Agenda item

Steve Ashdown, Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement, introduced the report which sought full planning permission for the erection of a single employment building for storage and distribution (Use Class B8), providing a total of 10,769sqm of floorspace on land north of the A264 Copthorne Way, Copthorne.

Tom Clark, Solicitor to the Council, read out a written representation from Stuart Leaver in objection to the application.

Steve Molnar, Agent of the Applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Chris Phillips, Ward Member, spoke against the application. He outlined the history of the site which has maintained the rural view of Copthorne as you enter the village and protected them from noise and traffic from the A264. He drew attention to two warehouses near the site which already generate noise, mainly from HGV vehicle movements. He noted the additional 160+ HGV vehicles from the proposed  site and contended that the traffic and noise would cause substantial harm. He accepted that the site was included in the Site Allocations DPD however the proposed scheme is different to the previously proposed as it is absent of any Business or Light Industrial allocation. He concluded by stating that the site is disproportionality large and is an overdevelopment of the site.

The Chairman confirmed that the site is SA4 of the Site Allocations DPD and that the developer has identified a need for Use Class B8.

The Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement referred to Paragraph 83 of the NPPF on P.20 of report  which indicates that  B8 Warehouses should be located in suitably accessible locations, the site offers this.

A Member noted the reference of the relocation the cycle and pedestrian path and asked for further details.

The Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement showed the route on the presentation which provided a route from north to south through the site.

A Member noted his site visit where he observed two other units in the area and asked whether the proposed development would compound the queuing problem. He also asked whether there have been complaints of the two units already in the area.

The Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement replied that the only complaints he received are through the representations. He added that West Sussex County Council Highways are aware of the proposal and the current units  and have not raised an objection.

A Member sought clarification as to why the site had not been designed for the vehicle parking to be on the site of the A264.

The Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement confirmed that he had raised the question with the developers at an initial stage of discussion. It was noted that access to the site would be from Barbour Drive, regardless of where the service yard is located as this is the only access to the site. As the yard is 90m from the properties, the Environmental Health Officer was instead concerned with the noise from night time traffic movements on Barbour Drive. However, having looked at all the evidence, the Environmental Health Officer has not raised an objection and it is not considered that there are sufficient grounds to refuse the application on this issue alone.

A Member expressed disappointed that there are not smaller units on the development that were previously assured by the developer.

A Member noted that Environmental Health Officers, Planning Officers and local residents are not happy with the application and so asked who decides the mitigations.

The Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement explained that  the Environmental Health Officer reviewed the issue very carefully and it is not considered that the Council cannot sustain a reason for refusal on noise grounds. While the Council can control mitigations on site, it cannot control the use of the road or road users through planning conditions.

A Member stated that the principle of the development has been established. He reiterated issues around sound and the mitigations reported on P.20. of the report however concluded that there would be difficulty in refusing the application. He proposed moving to approve the recommendation.

A Member appreciated that the principle of development has been established however raised concerns with the reversing beeps of the lorries and the bright lights on the service yard. She believed that the application should not good ahead especially because its size and that it will be operated 24hours a day.

A Member noted a typographical error in the last five words of Condition 9.

The Chairman noted that no Member wished to speak so moved to the recommendation to approve the application with amended conditions, proposed by Councillor Trumble and seconded by Councillor Laband, which was approved with nine votes in favour and two against.

RESOLVED

That planning permission is granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A, updates from the Agenda Update Sheet and the typographical amendment of Condition 9.