Decision details

[Cllr Coote left the meeting at 5:30pm]

Joanne Fisher, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application which sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing public house and redevelopment of the site to provide 10 dwellings with associated access, parking, and landscaping at The Weald Inn, Royal George Road, Burgess Hill. She directed Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which noted that the Mid Sussex Design Guide has now been approved by the Council and now forms a material planning consideration.

Billy Clements, agent of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

A Member said it was regrettable to see the closure of another pub in the town however he complimented the application for an attractive scheme. He expressed concerns with the access to the site as the road leads to Southway Primary School which can get very busy during peak times. He expressed his disagreement with the approach taken with the allocation of Section 106 contributions as it ignores the Town Council’s Bee Hive project.

Jennifer Bale, Solicitor, confirmed that the collection of monies needs to meet the three tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, the most relevant relating to the allocation of funding within the proximity of development and the nearest being the play space at Fairfield Recreation Ground.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that whilst the Town Council can request where funding is allocated it is for the District Council to decide where the monies are spent, which for this application is the Fairfield Community Centre and Place and Connectivity Programme.

A Member noted that the Bee Hive scheme is not ready and therefore the contributions could not be put in reserves where it could stay there indefinitely. He expressed that he did not want to keep money for specific schemes when there are other schemes that are ready.

A Member believed the scheme was very well designed and whilst he supported the Bee Hive project he felt that there were very worthy activities at Fairfield Community Centre which should receive the contributions.

 A Member also mentioned that the closure of the pub was regrettable and that it was an excellent use of a brownfield site. He felt surprised that the scheme had been designed to allow car parking at the back of the development as he was aware that planners have insisted that parking areas can be seen from the road so that the area does not become susceptible to crime. He also felt that the parking spaces does not take into account the visitors to the properties.

The Senior Planning Officer replied that there are 20 parking spaces for the site with some houses  provided with parking to the side of the houses; the rear parking court is unallocated. She noted that the Design Principle DG9 in the Mid Sussex Design Guide SPD supports parking courts in high density areas and the layout has been designed to negate the need for a number of vehicle access routes into the site.

The Chairman took Members to the vote to approve the application, which was proposed by Cllr Emma Coe-Gunnell White and seconded by Cllr Eggleston.

A recorded vote was carried out by the Legal Officer and the application was approved with nine votes in favour and one against.

RESOLVED

A

That planning permission be approved subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 Legal Agreement to secure infrastructure contributions and the conditions set in Appendix A;

and

B

That if the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed S106 Legal Agreement securing the necessary infrastructure contributions by the 12th February 2021, then permission be refused at the discretion of the Divisional Lead for Planning and Economy, for the following reasons:

1. 'The application fails to comply with policy DP20 of the Mid Sussex District Plan in

respect of the infrastructure required to serve the development.'