Agenda item

LM/20/03360/FUL White Cottage, Copse Road, Hammer, Linchmere (11.05 approximate start time)


Conversion of dwelling into 2 no. dwellings with associated parking.





Mr Mew presented the item to the Committee, and drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which set out the following addendums to the report;



·       Addendum to report


The description of the proposal should read: Construction of a two-storey side extension to provide 1 no. additional dwelling and associated works including parking.


The recommendation on page 31 should read: Delegate to officers to permit, subject to no objection being raised by the water service and sewerage service providers (South East Water and Thames Water).


·       Additional Consultation Comments; received from (full correspondence set out on the Agenda Update sheet)


o   West Sussex Highways (further comments 04.05.21)

o   West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (further comments 29.04.2021)

o   CDC Environmental Protection (Further comments 28.04.2021)



·       Additional Third-Party Representations; a total of three third parties have submitted additional representations commenting on a further 17 matters, full details of which are set out in the Agenda Update Sheet.


·       Applicant’s supporting information; two letters have been submitted by the applicant in response to the further third party comments, dated 29th April and 3rd May. Full details are set out on the Agenda Update Sheet.


·       Additional Conditions


8. Notwithstanding any indication shown on the approved plans, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) hereby approved, the dwelling at Plot 02 shall not be first occupied until the first floor window(s) in the west elevation of the development hereby permitted, shown to serve the landing and bathroom, shall be permanently;


(i)             glazed with obscure glass with a glass panel which has been rendered obscure as part of its manufacturing process to Pilkington glass classification 5 (or equivalent of glass supplied by an alternative manufacturer), and


(ii)            non-opening below 1.7 metres from the finished floor level of the room in which the window is installed.


Reason: To protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining residential property.


9. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning ((General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no window(s) or door(s) shall be inserted into the north, west or south elevations of the dwelling at Plot 02 hereby permitted without a grant of planning permission.


Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of neighbours and the surrounding area.


In addition to the updates included within the Agenda Update Sheet, Mr Mew informed the Committee of one further update, this was to include a condition to secure details of landscape and boundary treatment and implementation.


The Committee received the following speakers;

Mr Andrew Slater – objector

Mr David Bateman – objector

Mrs Karen Clarke – on applicant’s behalf


Officers responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows;


Mr Mew clarified that there was an error on the update sheet and it should read as follows; ‘to delegate to officers, subject to no objection from the Water Authority to permit’.


Mr Mew confirmed that when he visited the site a site notice was displayed on the junction of Copse Road and the private road.


On the matter of whether a condition could be used to stop it from being a dwelling, Mr Mew explained that such a condition would only be used if self-contained accommodation were being provided. In addition if such a condition was to be applied it does not mean that it could never become a dwelling.


In response to concern over how refuse vehicles would access the site, Mr Mew informed the Committee that he did not have the details of how refuse vehicles accessed the site however; he did not envisage any issue.


Mr Mew confirmed that WSCC Highways have viewed the Swept Path Analysis and have raised no objections.


With regards to the issue of whether there was a housing need in Lynchmere or not, Mr Whitty explained that the authorities housing requirement was district wide and therefore applied to Lynchmere.


Mr Whitty explained to the Committee that the recommendation ‘to permit, subject to no objection from the water authorities’ meant that if an objection or no comments are received from the water company than the application would be brought back to Committee. He informed the Committee that the planning authority can seek their advice regardless of whether they are a statutory consultee or not.


In a vote Members agreed the recommendation to permit.


Recommendation to Permit agreed, subject to objection being received from the water authority and the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Supporting documents: