Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 21^st February 2017

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21^st February 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/16/2108 – Councillor Jim Sanson declared a personal and prejudicial interest.

DC/16/2108 – Councillor John Blackall declared a personal interest.

DC/16/2108 – Councillor Philip Circus declared a personal interest.

DC/16/2108 – Councillor David Jenkins declared a personal interest.

DC/16/2108 – Councillor Ray Dawe declared a personal interest.

DC/16/2915 – Councillor Brian O’Connell declared a personal and prejudicial interest.

DC/16/2522 – Councillor Brian O’Connell declared a personal and prejudicial interest.

DC/16/1783 – Councillor Mike Morgan declared a personal interest.

DC/16/2623 – Councillor Mike Morgan declared a personal interest.

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.

Councillor Jim Sanson had declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in this item and left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and vote.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought full planning permission for a replacement doctor’s surgery building, including a pharmacy, with ancillary car park and the development of 9 dwellings.

The surgery building would be sited in the same location as the previous building but it would extend further to the south-east and have a maximum height of 9.8m. The proposed development had fifty eight parking spaces split between areas north and south of the surgery.

The nine dwellings consisted of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings and five detached. Eight of the dwellings were two storey with one being two and a half storeys ranging between 8.9m-9.5m.

The neighbouring dwelling was a grade II listed building, Lady Place. The Storrington Conservation Area was to the east of the site. The site was located within the Storrington built-up area boundary, as defined on the HDPF Policies Map.  

Details of relevant government and council policies, relevant planning history, and the relevant neighbourhood plan as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. The following updates were presented verbally:

1.    The Applicant had made representations advising of the following:

·         They propose to amend conditions to allow for separate submission of details pursuant to the residential element and surgery element.  Officers do not object to this.

·         The report proposes a requirement in the s106 agreement to transfer the public open space prior to commencement of development.  The applicant advises that part of the public open space will need to be utilised during the construction phase for site operatives compounds.  Officers consider this to be reasonable, and will negotiate with the Applicant an appropriate timescale for transfer of the land as part of finalising the S106.

·         The report proposes a requirement in the s106 for the surgery to be completed before commencement of construction of the residential element.  The applicant advises that the residential and surgery elements will be built by separate contractors, and that the residential construction team will be delivering the shared access road and services first.  The requirement for the surgery to be completed before the residential element is commenced would therefore result in the residential construction team carrying out initial works, and then leaving the site for the duration of the surgery build.  Officers acknowledge these phasing issues and have suggested that the S106 instead requires the two elements to be constructed side-by-side, with the Legal Agreement preventing construction above slab level of the dwellings until the surgery has also reached slab level, and a second restriction preventing occupation of any dwelling until the surgery is ready for use.

If Members resolve to grant planning permission, the detail of the S106 would be delegated to Officers, in discussion with the local members.  

2.    The Council’s archaeology consultant has provided written advice, and recommends a condition requiring a Written Scheme of Investigation, which is already set  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCS/107

The Development Manager reported that this application sought full planning permission for the construction of a detached four bed room dwelling with a single garage on land to the south of Patuca. A new vehicular crossover would be provided on Bracken Lane. The existing conservatory on the southern elevation of Patuca would be removed, and two windows at first floor level blocked up. New windows were proposed at first floor level on the west and east.

The application site was located within the built up area boundary of Storrington. To the west of Patuca were a group of trees covered by a group TPO.

Access to the site would be provided from Bracken Lane to the east. A section of fir hedge to the east would be removed to form the new access. The existing pond on the site would be filled in and three trees removed.

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.

Washington Parish Council objected to the application. 19 letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent 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; landscape character of the site and the surrounding area; amenities of nearby residents; and parking and traffic conditions.

Although Members raised concerns of the application not being in keeping the character of the local area they concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2155 be granted subject to the conditions reported.

Councillor Brian O’Connell had declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in this item and left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and vote.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for an extension to the campsite of 50 additional tent/caravan pitches, for use between 1st March and 30th September, and the regularisation of washing facilities to the north and the access track along the boundary of the site. 

The application site was located outside the built-up area on the north of Wheatsheaf Road, surrounded by open countryside with some sporadic residential development, to the north of Wheatsheaf Road.  The field the subject of this application, and a number of adjoining fields, were used for camping covered by legislation that did not require planning permission.

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.  Since publication of the report the Highways Authority had raised no objection. It was noted that an additional eight letters of support and eight letter of objection had been received since publishing the report.

The Parish Council had raised some concerns regarding the application.  Eight letters of support and eight letters of objection had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and one member of the public, the applicant andthe applicant’s agent 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; landscape character of the site and the surrounding area; amenities of nearby residents; and parking and traffic conditions.

Members raised concerns over the noise pollution that could be caused on the site and the fact that there was no site management plan to cover the entire site. Members proposed that the application be deferred and this motion was seconded.

RESOLVED

That application DC/16/2915 be deferred to allow for discussions to be held on a new application where a more comprehensive site plan would be included.

Councillor Brian O’Connell had declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in this item and left the meeting for the duration of the discussion and vote.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2522 be deferred to enable it to be considered at the same time as application DC/16/2915.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought full planning permission for an end of terrace dwelling to the west of an existing row of terraces. 

A two storey bay window would be positioned to the front of the proposed dwelling, with the single storey projection to the rear extending to a height of 3.9m to provide a first floor terrace.

The new dwelling would be finished in matching materials to the adjoining properties, and would provide a master bedroom with ensuite, dining/kitchen room to the lower ground floor; an entrance hall, w.c, study and living room on the ground floor; living area/kitchenette, bedroom with ensuite on first floor; and bedroom on second floor.

The application site was on the north side of Southview Terrace, within the built-up area and designated Conservation Area of Henfield.

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 Parish Council objected to the application on the grounds of insufficient parking. 73 letters of objection had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant and the applicant’s agent 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; landscape character of the site and the surrounding area; amenities of nearby residents; and parking and traffic conditions.

Although Members raised concerns around there being sufficient parking Members concluded that the application was acceptable as long as Ward Members could reach a satisfactory agreement in relation to parking space with the Development Manager.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/1783 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported and satisfactory agreement with Ward Members in relation to parking spaces and the Public Rights of Way, to be delegated to the Development Manager.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought retrospective planning permission for a 1-bed flat within the lower ground floor of 16 Southview Terrace. The subdivision involved only internal changes to the lower ground floor, with the layout providing a bedroom, a dining room, kitchen, and utility room at the rear.

The application site was on the north side of Southview Terrace, within the built-up area and designated Conservation Area of Henfield.

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 Parish Council objected to the application. 13 letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant and the applicant’s agent 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; landscape character of the site and the surrounding area; amenities of nearby residents; and parking and traffic conditions.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2623 be granted subject to the conditions as reported.