Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Brown, Cartwright and Eggleston. 

In relation to item 6 DM/21/2509 – Rowfant House, Wallage Lane, Rowfant, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 4NG and item 7 DM/21/2512 – Rowfant House, Wallage Lane, Rowfant, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 4NG, Councillor Forbes declared that he is a Ward Member for Copthorne and Worth.

In relation to item 6 DM/21/2509 – Rowfant House, Wallage Lane, Rowfant, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 4NG and item 7 DM/21/2512 – Rowfant House, Wallage Lane, Rowfant, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 4NG, Councillor Phillips declared that he is a Ward Member for Copthorne and Worth.

The minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on the 11May and 12 May 2022 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Vice Chairman. 

The Chairman had no urgent business.

The Chairman introduced the application which sought planning permission for a first floor rear extension to this detached dwelling within a built up area of Haywards Heath. He reminded Members this application would usually be processed in accordance with the Council’s delegation scheme. However, the applicant was a member of staff in the Planning Department, therefore, it had been referred to the Committee for consideration. 

The Chairman asked the Committee if they wished to view the presentation of this application and they agreed this was not necessary.

As there were no questions, the Chairman took Members to the vote that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A. This was proposed by the Chairman and seconded by the Vice Chairman. The recommendation was approved unanimously with 9 in favour.

RESOLVED

The planning permission was approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A.

The Chairman informed the Committee that as agreed with officers, there would only be one presentation for item 6 and item 7, as the content of the presentation was identical for both items, although item 7 was dealing with the Listed Building Consent.

Katherine Williams, Planning Officer, introduced the application which sought planning permission for the erection of a marquee within the walled garden, adjacent carpark and modifications to pathway leading to Rowfant House, at Rowfant House, Wallage Lane, Rowfant. She drew Members attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which contained further information of an additional letter of representation that had been received.

The Planning Officer took Members through the detailed presentation and photos of the site, consisting of Rowfant House a Grade II* listed building located off the northern side of Wallage Lane within the countryside and explained that Rowfant House was last in lawful use as a wedding venue and hotel, however, the building is currently vacant. There is an existing bridge leading to a large field consisting of a curtilage listed walled garden with 2 no. static caravans to the south which are used in association with Rowfant House.

The Planning Officer drew Members attention to pages 63-67 of the report outlining the Noise Management Plan (NMP) for the application, detailing the number of event restrictions and noise level limits. The NMP as approved by Environmental Protection will be in place prior to the first event.

Dr James Thring, resident, spoke against the application.

Jonathan Locker-Lampson, resident, spoke against the application

Arron Breedon, Planning Director, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Ian Gibson, Ward Member for Crawley Down and Turners Hill, spoke against the application as the adjacent Ward Member, raising concerns regarding access to the site. Steve King, Planning Applications Team Leader, confirmed that although the site was currently vacant the lawful uses of the site could resume which would generate vehicular movements to and from the site. As such an assessment of traffic movements is not starting from a baseline of no traffic movements.

The Chairman asked Ward Members if they wished to speak. Councillor Forbes, Ward Member, thanked officers for the very comprehensive conditions set out at point 6. of Appendix A and for the detailed Noise Management Plan. He stipulated that if planning permission was approved, separate applications would have to be submitted for alcohol and music. Councillor Phillips, Ward Member, noted in response to a speaker, the financial implications of the property were not for consideration at this Committee. He asked for clarification from officers, should planning permission be granted for the marquee, would this then cease if Rowfant House be brought back into use as a wedding venue. He also asked officers that when considering the NMP, noise levels be kept to a minimum and he also sought clarification as to whether the existing arched bridge to the site could withstand the weight of construction traffic.

Planning Applications Team Leader advised the production of the NMP would take a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Chairman reminded Members there was no presentation for this item, as the content of which had been presented at item 6. This application was for the Listed Building Consent for the erection of a marquee.

The Chairman advised there was a speaker for this item, Arron Breedon, Planning Director, however, he confirmed it was not necessary.

The Chairman took Members to the vote that listed building consent be approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A. This was proposed by the Chairman and seconded by the Vice Chairman, the recommendation was approved with 8 in favour and 1 against.

RESOLVED

That listed building consent was approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A.

Caroline Grist, Planning Officer introduced the application, which sought permission to refuse planning permission for first floor front and rear extension to an existing detached chalet bungalow. The property is situated within the built-up area of Lindfield. She presented the application detailing the floor plans. To the front of the property, it is proposed to change the existing storage space above the garage into a bedroom, by increasing the roof heights. To the rear of the property, it is proposed to lift the eaves of the property to create a full first floor across the rear elevation, with a view to enlarging the two existing bedrooms and creating a third bedroom. The Planning Officer drew Members attention to the existing side elevations and proposed elevations and the existing and proposed roof plans. The Officers recommendation is the application be refused as the extensions would undermine the character of the existing property, due to the scale, form and design and due to the spacing of the properties on Brook Lane, would be visible within the street scene which would be harmful to the character of the surrounding area.

Mr Wren, applicant, spoke in favour of the application as the applicant.

Councillor Andrew Lea, Ward Member for Lindfield, spoke in favour of application supporting the decision for it to be brought before the Planning Committee to consider the reasons for refusal with the merits of the application.

For the benefit of the general public, the Chairman had advised Members of the Committee of their code of conduct training should they visit the site.

Members discussed the application, the reasons for the recommendation and the lack of objections from neighbouring residents and the Parish Council to the application. They agreed it was not a large development and many of the properties on the same cul-de-sac had been extended or adapted. The Vice Chairman thanked officers for a very comprehensive report and could not see an issue with granting planning permission. His only comment was the impractical nature of the flat roof design.

The Chairman concluded the discussion having visited the site, advising his view that the impact on neighbouring properties and the current street scene was minimal.

The Chairman suggested amendments to the reasons for refusal as set out at Appendix A, page 105 that:

‘The scale, form and design of the proposed extensions is subordinate and are proportionate additions to the dwelling and does not undermine the character of the existing building. Due to the spacing of properties, the development would not be visible within the street scene and would not create dominant and incongruous additions that would not be harmful to the character of the surrounding area.’

This was proposed by Councillor Coote and seconded by Councillor Forbes. The Chairman took Members to the vote on the proposed amendments to Appendix A, to approve the planning application contrary to the officer recommendation which was agreed with 8 in favour and 1 against.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be approved for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

None.