Agenda item

To receive a report from the Director of Place.

RESOLVED

That

i)          The application for approval to the Head of Development, subject to completion of a legal agreement and appropriate conditions be approved.

ii)         In the event that the legal agreement was not completed within three months of the decision of the Council, or other later date as agreed by the Head of Development, the Director of Place be authorised to refuse permission on the grounds of failure to secure the Obligations necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Reasons for Recommendation

i)          It was recommended that the application be delegated for approval as the proposal would bring forward the development of a strategic site allocated for mixed use within the Horsham District Planning Framework.  The proposal would provide much needed high quality employment space as well as an appropriate residential area.  The proposal utilises a brownfield site in a central and sustainable location, resulting in the regeneration of this strategic town centre site. 

ii)         It was recommended to delegate to the Head of Development in order that the detail and clauses of the necessary Legal Agreement could be finalised and all necessary conditions imposed. 

iii)        It is recommended that the legal agreement be completed within three months of the decision of the Council, or other later date as agreed by the Head of Development.  If not agreed, the Director of Place was authorised to refuse permission on the grounds of failure to secure the Obligations necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.  This would allow the Director of Place the ability to refuse the proposal if it was considered that there had been unreasonable and prolonged delays in the completion of the agreement. It would also allow the Director of Place to extend this period if matters were progressing well, but further time was needed.

Councillors Nigel Jupp, Liz Kitchen and Christian Mitchell declared personal and prejudicial interests in the item on the former Novartis site, Parsonage Road, Horsham as they were Members of West Sussex County Council and withdrew from the meeting for the item.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that an outline application had been submitted for the erection of up to 300 dwellings, including the conversion of existing offices buildings up to 25,000sqm of employment floorspace and provision of 618sqm of flexible commercial/community space within the ground floor of a converted building. The scheme included improvements to existing pedestrian and vehicular accesses from Parsonage Road and Wimblehurst Road, together with associated parking and landscaping.

This application had been deferred from the Council meeting on the 4^th September 2019 to allow Peter Brett Associates (PBA) to comment on the Road Safety Audit (RSA).  To provide confirmation on parking and clarification of Sussex Police comments.  Two additional letters of objection had been received, including a further letter from the Wimblehurst Residents Association which was forwarded to all Members.  These comments had been taken into consideration.

The Officer went on to say that PBA had assessed the Road Safety Audit and identified areas of the RSA that required review and amendment in order to be fully GG119 compliant.  The applicant had submitted an updated RSA and PBA had commented that the RSA had now addressed their comments.  In assessing the RSA, PBA had undertaken a site visit and had considered the comments and concerns of local residents including the Wimblehurst Road Residents Group. Based on all available information PBA have advised that it was unlikely that the development would cause an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

He went on to say that parking details were outlined in detail in the report, and up to 308 spaces are proposed for residential uses and up to 872 spaces are proposed for the employment uses.  This met the parking provision for new developments under West Sussex County Council guidance. Condition 10 of the recommendation required the submission of a parking strategy prior to the commencement of works.  The purpose of the strategy was to agree how parking would be provided for the residential and commercial areas.   This would allow some flexibility in how parking was allocated, including opportunities to use the employment parking as overspill for the residential units in evenings and at weekends.

At the previous Council meeting, clarification had been sought as to what was classed as ‘severe’ in highway safety terms.  This related to paragraph 109 of the NPPF. PBA have commented that there was no definitive answer to this question.  Since the launch of the NPPF in 2012, what could be classed as ‘severe’ in highway terms had caused substantial uncertainty.   Based on appeal decisions provided by PBA, it was clear that there were no trends as to what constituted ‘severe’.  What was also clear was that the term ‘severe’ set a high bar for intervention via the planning system in traffic effects arising from development.  Appeal decisions highlighted that more congestion and inconvenience was not sufficient to trigger the ‘severe’ test in itself but rather it was a question of the consequences of such congestion taken as a whole.  Given the uncertainty regarding what was classed as severe, the advice of the Highway Authority on the highway impacts of a proposal remained critical in determining whether a proposal would have a severe impact.

Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application. Two representatives spoke in support of the proposal. Representatives of North Horsham Parish Council and Horsham Denne Neighbourhood Council spoke in objection to the application.  A local Member spoke in objection to the application, but stated that there were no reasons to turn it down on planning grounds.  She did not feel, however, that she could endorse the application. A Local Member said that he did not feel that the scheme was of sufficient quality for the site.  He believed that there would be traffic problems as a result of it. If the application was turned down, it was likely that West Sussex County Council would sell the land to a developer, which would mean that the provision of employment facilities would be unlikely.  As a result, he would reluctantly support the application.

A Member stated concerns about the traffic and highway safety of the scheme but pointed out that if the scheme were to be turned down, any appeal would be likely to be lost, with substantial costs. Approving it would mean that the council would have continuing control and involvement in a scheme in an important site in the centre of the town.

In reply to a question from a Member, the Principal Planning Officer said that there were a number of legal stipulations in terms of highways improvements and mitigations.  These included off-site pedestrian and cycling, changes to the bus waiting facilities in North Heath Lane and improvements to the Wimblehurst road and Parsonage road junctions.  PBA had suggested additional improvements, which could include a new crossing on Parsonage Road. A travel plan would also be secured through the Section 106 agreements.  A traffic management monitor would ask companies coming onto the site to instigate traffic moderation schemes.

In reply to a question from a Member, the Principal Planning Officer said that it was important that Members determine the proposal that was before them.  Improvements had been made, and additional contributions had been made for pedestrian improvements.  There were no grounds to refuse the application on highways safety grounds.  He said that placing an informative on the application that redesigned the scheme, were it to be passed could have implications on any future applications.  Alternative ways could be considered in order to reduce traffic movements.

Members went on to address the issues of utilisation of brown field sites, the necessity for additional office space in the town, and the economic sustainability of the development.

It was moved and seconded that the recommendations in the report be approved.

RESOLVED

That

i)          The application for approval to the Head of Development, subject to completion of a legal agreement and appropriate conditions be approved.

ii)         In the event that the legal agreement was not completed within three months of the decision of the Council, or other later date as agreed by the Head of Development, the Director of Place be authorised to refuse permission on the grounds of failure to secure the Obligations necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.