Venue: Committee Room A & B - Town Hall
Contact: Email: Democratic.Services@crawley.gov.uk
Disclosures of Interest
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.
The following disclosure of interest was 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 declaration was made by Members:-
Councillors Boxall, Crow, Irvine, Joyce, P C Smith and Thomas had been lobbied regarding application CR/2017/0880/FUL.
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 27 February 2018
The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 February 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the following matter:-
With regard to Minute 4 (Planning Application CR/2016/0972/FUL - 44 Goffs Park Road, (formerly Oakhurst Grange), Southgate, Crawley), Councillor Jaggard referred to text included in the eighth bullet point listed (at the top of page 71 of the minutes) which related to securing obscure glazing for some of the application’s Block A windows. In response to the Councillor’s comments on this matter, it was agreed that Officers would speak to the associated Case Officer (who had presented the application to the Committee) to ensure that he would send an email response to the Councillor to further clarify the issues she had raised.
To consider report PES/246 (a)of the Head of Economic and Environmental Services
RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE
The Committee considered report PES/246 (a) of the Head of Economic and Environmental Services which proposed as follows:
Conversion of ground floor associated storage into 12 flats
Councillors Jaggard, P C Smith, Tarrant and Thomas declared they had visited the site.
The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application. In so doing the Group Manager referred to a letter recently received from the Agent (dated 15 March 2018). In response to issues raised in that letter, the Group Manager:-
· Indicated that an amended plan had now been received which addressed the layout of the 1 bedroom flat. With the revised layout replacing a bath with a shower, this now technically met the minimum nationally described space standards. As a result of this alteration, the amended Refusal reason 1 would read as follows:-
1. The proposed development, by reason of the insufficient and poor quality proposed outdoor amenity space areas and the poor outlook from the proposed flats, would be severely detrimental to the amenities of future occupiers of the development. The proposed scheme is therefore contrary to Policies CH3 and CH5 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030 and the guidance set out in the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document.
· Indicated that comments made on external amenity space were inaccurate. The existing flats did have access to the amenity areas shown on the plans. These areas were not landscaped, but were hard surfaced, had some chairs and washing lines and that these were being used. The only real change proposed was some planting. This would improve the amenity space’s appearance, but not its area. As the report indicated, the areas available were limited for the total number of flats in the building, would be overshadowed, and were close to the vehicular access route, so were not suitable for children.
· Commented that the outlook from the flats would be slightly improved by virtue of the proposed planters but, particularly to the front and north, would still be poor - as explained in paras 5.8-5.11 of the report.
· The inconsistency in flat numbers, as referred to in the report, and further highlighted in the letter (with still no floor plans made available to establish exactly how many units were at the site), did not hinder the determination of this planning application.
· Considered that the site was unquestionably a very noisy location and this matter had been considered by the appeal Inspector at the Appeal Hearing in 2016 when an application relating to the same site for 12 flats had been refused. The appeal was considered against the former Core Strategy and Local Plan. At the appeal the Environmental Health Department did concede that there could be a technical solution to the problem of noise, however, the information provided suggested that this could only be achieved by ensuring windows were fixed closed. The Local Planning Authority did not consider that this provided a suitable environment for future occupiers.
· Explained that furthermore, the Inspector considered that the noise issue ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
To consider report PES/246 (b)of the Head of Economic and Environmental Services.
RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT
The Committee considered report PES/246 (b) of the Head of Economic and Environmental Services which proposed as follows:
T16.6.9A - Horse Chestnut: remove for safety reasons
T16.6.9T2 - Horse Chestnut: reduce by up to 1.5m all round in accordance with BS3998 2010 and carry out resistance test every 18 months to monitor condition.
Councillors Jaggard and Tarrant declared they had visited the site.
The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application.
The Committee then considered the application. In response to issues raised, the Group Manager:
· Confirmed that Condition 3 would be amended to clarify the size of the replacement tree as follows (the underlined text refers):-
3. Within 12 months of the felling of the tree which shall include the removal of the stump and as much root material as practical, the owner of the land shall plant a Hornbeam tree, in the same location as the felled tree. The tree shall be not less than 25cm in girth (equating to approximately 4.5 - 5.5 metres in height) and conform to British Standard 3936: Nursery stock specification. In the event that the tree dies within five years following such planting, it shall be replaced with a similar tree in a similar position during the next planting season.
REASON: In the interests of the amenity of environment of the locality in accordance with The Town & Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012.
· Explained that as this was a Council application, it was required to be considered by the Committee.
· Explained that the two trees concerned were highlighted by stars on the TPO location plan (and bordered by a red line), whilst the 3rd tree indicated on the plan, which was not protected, was not part of the application.
· Emphasised that the Council’s Amenity Services had undertaken a good deal of work to produce some convincing evidence that the trees were in decline.
· Indicated that Amenity Services did have a system for monitoring trees generally.
· Indicated that the replacement Hornbeam tree was more resistant to infection and was not susceptible to bacterial canker.
Consent, subject to the Conditions set out in report PES/246 (b), and the updated Condition 3 above.
To consider report PES/246 (c)of the Head of Economic and Environmental Services.
RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT
The Committee considered report PES/246 (c) of the Head of Economic and Environmental Services which proposed as follows:
Erection of single storey side extension on southern elevation.
The (Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application.
The Committee then considered the application.
Permit, subject to the Conditions set out in report PES/246 (c).
Any urgent item(s) complying with Section 100(B) of the Local Government Act 1972.