Agenda item

Steven King, Planning Applications Team Leader introduced the application. He drew Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet noting the amendments to the recommendations, additional works to add an extra footway next to Turners Hill Road and their intention to install fibre to premises and ducting for EV charging points to future proof the estate. 

The Officer advised the application was seeking outline planning permission for expansion of the existing commercial estates and the replacement of the existing dwelling known as Friday Farm Bungalow.  The application would determine the principle of development and access only.  He highlighted three listed buildings adjacent to the site and the public right of way to the southern boundary. The existing buildings and replacement dwelling will use the existing access points and summarised the proposed works to improve the Dukes Head roundabout. 

The Committee were advised the history of the site, including two dismissed appeals which were material planning considerations.  The Team Leader noted the relevant policies: DP12 Protection and Enhancement of the Countryside, DP1 Sustainable Economic Development, DP14, Sustainable Rural Development and the Rural Economy, and the emerging draft policy SA34 in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document which allows for expansion of Existing Commercial Sites. He noted the impact of the development on the setting of the listed buildings which was considered to result in  less than substantial harm.  The public benefits of the application was considered to outweigh this harm.  The Highway Authority had no objections to the application as with the proposed highway improvements there would not be a severe impact on the highway network. The site is adjacent to ancient woodland and the MSDC Ecology Consultant has no objections.

The Chairman read a letter of objection to the application from Mr Douglas Ford.

Cllr Chris Phillips, Ward Member for Copthorne and Worth spoke in objection to the application.  He noted the previous history of the site and questioned why the new application was acceptable. The application was contrary to DP12 and he considered that there was already sufficient commercial employment opportunities in the village.  As the Neighbourhood Plan for Copthorne was progressing it should be given more weight.  The site was unsustainable due to the lack of public transport and provision for cyclists.  He welcomed the improvements to the Dukes Head roundabout but did not think it would ease the heavy congestion on the road network.  He noted the difficulties leaving the site i.e., no turn right and that vehicles regularly contravened the existing road signs.  He urged members to reject the application as the site was not suitable for expansion and would affect the rural nature of the area.

The Chairman reiterated that the Highway Authority had no objections.

Members queried the proposed improvements to the Dukes Head roundabout and increase in traffic movements with the increased commercial floor space, improved provision for cyclists and the proposed timing and lighting temperature which was unfriendly to ecology.

The Members welcomed the expansion of an existing commercial site, the proposed additional pavement and requested additional signage to make the no right turn clearer for road users.

The Team Leader confirmed there would be physical changes to widen the roundabout at the north and south bound lanes and pavement improvements.   He confirmed the footway changes would be part of the S106 agreement and changes to the central reservation would be controlled by condition 15.  If Members wished reference could be made for additional signage / road markings. The Members agreed to this extra detail on condition 15 to direct road users to turn left and not right.  He confirmed the Environmental Health Team had suggested the start time of 8 am for the site.  A full transport statement had been provided with the application and the Highway Authority use recognised data bases to work out any extra movements. They would identify and object if any transport statements supplied were incorrect.   He confirmed they were satisfied with the proposed improvements to mitigate any impact on the highway network.

A Member confirmed this was a successful well screened employment site and the council must provide sites to increase employment provision as more houses are built in the District.  The application for small-scale units encourages small businesses and there is good access to the M23.  Several Members noted their support of the application.

The Chairman confirmed if the outline application was approved an application for the reserved matters for design, layout and associated works would need to be submitted to the Council for determination.

In response to a Member’s request for clarification on the additional white lining, the Team Leader confirmed the extra lining would be on the access within site directing traffic to turn left.  There were no proposals to add an additional right turn lane into the site.

As there were no further questions the Chairman took Members to a named vote on the recommendations outlined in the report, the amendment to condition 15 and the amendments as detailed on the Agenda Update Sheet.  This was proposed by Cllr Peacock and seconded by Cllr Laband and was approved. 

RESOLVED

Recommendation A

It is recommended that, subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 Legal Agreement and/or legal undertaking to secure financial contributions   and offsite improvements to the Dukes Head roundabout, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A,  the amendment to condition 15 and the Agenda Update sheet.

Recommendation B

If by 10 December 2021, the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed S106 Legal Agreement and/ or legal undertaking securing necessary financial contributions, then it is recommended that planning permission be refused at the discretion of the Divisional Leader for Planning  and Economy for the following reason(s): ‘The application fails tocomply with Policy DP20 of the Mid Sussex District Plan and paragraphs 55 and 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of the infrastructure required to serve the development.'