Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 7^th February 2017

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7^th February were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

There were no declarations of 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. 

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of buildings and the erection of 65 dwellings with parking and external works. The application followed the refusal of DC/15/0154 for 69 dwellings, and also the refusal of DC/16/1320 for 66 dwellings. 

Since publication of the report the appeal of DC/16/1320 had been determined and permission granted.

The 42 private market units would comprise: 15 1-bedroom flats; 24 2-bedroom flats; and three 2-bedroom houses.  There would be 20 affordable rented units comprising 12 1-bedroom and eight 2-bedroom flats, and three shared ownership 2-bedroom houses.  Bicycle storage and a total of 68 un-allocated parking spaces, distributed throughout the site, were proposed.

Five blocks of buildings with garden areas around a central public open space were proposed, with a vehicular access route running around the central square.  There would be one 4-storey block, three 3-storey blocks and one single-storey block

The application site was located within the built-up area of Horsham and was currently occupied by 27 sheltered housing dwellings, which had been vacated and the site was surrounded by hoarding.  There was a public footpath to the north, opposite which was a new 2-storey development and a block of flats at Standings Court. The rear gardens of New Street were to the east, the railway station car park to the west and Victoria Street car park to the south.

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 objected to the application.  Twenty letters of objection from 17 households had been received.  Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application, two of whom requested that the item be deferred in the light of the appeal decision that had recently been announced.   A representative of the Forest Neighbourhood Council also spoke in objection.  Two representatives of the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.  

Members noted the officer’s planning assessment, which considered whether the reasons for refusing application DC/16/1320 for 66 dwellings had been overcome.  Whilst some concerns regarding overdevelopment of the site and the amenity of occupiers were expressed, Members were mindful of the appeal decision and concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

Members discussed the importance of a robust construction management plan, as required under the recommended Condition 3 in the report, and it was agreed that Local Members would be consulted during the determination of the application.

RESOLVED

(i)        That a legal agreement be entered into to secure on-site affordable housing provision.

(ii)       That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/16/2937 be determined by the Development Manager, in consultation with Local Members.  The view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

The Development Manager reported that this reserved matters application related to outline permission DC/14/0590 for the development of up to 540 dwellings and 54 retirement apartments, which had been granted permission in February 2015, subject to a legal agreement which had been secured.   The application sought provision of a community building, two football pitches, a cricket pitch, two tennis courts, a multi-use games area (MUGA), a skate park, an equipped play area (LEAP-NEAP), with parking and landscaping.  There would be two main areas for parking: 20 spaces adjacent to the access onto Church Lane; and 86 spaces adjacent to the proposed sports pavilion.  Details of facility transfer arrangements, and trigger points for delivery, of the various facilities were set out in the legal agreement attached to DC/14/0590.

The application site was the Southwater Strategic Site, the subject of Policy SD10 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF). It was located west of Worthing Road, and north east of Church Lane, opposite Southwater Church.  Part of the development site granted under DC/14/0590 included Southwater Sports Club and the Parish Council building.  Construction of Phase 1 of the development had commenced.

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.  It was noted that the sports pavilion had been reserved for later consideration in response to comments from Sports England. 

Since publication of the report the Parish Council had raised no objection and confirmed support for Sussex Police’s comments regarding lighting, landscaping and security.   Eight letters of objection had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment and whether the proposal adhered to the terms of the legal agreement and included acceptable replacement facilities as set out in Policy SD10 of the HDPF.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/1919 be granted subject to the conditions and reasons as reported.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of two dilapidated dwellings and industrial and agricultural outbuildings, and the erection of 55 dwellings, new access from Church Street, drainage and landscape works. Two of the dwellings would be replacement dwellings adjacent to Church Street. The application also included three commercial offices, and a two storey extension to the existing business.  A total of 125 residential and 18 commercial parking spaces were proposed.

There would be 19 affordable units (35%) comprising: two 1-bedroom flats; six 2-bedroom flats; seven 2-bedroom houses; and four 3-bedroom houses.  Market housing would comprise: four 2-bedroom; 22 3-bedroom; nine 4-bedroom, and one 5-bedroom houses.  An area of open space, on either side of the access road, and an attenuation pond were proposed.

The application site was located east of Church Street, on the north side of Rudgwick, largley within the built-up area and adjacent to open countryside.   The access also served three dwellings adjacent to the site.   Rudgwick Metals, within a two-storey industrial building, was in the north-west part of the site. 

The front of the site was adjacent to the Rudgwick Conservation Area, which included a number of listed buildings.   There was residential development to the south, north and west.  There were two dwellings to the east, beyond which was agricultural land.  

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

An addendum to the report was circulated confirming the amounts recommended for infrastructure contributions secured through the legal agreement towards education, libraries, fire & rescue, transport, health and community facilities.  The 19 affordable units would also be secured through the legal agreement. 

The addendum also included revised wording of the condition regarding SuDS drainage systems, in line with discussions with the applicant.

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.  Twelve letters of objection, including one from the Rudgwick Preservation Society, had been received.  The applicant 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; its impact on the character and visual amenity of the landscape and locality; its impact on the amenity of neighbouring and future occupiers; highway safety; parking; drainage and flooding: and nature conservation.

Members concluded that the proposal was acceptable and welcomed the provision of affordable housing.

RESOLVED

(i)        That a legal agreement be entered into to secure affordable housing provision and infrastructure contributions as set out in the Addendum.

(ii)     That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/16/2917 be determined by the Development Manager.  The view of the Committee was that the application should be granted, subject to the rewording of the condition regarding SuDS drainage systems as set out in the Addendum. 

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the change of use and two storey extension of an office building to provide four 1-bedroom flats and one studio flat.  There would be three car parking spaces and some communal outdoor space.

The application site was located at the junction of Station Road and North Street within the built-up area of Horsham close to the town centre and the railway station.  It included a three-storey end-terrace building with a pitched roof, a parking area, and soft landscaping around the perimeter. The building was currently empty.  Station road included largely semi-detached houses, and North Street included commercial buildings that had been converted into residential units. 

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 objected to the application.  Sixteen letters of objection, from nine households, had been received.

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 streetscene; highway safety and parking; the amenity of neighbouring residents and future occupiers.

RESOLVED

(i)        That a legal agreement be entered into to secure an on-site affordable housing unit or a financial contribution equivalent.

 (ii)    That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/16/1760 be determined by the Development Manager.  The view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the change of use of land for recreational camping, including two yurts and an amenity block providing kitchen, bathroom and washing facilities for the users of the yurts. An access track from an existing access, car parking for four vehicles and associated landscaping were also included.  The yurts would stand on skids so that they could be moved if necessary.  The parking area included a plastic grid, filled with soil and shingle seeded with grass.  The layout of the proposal had been amended since submission of the application to address concerns raised by the Council’s Landscape Officer regarding the landscape impact of the proposal.

The application site was located in a rural area to the south of Winterpit Lane outside the built up area of Mannings Heath.  The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty lay to the north.  The site was accessed off Winterpit Lane via a track that served the applicant’s property and other properties to the south, beyond which was land associated with racing stables. Brookfield Barn, which hosted functions, was to the east.  The applicant owned land to the north and west, including a stable adjacent to Winterpit Lane which had permission for residential conversion, and the applicant’s home.

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, and the Ward Member raised strong objections to the proposal.  Nine letters of objection, from six households, had been received in response to the original application.  Six letters of objection had been received in response to the amended application.   Two members of the public spoke in objection to 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; its impact on the character and appearance of the locality; highway safety; and its impact on occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Members discussed concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposal and its impact on neighbouring occupiers, and noted concerns that it would not benefit the local economy.  Members considered the modest scale of the proposal and concluded that it was acceptable and that concerns regarding neighbouring amenity and use of the site could be addressed through conditions.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2492 be determined by the Development Manager, in consultation with the Local Member, to allow for the framing of two additional conditions relating to: 

(i)        a management pack for future guests to include restrictions on noise and fireworks;

(ii)       the amenity block to restrict its use to be in association with those camping in the yurts.

The view of the committee was that the application should be granted.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought retrospective permission for subsidiary gates, to support a previously approved cattle grid, on the western end of West Drive near Broadwater Lane, and fencing and gates within the parkland.  The proposal facilitated sheep grazing within the Historic Parkland in order to satisfy the Conservation Management Plan.  The height of the gates and fencing was approximately 1.2 metres.  Fencing extended around the perimeter of the area where sheep would be grazed.  There was an electronic timber gate across West Drive near to Sedgwick Manor. 

The application site was located in a rural area approximately 3.5 kilometres south of Horsham.  Access was from Broadwater Lane, along West Drive, along which were a few residential properties. The land was within the registered Grade II Sedgwick Park which included Sedgwick Manor and the moated medieval site of Sedgwick Castle.  The land was subject to an Article 4 Direction which removed permitted development rights across the Park for means of enclosure.  

Details of relevant government and council policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.  Relevant planning history was also noted and officers confirmed that the existing cattle grid had been granted as part of permission DC/14/2365.

The responses from the Council’s Conservation Officer and outside agencies, as printed in the report, were considered by the Committee.  It was reported at the meeting that the West Sussex Public Rights of Way Team raised no objections and had confirmed that the proposal would not affect any public rights of way.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Nine letters of objection and nine letters of support had been received.  One member of the public, and a representative of the Parish Council, both 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 the proposal and its impact on the character and appearance of the area. 

Members concluded that there were no planning grounds for refusing the application, and recognised that access to the private right of way was a civil matter and not a material planning consideration.  It was confirmed that Horsham District Council would facilitate a mediation meeting between the applicant and users of the private right of way who had objected to the proposal to resolve issues regarding access.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/16/2727 be granted subject to a list of the approved plans.