Venue: virtually - Microsoft Teams Live. 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.
No 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 Ascough, A Belben, Irvine, Jaggard, Mwagale, Purdy, Sharma, and P Smith had been lobbied regarding application CR/2018/0544/OUT.
Councillor Sharma had been lobbied regarding application CR/2020/0014/FUL.
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 1 September 2020.
The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 1 September 2020 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
To consider report PES/355aof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.
The Committee considered report PES/355a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Outline application for access (with all other matters reserved) for up to 150 residential units; new site access from Birch Lea with enhanced access from Kenmara Court, demolition of the existing Oakwood Football Club facilities and provision of a new clubhouse, senior and junior pitch; provision of open space and woodland access; and other ancillary works.
Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Irvine, Jaggard, Mwagale, Purdy, Sharma, and P Smith declared they had visited the site.
The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which was an outline application which sought planning permission for the principle of the development – with detailed approval sought only for one reserved matter in respect of the proposed access routes at this stage. The Officer updated the Committee that late representations had been received from Tinsley Lane Residents’ Association in relation to a road safety review, and from Oakwood Football Club expressing support for the scheme. Paragraph 5.28 of report PES/355a stated that the proposed density of the development was around 50 dwellings per hectare, but this was an error and should be around 36 dwellings per hectare. The Officer also conveyed amendments proposed by Crawley Goods Yard Operators to the conditions.
Following receipt of a communication from a member of the public, the Committee took a brief adjournment to allow the functionality of the public livestream to be checked. It was confirmed that the livestream was operational and the meeting was then reconvened.
In line with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules, seven statements submitted by members of the public in regard to the application were read to the Committee.
Three statements from objectors (Tinsley Lane Residents’ Association, Crawley Goods Yard Operators, and Mr John Browning) highlighted the following matters:
· The proposal of 150 dwellings was excessive compared to the 120 proposed in the Local Plan (representing a 25% increase) and would amount to overdevelopment of the site, which was suited to fewer larger family dwellings. Three storey dwellings would not be in-keeping and would not relate sympathetically to the surroundings.
· Future residents of the proposed development should be better protected from noise disturbance from the Crawley Goods Yard. The Goods Yard, a safeguarded site, must not have its operations curtailed. Conditions were suggested to safeguard this.
· Local residents had undertaken a survey evaluating the proposed access route to the site via Birch Lea, which determined that the access was unsuitable due to poor visibility and driver sight lines.
Two statements from supporters (the applicant Homes England, and Oakwood Football Club) highlighted the following matters:
· The proposed scheme would satisfy local housing needs and provide on-site affordable housing of 40% of the total number of dwellings.
· New sports facilities would be created by the scheme for the use of Oakwood Football Club and the local community. The provisions set out in the illustrative masterplan met the club’s requirements.
Two statements from ward Councillors for ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
To consider report PES/355bof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.
The Committee considered report PES/355b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Demolition of existing single storey annexe and erection of a two storey extension to church hall.
Councillors A Belben, Irvine, Jaggard, Mwagale, Purdy, Sharma, and P Smith declared they had visited the site and Councillor Ascough declared he was familiar with the site.
Councillor Rana left the meeting and was not present for the discussion or vote on the item.
The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application. The Committee heard that the proposed extension to the Grade I listed building would replace the current extension which was no longer fit for purpose. The proposed extension would provide a church hall, a kitchen, and other ancillary space.
In line with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules, a statement submitted by members of the public in regard to the application was read to the Committee.
The statement, from the Parochial Church Council of St Margaret’s Church, highlighted the following matters:
· The existing extension no longer meets the needs of the community and requires maintenance and repair.
· The Church Council had regard to Planning Officers’ views in developing the plans, the design of which was sympathetic to the style of the Church.
The Committee then considered the application. In response to queries raised by Committee members, the Planning Officer confirmed that 12 known graves would be relocated as part of the works, and that an excavation would be required to detect any archaeological material (such as parts of an earlier church structure) underground at the site. The Committee also heard that the style of the windowpanes of the proposed extension would be subject to a condition.
A recorded vote was then taken on the recommendation in accordance with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules. The names of the Councillors voting for and against the recommendation, along with any abstentions, were recorded as follows:
For the recommendation to permit:
Councillors A Belben, Irvine, Jaggard, Mwagale, Pickett, Purdy, Sharma and P Smith (8).
Against the recommendation to permit:
Councillor Ascough (1).
Permit subject to conditions set out in report PES/355b.