Agenda item

Joanne Fisher, the Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application for the demolition of an existing residential building and the construction of a 3 storey residential building comprising of 8 units with associated landscaping works. She highlighted some key issues including 1 additional letter of objection, as stated in the agenda update sheet. She also spoke about the previous applications which had been submitted and refused for the property.

She informed the Members that the application had been improved, with this scheme seeking to address all the previous reasons for refusal; specifically with the plan now including electric charging points for vehicles, generous gaps between the neighbouring buildings and 8 cycle points within the site.

She highlighted the fact that the new design retained the characteristics of the Edwardian property. She addressed the fact that the application included a larger footprint but highlighted that the planning officers agreed with the urban designer who now had no objection to the design of the building. She advised that the break in the roof, alongside the bay and pitched elements of the building, would help to reduce the overall mass. She told the Committee that the site is in a highly sustainable location in the built up area of East Grinstead. Whilst the application does not meet the Councils maximum car parking standard, she explained that this is considered acceptable given the location’s close proximity to public transport routes.

Matt Thompson and Shereen Jenkins local residents spoke against the application. Paul Dadswell, the agent for the applicant speaking on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

The Chairman spoke regarding Pg25 highways and drainage, noting that the Highways Authority has no objections, and the drainage consultant had found that the application is in line, subject to the conditions set out in the application.

A Member voiced his concerns regarding the size of the property, specifically the proposed height. The Member stated he was in favour of increasing housing in the area by creating flats within the property, but stated that parking in the area may need further consideration.

Another Member spoke on his concerns over the bulk of the building, and the potential harmful effect on the neighbours.

Members spoke about the concerns regarding the windows proposed to the rear of the property which faces neighbouring Lyndhurst, and about the issue of reduced light to the neighbours, especially in winter.

The Senior Planning Officer responded that the applicant has worked with the Council to revise the plans to address previous reasons for refusal. She also spoke on how approving the application would make efficient use of the land, and create more housing, without causing significant detriment to the surrounding area.

Addressing Members’ specific concerns regarding the window facing Lyndhurst, she pointed out that the room in question is a non-habitable room, and therefore there would be no significant issue regarding privacy.

Regarding the bulk of the building she highlighted that the proposed building would be no higher than the highest part of the pre-existing building, but would have reduced ridge lines and increased detailing, with the coach house set further forward than the building in the application. When discussing loss of sunlight to the neighbours, the orientation of the building and pre-existing relationship between the buildings meant that there would be no significant detrimental impact to the neighbours.

The Vice Chairman noted that were the Committee to refuse the application, and the application to go to appeal it would be likely to be approved by the Planning Inspector. He also spoke on the extensive work which had been done with the applicant and Mid Sussex District Council to resolve past issues.

A Member asked that the applicant be minded to make sure the electric charging points were created with the goal of them lasting into the future and accounting for the likely increase in electric vehicles.

The Chairman stated that the agent would pass onto the applicant the importance of future proofing the charging points. He also reminded the Committee that this decision does not set a precedent and if the application was to be approved that does not suggest that another would be.

The Chairman took Members to the recommendation to approve which was moved by Councillor Coote and seconded by Councillor Cartwright. This was agreed with 8 in favour, 1 against, and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

That permission be granted subject to the following recommendations and the additional conditions contained in the Agenda Update Sheet.

Recommendation A

That planning permission be approved subject to the completion

of a S106 Legal Agreement to secure infrastructure contributions and the conditions

set in Appendix A and the update sheet.

Recommendation B

That if the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed planning obligation securing the necessary infrastructure and Ashdown Forest

mitigation payments by the 4th October 2019, then permission be refused at the

discretion of the Divisional Lead for Planning and Economy, for the following

reasons:

1.         'The application fails to comply with policy DP20 of the Mid Sussex District            Plan in respect of the infrastructure required to serve the development.'

2.         'The proposal does not adequately mitigate the potential impact on the        Ashdown Forest Special protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of   Conservation (SAC) and would therefore be contrary to the Conservation and        Habitats and Species  Regulations 2010, Policy DP17 of the Mid Sussex    District Plan 2014-2031, policy EG16 of the Neighbourhood Plan, and Paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework.