Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber

Contact: Email: committees@midsussex.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Walker.

2.

To receive Declarations of Interest from Members in respect of any matter on the Agenda.

Minutes:

None.

3.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 August 2019. pdf icon PDF 95 KB

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 15 August 2019 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Vice Chairman.

4.

To consider any items that the Chairman agrees to take as urgent business.

Minutes:

None.

5.

DM/18/4419 - East Lodge Farm, Malthouse Lane, Hurstpierpoint, BN6 9LA. pdf icon PDF 435 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Applications Team Leader introduced the report and explained the recent changes which were on the Agenda Update Sheet, including 3 additional conditions which were recommended. The public speakers were in favour of the officer’s recommendation. The Chairman confirmed with Members that they did not require a presentation from officers. He took Members to the recommendation to approve, which was moved by Councillor Sweatman and seconded by Councillor Coote. This was agreed unanimously.

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions outlined at appendix A, with the additional conditions 1-3, as stated in the Agenda Update Sheet.

6.

DM/18/4541 - Land East of Haywards Heath Road, Balcombe, RH17 6NL. pdf icon PDF 489 KB

Minutes:

The Senior Planning Officer Lesley Westphal introduced the report. The application sought the development of the site for the erection of 16 dwellings with associated access, parking, and open space/landscaping on this greenfield site to the east of Haywards Heath Road, Balcombe. She noted that the site is a housing allocation in the Neighbourhood Plan. The development would include affordable housing, complies with policy, and that planning officers would deem this acceptable. The Senior Planning Officer did note the application would involve a footpath to connect Balcombe village to the site, but that this was permissive and subject to an agreement between the Parish Council and the Landowners; she also noted this was outside of the section 106 agreement.

           

The Senior Planning Officer explained that Appendix A contains a change in  condition 13  on p64 relating to the construction of the footpath link to the village  This change requires the applicant to provide details of the siting and design of the proposed footpath only within the site.

 

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the changes on the Agenda Update Sheet, regarding infrastructure and specifically Total Access Demand. She explained that West Sussex County Council would need to approve changing the Total Access Demand to traffic calming measures within Balcombe, however this would require further discussion. Terms within the S106 obligation could be varied to allow for funding traffic calming measures or the provision of funding for the cycle path as originally advised.

.

Alison Stevenson, Carol Jarvis, and Charles Metcalfe spoke against the application.

Chris Hough spoke in support of the application.

 

The Chairman, spoke as a Ward Member, to the committee regarding his support of the Neighbourhood Plan. He also voiced concerns regarding the speed of the access road, Haywards Heath Road. He noted that a community speed watch had recorded speeds of 67mph on the road, and that further information should be gathered on the average speed of the road. He asked The Head of Regulatory Services Tom Clark, for clarification regarding the S106 obligation, and the change from Total Access Demand to traffic calming measures.

 

The Head of Regulatory Services explained that the Section 106 structure is informed by the Councils Infrastructure supplementary planning document, however the Council may be able to allocate the money to a different scheme, such as that of traffic calming measures. West Sussex County Council would need to be consulted for this to happen.

           

The Chairman commented that the Parish Council and speakers had both called for higher pedestrian safety and as there is a scheme being developed to do this, it would be worth considering.

           

Councillor MacNaughton, Ward Member, requested more information on the Section 106 agreement, and consultations from experts, such as highways engineers. He also suggested that in light of this, the application be deferred.

 

A Member addressed the committee to express his traffic speed concerns.

 

The Chairman agreed that the Committee may need to defer until they have more information. A Member asked if the deferral would allow  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

DM/19/1235 - Land South of Bolney Road, Ansty, RH17 5AN. pdf icon PDF 248 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Applications Team Leader introduced the report and explained the recent changes which were on the Agenda Update Sheet. He noted that permission had already been granted for the site and that this was a reserved matters application for the details of the layout and design of the scheme., . He explained the condition relating to p115 to ensure that prior to occupation that a vehicle activated sign will be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. As there were no public speakers the Chairman confirmed with Members that they did not require a presentation from officers. He took Members to the recommendation to approve, which was agreed unanimously.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A and the conditions laid out in the Agenda Update Sheet.

8.

DM/19/1341 - Clockfields Development Site, North Street, Turners Hill, RH10 4AR / RH10 4NS. pdf icon PDF 236 KB

Minutes:

Steve Ashdown, Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations, introduced the report which was for 38 dwellings. He noted that an extant permission for 47 dwellings was under construction. He noted that the Urban Designer had recommended the application for refusal on the grounds that the changes including elevation changes resulted in an inferior layout to the previously approved scheme. However, it was the Planning Officers’ recommendation that the application should be approved as the design has not changed significantly. 

 

As there were no public speakers the Chairman took Members to the recommendation to approve which was moved by Councillor Sweatman and seconded by Councillor MacNaughton, which was agreed unanimously.

 

RESOLVED

 

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

9.

DM/19/1613 - Ashplats House, Holtye Road, East Grinstead, RH19 3EZ. pdf icon PDF 357 KB

Minutes:

The application was introduced by Steve Ashdown, Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations who explained the application seeks planning consent, with access, for the demolition of Ashplats House and associated outbuildings and erection of 30 no. residential dwellings (including 30% affordable housing) and access onto Greenhurst Drive. He noted that the area of 1.1 hectares was currently occupied by one large dwelling, with the current access to the site being from Holtye Road, and the site is allocated within the East Grinstead Neighbourhood plan, with allocation for 35-45 dwellings, however, just 30 were part of the application before Members tonight. He spoke regarding concern which has been raised as Greenhurst Drive is a private drive which would provide access to the site, however he explained that road access is not within the Committees responsibility and therefore should not be taken into account.

 

The Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations explained that Section 106 funds would be used to secure infrastructure and affordable housing, and there were no material concerns to suggest this would be outside of approval.

           

Patrick Collett and Lucy Sargent spoke against the application. Katie Lamb, representative of the applicants and owners spoke for the application.

 

The Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations addressed concerns of the public speaker regarding the pumping station used for sewage waste and directed the Committee to Condition 2 which specifically references the requirement for the applicants to further investigate the pumping station’s capacity.

 

A Member wished to ensure the condition was as clear as possible, as he is in favour of the application but required reassurances that the drainage and pumping station limitations be addressed. It was noted that condition 2 was very clear that if the pumping station was not sufficient, the applicants would not be able to proceed until they put it resolve the issue. A Member asked The Head of Regulatory Services to confirm the condition is clear enough legally.

 

The Planning Application Team Leader explained that the condition stated that the planning department are required to give their written permission for the development to proceed regarding the solution to the pumping station. He also noted that it would be unreasonable to reject the application based on this, advising Members that government guidance was clear, namely that if an issue can be resolved by imposing a planning condition, then this is what should be done rather then refusing the application; this was agreed by the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and The Head of Regulatory Services.

 

A Member enquired if tank size should be included in the clause, however the Planning Applications Team Leader advised that the technical details of the tank and means of drainage would be considered by the Councils drainage engineer when the details are submitted to discharge the condition and these would have to be approved before occupation could begin and this would include assessing tank size. 

           

The Chairman took Members to the recommendation to approve, which was moved by Councillor Sweatman and seconded by Councillor Pulfer.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

DM/19/2639 - Armstrong Bodyshop Ltd, Armstrong Auto Services, Copthorne Common Road, Copthorne, RH10 3LF. pdf icon PDF 184 KB

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the application in which planning permission is sought for the removal of the existing double entrance gates and adjacent fencing and the erection of a 2.4 metre high green powder coated steel palisade double entrance gate and adjacent fencing. As there were no public speakers he confirmed with Members that they did not require a presentation by officers. He noted that the application was before the Committee as a Councillor had an interest in the application as the planning agent for the applicant. He took members to the recommendation to approve which was agreed unanimously.

 

RESOLVED

 

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

11.

DM/19/0060 - Slaugham Manor, Slaugham Place, Slaugham, West Sussex, RH17 6FT. pdf icon PDF 542 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Application Team Leader introduced the application, which seeks full planning permission for the erection of 8 dwellings at Slaugham Manor, Slaugham Place, Slaugham. The Planning Application Team Leader noted that the plans show that there would be 4 pairs of semidetached dwellings located at the southern end of the site. These houses would be in the same location as 4 houses that were approved under the previous outline and reserved matters consent for 15 dwelling houses on the site. In effect the proposal is to subdivide the 4 plots that have been previously approved to accommodate 8 houses in their place. The proposal would therefore result in a net gain of 4 dwellings on the site compared to the consented scheme. He also noted there is a current application pending determination for an access road, but that that application was separate.

           

The Planning Application Team Leader explained the elevations of the proposed houses are following the same treatment as the approved plans, utilising a contemporary style, red brick and the same roofing. He noted that the principle is the main issue, the application would be in conflict with Policies DP12, DP21 and DP15 of the District Plan. He explained there would be no impact on adjacent heritage as laid out on p200. The Planning Application Team Leader noted that the site is  isolated, and residents would be reliant on private cars. The Planning Application Team Leader stated that officers believe there was no justification in planning policy to approve the further changes beyond what was previously approved. He noted one other reason for refusal; within the site is a tree of merit, which the proposed dwellings would be closer to than in the previous application.

 

The Chairman noted that Slaughham Parish Council was against the application as amended.

 

A Member noted that the site that was approved had previously been discussed at length. He also noted that it would not be a sustainable development with more properties as proposed.

 

The Chairman took Members to the recommendation to refuse, which was moved by Councillor MacNaughton and seconded by Councillor Coote. This was agreed unanimously.

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning be permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.         The application site is located within the countryside, outside any defined  built-up area boundary, on a site not allocated for development within the Mid Sussex District Plan or the Slaugham Neighbourhood Plan. The Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and the applicant has failed to demonstrate the proposal is essential to a countryside location. The site is in an unsustainable location, where occupants would be reliant on the use of a private car to gain access to local services. There are considered to be no other material considerations that would warrant determining the planning application otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The proposal is therefore considered to conflict with policies DP12, DP15 and DP21 of the District Plan and paragraphs 11 and 108  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

TP/19/0009 - Woodland North of Bolney, London Road, Bolney, RH17 5PY. pdf icon PDF 180 KB

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the report and confirmed with Members that they did not require a presentation from officers. He noted that the Ward Member, Councillor Llewellyn-Burke supported the application. He took Members to the recommendation to approve, which was agreed unanimously. 

 

RESOLVED

           

That the order is confirmed.

13.

Questions pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10 due notice of which has been given.

Minutes:

None.