Venue: Ashurst Main Hall - The Charis Centre. View directions
Contact: Email: Democratic.Services@crawley.gov.uk
Disclosures of Interest
In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct, councillors are reminded that it is a requirement to declare interests where appropriate.
The following disclosures of interests were made:
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.
No lobbying declarations were made.
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 26 April 2021.
The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 26 April 2021 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
To consider report PES/372aof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.
The Committee considered report PES/372a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide two buildings (use class B8 - storage or distribution) with ancillary offices, parking and service yards, new site access, landscaping, boundary treatments and associated works.
Councillors A Belben, Burrett, Jaggard, and P Smith declared they had visited the site.
The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which proposed commercial development at a site within the Manor Royal Business Improvement District (BID). The Committee heard that, since the publication of the report, further discussions had taken place with the applicant leading to amendments to the wording of conditions 6 and 25, the removal of condition 16, and the addition of a new condition 26. Delegated authority to officers was also sought regarding amendments to the Environment Agency (contamination) and ecology conditions due to ongoing discussions with the relevant consultees.
Matthew Mainwaring, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· The application’s compliance with Local Planning Authority policies, including those related to car and cycle parking.
· The environmental sustainability of the proposal which had received a BREEAM ‘excellent’ rating and would result in a biodiversity net gain at the site, with ecological enhancements connected to existing local green infrastructure.
· The discussions between the applicant, Local Planning Authority, and Manor Royal BID Board which had resulted in positive outcomes (including the addition of the micropark proposal).
The Committee then considered the application. The provision of solar panels and the micropark were considered positive aspects of the application, as was the proposal to retain the large protected oak tree at the front of the site. Concerns were raised regarding the loss of six protected (and four unprotected) trees, however the Committee acknowledged the net gain in biodiversity that would result from the proposed redevelopment of the site. Furthermore, the Section 106 agreement was to secure a contribution of £14,700 in lieu of the required 21 replacement trees. Assurance was sought from the Committee that remaining trees were to be safeguarded during construction.
It was clarified that a further contribution of £784 - £2 per additional square metre of new floorspace proposed (above the existing floorspace currently on site) was to be secured toward enhancements to the public realm.
Clarification was sought regarding the parking provision. Of the two proposed parking areas, one offered a shortfall of parking spaces while the other offered a surplus. The access to the two parking areas was shared, so the combined overall provision of spaces was deemed acceptable.
It was recognised that the buildings proposed were for storage use, which provided fewer employment opportunities than those allocated for office use, however Local Plan policy E3 allowed for ‘B’ use classes so the application was policy compliant in this regard. The proposal was deemed to be potentially beneficial to the local economy given the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting lack ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
To consider report PES/372bof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.
The Committee considered report PES/372b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Temporary pop-up convenience shop in car park for approximately 8-week period and temporary plant enclosure for approximately 20-week period up to April 2022.
Councillors A Belben, Burrett, Jaggard, Mwagale, and P Smith declared they had visited the site.
The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application, which proposed two temporary structures occupying a total of eight parking spaces within the Maidenbower Square car park.
The Committee then considered the application. The structures’ impact on parking provision was discussed – it was noted that West Sussex County Council’s Highways Department had no objection to the proposals as it was assumed that there would be less footfall in the area due to the closure of the Co-Op store for its refurbishment. It was also recognised that the location of the pop-up shop and plant enclosure were based, in part, on the need to locate generators nearby to power the temporary shop (and the existing store when the plant within it was being replaced).
The suitability of the access to the pop-up shop and width of the footpath was queried in regard to pedestrians and those with disabilities. The Officer suggested that the applicant needed to keep a clear passageway in front of the site to allow access around this section of the shopping parade.
The Committee noted that the temporary shop would provide necessary services to residents for the duration of the closure of the Co-Op. It was clarified that the application sought permission until April 2022, but the applicants envisaged that the works were likely to be completed sooner than this.
Permit subject to the conditions and informatives set out in report PES/372b.
Amendment to the General Committee Procedure Rules
The Head of Legal, Governance and HR addressed the Committee in relation to a procedural matter regarding future Planning Committee meetings. It was noted that the General Committee Procedure Rules had recently been amended to reflect the Council’s use of external venues for its formal meetings, including the protocol regarding meeting duration.
Due to the nature of decisions taken by the Planning Committee it was deemed that specific guillotine rules were necessary for meetings of the Planning Committee to ensure that all planning matters were given the level of consideration expected.
It was recommended that the Planning Committee agree to conclude its formal meetings by 11:00pm, with any outstanding business to be deferred to the next scheduled meeting of the Committee. The exception to this would be any matters statutorily required to be decided before the date of the next meeting – in which case a new meeting date would be arranged as soon as practicably possible.
Committee members discussed the proposal. It was noted that any item already undergoing debate at 11:00pm was to be concluded and voted upon rather than being deferred. The Committee also discussed the possibility of rescheduling the start time of future meetings, where necessary, to 6:30pm.
It was therefore
That the Head of Legal, Governance and HR make a minor amendment to the Constitution to introduce a guillotine provision to allow the Planning Committee to conclude its formal meetings by 11:00pm, with any outstanding business to be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee.