Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Kennedy and Peacock.

None.

The minutes of the meeting of the committee held on 10 August 2023 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman confirmed he had no urgent business.

Joanne Fisher, Senior Planning officer, introduced the application which sought full planning permission for a 9 storey extension to the western elevation of 31-33 Perrymount Road, together with a 2 storey rooftop extension, a new rooftop amenity deck, parking, bin and bike stores in addition to internal and external changes to the existing building to deliver a total of 98 dwellings and ancillary residential facilities.  Furthermore, a prior approval application has been granted on the application site for change of use of the building from offices to flats. The Senior Planning Officer drew Members attention to the changes contained in the Agenda Update Sheet, including the re-wording, an additional and removed conditions.

A mix of residential and commercial buildings surround the application site and it lies within the existing built up area boundary of Haywards Heath as designated in the Mid Sussex District Plan and Haywards Heath Neighbourhood Plan. The development adheres to the principles of the Mid Sussex Design Guide which supports the need to increase density in town centre locations through taller development. The Senior Planning officer noted the rooftop extension proposed and the sharp drop from the application site to the station car park. The principle of the development is appropriate to its surroundings and although there would be a loss of a commercial site, the prior approval has already accepted this loss. Policy DP26 of the District Plan supports site optimisation.

The Urban Designer has considered the amended scheme and raised no objections to the proposed extension, noting that although the design exceeds the 6-storey guideline in DG32 of the Design Guide, the adjustment to the floor levels and screening from existing building frontages reduces the impact to the street scene. The site is serviced by good transport links, including walking distance to the railway station, bus stops and town centre. Due to the location of the application site, the reduction in the number of carparking spaces is acceptable.

The Senior Planning officer advised Members that unfortunately the current scheme does not provide any onsite affordable housing, a commuted sum of £663,041 is to be secured for off-site affordable housing, therefore the applicant has complied with DP31 of the District Plan.

Finally, the Senior Planning officer advised the proposal is considered acceptable in sustainability terms as it complies with the relevant criteria policies DP21 and DP39 of the District Plan as well as policy E8 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 

Sarah Hufford, Planning Consultant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chaiman reminded the Committee the application was similar to other sites that had been in approved in the area, despite Members concerns regarding the lack of carparking and affordable housing. However, he reminded Members the applicant had agreed to provide a commuted sum of affordable housing offsite.

Members discussed their concerns for the lack of affordable housing on site, while supporting the overall design. The Senior Planning officer advised the application site did not offer the opportunity for on-site affordable housing due to the practicalities, hence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Susan Dubberley, Senior Planning officer introduced the application which sought full planning permission for three barns to contain 204 permanent loose boxes for competitor’s horses, a storage barn for hay and fodder and associated work. She drew Members attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an additional condition to the application. The proposal supports policies DP1, DP14, DP19 and DP24 of the District Plan. The proposed design, layout and scale of the development is considered acceptable, it would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area or cause significant harm to the neighbouring amenities. The design of the barns would be in keeping with the countryside setting and character of the rural location.

Weighing against the application is the less than substantial harm identified in relation to the setting of nearby heritage assets and therefore there is a conflict with policy DP34. However, the positive benefits to the local economy should be afforded significant weight and on balance, these are considered to outweigh the less than substantial heritage harm identified.

Edward Bunn, Executive Director, Hickstead Ltd, spoke in support of the application.

Judith Norris, Planning Consultant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Geoff Zeidler, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman advised he was supportive of the application.

A Member raised concerns regarding the ground works and the need for hard flooring in relation to the associated works. The Senior Planning officer advised this would be covered by condition. A Member noted that although there was a heritage building in close proximity, the vegetation on the boundary would provide adequate screening in all seasons. A Member asked for clarity on the West Sussex Fire and Rescue comments and the harvesting of rainwater. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that following the receipt of additional information the Fire Service had no objection. Regarding the harvesting of rainwater, this would be used ne elsewhere on the site but could not be used for the stables due to the nature of the facilities. Finally, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed the use of solar panels had been investigated, however, the battery storage requirements and distance from the buildings to use this energy source, would be technically difficult to achieve.

As there were no further questions, the Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendation, proposed by Councillor Prescott and seconded by Councillor Berggreen. This was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED

Recommendation

Planning permission is approved subject to the conditions set in Appendix A and the Agenda Update Sheet.

None.