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 any councillors who have been lobbied, received correspondence, or been approached by an interested party regarding any planning matter to declare this at the meeting at which the matter is being considered. 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 4 December 2023.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 4 December 2023 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider report PES/450aof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/450a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Erection of single storey rear and side infill extension.

Councillors Ali, Charatan, Jaggard, Mwagale, and Nawaz declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought permission to construct a rear and side extension at ground floor level at a residential property in Kithurst Close, which would replace the existing garage and entrance hall.

The Officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

Ajit Manek, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The planning process had taken a long time.  Communication from the local planning authority was insufficient and the reasons for the delay were not explained to the applicant.

·       The proposed extension was to allow the house to be used as a family home.  Neighbours of the site had suggested that the home was to become a house of multiple occupation (HMO) but the source of this was unknown.

·       Other properties in Kithurst Close had built extensions.

Julia Stewart, on behalf of a neighbour of the site, spoke in objection to the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The officer’s report contained errors, for example it stated that the house was currently a four bedroom property, however the plans showed a three bedroom property.

·       The proposals sought to extend the property line by approximately 2.5 metres, 1 metre back from the front of 9 Kithurst Close.  It was unusual for an extension of this type and size to be attached to a neighbouring house.

·       The application sought to add a full bathroom with bath.  It was queried as to how the decelopment was considered to be water neutral, as the Environment Agency considered bathing to be less water-efficient than showering.

The Committee then considered the application.  Planning Officers were asked to clarify why the development was considered to be water neutral.  It was explained that a screening assessment had previously concluded that in general, residential house extensions did not increase water usage and were therefore deemed to be water neutral.  In this case the addition of a bathroom to a family home did not necessarily signify an increase in water use as there was not likely to be an increase in occupancy.

A Committee member noted that a member of the public had highlighted two errors in the report and sought clarification of these.  Officers agreed that the report should not have stated that there was no planning history at the site, as planning permission was granted for a rear extension in 1974.  It was also clarified that the house was to increase from three to four bedrooms, not from four to five as the report stated.

The size and massing of the extension was discussed in detail.  Committee members noted that set-back garages were a feature of properties in the area and were designed to create a prominent break between  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider report PES/450bof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT.

The Committee considered report PES/450b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

9234 1 x ash - remove dead wood. Remove 1 x lower branch on west side leaning over garden of 130 Grattons Drive (marked on photo). Repollard by approx 3 metres back to previous pruning points.

9267 1 x ash – reduce crown by 1.5 to 2 metres.

Councillor Jaggard declared she had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought consent for works to two ash trees in Worth Park in order to ensure the trees remained safe and of a suitable size.  

The Committee then considered the application.

RESOLVED

Consent subject to the conditions set out in report PES/450b.

To consider report PES/450cof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT.

The Committee considered report PES/450c of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

T1 oak – fell.

Councillor Pritchard declared he had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought consent for the felling of an oak tree situated in a residential garden which was considered to be a safety concern due to significant decay and disease in its roots.

The Committee then considered the application.  A Committee member sought clarification on the reason for the application being a Commiittee decision rather than a delegated officer decision.  It was explained that Crawley Borough Council was the applicant in this case, and it was standard practice that all applications made by the Council were put to the Committee.

RESOLVED

Consent subject to the conditions set out in report PES/450c.