New homes in Broadbridge Heath back gardens rejected

The proposed layout of the two new homes behind 89 and 91
The proposed layout of the two new homes behind 89 and 91

An ‘ill-considered, bloody awful application’ to build two new homes in a pair of Broadbridge Heath back gardens has been rejected.

The application, for the land at 89 and 91 Corsletts Avenue, was turned down by Horsham District Council’s planning committee, despite an officer’s recommendation to approve.

The council received more than 60 letters objecting to the plans for two three-bedroom houses, with the list of concerns including overcrowding, overlooking, overshadowing and overdevelopment.

With numbers 89 and 91 having larger than average gardens, the applicant felt the development was ‘suitable for the site’.

It was not an opinion shared by the committee or the parish council, whose vice-chairman Geoff Clark called it a ‘clear case of overdevelopment’.

Mr Clark added: “The fact that additional development can physically be squeezed on to the site does not, in our opinion, turn this into a suitable site for development of this nature and scale.”

Peter Burgess (Con, Holbrook West) said: “What an ill-considered, bloody awful application.”

While telling members that he ‘hated’ the application, Mr Burgess said he thought a recommendation to refuse – tabled by Matthew French (Con, Broadbridge Heath) – would be overturned on appeal.

Christian Mitchell (Con, Holbrook West) called the plans ‘garden grabbing’ and was worried that to allow the homes to be built would set a precedent.

The affect on wildlife and the environment was also raised, with neighbours telling the meeting that a mature oak in the garden of number 91 had been felled in 2017.

Claire Vickers (Con, Southwater) said: “There is absolutely no doubt that there is some impact on the environment from two houses being squeezed into the back gardens of existing homes.”

Toni Bradnum (Con, Nuthurst) simply said: “They need an extra couple of houses in Broadbridge Heath like a hole in the head.”

The application was refused on the grounds that it would be a cramped overdevelopment of the site, would be overbearing and would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties and the wider surrounds.