Issue - meetings

To receive a report from the Director of Place.

RESOLVED

That

i)          The application for approval to the Head of Development, subject to completion of a legal agreement and appropriate conditions be approved.

ii)         In the event that the legal agreement was not completed within three months of the decision of the Council, or other later date as agreed by the Head of Development, the Director of Place be authorised to refuse permission on the grounds of failure to secure the Obligations necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Reasons for Recommendation

i)          It was recommended that the application be delegated for approval as the proposal would bring forward the development of a strategic site allocated for mixed use within the Horsham District Planning Framework.  The proposal would provide much needed high quality employment space as well as an appropriate residential area.  The proposal utilises a brownfield site in a central and sustainable location, resulting in the regeneration of this strategic town centre site. 

ii)         It was recommended to delegate to the Head of Development in order that the detail and clauses of the necessary Legal Agreement could be finalised and all necessary conditions imposed. 

iii)        It is recommended that the legal agreement be completed within three months of the decision of the Council, or other later date as agreed by the Head of Development.  If not agreed, the Director of Place was authorised to refuse permission on the grounds of failure to secure the Obligations necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.  This would allow the Director of Place the ability to refuse the proposal if it was considered that there had been unreasonable and prolonged delays in the completion of the agreement. It would also allow the Director of Place to extend this period if matters were progressing well, but further time was needed.

Councillors Nigel Jupp, Liz Kitchen and Christian Mitchell declared personal and prejudicial interests in the item on the former Novartis site, Parsonage Road, Horsham as they were Members of West Sussex County Council and withdrew from the meeting for the item.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that an outline application had been submitted for the erection of up to 300 dwellings, including the conversion of existing offices buildings up to 25,000sqm of employment floorspace and provision of 618sqm of flexible commercial/community space within the ground floor of a converted building. The scheme included improvements to existing pedestrian and vehicular accesses from Parsonage Road and Wimblehurst Road, together with associated parking and landscaping.

This application had been deferred from the Council meeting on the 4^th September 2019 to allow Peter Brett Associates (PBA) to comment on the Road Safety Audit (RSA).  To provide confirmation on parking and clarification of Sussex Police comments.  Two additional letters of objection had been received, including a further letter from the Wimblehurst Residents Association which was forwarded to all Members.  These comments had been taken into consideration.

The Officer went on to say that PBA had assessed the Road Safety Audit and identified areas of the RSA that required review and amendment in order to be fully GG119 compliant.  The applicant had submitted an updated RSA and PBA had commented that the RSA had now addressed their comments.  In assessing the RSA, PBA had undertaken a site visit and had considered the comments and concerns of local residents including the Wimblehurst Road Residents Group. Based on all available information PBA have advised that it was unlikely that the development would cause an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

He went on to say that parking details were outlined in detail in the report, and up to 308 spaces are proposed for residential uses and up to 872 spaces are proposed for the employment uses.  This met the parking provision for new developments under West Sussex County Council guidance. Condition 10 of the recommendation required the submission of a parking strategy prior to the commencement of works.  The purpose of the strategy was to agree how parking would be provided for the residential and commercial areas.   This would allow some flexibility in how parking was allocated, including opportunities to use the employment parking as overspill for the residential units in evenings and at weekends.

At the previous Council meeting, clarification had been sought as to what was classed as ‘severe’ in highway safety terms.  This related to paragraph 109 of the NPPF. PBA have commented that there was no definitive answer to this question.  Since the launch of the NPPF in 2012, what could be classed as ‘severe’ in highway terms had caused substantial uncertainty.   Based on appeal decisions provided by PBA, it was clear that there were no trends as to what constituted ‘severe’.  What was also clear was that the term ‘severe’ set a high bar for intervention via the planning system in traffic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45