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.

The following disclosures of interests were made:

The Head of Governance, People & Performance highlighted that the applicant for agenda item CR/2022/0034/TPO – 8 Haversham Close – was Brenda Burgess, a currently elected Crawley Borough Council Councillor.  Those Committee members that had not declared an interest in the application confirmed that they knew or knew of Councillor Burgess, however a specific declaration of interest was not required as Councillor Burgess did not fall under the category of relative or friend.  It was considered that all Committee members were able to approach the application with an open mind.

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.

Councillor Pritchard had been lobbied regarding agenda item 5 (minute 4), planning application CR/2021/0844/FUL – 9 Mill Road, Three Bridges, but had not expressed views on the application in advance of the meeting.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 25 April 2022.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 25 April 2022 (included in the supplemental agenda published on 6 June 2022) were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider report PES/403aof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/403a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Erection of 1 x attached three bed dwelling in side garden space, and erection of single storey side and rear extension and internal alterations to existing dwelling.

Councillors Ali, A Belben, Burrett, Jaggard, Mwagale, and Pritchard declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought planning permission for an extension to 9 Mill Road in Three Bridges and a separate three bedroom house to the side of the existing property.  The Officer updated the Committee that, since the publication of the agenda, the following amendments to the report were required:

·       Part of paragraph 5.28 was now to read, ‘The proposals could also provide adequate cycle parking in the rear garden’.

·       Part of paragraph 5.29 was now to read, ‘According to Policy CH5, a two storey 3 bedroom dwelling for 4 persons should provide a minimum internal floorspace of 90 sqm’.

·       Part of paragraph 5.35 was now to read, ‘The plans show that the FFL of the extension would be the same as the existing dwelling which would be +69.8m which would be 300mm higher than the external ground level at the rear of the existing dwelling’.

The Committee noted that, following the publication of the agenda, a supplemental agenda had been published which included a clearer plan of the application site.

Brenda Burgess, Ward Councillor for Three Bridges, spoke in objection to the application.  Matters raised included:

·       Local residents were concerned about the proposed development’s effect on the streetscene.

·       Mill Road was narrow with cars tightly parked – works vehicles may have difficulty accessing the site and this could cause congestion in the vicinity.

·       A previous planning application for a dwelling at the same site had been refused.

The Committee then considered the application.  Following a question from a Committee member, the Planning Officer explained that there had been two previous planning applications at the same site – a first which was for a separate dwelling and had been refused, and a second which was for an extension and had been permitted.  It was clarified that these applications were separate to that in front of the Committee, but some weight should be given to the reasons for both the prior permission and the prior refusal in assessing the current application. 

One of the previous applications was refused on flood risk grounds only. The only fundamental difference in the application now under consideration compared to the previously-refused application was a significantly reduced flood risk at the site following a re-assessment by the Environment Agency (EA), which had now placed the site in the lowest flood risk zone.  It was noted that, according to the flood map created by the EA in November 2021, the application site was now predominantly in flood zone 1 (low probability) with a small part of the site in zone 2 (medium).  Previously the site had been in zone  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider report PES/403bof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT.

The Committee considered report PES/403b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

T1 sycamore: fell secondary sucker growth and smaller stem (circa 50 - 75mm) encroaching garage and car parking area. Crown spread of tree to remain unaffected.

T2 sycamore: lateral prune south aspect over property by approx. 1.5m to appropriate growth points to ensure minimum of 2m clearance from house. Remaining crown spread of approx. 3m.

T3 oak: crown reduce by approx. 2m to appropriate pruning points. Final height of approx. 10m and crown spread of approx. 5m on all aspects.

Councillors Ali, A Belben, Burrett, Jaggard, and Pritchard declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought consent for works to three trees, two of which were subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs).  The Officer updated the Committee that, since the publication of the report, the recommendation had been changed to read ‘T1 sycamore: remove secondary sucker growth and smaller stem…’ to clarify the nature of the works.

Brenda Burgess, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       Works to the trees were sought due to branches encroaching on the property – full felling was not desired.

·       Trimming of the trees had been undertaken in the past, but due to quick growth, works were once again required.

·       Clarity was sought over which specimens were currently subject to TPOs.

The Committee then considered the application.  Following a query regarding the frequency of works to protected trees, the Planning Officer explained that applications for works were made as and when trimming was required, and not according to a set timeframe – tree growth could be inconsistent and pre-scheduled works may not be appropriate for the health of the tree at those times. There was no charge for applications for works to protected trees.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the oak tree (T3) was not subject to a TPO.  It was also clarified that removal of deadwood from protected trees did not require an application for consent.

RESOLVED

Consent subject to conditions set out in report PES/403b.

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

The Committee noted that the items included in the supplemental agenda, published on 6 June 2022, had been considered as part of the proceedings of the meeting.