Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct, Councillors are reminded that it is a requirement to declare interests where appropriate.

No disclosures of interests were made.

Councillor Sharma declared that he was the Ward Councillor for Southgate, the location of application CR/2020/0588/OUT (42 & 44 Brighton Road, Southgate, Crawley), but that this did not amount to a personal or prejudicial interest in the application.

The Planning Code of Conduct requires that Councillors who have been lobbied, received correspondence or been approached by an interested party regarding any planning matter should declare this at the meeting which discusses the matter. Councillors should declare if they have been lobbied at this point in the meeting.

The following lobbying declarations were made by Councillors:-

All councillors present had been lobbied regarding application CR/2020/0588/OUT (42 & 44 Brighton Road, Southgate, Crawley).

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 3 November 2020.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3 November 2020 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider report PES/357aof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT.

The Committee considered report PES/357a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Advertisement consent for:

Non-illuminated lettering ‘CRAWLEY MUSEUM’ on the High Street elevation

1 x non-illuminated entrance fascia sign on the Boulevard elevation.

1 x non-illuminated freestanding welcome sign

(amended description and amended plans received).

Councillors A Belben, Jaggard, Mwagale, Sharma, and P Smith declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought advertisement consent for three signs at Crawley Museum.  The signage was considered to reflect the character of the museum and would have an acceptable visual impact on the building.

The Committee then considered the application.

A recorded vote was taken on the recommendation in accordance with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules.  The names of the councillors voting for and against the recommendation, along with any abstentions, were recorded as follows:

For the recommendation to consent:

Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Irvine, Jaggard, Mwagale, Pickett, Purdy, Rana, Sharma, and P Smith (10).

Against the recommendation to consent:

None.

Abstentions:

None.

RESOLVED

Consent subject to conditions set out in report PES/357a.

To consider report PES/357bof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT.

The Committee considered report PES/357b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Listed building consent for:

Non-illuminated lettering 'CRAWLEY MUSEUM’ on the on the high street elevation

1 x non-illuminated entrance fascia sign on the boulevard elevation

(amended description and amended plans received).

Councillors A Belben and Jaggard declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought listed building consent for the installation of two signs at Crawley Museum.  The Committee heard that the signage was not considered to have a harmful impact on the character or appearance of the building.

The Committee then considered the application.  The signage was deemed to be appropriate and attractive.

A recorded vote was taken on the recommendation in accordance with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules.  The names of the councillors voting for and against the recommendation, along with any abstentions, were recorded as follows:

For the recommendation to consent:

Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Irvine, Jaggard, Mwagale, Pickett, Purdy, Rana, Sharma, and P Smith (10).

Against the recommendation to consent:

None.

Abstentions:

None.

RESOLVED

Consent subject to conditions set out in report PES/357b.

To consider report PES/357cof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/357c of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Change of use from office (formerly use class B1) to a kitchen to feed the homeless.

Councillors A Belben, Purdy, Sharma, and P Smith declared they had visited the site.

The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought permission for a change of use of the single storey building.  The proposal would alter the floor layout to provide a kitchen and storage space for food and equipment for the preparation of meals.  The meals produced would be packaged and transported off the premises for distribution to homeless people at agreed locations in Crawley.  The application was to be considered separately and on its own merits following the withdrawal of an earlier application that had proposed the preparation, collection, and consumption of food at the site.

The Committee heard that a small physical change to the building was proposed in the form of a roof-mounted cowl.  This was due to the installation of an extraction system to lessen odour from the kitchen during its operational hours of approximately 17:00 to 18:30 daily while food was being prepared.

In line with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules, two statements submitted by members of the public in regard to the application were read to the Committee.

A statement from an objector (Masoud Ahary) highlighted matters including:

·       Many Northgate residents had concerns regarding the application.

·       The proximity of the site to a residential area and a school.

·       A suggestion that the site could be relocated to a different area of the town, such as an industrial estate.

A statement from a supporter (the applicant, Giving Back Crawley) highlighted matters including:

·       The objections of local residents, of which many suggested that safety issues could be caused by people visiting the site.  It was clarified that the kitchen would operate a delivery-only service and only the volunteers working at the kitchen would have access to the premises.

·       There would be no noticeable impact on traffic in the area and the existing car parking provision at the site was sufficient for the applicant’s one vehicle.

·       The applicant’s desire to comply with the Council’s agreed food distribution locations, planning application conditions, and environment health policies.

The Committee then considered the application.  A Committee member recognised the large number of responses from local residents, many of which raised concern about visitors to the building, which formed part of the earlier withdrawn application.  It was hoped that these concerns had been allayed, both by the information provided by the applicant and the application conditions, which would limit the scope of use at the premises.

It was noted that Sussex Police had recommended the applicant consider the installation of lighting and an alarm system at the site.  Upon queries from Committee members that this could become an application condition, the Planning Officer confirmed a condition was not necessary due to the limited footfall in the area.  Lighting and alarms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider report PES/357dof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT.

The Committee considered report PES/357d of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

T1 ash - fell & grind out stumps.

Councillor A Belben declared he had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought consent to fell a protected ash tree due to its poor condition.  The tree showed signs of ash dieback – branches had fallen from the tree and, if retained, would continue to do so.  A silver birch tree was proposed as a replacement.

The Committee then considered the application.

A recorded vote was taken on the recommendation in accordance with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules.  The names of the councillors voting for and against the recommendation, along with any abstentions, were recorded as follows:

For the recommendation to consent:

Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Irvine, Jaggard, Mwagale, Pickett, Purdy, Rana, Sharma, and P Smith (10).

Against the recommendation to consent:

None.

Abstentions:

None.

RESOLVED

Consent subject to conditions set out in report PES/357d.

To consider report PES/357eof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/357e of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Outline application (access and layout to be determined with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved) for the erection of a part 3 and part 4 storey building comprising of 5 x 1no. bedroom flats and 15 x 2no. bedroom flats, of which 2 no. will be designated as affordable housing, following the demolition of existing semi-detached dwellings, the improvement of an access from Brighton Road, the creation of a new vehicular access from Stonefield Close and associated works and landscaping.

Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Jaggard, Mwagale, Purdy, Sharma, and P Smith declared they had visited the site.  Councillor Pickett declared he was familiar with the site.

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application.  The Committee was reminded that in November 2019 it had voted for the officer’s recommendation to refuse a prior application at this site due to the lack of affordable housing provision.  It was heard that the current application was identical to the earlier application, but following an appeal, the applicant had now submitted this current application which included the provision of 10% affordable housing.  The application sought outline permission for access and layout with other matters reserved.  It was heard that access to the development would be from two points – Brighton Road and Stonefield Close.

In line with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules, four statements submitted by members of the public in regard to the application were read to the Committee.

Two statements from objectors (Teresa & Peter Guyver and Sarah Oliver) highlighted matters including:

·       Stonefield Close residents’ concerns that a block of flats would be out of character with the bungalows in the Close due to its height and size, and the detrimental effects of this on light, privacy, and overlooking.

·       The application proposed 20 parking spaces for 20 flats/35 rooms, which was considered insufficient considering the possibility that the owners of some dwellings could own more than one car.  Parking on Stonefield Close was limited at present and the proposal would put a further strain on this.

·       The proposed access via Stonefield Close would cause traffic congestion on what was presently a quiet road.  This may lead to further congestion on to Brighton Road.

A statement from the applicant (Turnbull Land) highlighted matters including:

·       The proposed development reflected the historical pattern of construction of apartment blocks on Brighton Road, and was therefore of a similar character to the surrounding area.

·       The application addressed the prior reason for refusal (lack of provision of affordable housing units).  Consultation with the Local Planning Authority had led to the inclusion of 10% affordable housing.

·       The site’s location, which was in close proximity to the town centre and was said to ease pressure to release greenfield sites for housing development.

A statement from a Ward Councillor for Southgate (Councillor Flack) highlighted matters including:

·       That the proposed development was not part of the current or draft Local Plan and was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.