Agenda item

Rachel Richardson, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which sought full planning permission for 17, one, two, three and four bedroom dwellings and the replacement of 64 Folders Lane, Burgess Hill in addition to new access and associated infrastructure. She stated that the map displayed in the agenda is incorrect and drew Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which provided the correct map.

Ed Cookson, applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Andrew Black, agent of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Janice Henwood, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. She felt that because of Site Allocation 13 the settlement boundary of Burgess Hill has extended and this plot  and is in burgess built up area therefore Burgess Hill Neighbourhood Plan (BHNP) Policy H2, relating to backyard development, applies. She felt that the loss of 30 trees contravened BHNP Policy H3 and District Plan (DP) Policy DP37 and drew attention to the comments of the Tree Officer who noted the further impact on the green nature of Folders Lane. She asked whether it was realistic that a development that has 44 car parking spaces would only result in 7-9 traffic movements during peak hours as quoted by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) Highways and highlighted that there is no signal crossing over Folders Lane to access the nearest play space requiring children to cross the busy lane. She requested that applications have a water treatment assessment and that the application set a condition that no construction vehicles park on the road adjacent to the site.

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the applicants can remove the trees at their wish as they are not protected however the trees that front Folders Lane are with no proposal to remove them. She also confirmed that the Tree Officer did not raise an objection in principle and suggested a condition to mitigate the harm as well as confirming the play space, whilst not provided on the site, will be provided through secured financial contributions.

Tom Clark, Corporate Solicitor, explained that as the application is beyond the Neighbourhood Plan Boundary for Burgess Hill and the policies of the BHNP do not apply outside of the Neighbourhood Plan boundary..

The Chairman noted that WSCC Highways have not raised an objection.

A Member believed the access to be narrow and asked whether the waste collection service can access and turn around their freighters.

The Chairman confirmed that the waste collection service has different sized vehicles however it has been identified that the larger freighters can access the properties.

A Member enquired how much Total Access Demand (TAD) contributions will be given and whether the money will be going to put a cycle and walking path on folders lane. He also enquired if a Swept Path Analysis has taken place.

The Chairman replied that TAD Contributions total £66,099 and that WSCC Highways are working with Burgess Hill Town Council (BHTC) to get a scheme that benefits the whole town.

The Senior Planning Officer added that applicant has submitted a Swept Path Analysis and WSCC Highways are content with it.

A Member sought clarification on the reasons for refusal for the previous applications in 2010 & 2011. He also noted that the site did not come forward through the Site Allocations DPD and questioned why it was excluded from the process. He believed an argument could be made for backland development and that the design of the dwellings is not compatible with the other designs in the area.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the previous sites were not within the built-up area boundary and they were in the countryside for the purposes of planning policy. The application came forward as a windfall site so will be considered under DP6 of the District Plan, in accordance with the development plan. She deemed the design to be high-quality, with each unit given a variety of mixed styles picking up the local character of the area.

The Vice-Chairman raised concerns that if a waste collection freighter were to exit the entrance of the site and have a car coming in then passing would be challenging as he experiences it on his own housing estate.

The Senior Planning Officer reiterated that WSCC Highways have not raised an objection.

A Member sought a confirmation as to what the total area of the site under the construction, as the redline includes a large garden to the property at the front of the site, which impacts on the overall density stated in the report.

The Planning Team Leader for Major Development & Enforcement confirmed that the area of development  includes everything in the redline of the application site, and the density set out in the report is correct. It was highlighted that the proposed density is slightly less than what you would normally expect to see within built up area.

The Chairman then noted no further Members wished to speak so took Members to the recommendation, proposed by Councillor Coote and seconded by Councillor Sweatman, which was approved with five votes in favour and four against.

RESOLVED

Recommendation A

That full permission be granted subject to conditions listed in the appendix and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure financial contributions for infrastructure improvements and affordable housing provision.

Recommendation B

That if the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed S106 Legal Agreement/or legal undertaking securing the necessary infrastructure payments and affordable housing provision by the 13th January 2023, then permission be refused at the discretion of the Assistant Director for Planning and Sustainable Economy, for the following reason:

'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 and the required affordable housing provision.'