Agenda item

Steve Ashdown, Team Leader for Major Developments and Investigations introduced the report for outline application for the development of the former sewage treatment works to provide up to 325 dwellings (use Class C3) with associated access, landscaping and associated infrastructure.  He confirmed that the site is within the built up area of Burgess Hill, with the Northern Arc scheme to the east, north and west of the site. All matters were reserved except for the access.  The previous outline planning approval expired in June 2019 and had included access arrangements and relocation of the gypsy traveller site.  He informed the Committee that the travellers’ site had now been relocated south of the road to the waste transfer station and the access road had been completed so were not included in this application.  As previous application has timed out, no further reserved matters can be submitted, hence a new outline application is necessary.  He noted that there could be three phases to the development with access from the newly realigned access road, and it was noted that the internal spine road had been completed.  The parameter plans show that the dwellings will mainly be two storey, although there will be some three storey elements and this reflected that which was consented previously.

The officer stated that the principle of development has been accepted and is in line with the District Plan. Highways matters had been addressed by the previous application (and works completed) and other outstanding matters, such as drainage, could be dealt with via condition. The application was in accordance with eth Development Plan and there were no material considerations that indicated a decision should be made contrary to the adopted policies. 

The agenda update sheet was highlighted, including an email from the applicant detailing issues with condition 8 on landscaping.  The officer confirmed the land was within ownership of the applicant and officers feel that the landscaping of this part of the site should be secured to make the landscaping consistent with what has already approved.  He noted that discussions were on going with the applicant on the width of the strip of land and requested that the Committee agree that the officers secure this by adjusting the wording of condition 8 with the approval of the Chairman and Vice-chairman.  He highlighted that the applicant was concerned with West Sussex Highways’ request for £325,000 towards improvement works on the A2300.  Officers have asked West Sussex Highways for the justification, and the Team Leader referenced the requirements of the CIL Regs and the NPPF that ensure the contributions must be relevant, necessary and proportionate to make the proposal acceptable.  He noted that if the contribution need not meet these requirements then that contribution would be removed from the Section 106 contributions. With reference to the Community Leisure Officer’s request for, £327,000 to provide off-site play provision in Burgess Hill, he noted that the application will provide play space on the site and condition 2 does secure this. The request for £327,000 was therefore not appropriate. 

The Team Leader also asked that the Committee agree that the officers could update conditions 15 – 17 on noise attenuation matters, with the approval of the Chairman and Vice-chairman, as the Environmental Protection Officer had received additional information and may change the wording of the conditions.  He highlighted that due to the historical nature of the site Recommendation B would increase the time limit on Section 106 negotiations to 19 March 2020. 

In response to a Member’s question the Chairman confirmed that the rewording of condition 8 would secure a strip of land and the landscaping of this land.  The Team Leader also confirmed that condition 2 ensured the applicant must provide a play space within the site and a location had been indicated on the submitted parameter plan.

The Chairman informed the Committee that they were considering just the outline application for the development, access and landscaping.  Several applications had already been received for this development and the roads had been constructed.

The Team Leader confirmed that the access road was compete except for works to the two adjacent roundabouts and this is covered by Section 278 works with West Sussex County Council, the roads on the site were complete except for the final surfacing.

In response to a Member’s concern with the proposal to provide a split of 50% affordable rent and 50% shared ownership, which is contrary to the Council’s policy of a 75:25 split, the Team Leader noted the historical approval of a deed of variation for this matter in 2017.  The site has proved difficult to come forward due to the contamination of the site from the previous usage; however the housing officers were waiting for information from the applicant to confirm that this split was still justified.  The 50/50 split would only be agreed if sufficient justification is received. 

The Chairman confirmed the difficulty bringing this forward with the contaminated land, adjacent industrial site, travellers’ site and waste transfer station. He confirmed that the information would be carefully scrutinised.

A Member was concerned with the car parking provision on site and the Team Leader confirmed that a condition will ensure that once an area has been designated for car parking its use cannot be changed, without a planning permission.  He stated that there would be one vehicular access to the site and additional separate access for pedestrian and cyclist had been provided. Any comments regarding electric vehicle charging points was a reserved matter. 

A Member thanked the officer for his report and showed concern the time this site had taken to come forward and that the road would remain private.  He supported the application, requested assurance that the decontamination of the land had been completed and noted an objection from Southern Water. 

The Chairman stated that the developer would have to ensure the site layout avoids any issues raised by Southern Water. He confirmed that many developers do not ask for the roads to be adopted and West Sussex County Council has asked for a letter to confirm this fact.  He noted that some un-adopted roads may not meet the standards that West Sussex County Council required if they are to be adopted. The Team Leader highlighted that most of the decontamination had been completed on the site and the decontamination officer had asked for reports during the process and the final report is outstanding, condition 12 makes sure that final sign off of the process is complete.

A Member expressed concern over noise levels and the time work had taken on the site.  The Chairman confirmed that if permission is granted the applicant will have longer time to complete the site.  He noted that the Government have changed the rules and the developers must complete sites within the given timescale, and the Council could not prevent a further application if the site is not completed on time.

A Member commented on the agreed use of the site for housing, placement of affordable housing, construction of acoustic barriers and whether the roads would be of sufficient standard to meet the expected demand.    The Chairman stated that the placement of affordable dwellings was not a consideration for this Committee, just the principle of the development and other matters are important, but are reserved matters.

As there were no further questions Councillor Walker moved that the Committee consider Recommendations A and B as set out in the report and the Agenda Update Sheet, this was seconded by Councillor Laband.  The Chairman noted that there were ongoing discussions between the officers and the applicant, and any changes to the conditions would be approved by the Chairman and Vice-chairman.

The recommendations were unanimously approved.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to the recommendations:

Recommendation A:

It is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing and financial contributions and the suggested conditions in Appendix A, or as may be amended in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.

Recommendation B:

Recommend that if the applicants have not entered into a satisfactory section 106 agreement to secure the necessary infrastructure payments and affordable housing by 19th March 2020 then the application should be refused at the discretion of

Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy for the following reason:

The proposal fails to provide the required infrastructure contributions necessary to serve the development and the required affordable housing. The proposal therefore conflicts with polices DP20 and DP31 of the District Plan.