Agenda item

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 the applicant to change the design, however it was noted that as the agent for the developer was present this information would be relayed to the developer.

Steve King, Planning Application Team Leader, explained the general S106 contributions are calculated based on the infrastructure supplementary planning document, and must go towards schemes related to the development in question. The use of the infrastructure supplementary planning document ensures that the infrastructure contributions are lawful and mitigate the impact of the development. The Team Leader advised that whilst discussions can be had about where the S106 contributions would be allocated, this had to be informed by the infrastructure supplementary planning document and it would not be appropriate to allocate monies to projects with no evidence behind this. He also noted that West Sussex County Council is satisfied with the visibility on the road of the development, but that the Committee is able to seek further comments regarding the traffic calming, road speed and visibility on Haywards Heath Road. He also requested that the Committee clearly state their reason for deferring the application. The Team Leader advised that if Members had concerns about the design of the scheme these should be made clear now because it would not be reasonable to the applicants to defer the application to obtain more information on highways matters and then return to committee in two months time for example and then to have a new concern about the design and layout being raised.

A Member believed the design to be satisfactory and that the deferral would be due to Section 106 and the need to be further informed regarding traffic calming measures, and reallocating funds from the potential cycle path scheme as currently planned.

A Member asked for confirmation of the sizes of the garages for parking. The Planning Officer answered the garages were open garages without walls which measured 9 metres for 3 cars. This was deemed to be acceptable by Members. It was also noted that the footpath should be surfaced in order to make it accessible year round, however, it was acknowledged that most of the path would be outside of the development and not the responsibility of the applicant.

Members reiterated concerns over traffic speed, and it was suggested that the community speed watch data and reports be given to the Parish Council in order to assist their decision regarding Haywards Heath Road on the west of the development.

The Chairman suggested deferring the application based on, Section 106, clarification of design, and the safety of the highways.

The Chairman took Members to the recommendation to defer which was moved by Councillor Sweatman and seconded by Councillor Coote. This was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

The application has been deferred until more information regarding highway safety and section 106, and design can be presented.