Agenda item

Steven King, Planning Team Leader, introduced the application which sought planning permission for the provision of 20 dwellings with associated amenity/garden, landscaping and access/parking arrangements. The Team Leader advised that there are 3 existing listed buildings adjacent to the site of the application. He advised that whilst there would be some harm to the setting of these listed buildings and this needed to be given significant importance, the harm was classed as less than substantial under the guidance in the NPPF. In such cases the less than substantial harm had to be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal, which were outlined in the report. . The development would provide a mix of dwellings with a proposed pedestrian link to Fox Hill. He drew Members attention to the further information contained in the Agenda Update Sheet and provided a verbal update citing a request from the Local Highway Authority (LHA) to the applicant to include advance warning signage of the side road to the South of the access. The applicant has indicated they are content with this request and the Planning officer advised Members it would be included as an additional planning.

The Planning Team Leader advised Members that within the Site Allocations Development Plan Document, the site is allocated 25 units, however, this application is proposing 20 dwellings because the applicants have stated that the developable area of the site is reduced because of drainage issues and the root protection areas of the trees on the boundaries of the site.

The Planning Team Leader went through the main issues in the report and referred Members to where these were assessed in the report.

Mr Daniel Frisby, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Members discussed access to the site and expressed concerns regarding the existing speed restrictions and layout of the main road servicing the site. Regarding the access to the site, the Planning Team Leader advised that the Highway Authority were satisfied with the access. He advised that if Members were concerned about the width of the access, this could be discussed with the Highway Authority to ascertain whether any minor changes were required to the access. He advised that this could be done because in the event that Members resolved to approve the application, the decision would not be issued straight away as the section 106 legal agreement still needed to be completed.  The Planning Team Leader also advised that the application includes widening of the footpath for pedestrian access by cutting back vegetation.  The Planning Team Leader referred Members to Condition 15 of the recommended conditions which addresses this issue A Member requested the speed limits be reviewed by the Police and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and East Sussex County Council (ESCC). The Planning Team Leader acknowledged this and looked to the Committee for a consensus that officers contact WSCC and ESCC. This was agreed by the Chairman.

A Member expressed concerns regarding the drainage of the site as surrounding sites are prone to flooding. The Planning Team Leader advised further evidence had been requested from the developer by the drainage engineer. They are now satisfied the site meets the requirements.

A Member was disappointed in the lack of provision for cyclists, citing the Mid Sussex Design Guides pledge and that pedestrian access to existing sites had not been addressed. The Planning Leader Team advised there was always a challenge with linking into existing sites because an applicant can only carry out works on their own site and cannot carry out works on adjoining sites that they do not control. However, he advised that the plans do show a potential link to the existing bridal way to the west.

Members discussed the potential noise nuisance levels and water supply to the site. A Member suggested if speed restrictions were introduced, noise levels would reduce, therefore the developer would not be required to provided relevant insulation to the properties. The Planning Team Leader advised the Environmental Health officer was content with existing noise levels for future inhabitants. Regarding the water supply to the site, he confirmed that the applicants would need to obtain confirmation from South East Water that they could provide a water supply for the development and officers would need to be satisfied with the submitted information prior to a decision being issued.

In response to a Member asking for clarity regarding the drawings numbers listed within the report and the presentation, the Planning Team Leader confirmed these were not consistent and would be updated. The Planning Team Leader confirmed that the plans that were shown on the presentation for Members were the correct plans

Finally, a Member asked if electrical vehicle charging points would be supplied, the Planning Team Leader confirmed all but 2 dwellings would have these installed under current building regulations. However, subject to the agreement of the Committee two additional EV charging points can be included as a condition to the recommendations. This was proposed by Councillor Pulfer and seconded by Councillor Coote.

The Chairman took Members to the vote on the proposed amendment to Appendix A, to include two additional EV charging points as a condition, that planning permission be approved subject to Recommendation A and Recommendation B. This was agreed with 10 in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

The planning permission was approved, as amended, outlined at Appendix A.