Agenda item

DM/20/2640 - Marylands Nursery Site, Cowfold Road, Bolney, RH17 5QR.

Minutes:

Joanne Fisher, Senior Planning Officer introduced the report seeking demolition of the single dwelling and outbuildings and erection of B8 floorspace (including ancillary office space) across 3 buildings, with hard and soft landscaping, parking and servicing. Revised access would be provided from the A272/A23 western roundabout closing the existing vehicular access closed on Cowfold Road. Additional highway information was received on 03/03/2021 and included an updated noise assessment. The site would provide 103 parking spaces including 12 ECV charge points, 7 mobility bays, 9 car sharing bays and 32 cycle parking spaces.  Landscaping within the car parking area would soften the hard surfaces.  She advised that unit 1 would have a double barrel roof, and units 2 and 3 would be one building, each with a 2-storey  glazed entrance.  The existing established trees will remain,  and  additional mixed native trees and hedgerow would be planted.  The Councils Landscape Officer supports the Landscaping Masterplan.  

 

The Planning Officer outlined the main issues where the application conflicted with the District Plan  and the material considerations.  The land has been allocated for employment uses and the site has gone through selection with the Site Allocation Development Plan Document (SA DPD).   This has been submitted for examination and carries significant weight. The site would provide a comprehensive redevelopment seeking to  improve the character of the area.   The buildings have been laid out to make an effective use of the topography and landscaping to mitigate the impact of the development against existing and proposed dense vegetation.   The colours of the elevations seek to blend in with the surrounding trees and vegetation.   The parking provision meets the parking standards in West Sussex County Council guidance and there are alternative travel arrangements in a travel plan.   There will be no significant detriment to nearby amenities. Although the principle of the application does not comply with Policy DP12, there are other material considerations which outweigh this conflict which are set out in the Officers report and this presentation, the most specific is that the proposal is allocated for Storage and Distribution employment uses under Policy SA6 of the emerging Site Allocation DPD. As the document has been submitted for examination it carries significant weight.  Overall, Officers consider that the planning balance falls significantly in favour of approving the planning application It was noted that the Agenda Update sheet confirmed the deletion of condition 15 which was a duplication of condition 14.

 

Tom Clark, Solicitor read the submission from Cllr Trelfall, Charman of Bolney Parish Council Planning Committee.  They were  generally supportive of development of the site but expressed concerns with the impact of the tall buildings on raised ground levels to the neighbouring area. 

 

Mr Barton, applicant spoke in support of the application. 

 

Several Members showed support of the application at a sustainable location close to the A23 and stated that it would improve the visual appearance of the current unsightly site.  They commended the provision of cycle spaces but expressed concern as there was no safe direct access to the nearby National Cycle Network which had not been mentioned in the Travel Pan.  It was noted that Bolney Neighbourhood Plan supports safe cycle routes to the village.  Members sought clarification on the environmental noise impact assessment and acoustics barriers, external lighting, the impact of the change of levels to the site.

 

A Member highlighted that the application would help the Council in meeting District Plan Policy DP1 to achieve 543 jobs per annum. 

 

The Planning Officer confirmation condition 24 states no external lighting should be installed without prior approval and acoustics barriers can be dealt with under condition 20 which covers the hard/soft landscaping. The Urban Designer had not seen the revised levels, but the officers were satisfied with the information received and the landscape designer was happy with the mitigations.  She highlighted there had been some confusion from the comments from the Parish Council in relation to the height of the building as the data used in the sections and levels is from sea level. With reference to the residential property, condition 21 detailed the acoustic screening and with the background noise of the A23 if was deemed acceptable.

 

The Chairman highlighted the specific role of the Urban Designer and noted that  planning officers can consider further information without gaining his further comments as he is a consultee.

 

Steven Shaw, Team Manager from West Sussex Highways responded on the two issues highway issues raised by Members: the signalisation of the A272 London Road junction as part of the Northern Arc scheme and the extended left turn lane filter to increase stacking capacity and assist those turning left.  The signalisation of the junction would be triggered once 400 people occupy the Northern Arc development.  This improvement would address the impact of the Northern Arc on the local area.  The construction of the left turn filter lane would be brought forward and must be completed before the first property is occupied on the Northern Arc development.

 

The Chairman  noted the concerns of Twineham Parish Council on the impact on B and C class roads in the area. He asked the Highways Officer to comment of the possibility of constructing a roundabout at the junction with Cowfold Road and asked if West Sussex had completed any modelling.

 

The Highways Officer had noted the concerns of Bolney Parish Council of traffic leaving the M23 leading to congestion at the junction and traffic existing at the Hickstead junction using rural roads to avoid congestion.  He was not aware of any traffic data to verify this. The developer had modelled the junction which will have over capacity to cater for traffic growth over time and not just traffic from this development. He confirmed that developers must only mitigate for the impact of their development, they are not obliged to mitigate existing traffic issues.   The mitigation put forward by the developer meets the impact. A roundabout had not been formally assessed by the Highway Authority and there was no formal option proposed with a roundabout.

 

Members expressed concern on the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, improvements at the Cowfold Road junction, connectivity of the site to the NCN, sustainability and bio-diversity of the development,

 

The Highways Officer advised that it was not appropriate to have a controlled crossing at this location and signals are installed where there is a heavier use by pedestrians. The crossing would be too close to the junction and it was not appropriate for a signalised junction as the stopping distances were short. He reiterated that the developer only mitigates the impact from their development, a new access to the site and left flair to the junction with the A272. He confirmed there was no direct connection to the NCN in the application and did not expect high level of trips by cycles to the location.  The secured cycle parking would encourage the use of cycles and a Travel Plan had been secured by a condition.

 

The Chairman advised a road safety audit will have been completed and there would be no improvements to the roads in area in this application.  Any runoff from the site would be covered by a condition.

 

The Planning Officer confirmed that Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) proposals had been put forward for this site and the barrel-vaulted roof was unsuitable for solar panels.  The developer had ecological enhancements in the application, but these did not include boxes for wildlife.

 

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

 

The Solicitor took a named vote on the officer’s recommendation with the changes in the agenda update sheet and the Committee voted unanimously in favour of the motion.

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstained

Bates, R.

Y

 

 

Dabell, J

Y

 

 

Eves, A.

Y

 

 

Hatton, S.

Y

 

 

Jackson, R.

Y

 

 

Laband, C.

Y

 

 

Peacock, A

Y

 

 

Salisbury, R.

Y

 

 

Sweatman, D.

Y

 

 

Webb, R.

Y

 

 

Whittaker, R.

Y

 

 

 

RESOLVED

 

Recommendation A

It is recommended that 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 July 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 required to serve the development.'

 

Supporting documents: