Agenda item

DM/20/1516 - Pikfield Engineering Ltd Factory, Durkins Road, East Grinstead, RH19 2ER.

Minutes:

Andrew Watt, Senior Planning Officer introduced the application which sought approval for demolition of an existing building and the erection of a building comprising eight dwellings.

 

Katie Turner, a local resident spoke against the application. 

 

Angela Joseph, local resident spoke against the application. 

 

Joanne Halcrow, local resident spoke against the application.

 

Hamish Watson, architect spoke in favour of the application.

 

Members highlighted their concerns of overdevelopment, parking for the development, accessibility for refuse lorries and potential noise pollution. One Member noted that the closing of windows to decrease noise volume was not acceptable, especially in warm weather.

 

Members expressed concern that the design was not in keeping with the character of the local area. A Member stated that the design did not create a sense of place while addressing the character and scale of the surrounding buildings and landscape; and would dominate the surrounding area.   

 

The Senior Planning Officer said that there are no visitor parking spaces, but there are no parking restrictions in the surrounding area. He noted that the Highways Authority considers parking provision in the area to be acceptable. Regarding refuse vehicles, he clarified that the site plan showed there was sufficient width for access to the site and that the Environmental Health Officer had not raised objections to the application on the issue of noise from the adjoining industrial estate. There has been negotiation between the agent and the Council's Environmental Health Department to carry out a representative noise measurement. 

 

Another Member expressed concern that the Highways Authority had not visited the site and believed the authority should have undertaken a site visit to provide a more considered report.  The additional capacity in the area would impact the local sewage infrastructure. The Chairman confirmed that the Highways Authority had not objected, and they only carried out a visit if requested by officers and ward members under the Council's traffic light scheme.

 

A Member said that if the land was on a genuine brownfield site, then the site should be developed for alternative use. 

 

Senior Planning Officer advised that there would not be a significant loss of privacy to residents in Durkins Road due to the proposed design and residents were currently able to see into neighbouring gardens.

 

The Chairman took Members to the vote to approve the application in accordance with the Officer Recommendations and the Agenda Update Sheet, which was proposed by Councillor Coote and seconded by Cllr Coe Gunnell-White. A recorded vote was carried out by the Legal Officer and the Committee voted with four in favour and seven against, the motion failed.

 

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

G. Allen

Y

 

R. Cartwright

Y

 

E. Coe-Gunnell White

Y

 

 

P. Coote

Y

 

J. Dabell

 

Y

 

R. Eggleston

Y

 

A. MacNaughton

Y

 

 

G. Marsh

Y

 

 

C. Phillips

Y

 

D. Sweatman

Y

 

 

The Chairman asked Members if there was a proposer and seconder for an alternative motion. Cllr Sweatman proposed to refuse the application which was seconded by Cllr Eggleston. The Chairman asked for further explanation for the reasons to overturn the recommendation. Overdevelopment, environmental issues, as well as the comfort of the future residents, were highlighted as key factors in their votes.

 

The Team Leader noted Members’ concerns of overdevelopment but said this was not sufficient on its own. Members would need to highlight specific issues of the development. He confirmed environmental concerns were not sufficient as there had been no objection from the Environmental Officer.

 

The Chairman emphasised that any reasons for a refusal of the application needed to be robust and defendable at appeal. A Member expressed concern at being asked to cast votes for a second time. He felt that it would be beneficial if the application was deferred to a later committee meeting.

 

After legal consultation, the Chairman noted that the Committee had not agreed on the reasons for a refusal and the motion to refuse was withdrawn. He asked if there was a proposer and seconder for a second motion to approve the application. The Vice-Chair said he had been in planning for years and said this would be an indefensible case at appeal and to take a second vote. 

 

The Chairman requested a new proposer and a new seconder. Cllr MacNaughton proposed the motion to approve the application in accordance with the officer recommendations, which the Chairman seconded. A recorded vote was carried out by the Legal Officer and the application was approved with four in favour, one against, and six abstentions.  

 

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

G. Allen

Y

R. Cartwright

Y

E. Coe-Gunnell White

Y

 

 

P. Coote

Y

 

 

J. Dabell

Y

R. Eggleston

Y

 

A.    MacNaughton

Y

 

 

G. Marsh

Y

 

 

C. Phillips

Y

M. Pulfer

 

 

Y

D. Sweatman

Y

 

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A, subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 Legal Agreement and/or legal undertaking to secure the required level of SAMM and SANG contributions and infrastructure contributions.

 

If by 11 May 2021, the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed S106 Legal Agreement and/or legal undertaking securing the necessary financial contributions, then it is recommended that planning permission be refused at the discretion of the Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy for the following reason(s):

 

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

    

[Cllr MacNaughton removed himself from the discussion and voting at 5:36 pm.]

 

[Cllr Coe-Gunnel White left the meeting at 5:36 pm.]

Supporting documents: