Agenda item

DM/20/1137 - Central House, 25 - 27 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH16 3TP.

Minutes:

Joanne Fisher, Senior Planning Officer drew Members attention to the agenda update sheet which had been emailed and was available online.  The update sheet  detailed drew attention to the inclusion of policy DP4, rewording of condition 5 on materials, removal of condition 6 which is now an informative and the revised plans under consideration.

 

She introduced the report seeking outline planning permission to  seek demolition of the existing building and erection of a new office (B1 use) and a mixed use  (commercial B1, D1, D2 use and residential) building comprising of up to 38 flats and up to 3,419 sqm of commercial floorspace together with the formation of a new access and associated car parking. All matters to be reserved except for access.

 

She highlighted the topography and location of the site.  The site is within the built-up area of Haywards Heath and a commercial area as detailed in the District Plan and Neighbourhood Plan. The joint access with 21 - 23 Perrymount Road will be retained and an additional access will be provided.  She noted the mixed use of the rear building and the potential for an internal courtyard.  The illustrative design of the scheme is similar to the consented scheme to the south of the site, a contemporary design 6 storeys high.  The re-development and higher density proposed is supported under principles DG31 and DG32 of the Council’s Design Guide, the appearance and landscape would be reserved matters.

 

The main issues were the principle of the development and the access.   The mixed use was deemed appropriate as the Government accept mixed use sites to maximise land use. The application would retain commercial use of the site and the commercial floor space would be increased.  The scheme could provide up to 38 residential units and 30% affordable housing in an accessible and sustainable location in a Category 1 settlement.

 

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that the additional access was acceptable and the Highways Authority had raised no objection to the application. She confirmed that the provision of parking is lower than the standard in the West Sussex guidance document, but the site is in an accessible and sustainable location.  The application notes a five-year travel plan initiative.

 

The Chairman outlined the procedure for the speaker.

 

Mr P. Allin, agent spoke in support of the application.

 

The Chairman noted that the Committee were to determine the access and principle of the development only.

 

Councillor Laband, speaking as Ward Member confirmed that Haywards Heath Town Council had lodged an objection to  the previous application.  He expressed concern over the additional access and safety for pedestrians.  He urged the applicant to engage with stakeholders in Haywards Heath Town Council if the application was approved.

 

Members discussed access and parking for residential residents, including the disabled, provision for deliveries, the neighbouring office block, an adjacent parking space,  access for services including emergency services, provision for cycle users, the appearance and design of the buildings. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that concerns regarding residential access, parking for disabled residents, provision for cyclists and the buildings design would be covered under reserved matters.  The indicative plans show an area of hard standing within the public realm for deliveries and access for emergency services.   The adjacent parking space was under separate private ownership and was not within the application site.

 

With regard to Members concerns over visitor parking provision the Chairman confirmed the sustainable location of the site and Highways would look at access for services as part of reserved matters. 

 

In response to a Member’s question regarding the points raised in the West Sussex Road Safety Audit, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that it has been agreed and is part of the consideration of the access, other points will be dealt with at reserved matters stage.

 

Councillor Sweatman welcomed the application and noted that the site was in the Haywards Heath Master Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.  He proposed to move to the recommendations.  

 

In response to a question from the Chairman the Senior Planning Officer confirmed there had been no response from West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service and provision of fire hydrants would be dealt with at reserved matters stage.

 

The Chairman noted no Members had raised concerns with regard to the Ashdown Forest.

 

As there were no further speakers the Chairman took the Members to the recommendations and Councillor Sweatman proposed that the Committee approve the application in line with the Officer’s recommendation, this was seconded by Councillor Whittaker.  

 

The Legal Officer took a named vote on the recommendations with the changes in the update sheet  and the Committee voted 8 in favour of the motion, 1 against and 1 abstention.

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstained

Bates, R.

a

 

Eves, A.

 

a

Hatton, S.

a

 

 

Jackson, R.

a

 

 

Laband, C.

a

 

 

Peacock, A.

a

 

 

Salisbury, R.

a

 

 

Sweatman, D.

a

 

 

Webb, R.

a

 

 

Whittaker, R.

a

 

 

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be granted for this development subject to recommendations A and B and the conditions set in Appendix A. and the Agenda Update Sheet.

 

Recommendation A

 

 

It is recommended that outline planning permission be approved subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 Legal Agreement to secure infrastructure contributions and affordable housing and the conditions set in Appendix A.

 

Recommendation B

 

It is recommended that if the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed planning obligation securing the necessary infrastructure payments and affordable housing by the 15th January 2021, then it is recommended that permission be refused at the discretion of the Divisional Lead for Planning and Economy, for the following reasons:

 

1. 'The application fails to comply with policies DP20 and DP31 of the Mid Sussex District Plan in respect of the infrastructure and affordable housing required to serve the development.'

 

Supporting documents: