Planned changes to Horam property are turned down

On Thursday (January 27), Wealden District Council’s planning committee south considered a part retrospective application for a greenhouse, a carport door and a covered potted area at a property known as Elma Cottage in Horebeech Lane.

The application was last before the committee earlier this month, where councillors chose to approve the application as long as the applicant changed plans to remove a roller shutter door, as it was felt an alternative such as wood would be more in-keeping with the area.  

The applicant declined this request, meaning the committee would need to re-consider the application as originally submitted.

This went down badly with several committee members, including  Geoffrey Draper (Con, Chiddingly, East Hoathly & Waldron), who said: “I feel we have bent over, proverbially, backwards to assist this applicant in all he desires. We are asking for him to have some consideration for others in these matters. 

“I feel we are being presented with a fait accompli and as far as I am concerned I think this committee should go along with the sentiments of the two ward members [and refuse].

“If the applicant then wishes to take this to an appeal, so be it. We should stand by our convictions on this planning committee, otherwise what are we doing here?”

While this view was shared by many (if not all) on the committee, planning officers warned that a decision on these grounds would be unlikely to succeed and could even open the council to costs should an inspector conclude they had acted ‘unreasonably’.

Officers had recommended the application be approved as, with the development being well set back from the road, they considered it would not cause unacceptable harm to the area.

They also warned against councillors allowing the application’s part-retrospective nature to influence their decision, as several had expressed displeasure at this fact.

Wealden planning officer Sam Batchelor said: “Whilst I understand the concerns that were raised last time, there is a very strong officer view about how this application would progress if it were to be refused.

“That is we very much think an appeal [defence] would be unsuccessful. We understand what is proposed is not necessarily the route we would advise somebody to go down.

“However, the property is detached, it is set back from the road, there are a number of intervening features, meaning that the character and appearance of a roller shutter door in this property does not have the adverse impact that seems to have been suggested by members of this committee last time.

“The direction of travel is such that we think this would be allowed at appeal and perhaps maybe, because of potential unreasonableness behind it, [see a] challenge of costs.” 

While some committee members agreed with the officer assessment, others felt strongly that the scheme should be refused despite the threat of an unsuccessful appeal.

Following further discussion, the application was refused on a majority vote on the grounds it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. 

Although a relatively minor development, the application has surprisingly complex planning history, with a similar application having been allowed on appeal after a council refusal. 

This application, which is partly retrospective, would have built on that previous scheme, which allowed the construction of a replacement garden shed and carport.

For further details see application reference WD/2021/2079/FR on the Wealden District Council website.