Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd October 2018.

(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 2 October were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/18/1563 – Because the applicant was a serving Councillor, the Chairman stated that she had no tendency or inclination that could prevent impartial consideration of the application, and would listen to views of all sides before deciding how to vote.  This also applied to DC/18/1520 because the application involved land owned by the same Member.

This statement applied to all other Councillors attending the meeting, with the exception of Councillor Peter Burgess who declared a personal and prejudicial interest.  He spoke on DC/18/1563 and then left the meeting and took no part in the determination of the item.  Councillor Leonard Crosbie also declared an interest and chose to leave the meeting during the determination of DC/18/1563 and took no part in the determination of this item.

DC/18/1921 – Councillor Tony Hogben declared and disclosable pecuniary interest because he was the applicant.  He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the determination of the item.

DC/18/1921 - Because the applicant was a serving Councillor, the Chairman stated that she had no tendency or inclination that could prevent impartial consideration of the application, and would listen to views of all sides before deciding how to vote. This applied to all other Councillors attending the meeting.

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.

Ward: Nuthurst

Applicant: Mr Burstow

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of five dwellings and associated works on an eastern parcel of land within a site allocated in the Nuthurst Parish Neighbourhood Plan (NPNP).  The western parcel had been granted planning permission (DC/15/1946 and DC/17/0667) and works on this western parcel had begun.

Matters for consideration under this outline application were the principle of the development and access via Coolhurst Close (using the new access from Nuthurst Road granted under DC/15/1946) with all other matters reserved for future determination.  The indicative housing mix comprised: one 2-bedroom bungalow; two 3-bedroom houses; and two 4-bedroom houses.  A financial contribution in lieu of affordable housing had been secured for the western parcel of the site.

The application site was located in Monks Gate adjacent to the A281. It formed part of a paddock associated with Great Ventors Farm east of the site.  There was mature vegetation and trees on the northern and southern boundaries, with open countryside to the south.  There were dwellings immediately to the northwest along the A281, and other dwellings beyond.

Since publication of the report comments had been received from the Council’s Strategic Planning team that sought to clarify Policy 5 within the NPNP regarding the number of dwellings that could be allocated to the site, and how the NPNP related to policies within the Horsham District Planning Framework.  Public speakers were given the opportunity to read these comments before speaking, and the Chairman asked the Development Manager to read the statement to the meeting before Councillors determined the item.

The Parish Council raised a number of objections to the application.  There had been 60 objections, 42 of which were received within the consultation period. Monks Gate Residents Association had also objected to the proposal.  Since publication of the report there had been a further objection; details of this and the officer response, as set out in an addendum to the report, were noted.  Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant and one member of the public addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. 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; character and appearance; its impact on neighbouring amenity; affordable housing; highways impacts; drainage; and ecology.

Members noted concerns regarding the number of dwellings proposed and considered these in the context of policy advice as set out in the report and in the addendum.  With regards to neighbouring amenity it was noted that details of the proposal would be considered under a reserved matters application.  After careful consideration Members concluded that at the proposal was acceptable. 

Members were advised of an amendment to the recommendation, as set out in the addendum to the report, to ensure that the legal agreement is completed in a timely manner

RESOLVED

(i)      That  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCN/54

Ward: Rusper & Colgate

Applicant: Hasnain Mohsin

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the change of use from residential dwelling to mixed-use residential unit, religious meeting hall and place of worship. The application included a part single storey, part two storey rear extension, a glazed link between the extension and Stafford House, and internal alterations to create a two storey meeting hall.  There would also be alterations to access and car parking for 80 vehicles.

The application followed the refusal of DC/17/1827 by the Committee in January 2018 (minute no. PCN/77 (09.01.2018) refers). The current application sought to address the reasons for refusal by removing a window, submitting a Noise Assessment and providing an updated Supporting Statement.

The application site was located in the countryside to the north of Ifield at the junction of Bonnetts Lane and Charlwood Road. There was a bungalow to the rear of Stafford House and dwellings on the other side of the Charlwood Road. The site was approximately 170 metres from the boundary with Crawley Borough and residential properties in Langley Green and Ifield. Stafford House was currently being used for prayer meetings by the local Shia Muslim community.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  There had been 130 objections from 120 households. 166 letters of support, from 106 households, had also been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and one member of the public, the applicant and the applicant’s agent all 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; character and appearance; the amenities of neighbouring residents; and traffic and parking.

Members weighed the community benefits of the scheme against the harm and concluded that the current application had not overcome the previous reasons for refusal and the harm to amenity and character of the locality caused by intensification of use of the site would outweigh the benefits. 

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/1584 be refused for the following reason:

       The change of use of the property as proposed, when considered in totality alongside the proposed extension, would result in an intensification of the use of the site to the detriment of the amenity of occupiers of the neighbouring properties and the rural character and nature of the locality. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies 2, 25, 26, 32 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

Ward: Rudgwick

Applicant: William Lacey Group

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for a new access road off Cox Green to enable access to the proposed development of 57 houses on fields at Windacres Farm. It would include two lanes, a pavement and grassed area.  This outline permission was for access, with other considerations, including design and landscaping, for future determination.

The proposed dwellings would be within Waverley Borough Council boundary and in the jurisdiction of Waverley Borough Council. The boundary with Horsham cuts across the application site, requiring the application for part of the access to be determined by this council.  The site was in north Rudgwick within the built-up area, largely surrounded by detached houses in substantial grounds.

The Council’s consultation response to Waverley Borough Council’s application for 57 houses was set out in an addendum to the report. The addendum also advised that a legal agreement was recommended to replace Condition 5 to ensure that the access road would only be constructed if the proposed 57 houses where to be developed.

The Parish Council objected to the application. A total of 137 objections had been received, including one from the Rudgwick Preservation Society.   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: highway safety and access; design; impact on amenity; drainage; landscape; and ecology.  Members were advised of an amendment to the recommendation, as set out in the addendum to the report, to ensure that the legal agreement is completed in a timely manner. Members concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

(i)      That a legal agreement be entered into to secure the provision of the access road only in conjunction with the proposal for housing at Windacres Farm (Waverley Borough Council ref: WA/2018/1458).

 (ii)    That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/18/1520 be determined by the Head of Development with a view to approval. 

(iii)     In the event a suitably worded Legal Agreement has not been completed by 6 February 2019, or other later date as agreed by the Head of Development, to refuse the application in consultation with local Members.  

Ward: Rudgwick

Applicant: Mr John Bailey

The Head of Development reported that this application sought retrospective permission for a side extension to an agricultural building for storage of agricultural machinery and animal feed. The agricultural building did not benefit from planning permission.

An appeal had been lodged against non-determination of this planning application and therefore Members were asked to make a recommendation to the Planning Inspectorate regarding the Council’s intended determination had the appeal not been submitted.

The application site was located to the northeast of Rudgwick village, approximately 100 metres outside the built-up area, 400 metres east of Church Street.  Details of the site and background to the application were noted by the Committee.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Four objections had been received.  One member of the public spoke in objection to the application. Councillor Peter Burgess addressed the Committee in support of it and then withdrew from the meeting.

Members considered the background to the application and the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration were the principle of the development and whether there was a need for the agricultural barn and extension in this location.

The Committee resolved that the press and public be excluded from part of the meeting so that they could consider items the publication of which would be likely to disclose exempt information, on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence, or of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).  The press and public were invited to return to the meeting before the determination of the item.

RESOLVED

To recommend to the Planning Inspectorate the Council’s intention to refuse planning application DC/18/1563 for the following reasons:

01     The application seeks planning permission to extend an agricultural barn that does not benefit from planning permission. The principle of the proposed extension fails to accord with the plan-led strategy of the HDPF, and is therefore contrary to section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) as well as the requirements of paragraphs 2, 11, 12 and 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

02     The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the resulting 880m² agricultural storage building is required to support the agricultural needs of the wider holding at Windacres Farm, therefore the development does not accord with the requirements of Policies 10, 25 and 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

Ward: Holbrook West

Applicant: Mr Antony Hogben

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for a variation of Condition 3 (relating to opening times) of previously approved application DC/17/0445 (Use of an existing swimming pool and changing rooms for a mixture of private and commercial purposes and use of associated land for ancillary parking).  The variation would extend the approved hours so that it opens half an earlier on weekdays and Saturdays; stays open until 7pm on Saturdays instead of 4.30pm; and opens on Sundays from 9am to 6pm (currently the pool is closed on Sundays and Bank Holidays).

The application site was located in the countryside on the western side of Old Holbrook Road in an area of sporadic development north of the A264 and the built-up area of Horsham.  

The consultation response from Environmental Health, as contained within the report, was noted by the Committee. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application.  No other representations had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were:  impact on highways and on the amenities of neighbouring residents.  Members concluded that the extended hours would have a minimal impact and the variation was therefore acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/1921 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.