‘Unsustainable’ Copthorne development refused

Layout plan of the proposed developmentLayout plan of the proposed development
Layout plan of the proposed development
Plans to build two semi-detached homes in Copthorne have been refused, despite a heartfelt plea from the applicant.

The outline application for Cottage Place, a private road off Copthorne Common Road, was considered at a meeting of Mid Sussex District Council’s planning committee on Thursday night.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It was refused because it was a countryside development outside Copthorne’s built-up area boundary – issues which went against policies in the District Plan, which controls development in the area.

Applicant Leigh Armstrong was granted permission in 2014 to build a four-bedroom bungalow on the site, next to a detached bungalow called Evergreen, home to his elderly parents.

He told the meeting he had intended to build the bungalow himself so that he could be close to his parents as well as the family’s car body parts business, and had been saving to do so.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Armstrong said his parents’ health meant they needed to downsize and told members: “If permission is granted for this application it would enable me to move into the family home and my parents to occupy one of the new properties.”

Explaining why he had changed his mind about what to build, he added: “The approved four-bedroom bungalow is simply too large for them.

“The approval of this application would enable my parents to continue to live among friends and neighbours in Cottage Place.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

There was sympathy from the committee, who also recognised that the Copthorne Local Plan included a requirement for bungalows and small homes – but the fact the site was outside the built-up area held more weight.

Members we told the site was considered ‘unsustainable’ due to its location, with people being heavily reliant on their cars.

Roger Cartwright (Lib Dem, Burgess Hill – St Andrews) suggested the committee should bear in mind the personal circumstances of those involved – but he knew he would not win the point.

He said: “That is not really a planning rule. It’s from the heart rather than the head but I’m saying it anyway.”

The application was refused by three votes to two with one abstention.