Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Cartwright.

Councillor Dabell declared a pre-determined interest in DM/19/4180 - Stone Quarry Post Office, Hollands Way, East Grinstead, RH19 3EN, as he was involved in the application as a Town Councillor however; he had an open mind about the application.

Councillor Marsh declared a pre-determined interest in DM/19/4180 - Stone Quarry Post Office, Hollands Way, East Grinstead, RH19 3EN, as he a Member of the Cabinet that signed off the lease but he has no personal interest in the application.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 28 November 2019 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman had no urgent business.

Joe Swift, Planning Officer, introduced the application, and highlighted the changes on the Agenda Update Sheet including the addition of a clause, which was agreed by the applicant, to install future proofed electric charging points together with a condition to secure three accessible units. He explained that the application seeks outline consent for the demolition of an existing vacant building and erection of a 14 unit apartment block at Linden House, Southdowns Park, Haywards Heath. He noted that access is the only matter reserved for future approval and that the appearance of the building, landscaping, layout and scale are subject of the application.

Guy Gibberson, agent for the application, spoke in favour of the application.

Steve Ashdown, Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations, explained that the lack of affordable housing was mitigated by the vitality assessment which showed that it would make the application unviable to include affordable housing at this point however in accordance with the Council’s SPD this will be reviewed once 75% of the housing is sold. A Member agreed that the clause to include the future proofed electric charging points was very positive and sought further information on the traffic management scheme due to the narrow road that leads to the application site; and the environmental aspects of the building such as solar panels.

The Chairman noted that the environmental conditions had been met for the construction and demolition as listed in condition 35.

The Planning Officer agreed to add a traffic management and wheel washing clause to the conditions.

 A Member suggested that 3 storeys may have been better than 4 as agreed by the Urban Designer and asked why this was changed to 4.

The Planning Officer explained that as the bank on which the building would stand was to be lowered, this would equate to the proposed building being only increased by 1.1m in height and this was in line with the chapel therefore in keeping with the surrounding area.

The Chairman took Members to the recommendation to approve the application, proposed by the Vice-Chairman and seconded by Councillor Pulfer, which was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in and Agenda Update Sheet and Appendix A subject to the completion of the S106 agreement to secure a viability review on the sale of 75% of the units.

Steve Ashdown, Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations, introduced the application and highlighted the condition to add electric charging points in the Agenda Update Sheet. He explained that the application is a full application for 39 new dwellings (including the provision of 23 on-site affordable homes) a new Community Centre and retail floor space to the ground floor of Block B, including the provision of associated parking and landscaping. He noted that the application was before the committee as the outline consent has now lapsed, and while Phases 1-3a have been completed, a  full application was required for this phases, and subsequent remaining phases. As the previous phases were not able to achieve 30% affordable housing, this phase has a much higher level of affordable housing to ensure that across all phases the affordable housing is at the correct level.

The Chairman noted that all conditions had been met and took Members to the recommendation to approve the application, proposed by Councillor MacNaughton and seconded by Councillor Coe-Gunnell White, which was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the Agenda Update Sheet and Recommendation A and B:

Recommendation A

Subject to the completion of a satisfactory deed of variation of the S106 planning obligation relating to outline planning permission 12/01532/OUT, as set out in the Assessment section below, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A.

Recommendation B

If the applicants have not completed a satisfactory signed planning obligation by the 19th March 2019, then it is recommended that permission be refused, at the discretion of the Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy, for the following reason:

'In the absence of a signed legal deed of variation of the S106 planning obligation relating to outline planning permission12/01532/OUT the development as such conflicts with Policies DP20 and of the Mid Sussex District Plan as well as the Council's SPD's entitled 'Development Infrastructure and Contributions' and 'Affordable Housing'.

The Chairman informed Members that this application was before the Committee as

Councillor Budgen is the agent of the applicant. He noted there were no speakers or questions and so took Members to the recommendation to approve the application, proposed by Councillor Sweatman and seconded by Councillor Coe-Gunell White which was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED

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

The Chairman informed Members that this application was before the Committee as the applicant is a Council Member. He noted there were no speakers or questions and so took Members to the recommendation to approve the application, which was proposed by The Vice-Chair and seconded by Councillor Walker. This was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED

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

Tom Clark, Solicitor to the Council explained that this application is before the Committee as the Council is the land holder. He also noted that the use of the land is not for this Committee as the application only covers the change of use of the building.

Anna Tidey, Planning Officer, introduced the application, noting that the Agenda Update Sheet contains additional consultees and additional representations and that the application seeks a determination as to whether prior approval is required for the conversion of a 33 square metre Post Office (Class A1) into a one bed studio unit (Class C3 residential) at Stone Quarry Post Office, off Hollands Way in East Grinstead. The proposed studio flat would provide a shared bedroom/living space with a separate kitchen and shower room. The application is being reported to committee as MSDC is the landowner. She noted that planning permission is not required when uses fall within the same class, or under the general permitted order, where a change of use is permitted from A1 to C3 for units up to 150sqm², subject to a prior approval process.

Councillor Julie Mockford, Ward member and on behalf of East Grinstead of Town Council, spoke against the application. She noted that the application does not comply with DP25 strategic objective 12 and that the post office is a vital community facility, purpose built as a community building applicable of protection under the DP25 policy.

Councillor Liz Bennet, Ward Member, spoke that the post office it is a necessity, and plays a service to elderly residents and has high social value.

Steve Ashdown, Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations, explained that  under the prior approval process, District Plan policies (DP25) and the neighbourhood plan are not a material considerations. He noted as there are no external changes to the building and given the adequate provision of A1 units within the area, the application is deemed to be acceptable in accordance with the prior approval process.

The Chairman noted that the Members must stick to the application as it was before the Committee.

Members discussed what could be considered when judging the application and discussed the flaws of the application including the final design and issues surrounding the space of the final dwelling.

The Solicitor to the Council explained that this was not part of the application and could not be considered.

A Member said that a similar application in Burgess Hill had previously been rejected and noted the poor design of the dwelling.

The Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations, noted that if this was a full planning application the considerations would extend to these features, however, due to the application being one of prior approval this was not within the criteria.

The Chairman took Members to the recommendation to approve the application, which was proposed by Councillor Coe-Gunnell White and seconded by Councillor MacNaughton. The application was approved with 9 votes for and 2 against.

RESOLVED

Prior approval for the proposed change of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Steve Ashdown, Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations, introduced the application for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings on the site and the erection of 44 dwellings containing a mix of 1 bedroom flats and 2 and 3 bedroom houses. He noted that it proposed that 14 of the 44 dwellings proposed will be for affordable housing. He noted that this area of land has had previous applications which have been rejected, and that the Council has won 2 appeals on the site.

On a general matter, he advised the committee of a recent appeal decision within which the Inspector confirmed that the Council had a five-year land supply. Furthermore, the appeal provided a good definition with regard to C2 extra care housing.

The Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations highlighted that a similar application for 54 houses has been refused and this application for 44 is located in a countryside area, with access off the A264. he briefly set out the issues raised in the report and  highlighted the Agenda Update Sheet which provided a further reason for refusal.

Councillor Phillips, Ward Member, noted that access to the site is very close to the roundabout and therefore would be unsafe, that the location not sustainable, and that one small shop adjacent to the application site would not be sufficient. He also highlighted that this would essentially be a new settlement as is not close enough to either Crawley Down or Copthorne to be considered an extension of these villages.

The Vice-Chairman expressed his agreement with Councillor Phillips, in that the access road would be unsafe and the location not suitable.

The Chairman took members to the recommendation to refuse the application, which was proposed by Councillor Phillips and Seconded by Councillor Coote. The application was refused unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in Appendix A.

None.