Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 7^th March 2017

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7^th March were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/16/2568; DC/16/2567:  Councillor Stuart Ritchie declared a personal interest in these applications because he knew one of the objectors.

DC/16/2568; DC/16/2567:  Councillor Liz Kitchen declared a personal interest in these applications because she knew one of the objectors.

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.  With regards to the Appeals Lodged, Members were advised that DC/16/1016 should be amended to record that the officer recommendation had been to approve the application.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of 24 garages and the erection of two three-storey blocks of flats linked by a single storey section.  The design would be flat roofed and contemporary.  There would be 21 dwellings comprising eight 2-bedroom and 13 1-bedroom units of which five would be affordable housing (shared ownership), with parking and landscaping. 

The existing 99 parking spaces would be reconfigured to provide 102 spaces in five separate areas.  Improvements to access from the Bishopric and the internal roadway were proposed.

The application was linked to applications DC/16/2934 and DC/16/2935 which were also being considered by the Committee.  Whilst affordable housing provision for this application was not policy compliant, there would be a total of 14 (36%) affordable units provided by the three Saxon Weald applications; this provision would be secured through a legal agreement.

The application site was located alongside the A281 Bishopric. Residential development ran adjacent to the western, southern and part of the northern site boundary, and the service yard of the John Lewis retail site was to the east.  The flats currently being constructed at 53-55 Bishopric, which would include 17 affordable housing units, faced the application site to the north.

The site included two three-storey blocks of flats that had been constructed in around 1959.  The rest of the site included the garages that would be demolished, other parking areas including car ports, landscaping and bin and cycle storage.  

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.

The Neighbourhood Council had commented on the application and had raised issues directly with the applicant.  Seven letters of objection had been received, including one from the Horsham Society.  The applicant and applicant’s agent both 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 the development; housing mix; design and layout; the amenity of current and future residents; sustainable construction; trees and landscaping; and parking. 

It was noted that the landscaping scheme would apply to the entire site, and there would be no windows on the elevation facing the John Lewis service yard in order to protect the amenity of residents.

RESOLVED

(i)      That a legal agreement be entered into to secure contributions towards infrastructure and linking this application to applications DC/16/2934 and DC/16/2935 to ensure that the appropriate affordable housing provision and mix is provided across the three sites.

(ii)      That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/16/2936 be determined by the Development Manager.  The view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of garages and the erection of a three-storey block of flats of nine affordable dwellings, comprising six 1-bedroom and three 2-bedroom flats.  There would be seven parking spaces on site, with an additional four spaces designated for the development on the neighbouring site of DC/16/2394.  

The application was linked to applications DC/16/2934 and DC/16/2936 which were also being considered by the Committee.  The 100% affordable housing provision would contribute towards the total of 14 (36%) affordable units provided by the three Saxon Weald applications; this provision would be secured through a legal agreement.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Broadbridge Heath, south of Swan Way and currently comprised garages arranged in two blocks.  It was within a residential area, including three-storey apartment blocks and two storey dwellings in a mixture of designs and styles, although the prevailing material was brick.

Details of relevant government and council policies, 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.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  The Local Member had raised concerns regarding parking provision and loss of garages.  Five letters of objection from three households had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application.  The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the proposal.  The applicant also addressed the committee in support of the proposal and stated that his comments were also relevant to applications DC/16/2936 and DC/16/2934.  A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development: affordable housing; impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; impact on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties; and highway safety and parking.

Members discussed parking capacity and, in response to the Local Member’s concerns that the proposed layout did not make best use of the available space because of the size of the disabled parking bay, officers agreed that Condition 16 would be amended to allow for the parking bays to be reconfigured and a new plan submitted for approval. 

Whilst the loss of garages was not considered to have a significant impact on parking capacity, the informal use of some garages for storage was noted.  Members requested that an Informative to the applicant be added regarding the impact of the loss of storage space on the individual highlighted by the member of the public who had spoken in objection to the proposal.

RESOLVED

(i)      That a legal agreement be entered into to secure contributions towards infrastructure and linking this application to applications DC/16/2934 and DC/16/2936 to ensure that the appropriate affordable housing provision and mix is provided across the three sites.

(ii)     That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/16/2935  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCN/113

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of garages and erection of a three-storey block of flats of nine dwellings, comprising six 1-bedroom and three 2-bedroom flats.  There would be 16 parking spaces, four of which would be designated for use by occupiers of the neighbouring development, application DC/16/2395.  

The application was linked to applications DC/16/2935 and DC/16/2936 which were also being considered by the Committee.  Whilst this application provided no affordable housing, there would be a total of 36% affordable housing provided by the three Saxon Weald applications, which would be secured through a legal agreement.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Broadbridge Heath, west of Sleets Road and currently comprised garages arranged in two blocks.  It was within a residential area of dwellings in a mixture of designs and styles; although the prevailing material was brick.  To the immediate north they were single storey, to the west two-storey, and the rest of the site was surrounded by three-storey blocks of flats. 

Details of relevant government and council policies, 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.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  The Local Member had raised concerns regarding parking provision and loss of garages.  Four letters of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. The applicant stated that his comments in support of DC/16/2935 also applied to this application.  The representative of the Parish Council who had spoken in objection to DC/16/2935 stated that her comments also applied to this application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; affordable housing; impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; impact on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties; and highway safety and parking.

RESOLVED

(i)      That a legal agreement be entered into to secure contributions towards infrastructure and linking this application to applications DC/16/2935 and DC/16/2936 to ensure that the appropriate affordable housing provision and mix is provided across the three sites.

(ii)     That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/16/2934 be determined by the Development Manager.  The view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought retrospective permission for the tarmacking of a hardstanding area to the front of the site.  As a result of discussions with West Sussex County Council, the area of tarmacking had been reduced from 50 square metres to 17 square metres, thus reducing the parking space that had been created to a widened access. The tarmacked area was between a stream that ran to the front of the site and the highway, north of the existing vehicular crossover.

The application site was located on the west of Bashurst Hill, along which were large detached dwellings in generous plots, in a countryside location. It comprised a square-shaped residential plot, on which a two storey property had been constructed following the demolition of a bungalow. 

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  It was noted that the Highways Authority raised no objection to the amended proposal.

The Parish Council objected to the application, and the Local Member had raised concerns regarding the applicant’s non-compliance.  Eleven letters of objection, from nine households, had been received in response to the original application.  A further four letters of objection, from three households, had been received in response to the amended plans.  Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and highway impacts.  It was noted that ownership of the land was not a planning consideration.

Members discussed the application in the context of the history of the site and were concerned that tarmac had not been removed when the grass verge was reinstated.  Members noted that Condition 2 would ensure that reinstatement of the grass verge was carried out to a satisfactory standard. 

After careful consideration Members concluded that there were no planning grounds for refusing the application.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2568 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought retrospective permission for the erection of an oak framed pergola to the south of the property and black painted metal fencing and gates to the front of the property. The application had also included an earth bund adjacent to the stream at the front of the site.  Amendments had been made to the application, which required the extent of fencing either side of the access to be reduced and removal of the earth bund.

The application site was located on the west of Bashurst Hill, along which were large detached dwellings in generous plots, in a countryside location. It comprised a square-shaped residential plot, on which a two storey property had been constructed following the demolition of a bungalow. 

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  It was noted that the Highways Authority raised no objection to the proposal.

The Parish Council objected to the application, and the Local Member had raised concerns regarding the applicant’s non-compliance.  Nine letters of objection, from seven households, had been received in response to the original application.  A further three letters of objection, from two households, had been received in response to the amended plans.  Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and the impact on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers.  It was noted that ownership of the land was not a planning consideration.

Members agreed that the bund and railing to the front of the site were inappropriate and should be removed and the land restored to its previous condition, and noted that this would be secured through condition.  The wording of the condition requiring the removal of this section of fencing and the bund would be agreed in consultation with the Local Members.

Members were assured that the Compliance Team would take action should the applicant not comply with these conditions.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2567 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported, including a condition requiring the removal of the fencing and bund to the front of the site, the wording of which to be agreed in consultation with Local Members.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission to carry out surgery to an ash tree, which had been subject to Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 947 since August 1998.  

The application site was within a wooded strip east of 23 Woodlands Walk in the built up area of Mannings Heath.

Details of relevant government policies and good practice, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  It was noted that surgery to the tree had been approved on two previous occasions.  The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. 

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which outlined the health of the tree and reasons why reducing the canopy by up to 30% would benefit the tree, which was of moderate amenity value.

Officers were requested to ensure that a suitably qualified tree surgeon be contracted to carry out the work to a high standard.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2618 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.