Historic Ferring cottage apartment plans rejected

The Beehive, in Beehive Lane, Ferring, will not be turned into ten apartments after planning permission was rejected SUS-150924-150232001
The Beehive, in Beehive Lane, Ferring, will not be turned into ten apartments after planning permission was rejected SUS-150924-150232001

VILLAGERS are ‘rejoicing’ after plans to demolish an historic thatched cottage an replace it with an apartment block were rejected.

Arun District Council planners have refused the Globe Estates proposals for The Beehive, in Beehive Lane, Ferring, after more than 300 objections from residents and conservation groups.

Ferring Parish Council chairman Carole Robertson said: “There was obviously massive objection from residents and well over 300 letters, which is almost unprecedented for a village like Ferring. It shows the enormous strength of feeling about this.”

“I am very pleased and everybody else since then has been rejoicing the fact it has been comprehensively turned down.”

Planning permission to demolish the cottage and build four chalet bungalows was granted in 1996, before Globe Estates was associated with it, and has since been renewed twice since then.

But objectors felt the latest proposals represented an overdevelopment of the site.

Planners agreed, citing overdevelopment, an inadequate contribution towards affordable housing provision and open space and an ‘unneighbourly’ proximity to neighbouring properties as reasons for refusal.

The Globe Estates plans consisted of ten two-bedroom apartments in an art-deco-style L-shaped block, as well as eleven car parking spaces in the north-east of the site.

The firm declined to comment on the refusal.

Arun district councillor for Ferring Roger Elkins said: “There have been hundreds of letters on this application putting forward sound representations for their objections and I am delighted with the outcome. It’s absolutely the right decision.

“It is in the heart of south Ferring and the proposals, I considered, were completely out of keeping. It was clearly overdevelopment and detrimental to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding residential area.”