Page 48 - All files for Planning Inspectorate

7.0 REASON FOR REFUSAL NO. 3: CAR PARKING

7.1 Reason for refusal no. 3 states;

‘It has not been demonstrated that the level of car parking that is proposed is
sufficient to serve the development. The proposal is seeking to put too many
units onto the site and this results in a conflict with policies ASW9 and ASW14
in the Ashurst Wood Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal also conflicts with
policy DP21 of Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 and policy ASW21 of the
Ashurst Wood Neighbourhood Plan.’

7.2 As regards the overall quantum of parking proposed this is examined in detail
in the evidence produced by the highways consultant, Motion, suffice to say;

• Upon submission the quantum of parking accorded with the West Sussex
Residential Parking Demand Calculator, i.e. 67 spaces (PDC, Appendix V).

• West Sussex County Highways found no objection to the proposal.

• Further evidence in the form of local car ownership trends from the 2011
Census supported a likely lower potential demand than proposed (Motion’s
advice note June 2019, Appendix W).

• West Sussex County Highways updated their PDC in August 2019 which did
not differentiate between flats and houses and showed a higher demand than
provided and were therefore re-consulted on this basis as to the adequacy of
the parking provided for the scheme. Again, they raised no objection to the
level of parking proposed (Appendix X).

7.3 The reason for refusal goes beyond saying the level of parking is simply
insufficient and draws the conclusion that this is because ‘the proposal is
seeking to put too many units onto the site,’ i.e. overdeveloped. The Planning
Portal defines overdevelopment as ‘an amount of development (for example
the quantity of buildings or intensity of use) that is excessive in terms of
demands on infrastructure and services, or impact on local amenity or
character.’

7.4 It is difficult to understand the connection being made here when Section 6 of
my evidence clearly shows a protracted period of consultation with the
Council’s Planning Officer and Urban Designer which resulted in a scheme
design which was supported, including the following matters which would
normally be indicators of overdevelopment;

▪ It has been demonstrated and accepted by officers and WSCC that the re-use
of the existing access is suitable, and that traffic movements and parking will
be reduced in comparison to the existing land use.

1809 Appeal Hearing Statement_FINAL_191212 Page 14 of 17
Bates No 000047