied that “the pavilion is a community use building, not solely for the use for sports teams”.

Yet the District Council was the Planning Authority responsible for Clayton village in 1987 when it gave planning permission for the pavilion and limited its function to sports use (I quote from the Decision Notice) specifically “to avoid over development of the site”.

Regrettably it has taken from September 2020 until now, despite pressure from the Park Authority for over a year, for the Council to accept it was wrong and that planning permission is required for use of even part of the pavilion by the nursery school.

In the meanwhile Councillors, and the Park Authority, have become aware of numerous complaints over the past year or so about noise coming from the Pavilion and the playgrounds. Yet, unbelievably, the application has been submitted without a noise assessment – which is itself a mandatory validation requirement – addressing what is a very real problem for many in the village. I am sure we all like to hear children letting off steam and enjoying themselves, but only in an appropriate setting and certainly not relentlessly every day of the week. The application form confirms that the use of the sports pavilion as a nursery is not limited to term times only.

Setting is the key issue here. When one studies the National Park’s Local Plan (which for my sins I do almost on a daily basis) it becomes clear that the Park’s policies seek to protect tranquillity and residential amenity and that the commercial benefits to an applicant are only of secondary importance. The Park’s Local Plan says that developments such as this will only be considered following appropriate community involvement (there has been none) and where technical issues such as highway safety are proven to be satisfactory.

I need say no more on highway safety other than to make the obvious point about the dangers of additional school traffic having to use the treacherous junction of Underhill Lane with Clayton Hill at peak times of the day.

It is regrettable that the District Council did not have due regard to the planning status of the Pavilion when entering into the agreement with the nursery school. Frankly, that is not the sort of behaviour one would expect of a Planning Authority. Nevertheless, an application has now been made by the same Council that thought it necessary to control over-development of the Pavilion precisely for the issues that have arisen today, namely the impact of increased site activity on tranquillity, residential amenity and highway safety.

I ask you to please lodge your Council’s objection to this proposal.

 

Appendix 3

PUBLIC NOTICE

Licensing Application
Licensing Act 2003

An application has been made by Binx Event Limited to the Licensing Authority for Mid Sussex District Council for the grant of a New Premises Licence at DownsFest, North Field, Adastra Park, Keymer Road, Hassocks, West Sussex, BN6 8QE.

The application includes proposals for the following licensable activities on Friday 15th and Saturday 16th July 2022 and then annually thereafter on two consecutive days a year:

i) Sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on the premises –

Friday 17:30 to 22:00 hours

Saturday 11:00 to 22:00 hours

ii) A performance of live music –

Friday 17:30 to 22:00 hours

Saturday 11:00 to 22:00 hours

iii)     Any playing of recorded music –

Friday 17:30 to 22:00 hours

Saturday 11:00 to 22:00 hours

iv) Entertainment similar to dancing/making music –

Friday 17:30 to 22:00 hours

Saturday 11:00 to 22:00 hours

The register for the Licensing Authority for Mid Sussex District Council is kept at Mid Sussex District Council, Oaklands, Oaklands Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH16 1SS. The application may be viewed at the Main Reception during normal office hours and at www.midsussex.gov.uk – search for Licensing Applications Received.

Responsible Authorities or other persons may make representation on or before 20 April 2022.

All representations shall be made in writing to The Licensing Officer at Mid Sussex District Council.

It is an offence knowingly or recklessly to make a false statement in connection with an application, the maximum fine for which a person is liable is £5,000, on summary conviction for the offence.