Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on

(Note: If any Member wishes to propose an amendment to the minutes they should submit this in writing to committeeservices@horsham.gov.uk at least 24 hours before the meeting.  Where applicable, the audio recording of the meeting will be checked to ensure the accuracy of the proposed amendment.)

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20June 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/16/2836 – Councillor Mike Morgan declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item because he was a member of Henfield Parish Council, which was the applicant.  After addressing the Committee he withdrew from the meeting during the determination of the application.

DC/17/2836 – Councillor Philip Circus declared a personal interest in this item because his wife was involved in an organisation associated with the Leisure Centre.

DC/17/0805 - Councillor Brian O’Connell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item because he was the applicant.  He withdrew from the meeting during the determination of the application.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee or the Chief Executive

There were no announcements.

The list of appeals lodged, appeals in progress and appeal decisions, as

circulated, was noted.

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of two new industrial buildings and an ancillary storage building to the north of an existing industrial building, with associated landscaping and ancillary works.  Parking spaces for 110 cars, four HGVs, 31 cycles and 12 motorbikes were proposed.  The construction of the three buildings would be phased to meet the future growth requirements of the applicant. 

The application site was located outside the built-up area on the north east side of Water Lane, opposite Water Lane Industrial Estate and north of Tesla’s existing Unit.  The site was largely undeveloped arable land, with some rough scrubland.  Open countryside lay to the north and east of the site. There were residential developments 250 metres south-west and 100 metres south-east of the site, and to the south of the industrial estate.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. 

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.  Members were advised that Natural England had raised no objection to the application because the development would not have an adverse impact on the Sullington Site of Special Scientific Interest. West Sussex County Council Highway Authority had confirmed that the Transport Access Demand (TAD) contribution had been amended following confirmation of fewer estimated additional employees. The Highway Authority had also advised that this contribution could be extended to provide pedestrian improvements near the site along Water Lane.  

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application.  Thakeham Village Action Group objected to the use of a Greenfield site and four other letters of objection had been received.  Five letters of comment had also been received, including one received after publication of the report that commented on the need for improved pedestrian and cycle links at the end of Water Lane linking the nearby footpaths.  The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.  

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were:  the principle of development and its need in this location; alternative options and sites; impact of the development on the landscape; environmental issues; air quality; highways; and the impact on nearby residential properties.

With regards to air quality, it was confirmed that a pollution damage cost would be secured to carry out mitigation measures. Members discussed pedestrian access along Water Lane further south, between Thakeham Road and Washington Road where there was no pavement, and were advised that this could not be addressed as part of the current application.    

Members noted the benefits that the applicant brought to the local economy and supported the additional employment the development would bring to the area. The Local Member asked whether this site could be included in the Council’s designated Employment Zone.

Concerns regarding flood risk were raised by the Local Member and it was agreed that Local Members would  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCS/14

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for a new secondary access road and 32 additional car parking spaces for Henfield Leisure Centre.  The new access road would be from Deer Park and run past the youth centre to a new permeable parking area along the eastern side of the leisure centre.  Associated drainage ditch, fencing and lighting were also proposed.  

The loss of some playing field area would be compensated by improvement works at the Memorial Field, Henfield.  A legal agreement would be required to ensure that the Memorial Field improvements were undertaken prior to commencement of the development.

The application site was part of a public playing field which ran alongside the western boundary of Henfield Cemetery, between the Leisure Centre to the south and Henfield Youth Centre to the north.  Dense hedges and a number of trees, including mature oaks to the north, ran along the cemetery boundary.   The wider playing fields provided a full-sized football pitch or two junior pitches and there was also a skate-park. 

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

Twenty-one letters of objection and 13 of support had been received. Henfield Leisure Centre, the Football Club and Henfield Tennis Club all supported the proposal.  A representative of the Parish Council spoke in support of the application. The Local Member, Councillor Mike Morgan, addressed the Committee in support of the proposal and then withdrew from the meeting. 

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were:  the principle of development; impact on neighbouring amenity; impact on the character and appearance of the locality; trees; and highways.

Members considered the benefits of the proposal and noted that Condition 3 would mitigate potential harm to adjoining trees.

RESOLVED

(i)      That a legal agreement be entered into to secure the completion of improvements to the Memorial (playing) Fields prior to commencement of development.

(ii)     That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/16/2836 be determined by the Head of Development.  The view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the construction of a detached two storey building of traditional appearance comprising two 2-bedroom maisonettes, each with its own access. A total of three parking spaces were proposed.

The application had been considered by the Committee in June 2017 when it had been deferred to allow for a site visit by Local Members and Officers of the Highway Authority to assess the highways impact and review the proposed on-site parking provision and access (Minute No. PSC/8 (20.06.17) refers).

The application site was within the built-up area of Pulborough.  It was a roughly triangular area located between a terrace of three dwellings, the railway line and London Road. 

Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of the site location, relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal.  Two members of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application.

A site visit had taken place and Members considered the comments that had subsequently been received from the Highway Authority regarding: on-site parking provision; visibility and ways to improve sightlines; and access. 

Members considered the proposal in the context of the extant permission for one dwelling, and discussed the limited on-site parking provision and access at this location onto the London Road.  Members noted the additional and amended conditions and concluded that these did not overcome concerns regarding on-site parking provision and highway safety caused by overdevelopment of the site. 

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/17/0347 be refused for the following reason:

That the proposal would lead to overdevelopment of the site with insufficient parking.

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the part conversion and part demolition of an agricultural building into a two storey dwelling with first floor balconies, residential curtilage and parking area.

The application site was located outside the built-up area about 1.5 kilometres east of Cowfold and 800 metres south of the A272.  There was a large agricultural building accessed along a farm track to the east of Kent Street. The site was well screened from the road by dense vegetation.  Open fields lay to the north, east and west of the site with a small number of other agricultural buildings and dwellings to the south. 

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.   In particular the change of use of agricultural building to residential, under the General Permitted Development Order 2014 (DC/14/2101), which had been granted on appeal in January 2016, was noted.

The responses from statutory external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.  The Parish Council had not commented on the application and no letters of representation had been received in response to the public consultation. 

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; the character and appearance of the proposal; neighbouring amenity; and highways.

Members noted that the principle of development had been established with the allowing of DC/14/2101, and in the light of the recommended conditions, which would secure adequate landscaping and boundary screening and the removal of permitted development rights, Members concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/17/0902 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the removal of a pole barn and timber stable building and the erection of a 2-bedroom single storey annexe to Sake Ride Farmhouse. The annex would enable the care of family members. The building would be 13 metres by seven metres with weatherboard cladding and a slate tiled roof.  The re-routing of the driveway along the southern edge of the site and removal a steel container was also proposed.

The application site was located outside the built-up area set back from Wineham Lane, and comprised a two storey dwelling in a large residential plot. There was a timber office building towards the northern boundary.   A residential property, The Dairy, was adjacent to the site's eastern boundary. The stable building that would be demolished had a slightly larger footprint than the proposed annex.   

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. The consultation response from the Highway Authority, as contained within the report, was considered by the Committee.  The Parish Council raised no objection to the application.  Two letters of objection from the same address, and four of support had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; the character of the site and its surroundings; impact on the amenity on neighbouring residents; and access and highways.

Members noted that Condition 6 required the annex to remain ancillary to the main house and concluded that the scale, design and siting of the annex were acceptable. 

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/17/0805 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.