Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Cllr Eggleston.

Councillor Brown declared a non-prejudicial interest in Item 5: DM/22/3871 - Cedar Lodge, Hackenden Lane, East Grinstead RH19 2DL as he is the local correspondent for the Open Spaces Society that seeks to protect public rights of way.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 09 February 2023 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

The Chairman had no urgent business.

Caroline Grist, Planning Officer, introduced the application which sought planning permission for an automated timber 5-bar entrance gate, permeable driveway surface treatment, dropped kerb and planting at Cedar Lodge, Hackenden Lane East Grinstead.

Steve Winchester spoke against the application.

Colin Dearman spoke against the application.

Pierre Lederer spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Julie Mockford, Ward Member, spoke against the application. She expressed sadness to object to an application which she felt is unnecessary as there is established access already on Hackenden Lane. She also expressed disappointment that it only received a desktop study by West Sussex County Council as the longstanding public right of way is perfectly suited for school children to walk down. She felt that the loss of an established hedgerow would result in a loss to the visual amenity value.

The Chairman asked the Planning Officer to address some items that were raised by the speakers. Steve Ashdown, Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement Major Developments & Enforcement, noted the potential for development in the future however advised that is it not a consideration for the Committee and any further applications that are brought forward will be considered on their own merits at the time. He addressed comments regarding District Plan Policy DP27 confirming that the hedgerow wasn’t protected and didn’t require approval to be removed. The Chairman highlighted that on P.27 West Sussex County Council Highways undertook a site visit on 11 January.

A Member highlighted the absence of Condition 5 in the second set of papers compared for the first set of papers for the meeting that was subsequently cancelled and asked why it was removed.

The Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement Major Developments & Enforcement confirmed that in the updated papers as well as the previous Committee’s Agenda Update Sheet Condition 5 was removed. This was due to Officer had concerns that the condition was not enforceable.

In response to a question regarding the future maintenance of the gate, officers agreed that this would be best suited to an informative, as it would not meet the test required for it to be a planning condition.

A Member expressed that he did not believe the public access would be either safe or convenient. He asked whether the Right of Way 416SY could be diverted onto Alders View Drive with the public then proceeding over a dropped kerb which could be carried out under Section 119 of the Highways Act.

The Chairman believed that request would be outside of the remit of the Planning Committee.

The Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement Major Developments & Enforcement explained that it would be the responsibility of the applicant to apply to West Sussex County Council to divert a footpath.

A Member raised concerns over the loss of amenity and the adverse effect to residents.

The Planning Officer outlined the consideration of the loss of amenity on P.19 and found that whilst it would have a harmful impact, there wouldn’t be significant harm due to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Steve Ashdown, Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement Major Developments & Enforcement, introduced the application which seeks planning permission for the construction of a public convenience block at Land North of Lindfield Common, Bowling Green Car Park, Backwoods Lane, Lindfield.

The Chairman reminded Members the application was before the Committee as part

of the land is owned by MSDC.

Joy Mayall, Lindfield Bowling Club, spoke against the application.

The Chairman confirmed that the application site has extant planning permission and has since been upgraded to a Changes Places toilet to accommodate disabled users. He added that it will be closed by the Parish Council after 6pm.

A Member stated that whilst the objection is well founded, it has been demonstrated that the toilet is a necessity.

The Chairman noted that no Member wished to speak so moved to the recommendation to approve the application, proposed by Cllr Coote and seconded by Cllr Forbes, which was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A.

Rachel Richardson, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application that sought planning permission for a change of use of the grain store from B8-storage and distribution to E(g)(ii) - research and development of products or processes.

Nuala Hampshire, Councillor for Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council, spoke against the application.

As Gerard Conway was not able to attend the Legal Officer, Paula Slinn read out his speech which spoke against the application.

Joshua Dalby, Chief Engineer for Ricardo, spoke in favour of the application.

Richard Gordon, Ricardo, spoke on behalf of Jamie Kirkman in favour of the application.

A Member asked if the Environmental Agency feel the flue stacks should be higher, will the application come back to the Planning Committee or will it just be amended.

Steve Ashdown, Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement Major Developments & Enforcement, explained that a new application would be required if the applicant wished to change the size of the flue stacks in the future, and this would be reported back to committee for determination.

A Member raised concerns over the site lying in a countryside area of development constraint and the High Weald Area Outstanding Natural Beauty

A Member welcomed the type of Research and Development in the District. He questioned if approval of the application would a material influence on a potentially larger application on the site should it be brought forward in future.

The Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement Major Developments & Enforcement, explained that the proposal is just for research and development, however if they choose to make something more permanent then they would have to submit a new planning application that would be considered on its own merits. He noted that that the site is within  the High Weald AONB and this would bring up a number of issues to consider.

A Member highlighted the comments contained a reference to emissions being carcinogenic and sought assurances it would not cause harm to the nearby residents.

A Member recalled his past work as an Environmental Health Officer and explained that even if the application is granted the applicant would still need a permit from the Environment Agency. He assured the Member that the Agency wouldn’t grant the application unless they are absolutely certain it wouldn’t cause harm.

The Senior Planning Officer outlined the awaiting decision from the Environment Agency and highlighted that Environment Health Officers at the Council have not raised any objection.

A Member noted the previous planning history on the site.

The Chairman noted that no Member wished to speak so moved to the recommendation to approve the application, proposed by Cllr Coote and seconded by Cllr Sweatman, which was approved with nine votes in favour and two against.

RESOLVED

That full permission be granted subject to conditions listed in appendix A.

Rachel Richardson, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application that sought planning permission to reduce the size of the first floor rear extension granted permission under DM/22/0735 by way of varying condition 2 of that permission for the approved drawings. Like before, the application has been referred to Committee because the applicant is related to a member of staff involved in the planning process.

The Chairman reminded Members the application was before the Committee as the applicant is an MSDC Planning Officer As there were no questions, Councillor Sweatman proposed to move the recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Coote.

The Chairman took Members to the vote, which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A.

None.