Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 4^th October 2016

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4^th October 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.   

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/16/1016 – The Director of Planning, Economic Development & Property declared an interest in this item.  He confirmed that he had not been involved in the preparation of the report and left the meeting during the determination of the application.

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.

The Development Manager reported that this full application sought permission for a 70-bedroom residential care home, plus eight extra-care apartments and three extra-care bungalows.  The application also included access road, parking and landscaping. 

The principle of a care home on this site had been established by outline application (DC/13/2408) for a 60 bed care home, which had been granted on appeal.  The current application sought permission for a different form of development, although the proposed access was the same as that allowed under DC/13/2408.

The proposal included an H shaped two and a half storey care home comprising 70 en-suite bedrooms within the two main wings and communal areas and staff facilities in the linking section.  This would be to the rear of the site.  A maximum height of just below nine metres, which was less than the height permitted under DC/13/2408, was proposed. 

The extra care apartments would be in a two and a half storey block comprising six 2-bedroom flats and two 1-bedroom flats, facing the access road, side on to Old Guildford Road.  The three extra care 2-bedroom bungalows would be in front of the care home, west of the entrance road, with private gardens.  

The buildings would be traditionally designed with render, brick and tile hung elevations and pitched tiled roofs.  A total of 40 car parking spaces were proposed, a majority of which would be in front of the care home.

There were significant levels of planting along the southern and eastern boundaries.  Extensive planting along the western and northern boundaries, and within the site, was proposed.

The application site was located to the north of Broadbridge Heath, outside and adjacent to the built-up area boundary, on the northern side of Old Guildford Road.  There was a public right of way along the hedgerow with trees adjacent to the western edge of the site, and another footpath to the north. 

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.  In response to concerns regarding the level of refuse collection provision the applicant had submitted proposals that overcame these concerns (including medical waste).  An additional condition would be added to ensure that these measures were implemented as proposed.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Two letters of objection had been received. 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: density; design and its impact on the character of the streetscene; impact on the highway network; neighbouring amenity; trees and landscaping; heritage assets; ecology; drainage; and infrastructure.

Members discussed aspects of the proposal, in particular parking provision for staff and other users and noted that the number of spaces was acceptable when considered against West Sussex County Council’s Parking Standards for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item DMN/59

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of the leisure centre and associated facilities, the bowls club canopy and existing external sports pitches, and the erection of a new two-storey leisure centre with associated parking, landscaping and facilities.

Part of the existing leisure centre, a portion of the indoor sprint track known as The Tube, would not be demolished.  The Tube had been proposed as a storage space but in response to concerns the proposal had been amended to retain this space as a multi-use sports area.

The future MUGAs, sports pitches and football pavilion would be to the south of the leisure centre.  There would be 174 parking spaces west of the proposed building on the site of the existing leisure centre. 

The application site was located within the built-up area of Broadbridge Heath and stretched from the bowls club to the edge of the athletics area west of the existing leisure centre.  The proposed sports pitches would be to the south, and the northern boundary adjoined the access road to the bowls club and was adjacent Tesco car park.  The residential development by Countryside Properties was to the south.  The A24 was east of the bowls club. 

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 Sport England had withdrawn their objections as a result of continued negotiations and further amendments.  An addendum to the report had been circulated to Members that outlined these amendments and revised conditions, and confirmed Sport England’s new position.  It was reported at the meeting that a letter had been received from Sport England confirming that they had withdrawn their objections subject to conditions.

The Parish Council did not wish to comment on the application given the extensive consultation process that had taken place.  Ninety-three letters of objection to the initial consultation had been received.  In response to the further consultation on the amended scheme 14 letters of objection had been received.  Three members of the public spoke in objection to aspects of the application and the Cabinet Member for Leisure and Culture 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 loss of existing facilities in the context of paragraph 74 for the National Planning Policy Framework; design and its impact on the surrounding streetscene; parking, access and the impact on the highway; neighbouring amenity; and ecology.  

Members considered the amended proposal in the light of the withdrawal of Sport England’s objection and recognised the extensive community involvement which had contributed to the development of the final scheme, which would benefit local residents and those from across the district.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/1844 be determined by the Development Manager,  ...  view the full minutes text for item DMN/60

The Development Manager reported that this application sought approval of details of conditions 6 and 7 attached to reserved matters permission DC/13/2042 for 23 dwellings and access.  This permission also included a replacement football pitch, car parking upgraded access to existing recreation ground, new tennis pavilion and siting for additional tennis court and landscaping.  Condition 6 required a Phasing Strategy, and Condition 7 required a Construction Management Plan, both to be approved prior to commencement of the development.  The Construction Management Plan required the use of Hayes Lane for construction traffic during the initial weeks of development, rather than Maydwell Avenue as originally proposed, because of the need to eradicate Japanese Knotweed that had been found adjacent to the access from the industrial estate.

Details of the route of construction traffic during phase 3, as printed in the report, were clarified to Members who were advised that the part of the site where the last two or three units would be built would be accessed from Hayes Lane rather than Maydwell Avenue.

The application site was located adjacent to but outside the built-up area, south of Slinfold village, west of Hayes Lane.  The northern section of the site, where the dwellings would be concentrated, was accessed from Maydwell Avenue, which continued west through the Business Park towards the A29.  The southern part of the site was accessed from the driveway to Cherry Tree Farm and would include playing fields and other community facilities. 

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 had strongly objected to the application.  A total of 49 letters of objection had been received to the first consultation and a further 12 received in response to the re-consultation.  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 access to the site required to implement permission DC/13/2042; impact on the amenities of the area; and highway safety.

Since publication of the report the Parish Council had met with the Highway Authority to discuss ways of managing traffic in Hayes Lane, and a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) had been proposed to introduce temporary traffic lights along the narrow stretch of Hayes Lane.  

Members considered the phasing details submitted to be acceptable.  With regards to the Construction Management Plan, Members discussed the proposed traffic lights.  Whilst this would be extremely inconvenient, the TRO would address safety concerns. 

Members were concerned that if the Japanese Knotweed were not eradicated in time, the temporary TRO could be extended beyond the agreed six weeks.  It was noted that should the TRO need to be extended it would be reviewed by the Highway Authority in consultation with the Parish Council and Local Members. 

RESOLVED

(i)  ...  view the full minutes text for item DMN/61

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for a temporary marquee housing an ice rink, cafe and bar, to be erected for 101 days from 21^st October 2016 until 30^th January 2017.  It would be removed completely after 30^th January 2017. The proposal included temporary change of use from A1 (outdoor tent display and retail) to mixed use.  The ice rink would be open from 10am to 9pm every day, and a Christmas Market and Fayre would be open 10am to 10pm for a total of 22 days from 26^th November to 2^nd January. 

The application site was located outside the built-up area of Horsham and was within Hornbrook Park Retail Estate. It comprised the outdoor display area used by Camping World, which was one of four retail units on the estate. They all shared a central 250 space car parking area.  There was suburban development to the west, and sparsely developed countryside to the east.  Tall hedging and fences, and evergreen trees screened the site to the south and west.

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 Highway Authority had commented further on the proposal.  An addendum to the report had been circulated to Members outlining these comments and recommending an additional condition requiring a Traffic Management Plan to address these comments. Subject to this condition, the Highway Authority did not object.

Councillor Claire Vickers advised that her daughter lived relatively close to the site, but she did not have a personal interest in this item.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application.  Nine letters of objection and one letter of comment had been received.  The applicant and the executive producer of the event 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 development; visual impact within the countryside; impact on neighbouring amenity; and highway safety.

Members discussed the benefits of the proposal and weighed these against the impact of temporary increased activity in the countryside, including noise disturbance in the evening and increased traffic movements.  To address these concerns Members agreed that the site should close at 9pm instead of 10pm, and the temporary use of the land for ice skating should cease two weeks earlier than proposed, on the 14^th January 2017.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/1939 be granted subject to the following amendments to the conditions as reported:

(i)        That Condition 1 be amended so that the temporary use be discontinued and the land restored to its original condition immediately following 14^th January 2017 and that the Christmas Market and Fayre be restricted to 22 days between 26^th November and 2^nd January;

(ii)  ...  view the full minutes text for item DMN/62

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for ground floor infill extensions to the access and undercroft parking area to the rear of North Point.  The extensions would relate to a total of seven apartments, comprising four additional units and additions to three half units that already had prior approval under DC/15/1678.  There would also be external alterations to all elevations, including window and door alterations, render panels in place of curtain walling panels, and a new single storey plant room.  

The application site was located along North Street in the built-up area of Horsham. It was adjacent to part of Chichester Terrace and the BT Exchange to the rear. The Capitol Theatre was southwest of the site and another office (Comewell House) was to the northeast.

Details of relevant government and council policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. Relevant planning history, including the prior approval for 65 apartments, was also 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 objected to the application.  Two letters of objection, including one from the Horsham Society, had been received. The applicant’s architect addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of Denne Neighbourhood 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; its impact on the character and appearance of the area; amenity of nearby occupiers; parking and traffic conditions in the area; and affordable housing and infrastructure contributions.

Members considered whether the proposal had overcome the reasons for refusing application DC/15/1449, which had been refused on the grounds that a lack of natural light in the units would fail to provide a satisfactory living environment, and the loss of onsite parking would lead to car parking pressures in the locality.   Members concluded that the current application had not overcome these reasons for refusal.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/1016 be refused for the following reasons:

(i)        The proposed additional residential units would fail to provide a satisfactory living environment for future residents due to the lack of natural light. As such the proposed units would be contrary to Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and the requirements of National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

(ii)       The proposed additional residential units would, by virtue of the loss of onsite car parking spaces, fail to make adequate provision for future users, leading to additional car parking pressures within the locality. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy 41 of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

The Development Manager reported that provisional Tree Preservation Order 1490 had been served on 16th May 2016 on an oak tree on land near Warnham Village Hall and that the statutory consultation period for the receipt of representations has now expired, enabling the order to be confirmed.

The tree was located on an area of public open space north-east of Hollands Way, to the immediate north of a formal play area, and north-west of a huge old oak tree in the centre of the open space. There was a cricket ground to the north.  The site was within the local conservation area.

Details of relevant government policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  The Council had been notified of an intension to fell the tree on 15^th March 2016.

The Parish Council, who owned the land, objected to the TPO on the grounds that the tree was self-seeded and inappropriately located in relation to the children’s play area and the larger oak tree. 

Members considered the location of the tree in relation to the children’s play area and the wider site.  It was noted that the older oak tree needed to be crowned because it was showing signs of age related distress and the younger tree the subject of this TPO would make a fitting replacement in years to come.    

RESOLVED

That Tree Preservation Order 1490, land at Warnham Village Hall, Hollands Way, Warnham, be confirmed for the reasons as reported.