Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor M. Hersey substituted for Councillor Watts Williams.

Apologies were received from Councillor Watts Williams.

Councillor M. Hersey declared a predetermined interest in DM/19/0071 - Land North of Lindfield Common Bowling Green Car Park, Backwoods Lane, Lindfield as she is a Lindfield Parish Councillor and Lindfield Parish Council submitted the application. She confirmed that she would leave the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

Councillor Whittaker declared a personal interest in DM/19/0180 - 11 The Stennings, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 1PF as he is the applicant. He confirmed that he would leave the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item.

The minutes of the Committee held on 28 February 2019 were agreed as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Andrew Morrison, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which sought full planning permission for the erection of 25 residential dwellings on land east of Valebridge Road, Burgess Hill following the demolition of Pump House and Nuggets dwellings. The vast majority of the site however, including all proposed dwellings, falls within the administrative area of Lewes District Council and therefore the access is the only aspect of the proposal that requires planning permission from Mid Sussex District Council. He drew attention the Agenda Update Sheet which detailed a substitute Location Plan and Proposed Site Plan.

A Member commented on the previous housing developments on Valebridge Road which has increased traffic movements on the road. He enquired whether the Council would contact West Sussex County Council Highways to propose to bring in a speed limit of 30mph for the whole of Valebridge Road.

Nick Rogers, Business Unit Leader for Development Management, confirmed that it would not do any harm to write a letter to the County Council to ask them to review the speed limit on the road.

A Member sought clarification over the recipients of payments from the Community Infrastructure Levy and the Section 106 Contributions from the development. She also questioned if the District Plan takes precedence over the Burgess Hill Neighbourhood Plan.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the mechanism to seek to secure contributions would be for Mid Sussex to bid for a proportion of the Community Infrastructure Levy funds that are to be paid to Lewes District Council by the developer in the event Lewes District Council grant permission.

Tom Clark, Solicitor to the Council, advised that the District Plan does take precedence over the Burgess Hill Neighbourhood Plan.

A Member raised her concerns as she could not find any mention of a Construction Management Plan in the report and highlighted issues within her ward with construction trucks spilling their waste spoil.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that he had considered the issue but felt it be more appropriate for Lewes District Council to impose such a condition. He added that he would write to the case officer of the application at the Council to request that spoil and such like construction waste is reviewed in the Construction Management Plan.

A Member enquired whether Lewes District Council will be collecting the bins.

The Vice-Chairman, and Ward Member of a neighbouring ward, confirmed that Lewes District Council collects the bins of other housing developments on Valebridge Road that fall within their authority. 

The Chairman noted that no other Member wished to speak so moved to recommendation to approve the application which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be approved subject to conditions outlined at Appendix A and Agenda Update Sheet.

The Chairman reminded Members that the application was considered at the last meeting of the committee but was deferred pending further clarification on the positioning of the dwelling compared to previous planning permissions.

Andy Watt, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which sought to vary Condition 2 of Planning Permission DM/17/0537, which previously approved the erection of a detached dwelling, detached garage and access. The variation provided revised plans to reflect the amendments to the siting of the dwelling works which have taken place retrospectively.

Claire Pickford, local resident, spoke against the application.

Mark Best, agent of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Andrew Barrett-Miles, Ward Member, spoke against the application. He highlighted the effect of the property on No.5 and No.6 The Oaks which has created an unneighbourly environment and visible impact on the street scene. He also drew attention to the loss of privacy and outlook on the gardens and believed that the new application should be refused.

A Member explained that she attended Gatehouse Lane to view the development and found it to be completely overbearing. She believed that it was not acceptable and that it should not go ahead.

The Chairman enquired the distances of the closest point of the development to the nearest neighbouring property.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified the distances of the dwelling to the nearest neighbouring property for the application, firstly which was approved by the Planning Inspector, secondly the application that was previously approved by the committee in 2017 and finally the application before the committee. The appeal scheme was located 19.6m from the nearest property; the previously approved application was located 22.4m away from the nearest neighbouring property and the application before the committee reduced the distances to 22m.

Nick Rogers, Business Unit Leader for Development Management, drew attention to national guidance on retrospective planning applications.

A Member felt that it would be difficult to refuse an application when the Planning Inspector had previously approved an application which was closer to neighbouring dwellings than the current application.

A Member expressed understanding of Members concerns. He requested guidance on the acceptable distances and questioned whether an outright refusal on that issue alone would be unreasonable.

The Business Unit Leader for Development Management explained that the 2013 Inspector’s decision has now lapsed however his views on the effect of a dwelling on neighbouring properties still remains a material consideration. The Inspector has considered the relation of the dwelling with other neighbouring properties at 19.6m and found it acceptable therefore any subsequent application with a greater distance would be more difficult refuse. 

The Chairman noted that no other Member wished to speak so moved to recommendation to approve the application which was agreed with 5 Members in support and 4 Members against.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be approved subject to conditions outlined at Appendix A.

Nick Rogers, Business Unit Leader for Development Management, introduced the report which sought planning permission to replace and existing equipment store, in the same location within the north west corner of The Health Recreation Ground, adjacent to the exiting cricket nets.

The Chairman noted that no Member wished to speak so moved to recommendation to approve the application which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be approved subject to conditions outlined at Appendix A

[Councillor M. Hersey removed herself from the discussion at 7:55pm]

Hamish Evans, Planning Officer, introduced the report which sought planning permission for the erection of a Public Convenience Block at Land North of Lindfield Common, Bowling Green Car Park, Backwoods Lane, Lindfield. The application is before committee as the application site is located on land owned by Mid Sussex District Council.

A Member enquired who will maintain the Convenience Block.

The Chairman confirmed that it will be Lindfield Parish Council that maintains the block.

The Chairman noted that no other Member wished to speak so moved to recommendation to approve the application which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A.

[Councillor M. Hersey returned to participate in the discussion at 7:58pm]

Caroline Grist, Planning Officer, introduced the report which sought planning permission to replace existing metal gates with electronic opening gates mounted on brick piers at the entrance to Jasper Wood, Cuttinglye Road. She added that the gates are of a similar design to other gates built on the road.

The Chairman noted that no Member wished to speak so moved to recommendation to approve the application which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That permission be granted subject to the conditions listed at Appendix A.

Joseph Swift, Planning Officer introduced the report which sought planning permission for a proposed padel tennis court to replace paved area to rear of the centre at the Triangle Leisure Centre in Burgess Hill. The application is being reported to committee as the District Council is the landowner.

A Member sought clarification over whether there will still be an area to sit outside when the construction is completed.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there will be.

The Vice-Chairman enquired whether the court will be fully enclosed.

The Planning Officer explained that the court is not fully enclosed however environmental health officers are happy with the application.

The Chairman noted that no Member wished to speak so moved to recommendation to approve the application which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A.

[Councillor Whittaker removed himself from the discussion at 8:07pm]

The Chairman noted that Members did not require a presentation from officers and therefore moved to the recommendation to approve the application which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That recommended that permission be granted subject to the condition set out in Appendix A.

The Chairman confirmed that the application was withdrawn from the committee due to a lack of information.

None.

The Chairman noted that this was the last Committee B meeting of the current year and said he would like to thanks all Members for the way in which they had considered all applications with a very professional and positive approach. The Chairman further added that he had been approached on two occasions by an applicant and a member of the public who commented on the way Members had shown a very professional and fair approach holding the planning officers to account.