Page 394 - All files for Planning Inspectorate update

In this case it is felt that the significant shortfall of car parking is evidence that the
scheme is still seeking to put too many units onto the site, since there is no more
space within the site to materially increase the level of car parking provided. It is
therefore felt that whilst an improvement, this reduced scheme has still not
overcome the previous reason for refusal relating to the shortfall in car parking.

With regards to affordable housing, if a scheme is not providing a policy compliant
level of 30% on site affordable housing, the requirement is for the applicants to
demonstrate that it is not viable for such provision to be provided. The financial
information that has been submitted by the applicants has been independently
assessed for the District Council and the outcome is that the District Council is not
satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the scheme cannot provide any
affordable housing. The provision of affordable housing is a corporate priority for
the Council and therefore the failure to adequately justify providing no affordable
housing on site means there is a conflict with policy DP31 of the DP and policy
ASW15 of the AWNP.

There is a requirement for developments of this scale to provide contributions
towards the costs of infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of the development. In
the absence of a completed legal agreement to provide the required infrastructure
contributions there is a conflict with policy DP20 of the DP. As there is no legal
agreement to secure the mitigation required in relation to the Ashdown Forest
Special Protection Area there is also a conflict with policy DP17 of the DP.

Taking all of the above into account it is considered that whilst there are clear
benefits from delivering housing on a brownfield site that is allocated for
development in a made Neighbourhood Plan, the level of development and
associated shortfall in on site car parking, the absence of affordable housing and
the absence of a legal agreement to provide the infrastructure contributions to
mitigate the impact of the development means that the proposal is in conflict with
the development plan when read as a whole, which is the proper basis for decision
taking. There are no material planning considerations that would indicate that a
decision should be made that is not in accordance with the development plan. In
light of the above the application is recommended for refusal.

Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission is refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal fails to provide the required infrastructure contributions
necessary to serve the development and the required affordable housing. The
proposal therefore conflicts with policies DP20 and DP31 of the Mid Sussex
District Plan 2014-2031 and policy ASW15 of the Ashurst Wood Neighbourhood
Plan

2. The proposal fails to mitigate its impact on the Ashdown Forest Special
Protection Area. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy DP17 of the Mid
Sussex District Plan 2014-2031.