Agenda and minutes

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2019

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

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee

DC/19/0646 and DC/19/0647 – Councillor Claire Vickers declared a personal interest because she knows one of the objectors.

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 & Lower Beeding

Applicant: Mr J Slade

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for two single storey industrial buildings to replace two existing ones, which would be demolished.  Building A would be in the northwest corner of the site and comprise three units.  Building B, to the southwest, would comprise nine units.

Since publication of the report, the applicant had submitted proposed parking plans at the request of the Planning Department. These were shown to the Committee as part of the presentation.

At committee, members were made aware that the last permission for this site dated back to 1990. Committee were advised that the only relevant permission was LB/22/90. There were no current permissions for the site as the uses that did not comply with the permission had become lawful through time, so the conditions imposed back in 1990 were not effective, and therefore the proposed conditions would be an improvement on the amenity of adjacent properties.

The application site was part of an established industrial estate located outside the built-up area to the east of Church Lane, surrounded by open countryside with sporadic development. Two dwellings within the industrial estate were immediately north of the application site.  

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Fourteen representations, from nine households, objecting to the application had been received.  Since publication of the report additional representations had been received objecting on the grounds of a lack of clarity on the existing uses and planning history and the proposed hours of use.  Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application.  The applicant 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; design and appearance; impact on the amenity of nearby residents; and highways impacts.

Members discussed the scale of the replacement buildings, and noted that their footprint was no larger than the existing buildings.  It was agreed that delivery times should be further restricted on Saturdays to mitigate the impact on the neighbouring dwellings.  There had been no objection from the Highway Authority and Members concluded that the impact on the neighbouring dwellings would not be materially different to the existing use. 

At the meeting, members expressed concerns regarding the Saturday working proposed for 5pm.  To protect residential amenity, it was resolved to approve the application in accordance with Officer recommendation, subject to amendments to conditions 13 and 14 so that Saturday hours of working and delivery times are restricted to between 07:00 and 13:00 (condition 13) and 09:00 and 13:00 (condition 14).

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/19/0646 be granted subject to the conditions as reported, with an amendment to Conditions 13 and 14 so that Saturday delivery times and opening hours are restricted to between 07:00 / 9.00 and 13:00.

Ward: Nuthurst & Lower Beeding

Applicant: Mr J Slade

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for two single storey industrial buildings to replace two existing ones, which would be demolished.  Building C would be in the southeast corner of the site and comprise six units.  Building D, to the northeast, would comprise four units.

The application site was part of an established industrial estate located outside the built-up area to the east of Church Lane, surrounded by open countryside with sporadic development. Two dwellings within the industrial estate were immediately north of the application site.  

Since publication of the report, the applicant had submitted proposed parking plans at the request of the Planning Department.  These were shown to the committee as part of the presentation. 

At committee, members were made aware that the last permission for this site dated back to 1990. Committee were advised that the only relevant permission was LB/22/90. There were no current permissions for the site as the uses that did not comply with the permission had become lawful through time, so the conditions imposed back in 1990 were not effective, and therefore the proposed conditions would be an improvement on the amenity of adjacent properties.

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Fourteen representations, from nine households, objecting to the application had been received. Since publication of the report additional representations had been received objecting on the grounds of a lack of clarity on the existing uses and planning history and the proposed hours of use.  One member of the public spoke in objection to this application.   The applicant 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; design and appearance; impact on the amenity of nearby residents; and highways impacts.

Members noted that the buildings to be replaced were in poor repair and discussed the scale of the replacement buildings, and noted that their footprint was no larger than the existing buildings.  It was agreed that delivery times should be further restricted on Saturdays to mitigate the impact on the neighbouring dwellings.  There had been no objection from the Highway Authority and Members concluded that the impact on the neighbouring dwellings would not be materially different to the existing use. 

At the meeting, members expressed concerns regarding the Saturday working proposed for 5pm. To protect residential amenity, it was resolved to approve the application in accordance with Officer recommendation, subject to amendments to conditions 13 and 14 so that Saturday hours of working and delivery times are restricted to between 07:00 and 13:00 (condition 13) and 09:00 and 13:00 (condition 14).

In response to concerns that the signage at the entrance to the site obscured the view for emerging traffic and needed updating, it was agreed that an Informative requesting the signage be improved would be submitted to the applicant.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/19/0647 be granted subject to the conditions as reported,  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCN/17

Ward: Colgate & Rusper

Applicant: BP Oil (UK) Ltd

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a petrol filling station with four pump islands, a convenience store, landscaping and planting.  There would be two vehicular access points to provide an entrance and exit. Twenty-three parking spaces and two disabled bays, and seven electric vehicle charging bays were proposed, as described in paragraph 1.3 of the report (not a total of 36 as incorrectly stated at the beginning of the report). 

The application site was in the countryside adjacent to the A264 and was a roughly triangular field and an area of highway embankment.  The site was adjacent to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and within the Low Weald National Character Area as defined by Natural England. 

The Parish Council had raised concerns regarding the application.  Fifteen representations objecting to the proposal had been received, including two received after publication of the report.  There had also been 14 representations in support of the proposal, including eight letters received after publication of the report.  Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and one member of the public spoke in support of it.  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; design and appearance; impact on neighbouring amenity; impact on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; ecology; and highways considerations.

Members considered whether the application had overcome the reasons for refusal of DC/14/2071.  They concluded that the proposal would bring economic and community benefit with no significant harm to the countryside location.  Members discussed the proposal’s potential impact on the operation of the highway network and, in the light of their concerns, it was agreed that there should be further consultation with the Highway Authority.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/19/0095 be delegated to the Head of Development minded for approval in consultation with local Members, subject to further consultation with the Highway Authority and consideration of any comments they may have to ensure that the highways impact has been thoroughly considered. 

Ward: Colgate & Rusper

Applicant: Mrs R Bensley

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a detached dwelling and detached garage with landscaping. The proposal had been submitted as being of exceptional quality and outstanding design, under paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The dwelling’s form followed the line of a hedgerow and would be constructed from brick at ground floor levels with upper floors dominated by thatched panels.

The application site was located in the countryside south of The Mount, a small residential development surrounded by open countryside, which included equestrian and commercial activities, including a kennels.  

Since publication of the report an additional representation had been received from the adjacent bulldog kennels objecting on the grounds that construction works to build the dwelling would have a harmful effect on the health and wellbeing of the dogs.  Members were advised that it would be difficult to substantiate a reason for refusal for the impact of construction works on the dog kennels.   However, to reduce the extent of the impact, an additional condition was recommended for a construction environmental management plan to be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of works.  This would help mitigate the impact of the proposal on the adjacent kennels reducing noise, dust and vibration impacts. 

The Parish Council objected to the application.  Three representations objecting to the proposal had been received, as set out in the report.  Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and a representative of the Parish Council also spoke in objection to it.  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, including paragraphs 79 and 131 of the NPPF; heritage impacts; the amenities of occupiers and users of adjoining properties and land; the amenity of future occupants; ecology and trees; and traffic and parking considerations.

Members discussed the design of the proposal and considered that it did not satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 79 and 131 of the NPPF and would strike a discordant note with the character of the surrounding landscape.  Members were also concerned at the proximity of the kennels and concluded that there would be a detrimental impact on the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed house.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/18/2215 be refused for the following reasons:

01     The proposal would introduce a new dwelling, which would represent an incongruous and prominent visual intrusion to the detriment of the landscape character of the site and wider surroundings.  The site lies within a countryside location outside of any settlement boundary where new dwellinghouses are only permitted in exceptional circumstances, which this proposal fails to meet.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 1, 3, 4, 25, 26, 32 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

02     The proposal would introduce a new dwelling in  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCN/19