home
about
news
newsletter
planning overview
programme
history
worlds end watch
committee
links
nature reserve
join - WERA
|
|
The Mid Sussex Local Plan -
Inspector's Report
Michael
Hill
OMS04/1240/1
Proposed Changes:
None
Key Issue.
Whether the omission site should be allocated for residential development within the Plan.
Summary of Objections and Inspector's Conclusions
5.105 The main points made by the objector are as follows. The omission site's southern boundary is contiguous with the built-up area of Burgess Hill and a linear pattern of development exists on the eastern side of Valebridge Road well to the north of
the site. A sensitive proposal for the land would cause no material harm to the character or the appearance of the area and would provide a useful and much needed source of housing land.
5.106 The land is in a highly sustainable location within easy walking distance of
Burgess Hill town centre. A public footpath runs along the southern boundary. Its location is one between a busy railway line and a main road with a small cul-de-sac of modem housing immediately to the south (Valebridge Close). Further, a Certificate of Lawful Use for an access track with hardcore and a brick rubble base was issued on appeal in 1998. Permanent structures exist on the site and it has a lawful use as a caravan site issued in 1995. Two caravans have been in existence on the site since at least 1948.
5.107 Within the meaning of Annex C PPG3, the site is previously developed land and is brownfield in character and land use. Although the site contains a number of trees, and a Preservation Order is in force, few are mature and most of the specimens are in poor condition and should be felled. In any event, a carefully designed estate of houses, sensitively laid out, could retain many of the specimens that contribute to the character of the area. The appearance of such a scheme would be in keeping with the nearby development in Valebridge Road. It would not appear out of place and would mature to form a natural and logical extension to Burgess Hill without creating harm. The site is one of the few small areas of land that possess the necessary characteristics to be developed in a way that would enhance the area. The impact on the Strategic Gap would be negligible as the distance between Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath is so great as to render this very small incursion of no substance.
5.108 As to the highway considerations, the Highway Authority has taken an inconsistent approach in considering proposals of this type. Adequate visibility splays to Valebridge Road could be provided from a modest residential development of the site. These could comply with all the relevant guidelines and standards. Benefits to drivers exiting from Valebridge Close could also be provided. If necessary the speed limit on this section of Valebridge Road could be reduced, which would be a
general benefit, especially to the residents to the north and east of the site whose numerous driveways emerge on to the road.
Inspector's Conclusions
5.109 As a first conclusion, I do not agree with the objector that the omission site can be interpreted as previously developed land within the PPG3 meaning. I am aware of
the planning history of the site, it's previous uses and the nature and extent of the structures and surfacing present on it. However, apart from a small toilet block, there is very little built development and this does not fulfil the appropriate definition. The site is not brownfield. From Valebridge Road, at certain times of the year, the passing observer would not regard the site as anything other than an attractive part of wooded countryside.
5.110 The existing built-up limit of Burgess Hill in this location is plainly to be identified as the northern curtilages of the properties in Valebridge Close. In my conclusion this situation should prevail unless there are very compelling reasons to justify an outward expansion of the settlement onto the omission site. I have already concluded that there is no overriding strategic need to identify any more housing land prior to 2006 within the District and those few sites which I have concluded could be developed are for unique reasons in each case. On this significant site (0.67 hectares), the potential yield of houses could be at least 20 in total.
5.111 Although some cogent evidence has been adduced to demonstrate that some of the trees on the site are probably past their prime and remedial work (including felling) is likely to be desirable in the future, at the present time the character and appearance of the site is one of a thickly wooded area. Should development take place on it, it would be an obvious outward expansion of Burgess Hill into the countryside. In my conclusion, in the absence of any sound justification for that outcome, this objection should not succeed. .
5.112 On the highway considerations, I do not consider that it would be impossible to provide a safe and satisfactory access to a development of the size envisaged from Valebridge Road. Other benefits could be gained if works were implemented and a reduced speed limit could be introduced which would benefit the community at large. In making that point I am mindful of the likely loss of trees which would be necessary to form adequate sight lines and the marked change to the character of this section of Valebridge Road which would be inevitable. Nevertheless, on this issue in isolation, I do not consider that the development of the site could not be resolved. My recommendation, however, is determined by my conclusions above.
Recommendation
5.113 In response to this objection, I recommend that
no Modifications be made to the Revised Deposit
Draft Version of the Local Plan or the Proposals Map.
ends
|
|
|
