Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 6^th December 2016.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6^th December 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DISC/16/0324; DISC/16/0318; DC/16/2370:  Councillor Stuart Ritchie declared a personal interest in these applications because he knew one of the objectors.

DISC/16/0324; DISC/16/0318; DC/16/2370:  Councillor Liz Kitchen declared a personal interest in these applications because she knew one of the objectors.

DC/16/1011:  Councillor Toni Bradnum declared a personal interest in this application because she knew the applicant and took no part in the deliberation of this item.

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 application sought to agree the reserved matters for outline permission DC/13/1412 for 40 dwellings on land accessed from King Edwards Close and an extension to the station carpark.  Reserved matters included appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.  Minor amendments to the approved new road into the site and housing mix were also sought.

The application also sought agreement of a number of pre-commencement conditions, some of which applied to the full permission that had also been granted under permission DC/13/1412, for seven affordable rent units.  The application also sought permission to vary the legal agreement attached to DC/13/1412 with regard to the tenure split on the fifteen affordable housing units.

The application site was located within Christ’s Hospital, with the railway line running along its long north-western boundary and Station Road to the south-east.  The old goods yard building, which was to be converted into seven affordable units, was at the north of the site.  There was low-medium density residential development to the south.  Christ’s Hospital Station was to the north and the site bordered the main station car park. 

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 raised no objection to the application.  Four letters of objection, and one of comment, had been received.  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: layout scale and appearance; landscaping; affordable housing and housing mix; infrastructure contributions; impact on amenity; highways and parking; and the acceptability of details submitted to satisfy conditions attached to permission DC/13/1412.

Members discussed the amended housing mix, which had reduced the number of 2-bedroom units, and the amended tenure split, and recognised that these amendments were policy compliant. It was noted that a number of trees that had been removed had been outside the application site.

RESOLVED

(i)      That a legal agreement, in the form of a Deed of Variation, be

         entered into to amend the legal agreement attached to

         DC/13/1412 to secure the change to affordable housing tenure.

(ii)     That on completion of (i) above, planning application

         DC/16/1961 be determined by the Development Manager.  The view of the Committee was that the application should be granted subject to conditions as reported.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought approval of details reserved by Condition 18 under permission DC/15/1888 for the erection of a 4-bedroom chalet bungalow and detached garage with accommodation above, which had been granted permission by the Committee in August 2016.  This condition controlled materials to be used in construction of the garage.

The application site was located on the west of Bashurst Hill, along which were large detached dwellings in generous plots, in a countryside location. It comprised a square-shaped residential plot, on which a two storey property had recently been constructed following the demolition of a bungalow.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The Parish Council had not commented on the application, and no representations had been received from members of the public.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment regarding the materials used for the construction of the garage, which included an oak frame, grey engineering bricks to the plinth, timber cladding and a slate roof. 

RESOLVED

That application DISC/16/0324 be approved.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought to approve details reserved by Condition 16 under permission DC/15/1888 for the erection of a 4-bedroom chalet bungalow and detached garage with accommodation above, which had been granted permission by the Committee in August 2016.  This condition referred to landscaping details for the site. 

The application site was located on the west of Bashurst Hill, along which were large detached dwellings in generous plots, in a countryside location. It comprised a square-shaped residential plot, on which a two storey property had recently been constructed following the demolition of a bungalow.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  The landscaping scheme had been amended by the applicant to include additional planting within the site to address concerns raised by neighbours.  

The Parish Council had objected to the amended application.  Ten letters of objection, from seven households, had been received.  Since preparation of the report, and consultation on the amended proposal, seven further letters of objection had been received.   Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment regarding the proposed landscaping scheme, including bamboo and leylandii along some boundaries and the planting of additional trees.  Members expressed concern that the proposal did not fulfil the requirements of the condition, in particular with regard to the planting of mature trees, and concluded that the amenity of nearby residents was not protected.

RESOLVED

That application DISC/16/0318 be refused for the following reason:

The landscaping scheme submitted by the applicant does not meet the requirements as set out in Condition 16 attached to DC/15/1888 with regard to the planting of mature trees around the boundaries of the site and therefore fails to protect the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring property in accordance with Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

The Development Manager reported that this application sought to remove Condition 14 under permission DC/15/1888 for the erection of a 4-bedroom chalet bungalow and detached garage with accommodation above, which had been granted permission by the Committee in August 2016.  This condition required two windows facing Willow Cottage to be obscure glazed.

The application site was located on the west of Bashurst Hill, along which were large detached dwellings in generous plots, in a countryside location. It comprised a square-shaped residential plot, on which a two storey property had recently been constructed following the demolition of a bungalow.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had not commented on the proposal.

The Parish Council had objected to the application.  Eleven letters of objection, from nine households, had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment regarding the proposed use of clear glazing and discussed the impact of the windows on the amenity of the neighbouring property.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2370 be refused for the following reason:

The fitting of obscure glazed glass in the triangular windows within the south west elevation is required to prevent the perception of overlooking to the neighbouring property, in accordance with Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the conversion of a ground floor shop and ancillary area into two 2-bedroom flats.  The proposal had been for three flats, but had been amended in response to consultation responses.  There would be alterations to doors and windows in the front and rear elevation, and alterations and insertion of new windows and doors in the west elevation.  A car port would be demolished.

The application site was located approximately one mile from Horsham town centre in St Leonards Road, a mainly residential road with buildings of varying age and character.  A Tesco Express outlet was west of the site.  There were two storey semi-detached dwellings either side of the development property, which was detached with a residential flat on the first floor.  The site backed onto land owned by the Council.

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 Neighbourhood Council had raised concerns regarding the original application for three units, and had not commented on the amended plan.  Nine letters of objection had been received.  Since preparation of the report a further five letters from the two adjacent properties had been received objecting to the proposal and requesting that the two windows in the east elevation be kept closed. 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; the loss of a retail unit; the character of the dwelling and the visual amenity of the street scene; the amenity of adjoining occupiers; the quality of the residential environment for future occupiers; and parking and traffic.

The Local Member had objected to the principle of the change of use, but acknowledged that the property had been adequately marketed for A1 business use and the premises was no longer viable as a retail outlet.  It was noted that the Highway Authority considered there to be sufficient parking provision in the vicinity.

In response to concerns regarding the impact of the windows on the amenity of neighbouring properties, officers agreed that Condition 3 could be reworded with a view to ensuring that the privacy and amenity of neighbours was secured.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/1011 be determined by the Development Manager to allow for Condition 3 to be reworded, to require details of the glazing and any means of opening for the windows to the eastern elevation to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.