Agenda item

Steve Ashdown, Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations, introduced the application which sought full planning permission for a new building within the western part of the car park site to provide a new village hall. This will replace the existing facility on Turners Hill Road. He drew Member’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which detailed additional comments from the Tree Officer and a further two conditions following comments made by the arboriculture officer. He also highlighted a typographical error in the report where it should state that 6 trees will be removed rather than 5 as stated.

Frances Lancaster, Chairman of Management Committee at Haven Centre, spoke against the application.

Kevin Ellis, local resident, spoke against the application.

Marion Welchman, Chair and Trustee at Crawley Down Village Hall, spoke in favour of the application.

Elaine Anscomb, Worth Parish Council, spoke against the application.

Cllr Ian Gibson, Ward Member, reflected on the concerns of residents on the use of the village hall; concerns of the disturbance to the neighbouring amenity from construction and the financial viability of the scheme. He requested a condition that would prevent the current village hall from being demolished or sold until the new village hall had been constructed. He believed limited weight should be given to District Plan Policy DP25 whereas significant weight should be given to the conflict of District Plan Policy DP37. He sought further information on the alternative sites that were considered before this site was brought forward and recommended that the application be deferred or rejected pending the further information.

Cllr Phillip Coote, Ward Member, noted the concerns raised by objectors but highlighted that the old hall had reached a position where it has become costly to run and manage. He believed that the hall is no longer attractive and had reached the end of its life. He drew the committee’s attention to his previous role as Chairman of the Haven Centre Management Committee and expressed that he could not see any conflict between the neighbouring Haven Centre and the proposed development.

Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations sought to clarify the issues raised by the objectors. He noted that the issue of competition and the lack of an economic business plan are not planning matters and therefore should not be included in the committee’s consideration. With regard to the impact of development on the tree that lies in the neighbouring property, the tree officer has noted in the Agenda Update Sheet that she is satisfied that the protection measures have been satisfactorily addressed. He noted the negative impact on the trees from the scheme however highlighted that landscaping of the site can mitigate the loss. He drew attention to the Highways Authority’s comments on P.101 to P.103 in which they raised no objection to the application’s parking provision.

A Member highlighted the report’s review on the use of the hall which took place during July and August however he noted that it is two of the quietest months the hall experiences; heavy use of the hall instead occurs by the village football club in the winter months. He also raised concerns over the parking arrangements and whether it would be sufficient for all the users of the hall.

A Member noted that Crawley Down is a growing village and the new hall supports the growth. He drew parallels to a hall in East Grinstead which became unfit for purpose and stated that the new hall offers much enhanced facilities.

A Member raised concerns as he had found no mention in the report whether the hall could be hired by anyone or whether it is reserved for just the members. He also raised concerns that there is no mention of its use as a village hall. He believed that the application was missing information and expressed doubts in the application.

A Member enquired whether the trees that are lost will be replaced with like-for-like trees.

Team Leader for Major Development & Investigations confirmed that the final landscaping plan would be subject to a condition.

A Member raised his concerns over the damage to the trees on the site.

The Chairman noted that no tree on the site has a Tree Protection Order and all could potentially be removed without the need for consultation.

A Member believed that the application should be deferred pending further information on the review of the operational times in different times of the year and further information on alternative sites that were considered.

A Member believed that there could be a better position of the hall on the site which would reduce the destruction of the trees. He was unconvinced on the access and position of the hall and expressed his support for a deferral of the application.

The Chairman stated that the alternative location of the hall and the day to day usage of the hall are not planning considerations. He then took the committee to the recommendation to approve the application, proposed by Cllr Sweatman and seconded by Cllr Coe-Gunnell White which was agreed with six votes in favour and four against.

RESOLVED

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