Agenda item

Joanne Fisher, Senior Planning Officer introduced the report for reserved matters and drew Member’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet. She noted that the update sheet detailed a further 10 letters of representation, clarification on comments, amended wording to conditions 7 and 9, and additional background information on the Section 106 agreement completed as part of the outline approval (reference DM/17/2271).  The reserved matters application relates to outline approval DM/17/2271, for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 43 dwellings with associated works, approval of custom build plot location, amended plans received showing alterations to design of dwellings, inclusion of play area and widening of the access.

The officer noted that the 30% affordable housing were a mix of semi-detached houses, terraced houses and flats and would be situated on the southern end of the development in clusters of no more than 10 units. The development would have 115 car parking spaces with rear courtyard parking for the terraced houses.  The appearance of the site would be enhanced and softened by the planting of additional trees. The scheme has been designed to encourage social integration and benefits from an enclosed play area and open landscaping area.  The officer noted that the buildings would be of a traditional design no more than two storeys high and the development is acceptable in terms of design and layout.  She highlighted that the trees that had been removed along High Beech Lane were not protected by TPOs and it was necessary for the sightlines to permit safe access to the site.  She also advised that the flooding concerns of local residents, would be sought to be improved by the development through capturing surface water runoff and controlling its discharge off the site through a drainage system. Details in respect of drainage are to be submitted through a pre-commencement condition which is attached to the outline approval.

Gil Kennedy, Lindfield Preservation Society spoke in objection to the application.  He was concerned whether the issues of potential further risk of flooding and the stability of the land would be satisfactorily addressed by the developer.  He requested that the application is deferred until technical reports were received from the applicant.

Hilary May, a local resident spoke in objection to the application.  She was also concerned with the land stability and drainage issues which were not included in the reserved matter application. She advised that local properties could be flooded due to underground springs.

Councillor Andrew Lea spoke as a near local Ward Member of Lindfield in objection to the application and was timed.   He noted that the principle of planning is that applications are fairly considered in the public realm to ensure transparency.  He highlighted that the land and slope stability were regulated by a condition and the pivotal matters of concern are caused by the land topography.  He requested that the Committee address the issues of flooding and drainage.  He asked that the Committee defer any decision until technical reports have been received and checked, and suggested that a specialist is engaged by the Council to review these reports.

Councillor Linda Stockwell, Ward Member for High Weald spoke in objection to the application.  She expressed concern that the application was being considered without the benefit of the land stability report or the flood risk and drainage report.  The Ward Member noted that previous applications for this site had not been approved.  She highlighted that underground springs are not mentioned in the emails from the MSDC drainage engineer when they have been referred to in previous applications.  The Committee was advised that some properties below the site have undertaken works to prevent flooding of their gardens.  She stated that there are concerns over the long term viability and maintenance of the underground water storage tanks.  Concern over the unauthorized removal of protected trees was also noted.

The Chairman noted the concerns regarding the lack of the technical reports. He advised that the developers could not provide technical reports unless they know what they can build on the site.  He confirmed that the issue of planning permission does not give the right to build on the site until all the conditions have been met.  He asked for a further explanation of conditions 8 and 14.

Steve King, Planning Applications Team Leader confirmed that planning permission had been granted for the development, subject to the conditions of the outline application which had been found to be acceptable by the District Planning Committee.  He stated that the conditions that require details to be submitted prior to works commencing on the site must be adhered to before the development can start and if external specialists are required to review technical reports the Council will engage them.  The Team Leader noted that any breaches of planning control are regrettable, however  Members must look at the  merits of the scheme before the committee and assess the scheme against the development plan and not the developers past conduct.  He confirmed that the Committee must consider the layout and the developers must have the technical work completed for the drainage and slope stability prior to any building commencing on the site.

Tom Clark, Solicitor to the Council confirmed to the Committee that the existing outline planning permission cannot be changed as it has been approved.  He noted that the development would control the flow of water from the site compared to the existing situation.

The Chairman noted there are numerous examples of land with sandstone and chalky ground which can flood and this can be controlled.

Several Members expressed concern over drainage issues and asked for clarification on the replies received by the MSDC drainage engineer by the developer.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the developer would later provide all the catchment and drainage methods but noted that the full details are not required for the reserved matters scheme.  

The Chairman read the requirements for condition 8 as set out by the Drainage Engineer in Appendix B and added that the condition clearly placed stringent demands on the developer and confirmed that the development cannot commence until the officers are content with all responses from the developer in relation to the conditions.

A Member thanked the speakers and noted that the developer had not elected to speak at the meeting.  He confirmed that the site was complex due to the topography of the land and agreed with the suggestion to engage a specialist to review the land stability and flood risk drainage reports. He stated the design of the scheme was good with the gardens of new houses placed back to back with the gardens of existing properties.  He confirmed that the Section 106 agreement had been already agreed and that the scheme provided 2 bed dwellings which were in demand. 

The Solicitor to the Council confirmed that the developer will have to provide a scheme to alleviate any concerns with land stability and flooding and the Council can engage specialists if necessary to review technical reports. 

Members commented on the location of the affordable housing, the grouping of the units rather than pepper-potting throughout the development, the risk of speeding through the development, access to the development, the removal of protected trees and the fines incurred for unauthorised work on them.

The Chairman noted the comments relating to the spread of the affordable housing on the site.  He confirmed that the Council’s policy was for a maximum of 10 units in a group and that there are three plots between the groups.  He highlighted that registered landlords prefer to keep the housing grouped together as it is easier for management and maintenance. The Committee were advised that any issues in relation to speeding will be a matter for the Police, and the access and egress to the site had already been approved.  The Solicitor to the Council confirmed that fines for unauthorised work on protected trees are dealt with by the court and the maximum fine is £20k per tree.

A Member asked whether the stepping arrangement of the pedestrian access could be ramped or if a channel could be incorporated to allow easier access for cyclists. 

The Chairman noted that the legal requirement is only to provide pedestrian access, and advised the officers will pass the Member’s comment onto the developer.  He informed the Committee that the developer removed unprotected trees to obtain the sightlines for the access road and it was deemed acceptable as they would be planting replacement trees.

A Member expressed concern over the lack of sustainable energy in the development and asked why solar energy was not included in the design even though they were recommended by the Sustainability Officer.

The Chairman stated sustainability includes other matters such as insulation and the use of grey water, and that most developers’ designs concentrate on the thermal efficiencies of the dwellings.  He noted that the Council could not condition the installation of solar panels. 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that renewable solar not been included in the design but some houses have been orientated so they could benefit from solar power if panels were added at a later stage by an occupant.  She noted that all dwellings will have external cycle storage and an external socket to provide a power charging point for an electric vehicle. 

In response to a Member’s query the Chairman advised that the external socket would be single phase as a fast charge socket for each dwelling would be cost prohibitive.

The Vice-Chairman queried the boundary screening for neighbouring properties on the south-eastern corner with Savil Road.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the relationship and orientation of the dwellings to the neighbouring properties is acceptable, and there is a landscaping condition as part of the outline scheme where additional planting/further details of planting in this location could be requested to enhance the boundary.  She noted that dense trees could cause light issues for neighbouring houses and would be unlikely to be considered appropriate.

A Member commented that the Committee must approve the application before the developer can work out how to resolve the flooding issues.  He confirmed that flooding issues in other areas have improved when drainage works have been incorporated into new developments in the local area.

As there were no further questions the Chairman took the Committee to the recommendations and the Committee agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A and amendments contained in the Agenda Update Sheet.