Agenda item

Andrew Watt, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application which sought full planning permission for the construction of 10 affordable dwellings (6 x 3-bed houses and 4 x 2-bed houses) with associated car parking, landscaping and creation of new access onto Blackwell Farm Road.

Steven King, Planning Applications Team Leader, noted that the previous application was approved under a different policy context, with the Mid Sussex Local Plan being the development plan at that time. He outlined that the although the development plan had changed, with the Mid Sussex Local Plan being replaced by the District Plan, the issues that Members had come to a view on in the previous application remained the same issues now. He advised that officers considered that the application is still acceptable. He advised that whilst the site is used as open space it was not allocated as open space in the Mid Sussex District Plan. He added that Mid Sussex District Council Leisure Officers consider that the site is surplus to requirement and advised that the Committee should give weight to this view.

Cllr Liz Bennett, Ward Member, spoke on behalf of her residents who are very unhappy about the development and value the area of open space. She stated the pandemic has shown the need for open spaces and the importance of it for health, wellbeing and safe distancing. The space is held in high regard and forms an important part of the street scene, along the gateway and into the town. She believed that something more innkeeping to the local area would be appropriate such as a rose garden of remembrance would have been more welcomed by the community and residents. She also highlighted the vehicle movements along Blackwell Farm Road which is an access and exit for 450 houses as well as a primary school which has created frustrations of residents with dangerous parking and gridlocked motorists.

Cllr Margaret Belsey, Ward Member, spoke against the application. She noted the permission previously granted on the site and that East Grinstead Town Council’s Planning Committee have rejected the application on three separate occasions. She asked that the decision be deferred until relevant traffic survey has been carried out as the one carried out for the application was done so during the pandemic and therefore is not an accurate reflection on the use of the road.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the previous Road Safety Audit was out of date and consequently a new audit was carried out during the pandemic.

The Chairman explained that the principle for the loss of space and housing on the site was established by the previous permission on the site.

A Member noted that the principle of development was approved under a different policy context and therefore believed that the principle carried little weight.

The Planning Applications Team Leader referred to P.60 of the report which detailed the now expired outline permission being afforded limited weight. He noted whilst that the previous permission had expired and was determined under a different policy context, the issues to be considered in the determination of this application are similar to the issues that were considered by the Planning Committee in the determination of the previous application. He advised that whilst the Mid Sussex Local Plan had been replaced by the District Plan officers considered that there were no grounds to come to a different decision about this planning application compared to the decision that was made on the previously approved application. He stated that the Committee would need to ask whether the impact is severe enough if it were to resist the application on highways grounds; officers do not feel that 10 additional dwellings would cause a severe impact on the highway network.

The Member supported the need for affordable housing however he did not feel this provision was located in the right place. He said that open green spaces are sacrosanct and disagreed with the leisure officer’s comments. He noted that the previous Road Safety Audit reported that the proposed scheme would cause impact in additional traffic around the school and an increase in pedestrians use of the walkways. He expressed serious concerns about the pedestrian access across the A264 and asked what the mitigations there are to improve safety.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application does not provide any mitigations, however the absence does not cause officers to be concerned.

The Member directed Members’ attention to P.160 and highlighted that bullet-points 3,4, 5 and 6 conflicts with the proposal. He also highlighted the many and various objections received from a small development. He raised concerns with the drainage of the site due to a partial area being located within Flood Zone 1 and comments from the WSCC Lead Local Flood Authority stating that some parts of the site are at risk for surface water flooding.

The Chairman reiterated the comments the Mid Sussex District Council Drainage Officer.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the attenuation tanks provided on the site in the centre and car parking in the south. He noted the scheme provided flood paths for further mitigation. He stated that the applicant recognises that the lower part of the site is more suspectable to surface water flooding, however officers feel that, with the detail drainage plan and management and maintenance plan, the scheme is acceptable.

A Member felt that the development is an excellent development, for somewhere else. He echoed the concerns of the Ward Member, Cllr Belsey and stated that the A264 is the main road from Tunbridge Well and Lingfield. He stated that any increase of traffic through the area would produce further nightmare. He said he would like to see the traffic report redone and postponed to an appropriate time to properly carry out the traffic report.

The Planning Applications Team Leader drew Members’ attention to the bottom of P.196 of the report where the Highway Authority confirm that they don’t consider the proposal would have an adverse impact on highway safety or have a severe cumulative impact on the highway network, which is the test in policy DP21 of the District Plan and within the NPPF. He referred to sites in Felbridge where there were concerns about the impact of new development on the highway network. He noted that at a site in Felbridge, Tandridge District Council lost an appeal against their refusal of a planning application for a housing development that they had refused on highway grounds, contrary to the advice of the Highway Authority who had not objected to the scheme. This resulted in an award of costs against Tandridge District Council by the Planning Inspector who allowed the appeal. He said the Committee would need to be careful in how much weight they give to the comments of the Highway Authority who are the statutory body for the highway network in the District. He also advised that if the Highway Authority had not been satisfied with the Transport information that had been provided by the applicants then they would have said so in their consultation responses.

A Member expressed disappointment and surprise that there haven’t been improvements to the pedestrian crossing given the increase use of the development and thought something more safe or secure would be desirable there.

A Member thought it totally unacceptable to ask that children, who would have to be supervised, walk across the A264 to East Court. He added that he has not seen four pages of objections to planning applications and believed that the Committee should be listening to the local people in the local area.

The Chairman noted that if the Highways Authority do not agree then the refusal would struggle at appeal. He also noted that the principle of development and loss of green space had been established. He stated that the Committee would need good planning reasons to refuse the application and asked that Members do not lose sight of the affordable housing provision. The Chairman then moved to the vote to approve the application in accordance with the Officer Recommendations and Agenda Update Sheet, which was proposed by Cllr Coe-Gunnell White and seconded by Cllr Cartwright.

A recorded vote was carried out by the Legal Officer and the motion was approved.

RESOLVED

A

That, subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 Legal Agreement and/or legal undertaking to secure the required level of SAMM and SANG contributions, infrastructure contributions, affordable housing provision and Traffic Regulation Order, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A and the Agenda Update Sheet;

and.

B

If by 21 April 2021, the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed S106 Legal Agreement and/or legal undertaking securing the necessary financial contributions and affordable housing, then it is recommended that planning permission be refused at the discretion of the Divisional Leader for Planning and

Economy for the following reasons:

'The application fails to comply with Policies DP20 and DP31 of the Mid Sussex District Plan, Policies EG3, EG5, EG7 and EG11 of the East Grinstead Neighbourhood Plan and paragraphs 54 and 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of the infrastructure and affordable housing required to serve the development.'

And

'The proposal does not adequately mitigate the potential impact on the Ashdown Forest SPA and therefore would be contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Policy DP17 of the Mid Sussex District Plan, Policies EG5 and EG16 of the East Grinstead Neighbourhood Plan and paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework.'