Venue: Main Hall - Bewbush 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.
The following lobbying declarations were made by councillors:-
Councillors Ali, A Belben, Burrett, Irvine, Jaggard, Malik, Mwagale, Raja, and P Smith had been lobbied regarding application CR/2018/0064/FUL.
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 29 June 2021.
The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 29 June 2021 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
To consider report PES/373aof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.
The Committee considered report PES/373a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Erection of primary school with associated parking and landscaping (amended description and amended plans received).
Councillors Ali, A Belben, Burrett, Irvine, Jaggard, Malik, Mwagale, and P Smith declared they had visited the site.
The Principal Planning Officer (MR) provided a verbal summation of the application which sought permission for the development of a two storey primary school adjacent to the existing Mosque building. The Committee heard that, since the publication of the report, a further reason for refusal regarding biodiversity (reason 7) had been added. Further representations had also been received including from H Smith MP and Councillor P Lamb.
Brian Tully spoke in objection to the application. Matters raised included:
· The lack of need for more primary schools in Bewbush or Broadfield.
· An increase in overspill parking on to nearby roads at school pick-up and drop-off times.
· A query regarding the source of funding for the school.
Arif Syed, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· The applicant strove to work constructively with the Local Planning Authority regarding the Section 106 agreement and drainage strategy but communication was unclear.
· Although six trees were proposed to be felled, 25 replacement trees were to be planted, which was deemed a positive ecological contribution.
· Building on the area of ancient woodland would have no greater detrimental impact on the land than some previous housing developments in the borough.
Mohammad Bora spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· Many students already attend the evening school operating at the Mosque without any shortage of parking spaces. The school was not proposed to operate during prayer time on Fridays, when the Mosque was busiest.
· The overspill of approximately 25 cars at peak times due to a loss of car parking spaces, as predicted in the report, was contested.
· Faith schools encouraged high educational achievement.
Mohammad Jogee spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· Residents had expressed a need for a local Islamic faith school as the closest was currently 20 to 30 miles away. There were a number of existing Christian faith schools in the Crawley area.
· The proposed school was to be community-funded – no public money was to be used.
· The school aimed to promote community integration.
Councillor Kiran Khan, on behalf of Councillor Tim Lunnon (ward councillor for Broadfield), spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· An adjustment had been made to the Mosque’s prayer times on Fridays, leading to decreased traffic and in turn greater availability of parking spaces.
· West Sussex County Council’s Highways Department had retracted its objection to the development.
· The positive responses from Broadfield residents regarding the plans.
Councillor Khan (ward councillor for Broadfield) also showed support for the application and commented that there was a definite need for the school.
Councillor Peter Lamb spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· A need to balance the various ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
To consider report PES/373bof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.
The Committee considered report PES/373b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Erection of first floor extension and new roof to convert bungalow into a two storey dwelling.
Councillors A Belben, Burrett, Jaggard, Mwagale, and P Smith declared they had visited the site.
The Principal Planning Officer (VC) provided a verbal summation of the application which proposed an upward extension to a residential property. It was heard that the scale, height, bulk, and massing of the proposal, along with the inappropriate materials proposed, would be out of keeping with the nearby streetscene and refusal was therefore recommended.
Jas Saraw, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· The report did not factor in the properties opposite when determining the character of the local streetscene.
· Other developments on the road were highlighted which were of a similar or larger size and bulk.
· The proposed footprint, when compared to the size of the plot, was not considered to be disproportionately large.
Councillor Bob Burgess (ward councillor for Three Bridges) spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· No objections to the proposals had been made by neighbours of the site.
· Designs submitted showed an aspirational property of a substantial size.
· If permitted, neighbours would not experience a loss of privacy.
Councillor Brenda Burgess (ward councillor for Three Bridges) spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· Other residential buildings in the locality, which were suggested to be out of character with the streetscene, had previously been granted planning permission.
· The width of the proposal was not dramatically greater than the width of the existing dwelling.
· The proposal would have no detrimental impact on parking provision.
The Committee then considered the application. The character of the streetscene along Three Bridges Road was discussed. It was suggested that, although the immediate neighbouring properties were of a different design to the proposals, there was a mix of designs along the road and wider area. It was therefore regarded that the proposal was not out of keeping with the local streetscene.
Clarity was sought regarding the proposed increase in the size of the property. The Planning Officer confirmed that the proposal would increase the overall width of the building due to its joining with the garage, which was proposed to be moved 1m further from the property boundary. The proposed footprint was therefore larger than the existing footprint. The width of the first floor would be wider than adjacent properties and would add considerable bulk to the existing dwelling.
A vote was taken on the recommendation set out in the report, which was overturned.
The Committee discussed possible conditions to attach to the planning permission, were it to be granted.
A vote was then taken on a proposal to permit the application.
Permit subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.
REASON: To comply with Section ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
To consider report PES/373cof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.
The Committee considered report PES/373c of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Demolition of existing building and associated structures and redevelopment for storage and distribution warehouse within use class B8.
Councillors A Belben, Burrett, and Jaggard declared they had visited the site.
The Principal Planning Officer (VC) provided a verbal summation of the application which sought permission for the construction of a warehouse for business use in the Manor Royal Business Improvement District. The Committee heard that, since the publication of the report, further discussions between relevant parties had led to amendments proposed to conditions 7, 14, 22, and 24, and the addition of new informatives 7 and 8. The revised air quality assessment was considered acceptable with the revised costs of £47,000 and the corresponding level of mitigation measures were to be secured via the Section 106 agreement.
Eric Hall, the agent (TDH Estates) on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· The suitability of the scheme for the intended user, which would allow for increased capacity and the creation of jobs.
· The proposed landscaping and additional trees to be planted at the site.
· Elements of the scheme were designed to meet BREEAM ‘excellent’ standard including water consumption, energy usage, PV panels, and electric vehicle charging points.
The Committee then considered the application. The officer confirmed that the proposed parking provision exceeded the borough parking standards, and that parking and access were to be controlled by conditions. A travel plan was also required of the applicant which would cover staff vehicles and business vehicles and encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport.
A query was raised regarding the suitability of B8 use buildings at the proposed location. The officer clarified that there were not designations or limitations for specific use classes in certain areas of Manor Royal. As the scheme was for business use the location within the Manor Royal Employment Area was appropriate and policy compliant.
The officer confirmed that air source heat pumps would form the main heating and cooling system within the building. There was also provision for a potential future connection to the Crawley District Heat Network included in the design.
Permit subject to the conditions set out in report PES/373c and the amended conditions and additional informatives as follows:
7.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Travel Plan ref 2021/5819/TP02 dated July 2021 submitted with the application. Only the approved details shall be implemented.
REASON: To encourage and promote sustainable transport in accordance with Policy IN3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015 - 2030.
14.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Landscape Design Strategy dated 01.07.2021 and the Landscape Strategy Masterplan, Drawing No. LLD2252-LAN-DWG-010 Rev 04 submitted with the application.
The approved details of the landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the building or the completion ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
To consider report PES/373eof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.
The Committee considered report PES/373e of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Erection of 3 warehouse units (use class B8), associated external plant, car/HGV parking, site access, internal roads, boundary security fencing and hard/soft landscaping.
Councillors A Belben, Burrett, and Jaggard declared they had visited the site.
The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application which proposed three buildings for storage and distribution use at a currently vacant site within the Manor Royal Employment Area. The Committee heard that, since the publication of the report, further discussions between relevant parties had led to amendments being proposed to conditions 3, 4, 5, and 10. The Committee was also requested to delegate authority to officers to insert in to condition 20 the correct plan number once the relevant drawing was received.
Sue Willcox, the agent (Quod) on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Matters raised included:
· The estimated number of jobs created by the scheme and the inclusion of a Skills and Employment Plan in the Section 106 agreement.
· The loss of 9 trees at the site, for which 47 replacement trees were proposed, alongside enhancements to biodiversity.
· Details of financial contributions to the Manor Royal BID and to enhancements to the local cycle network.
The Committee then considered the application. In response to a query regarding the parking provision for lorries at the site, the officer confirmed that lorry parking at units two and three was slightly lower than set out in the borough parking standards, however this was deemed to be a matter for the buildings’ future operator to consider. WSCC’s Highways Department had no objection to the parking proposals.
Permit subject to the conditions set out in report PES/373e, the amended conditions set out below, and the provision of delegated authority to officers to insert the agreed plan number in to condition 20.
3. No construction work above 5m from ground level shown on the approved plans CRAW1-RPS-B1-ZZ-DR-A-5399 Rev P02, CRAW1-RPS-B2-ZZ-DR-A-5399 Rev P02 and CRAW1-RPS-B3-ZZ-DR-A-5399 P02 shall take place on site until a Radar Mitigation Scheme, including a timetable for its implementation during construction, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Radar Mitigation Scheme shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed details.
REASON: In the interests of the safe operation of Gatwick Airport and of NATS En-route PLC and in accordance with Policy IN1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030.
4. The approved cladding on the northern elevations for the three units shall not exceed 81.200 AOD (13.6m AGL) for Unit 1, 76.000 AOD (8.4m AGL) for Unit 2, or 75750 AOD (6.9m AGL) for Unit 3, as shown on approved plans CRAW1-RPS-B1-ZZ-DR-A-5399 Rev P02, CRAW1-RPS-B2-ZZ-DR-A-5399 Rev P02 and CRAW1-RPS-B3-ZZ-DR-A-5399 P02 until the Radar Mitigation Scheme detailed in condition 3 has been implemented. If Unit 1 is constructed before Unit 2, the cladding on the north elevation of Unit 1 ... view the full minutes text for item 7.
To consider report PES/373dof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to APPROVE.
As the business of the meeting was not concluded by 11:00pm, General Committee Procedure Rule 15.4 (Planning Committee guillotine) came into effect.
Planning application CR/2021/0308/ARM (report PES/373d) was therefore deferred to the next scheduled meeting of the Committee on 31 August 2021.