Agenda item

DM/20/4654 - Twoways, Station Road, Crawley Down, RH10 4JE.

Minutes:

Joseph Swift, Senior Planning Officer, presented the report seeking approval for the demolition of the existing detached bungalow and the erection of 3 x 4 bedroom detached houses with associated garages. He drew Member’s attention the Agenda Update Sheet which contained an additional letter of representation and amendments to Condition 5. He noted that the site is within the built up area of Crawley Down in a sustainable area and that the bungalow is situated in a substantial sized plot similar to the combined size of the adjacent three properties. There have been no objections from West Sussex County Council Highways department (WSCC Highways) and there is no significant harm to neighbouring amenities.

 

Cllr John Hitchcock, Worth Parish Councillor spoke in objection on the grounds of pedestrian safety and highways issues.

 

Michael Low spoke in objection on the grounds of highways issues.

 

David Cassells spoke in favour of the application representing the applicant.

 

Councillor Gibson spoke as Ward Member against the application. He acknowledged the proposed SANG and SAMM contributions but queried whether the Council would receive a New Homes Bonus. His main concern was regarding the position of the access for the proposed three properties which would result in residents needing to reverse out onto a busy junction and across a busy footpath. He queried the WSCC Highways lack of objection and felt that the proposal was overdevelopment.  If it was reduced to two properties, there would be room for vehicles to turn on site and therefore not have to reverse. He felt the proposal contravened District Plan policy 26 and the Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan policy 5 with regards to pedestrian friendly layouts and suitable access and onsite parking so as not to provide a detriment to neighbouring properties and the local highways network.

 

A number of Members felt the proposal constituted overdevelopment as the three proposed properties did not allow for adequate vehicle turning and therefore required reversing onto the footpath and road.  It was also felt that the site was smaller than the adjacent plots and not suitable for three buildings. If the application was to be approved, a request was made for a banksman to be permanently on site, for limited demolition time to avoids school journeys and respects the adjacent Surgery, and for the contractor to dampen the site to reduce the impact of dust on surrounding properties.

 

A number of Members also queried the decision of WSCC Highways as their exercise was carried out during half term which in Member’s opinion did not give an accurate portrayal of the amount of traffic and pedestrians around the site. A Member requested that they carry out a new exercise at a more appropriate time.

 

The Planning Officer highlighted the position of the proposed entrances, noting that the existing one is in the middle of the three new entrances. A number of Members felt that the entrance to the first property was too close to the junction and the green where pedestrians may not be expecting cars to reverse out on to.

 

A Member acknowledged the concerns around the Highways consultation response but noted that as they have no objection, the Committee should not refuse the application on those grounds. It was also noted that a number of houses in the District have entrances that cross footpaths.         

 

Councillor Phillips proposed a motion for refusal on the grounds of overdevelopment which was seconded by Councillor Pulfer.

 

The Team Leader - Major Development and Investigations noted that if Members wished to object on the grounds of overdevelopment, they need to demonstrate what harm is being caused, especially considering the plot sizes are similar, the dwellings scale and proportion are appropriate and the site is not within a protected area such the AONB or a conservation area.

 

The meeting adjourned between 5.09pm and 5.13pm for the Chairman to consult Legal and Planning Officers for advice.

 

The Chairman reiterated the need to state what actual harm is being caused and noted that a prior application for 4 dwellings on site was withdrawn and now reduced to three dwellings. Councillor Phillips withdrew his motion to refuse.

 

The Chairman took Members to the vote to approve the application in accordance with the Officer Recommendations. This was proposed by Councillor Sweatman and seconded by Councillor MacNaughton. A recorded vote was carried out by the Legal Officer and the motion to approve failed with 5 against and 4 in favour.

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

G. Allen

 

Y

 

R. Cartwright

 

Y

 

J. Dabell

Y

 

 

R. Eggleston

 

Y

 

A. MacNaughton

Y

 

 

G. Marsh

Y

 

 

C. Phillips

 

Y

 

M. Pulfer

 

Y

 

D. Sweatman

Y

 

 

 

The meeting adjourned between 5.18pm and 5.34pm for the Chairman to consult Legal and Planning Officers for advice.

 

The Chairman noted that he had reviewed District Plan policy 26 and the application did not conflict with any elements. He acknowledged that a number of Members felt that the application could be against the Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan policy 5 but that there was limited evidence to support this, which should be a consideration should it be taken to appeal. The Team Leader noted that Members need to consider the Development Plan as a whole and the fact that the development doesn’t comply with one specific element, doesn’t make it unacceptable. If the decision is to overturn the officer’s recommendation, the Members will need to provide specific reasons why.  It was also not possible to defer the application pending a further review by the Local Highway Authority, as there is no indication that their view would be any different to their current position.

 

Following discussion on potential reasons for refusal, Councillor Eggleston proposed that the application should be refused because the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Policy CDNP05, paragraph D of the Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan as the size of the plots are not proportionate to the scale of the dwelling when compared with those of the adjacent plots and as such would be out of character with the established pattern of development. This was seconded by Councillor Phillips. The Chairman took Members to the vote on this motion. A recorded vote was carried out by the Legal Officer and the vote carried with 4 in favour, 2 against and 3 abstentions.

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

G. Allen

 

 

Y

R. Cartwright

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 refused for the following reason: The proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Policy CDNP05, paragraph D of the Crawley Down Neighbourhood Plan as the size of the plots are not proportionate to the scale of the dwelling when compared with those of the adjacent plots and as such would be out of character with the established pattern of development.

 

The meeting adjourned for a comfort break between 5.52pm and 5.58pm.  Councillor Coote re-joined the meeting at 5.58pm.

 

Supporting documents: