Agenda and minutes

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

No disclosures of interests were made.

The Planning Code of Conduct requires Councillors who have been lobbied, received correspondence or been approached by an interested party with respect to 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 agenda.

The following lobbying declarations were made by Councillors:- 

Councillor Vitler had been lobbied regarding application CR/2016/0083/ARM.

Councillor Irvine had been lobbied regarding application CR/2018/0778/FUL.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 17 December 2018

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 17 December 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider report PES/289 (c)of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE

The Committee considered report PES/289 (c) of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Erection of a conservatory to the front and side of property.

Councillors A Belben, Boxall and Fiveash declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer (HW) provided a verbal summation of the application.

Councillor Quinn (Ward Councillor for Broadfield North) took this opportunity to introduce the Committee to Miss Catherine Abernethy(the Applicant).  Miss Abernethy then addressed the meeting in support of the application.

The Committee then considered the application.  Members acknowledged the difficulties in extending the living area of this ‘back-to-back’ property, but considered that the proposed front extension, by virtue of its positioning, scale and design would be an incongruous addition to the front elevation of the dwelling, and would detrimentally impact the appearance of the dwelling, the properties in the immediate vicinity and the general streetscene of Jersey Road.  It was confirmed that the proposals were contrary to Policies CH2 and CH3 of the Local Plan, the guidance contained within the Urban Design SPD and the NPPF (2018).

RESOLVED

Refuse, for the reasons listed in report PES/289 (c)

To consider report PES/289 (b)of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE

Demolition of existing unit and redevelopment of the site to provide a modern employment unit of 3,255 sq m (GIA) for flexible employment purposes within use classes B1c/B2/B8 with ancillary offices, car parking, landscaping, service yard areas and ancillary uses as well as associated external works.

Since the publication of the agenda for this meeting, the Committee had been advised that this application had been withdrawn by the Applicant.

To consider report PES/289 (a)of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to APPROVE.

The Committee considered report PES/289 (a) of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Approval of reserved matters for Phase 2c for the erection of 249 dwellings, car parking including garages, internal access roads, footpaths, parking and circulation area, hard and soft landscaping and other associated infrastructure and engineering works (revised description and amended plans received).

Councillors Stone and Sudan declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer (VC) provided a verbal summation of the application.

The Officer advised that the application had been the subject of a number of substantial revisions since its initial submission, and relevant re-consultation had taken place.  Although the report reflected comments received from a good number of consultees, it had not been possible to conclude this process prior to the report’s publication.  With this in mind, and with some rewording or additional Conditions involved, the Committee received updates as follows:-

·         Updated amended plans / drawings for soft landscaping now reflected the comments of GALAerodrome Safeguarding in seeking to mitigate bird hazard and avoid endangering the safe movements off aircraft and the operation of Gatwick Airport through the attraction of birds.  A condition was recommended to cover this aspect.

·         WSCC have commented that the principle of the proposed layout for carriageways and footways was acceptable.  In relation to surfacing materials and detailing, WSCC have further commented that these were acceptable in principle, and that these and other detailed constructional matters would all be dealt with as part of the adoption agreement process for highways.  WSCC have confirmed that The Parking Strategy Statement as submitted reflected the standards set out in the Urban Design SPD.  In terms of the suggested parking condition, this had already been approved as part the outline planning permission.

·         The matter of cycle storage had been the subject of a number of discussions regarding the number of spaces, design and location of the cycle stores. Revised plans had recently been submitted, and the Crawley Cycle and Walking Forum had since agreed that cycle storage would be best dealt with by condition.

·         Comments by the CBC Refuse and Recycling Team regarding capacity of storage and layout points had since been addressed.  A request for dropped kerbs for easier access purposes was now covered by condition (Condition 5).

·         It was confirmed that Condition 5, which applied to both bin and cycle storage, would remain as currently drafted.

·         In terms of surface water drainage, the Crawley Borough Council’s Drainage Officer had confirmed that amended details and calculations were acceptable.

·         Further comments had been received on behalf of the Crawley Goods Yard Operators which, as requested in those comments, was read out to the Committee.  Those comments referred in particular to the Section 106 Agreement, including that: “The application is only considered acceptable if it is approved with all conditions as proposed and critically subject to the S106 Agreement the terms of which are detailed in brief in the Committee Report.” 

·         With further regard to noise mitigation,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Any urgent item(s) complying with Section 100(B) of the Local Government Act 1972.