Agenda and draft minutes

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

No 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.

The following lobbying declarations were made by councillors:

Councillors Ali and Nawaz had been lobbied but had expressed no view on application CR/2024/0057/FUL.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 6 March 2024.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 6 March 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider report PES/457aof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/47a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Continued use of the retail park within use class E(A) through consolidation of all relevant planning permissions (implemented or extant) since the initial construction of the retail park under application references CR/588/86 and CR/253/87.

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

The Principal Planning Officer (MR) provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought permission to consolidate the existing planning permissions for use classes for units at the County Oak retail park.  The existing conditions were to be reapplied with some subject to alteration.  The Officer updated the Committee that, since the publication of the report, an update to the report was required:

·       Drawing number 11431-L001, ‘plan with retail floor areas’, had been updated to include measurements in square metres rather than square feet, so revision D was the latest version of the drawing (rather than revision C as listed in the report).

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

Charlotte Williams, the agent (Quod), spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The application would consolidate the existing planning permissions and conditions and would provide clarity around the future use of the site.

·       The long-term success of the site in providing occupancy and employment would be better secured.

·       The application did not propose an increase in floorspace or changes to the range of goods able to be sold at the site.

The Committee then considered the application.  In response to a query regarding the current use classes at the site, the Officer explained that condition 2 proposed to restrict all units covered by the application to use class E(a) (retail use) rather than an unrestricted use class which would also allow for other uses such as industrial, office, or medical.  It was confirmed that there was only one unit with an unrestricted retail offer.  A limit was applied on the amount of floorspace to be used across the site for the sale of food, and this would be adhered to and reinforced by the proposed reapplication of the conditions.  The sale of foods such as confectionary were covered by a separate condition.

Following a query from a Committee member, it was also clarified that the café in the car park had not been included in the plans so did not form part of the application.

RESOLVED

Delegate to the Head of Economy and Planning the decision to permit the application, subject to the conclusion of the Habitats Regulations Consultation with Natural England and to the conditions set out in report PES/457a.

To consider report PES/457bof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/457b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Erection of single storey flat roof rear extension.

Councillor Ali declared he had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer (VC) provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought permission for the construction of an extension at the rear of a residential home in Gossops Green.  The Officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

The Committee then considered the application.  A Committee member sought clarification about the size of the proposed extension, which the Officer confirmed would not extend the full width of the existing property – there was to be a gap between the joint boundary with no. 151.  The size and design was not considered to have a substantial impact on neighbouring properties and was therefore acceptable. 

In response to a further query, the Officer confirmed that the extension was to allow for the addition of a downstairs bedroom for a disabled occupant.  Crawley Borough Council was the applicant as the property was a Council-owned home.

RESOLVED

Permit subject to the conditions set out in report PES/457b.

To consider report PES/457cof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/457c of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Erection of two storey rear extension and single storey side extension.

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

The Principal Planning Officer (VC) provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought permission for an extension to a residential property.  The application was an updated version of that previously granted permission by the Committee (in November 2023) and was of a slightly different design, size, and layout which was considered to improve the proposal.  The Officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

The Committee then considered the application.  Several Committee members commented that the design of the application was more comprehensive and attractive than the previously approved application and supported the changes that had been made, in particular to the rear ground floor extension.  In response to a query, the Officer clarified that regardless of the decision the Committee was to make on the application, works would still be able to be carried out in line with the previously approved application at the site. 

RESOLVED

Permit subject to the conditions set out in report PES/457c.