Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 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 4 December 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/18/1268:Councillor Adrian Lee declared a personal interest because he was a member of Bluecoats Sports Centre. 

Councillor Godfrey Newman declared a personal interest because he was a member of Christs Hospital Choral Society.

Councillor Claire Vickers declared a personal interest because she lived close to the site.

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: Southwater

Applicant: Mr Francis Pulvermacher, Christs Hospital School

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for a number of additional sports and recreation facilities, car parking and landscaping in the vicinity of the Bluecoats Sports Centre, in conjunction with Christ’s Hospital school.  The application included the following:

·      Two storey extension to the west of sports centre to provide a new swimming pool, spa facilities, two class studios, fitness suite and enlarged café; 

·      All-weather six-lane running track with ancillary athletic facilities;

·      Outdoor exercise area;

·      Downgrading of part of Infirmary Drive, including closure of its access onto Christs Hospital Road, to make a sprint track;

·      3G Artificial grass rugby/football pitch;

·      Unlit running trial in area east of Infirmary Drive where relocated spoil is deposited;

·      Parking for 272 cars;

·      New access road from Christs Hospital Road;

·      Landscaping, SuDS drainage system, fencing and lighting.

Members were advised that the height of the floodlighting columns was 18 metres, not 16 metres as stated in paragraph 1.4 of the report.  Consultation assessments had taken into consideration the correct height.  The proposed soft landscaping and planting, as set out in paragraph 1.10 of the report had been amended to include an increased quantum of trees, with 3,000 specimens to be planted.  Members were advised that the officer’s recommendation had been amended to defer to the Head of Development with a view to approval to allow for details of the triggers within the conditions to be clarified.

The application site was located approximately three kilometres south-west of Horsham and was outside and adjacent to the built-up area boundary of Christs Hospital.  It was grassland used for sports pitches in the summer months in the northern part of the school campus.  The sports centre was used by the school and members of the public. The school itself included two groups of Grade II* Listed Buildings.  There were a number of Grade II Listed Building residences nearby, and properties in Barnes Wallis Avenue and Bluecoat Ponds were close to the northwest boundary.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  There had been 60 representations objecting to the application, 152 supporting the application, and eight commenting on the proposal.  Both Local Members had requested that the application be determined by the Committee. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application. The Headmaster of Christs Hospital, the applicant’s Transport Adviser and the applicant’s agent all addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. Councillor Nigel Jupp also addressed the committee.  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; the need and benefit of the proposal; impact on landscape; design, layout and specification of the facilities; impact on the Listed Buildings; highways; and neighbouring amenity.

Members discussed aspects of the proposal including: the scale of the proposal and its impact on landscape character; the capacity for holding large scale events which would impact on highways and amenity; the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCN/74

Ward: Nuthurst

Applicant: Greenplan Designer Homes

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the variation of Condition 1 to permission DC/18/1046, which was a minor-material amendment to DC/15/2493 for the erection of three two-storey 3-bedroom houses.  The proposal would add a roof light into the roof above the garage in the western elevation of each plot. 

The application site was located in the countryside and had been a paddock to the east of Nuthurst Street.  A private access to the north led to adjoining development north and east of the site.  There was linear residential development along Nuthurst Street in a rural setting.  The three dwellings were almost completed. 

The consultation response from HDC’s Building Control to DC/18/2076 for a variation to the roof design, which was also being considered at the meeting, was considered by the Committee.   Planning history of the site was noted, in particular DC/17/2524 which had been refused on the grounds that the application would have led to overdevelopment of the site through the creation of 4-bedroom houses. (Minute No PCN/100 (06.03.18) refers).  

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Thirty-one representations objecting to the proposal had been received. There had been one representation supporting the proposal.  Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant and two of the applicant’s agents 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:  principle of development; character and appearance; and the impact on neighbouring amenity.

Members noted the background to the application, as set out in the report, and considered the impact of the additional windows on the development.  Members were concerned that the proposed amendment would enable the ‘roof room’ above the garage in each house to become a fourth bedroom and concluded that the application was therefore unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/1883 be refused for the following reason:

The proposal would create four bedroom houses on the site which would fail to meet the housing needs of the Parish and which would be contrary to Policy 7 of the Nuthurst Neighbourhood Plan (2015) and Policy 42 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

Ward: Nuthurst

Applicant: Greenplan Designer Homes

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the variation of Condition 1 to permission DC/18/1046, which was a minor-material amendment to DC/15/2493 for the erection of three two-storey 3-bedroom houses.  The variation would allow a steeper roof pitch for each dwelling.

The application site was located in the countryside and had been a paddock to the east of Nuthurst Street.  A private access to the north led to adjoining development north and east of the site.  There was linear residential development along Nuthurst Street in a rural setting.  The three dwellings were almost completed. 

The consultation response from HDC’s Building Control was considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Seventeen representations objecting to the proposal had been received.  Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant and two of the applicant’s agents 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:  principle of development; character and appearance; and the impact on neighbouring amenity.

Members noted the background to the application and considered the impact of the proposal on the appearance of the buildings and concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/2076 be granted subject to the conditions as reported.

Ward: Southwater

Applicant: Mr Tony Fan

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a two-storey 2-bedroom dwelling, which would create an end of terrace property in the side garden of 2 Foxfield Cottages.  The new dwelling would be the same height and similar design to the existing semi-detached pair. Three additional parking spaces were proposed.

The application site was located within the most southern part of the built-up area of Southwater.  It was a corner plot, within a residential area, facing onto Foxfield Cottages and Shipley Road.

The appeal decision for refused DC/17/1694 for a detached property at this location, as set out in the report, was noted by the Committee. The responses from statutory external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.  

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Four objections from three households had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant and the applicant’s architect spoke 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; the amenities of nearby residents; the quality of the residential environment for future occupiers; and parking and traffic. 

Members concluded that the reason for refusing DC/17/1694 had been overcome and the extension would be in keeping with the pattern of development in the surrounding area. 

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/2028 be granted subject to the conditions as reported.