Agenda and minutes

None.

Apologies had been received from Councillors Matthews.

Councillor Christopher Hersey declared a non-predetermination interest in Barn Cottage application as a serving Member of Lindfield Rural Parish Council; he advised that he had not taken part in any discussions on this application at the Parish Council.

The minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 4 and 18 October 2018 were agreed as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Steven King, Planning Applications Team Leader introduced the report which sought outline planning permission for a Hybrid application comprising of outline proposal for residential development of 130 dwellings consisting of 12no. 1 bedroom apartments, 27no. 2 bedroom houses, 47no. 3 bedroom houses and 44no. 4 bedroom houses and associated access, together with change of use of part of the land for country open space, following the provision of a new footbridge across the railway.   

The Officer highlighted the Agenda Update Sheet and informed the Committee that the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan was not a “made” plan and carried little weight in the final decision.  He noted the allocated site of Clayton Mills to the east and consented scheme Hassocks Golf Club to the west of the site. He advised that the Development Plan for this part of Mid Sussex comprised the District Plan and confirmed the requirement of the law to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise.  He advised that application is contrary to policies DP6, DP12 and DP15 but site specific circumstances should be taken into consideration, as detailed in the report.

The Chairman advised members of the public in the gallery that they were there as observers and should be respectful of the Members and the Officers.

The Planning Applications Team Leader commented that the previous application had been recommended for refusal by the Planning Inspectorate following the call in of the previous application on the site and Secretary of State (SoS) had agreed with the recommendation of his Inspector and had refused the application. He advised Members that the only reason for refusal cited by the SoS was the safety of the railway crossing. He advised that in the officer’s view this reason for refusal relating to the railway crossing had been addressed in this new application.  He advised Members that the proposal would not result in coalescence between Hassocks and Burgess Hill and highlighted the sites relationship with the approved scheme at the golf course to the west and the allocated housing site to the east. He advised that whilst there would be an impact on the character of the countryside as a result of the development this could be mitigated by landscaping and good design. He advised Members that the development would not be seen as an intrusion into the open countryside because of the site would be bounded by development on three sides.

He advised that the impact on the highway network was not severe and there was no objection from the Highway Authority. He advised that the Right of Way might need to be diverted to accommodate the drainage works and that a separate application had been made for this diversion., He advised that mitigation measures were included for managing air quality issues.  He advised that the proposed bridge over the railway would provide a safe crossing over the bridge and whilst it would not be accessible to those with impaired mobility, this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Andrew Watt, Senior Planning Officer introduced the report which detailed the application seeking full planning permission for a redevelopment of a 9.65 ha area of Hassocks Golf Club comprising 165 residential dwellings, together with landscaping, car parking and associated drainage and access works.  The Officer highlighted the Agenda Update Sheet and provided the following verbal update: 

Condition 23 was amended to read: No dwelling shall be occupied until details of the proposed accesses across the existing bridleway 4_2C and footpath 9C (which shall include engineering/surfacing works and landscape features/contours and details of the crossing point(s) and maintenance details) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and of the environment of the development and to accord with Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan and Policy 8 of the draft Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan.

Condition 28 was added:

No construction work on any dwelling shall commence until a detailed scheme for the provision of the proposed public open space, shown on the approved plans, has been submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The open space scheme shall include detailed proposals with regard to layout, landscaping, drainage, equipment, footpaths, cycleways, and boundary treatments within the open space areas. The scheme shall also contain proposals for the future management and maintenance of the open spaces, and the timing of provision. The open space scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with these approved details, and the open space shall be kept available for use by the public.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory provisional equipment and to ensure that play area is provided and retained within the development for use by the general public and to accord with Policy DP24 of the Mid Sussex District Plan.

John Orchard, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  He commented on increased pressure on infrastructure, highway safety and flooding issues.

Ian Weir, Hassocks Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.   He noted that the developer had worked with the Parish Council and the site had been included in their emerging Neighbourhood Plan.  

Chris Jasper, agent of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He informed Committee that the application would finance the redevelopment of the Golf Club which would provide employment opportunities.  The revised design removed the 5 bed units, increased the number of 2 bed units and no units would be in excess of 2 storeys.

Councillor Sue Hatton, Ward Member, noted that she supported the views of Hassocks Parish Council.  More 2 bed units were needed and the revised design complied with Policy DP26 of the District Plan (Character and Design). 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Planning Officer noted that the demolition of the buildings was included in the application, West Sussex County Council had adopted a cycling strategy and the surface of footpath 8c to the western boundary of the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Chairman noted that East Grinstead Town Council supported the application.  As no Members wished to speak the Chairman took the Committee to the recommendation for approval, which was agreed unanimously.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be approved subject to the recommended conditions set out in Appendix A.

Susan Dubberley, Senior Planning Officer introduced the report which sought reserved matters for the layout, appearance, scale and landscaping, pursuant to the outline planning permission (DM/16/3119) that was granted consent by the Council under a notice dated 7th February 2017 for up to 51 units. The scheme made suitable provision for the 15 affordable units secured under the S106 Legal Agreement.  She drew Members attention to the changes to the plans which reduced the ridge height on the two blocks of flats at the entrance to the site.  The redesign of the flats had addressed the issue which had led to the refusal for permission on 6 September 2018. 

Wesley McCarthy, Nicholas King Homes, spoke in support of the application. He informed Committee that changes had been made to the original application which addressed the reason for refusal but they had lodged an appeal.  The height of the flats had been reduced, a glazed stairwell introduced to reduce the bulk of the buildings to be more in keeping with the village setting.  He noted that they had met with Members and residents to discuss the changes to the design. 

Several Members commented that the developers had addressed the previous reason for refusal. 

Senior Planning Officer advised Members that there had been no objections from West Sussex County Council on highway matters, the flat topped dormers were a compromise to reduce the ridge height and the number of dwellings remained the same as the original application.

The Chairman informed Committee that boundary treatments were part of the reserved matters application and would be reviewed by the Officers.  The Agenda Update Sheet included the re-wording of Condition 2.

In response to a Members question Tom Clark, Head of Regulatory Services noted that the applicant could continue with their appeal (DM/18/1394) and this application and then choose which design to progress.  The Chairman commented that the developer was keen to start work on the site and would probably withdraw their appeal if this application was approved.

The Chairman noted that no Members wished to speak and took the Committee to the recommendation for approval, which was agreed unanimously.

RECOMMENDATION

That permission to be granted subject to the conditions listed on Appendix A and the Agenda Update Sheet.

None.