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 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.

Councillors A Belben, Burrett, Jaggard, Malik, Pritchard, and Raja had been lobbied but had expressed no view on application CR/2022/0199/FUL - 54 St Mary’s Drive, Pound Hill, Crawley.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 30 August 2022.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 30 August 2022 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider report PES/406aof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/406a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Refurbishment of existing units to include respraying of cladding, new entrance canopies, PVS on the roofs, internal refurbishment of Unit D and associated car park and landscape works (amended description).

Councillors A Belben and Burrett declared they had visited the site.

The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought permission for internal changes (to Unit D) and external refurbishment works to the four commercial buildings at a site in the Manor Royal Business District.  The Officer updated the Committee that, since the publication of the report, the following correction to the response from the GAL Planning Department was required: ‘Detailed comments that the amenity area to the north would be exposed to high levels of aircraft noise if a second runway as shown on the Gatwick Masterplan (plan 21) was to be delivered.’  The Officer then gave detail of the various relevant planning considerations as detailed in the report.

The Committee then considered the application and in doing so sought further information regarding water consumption at the site.  It was explained that the proposed internal refurbishments to Unit D would not normally be subject to planning control.  However a restrictive condition was imposed on the development in 1984 which removed permitted development rights for alterations to the units – planning permission was therefore required, and so it was necessary for the applicant to demonstrate water neutrality.  This was to be achieved by the replacement of dated and inefficient water fittings and the removal of two sinks and an outside tap.  A new shower and additional WC were to be installed, however the floorspace and the use of the building were not proposed to be increased so there was no increase in demand. Calculations suggested that the average water consumption per person per day was to reduce from 87 litres to 68 litres.

Following a discussion regarding the management of parking at the site, a Committee member proposed an amendment to condition 9 which aimed to ensure the parking was used only by those vehicles in connection with the occupation of the units.  The amendment was moved and seconded and was agreed by the Committee.

RESOLVED

Delegate the decision to permit the application to the Head of Economy and Planning, subject to the conditions set out in report PES/406a (including the amended condition 9 set out below) and to await receipt of satisfactory comments from Natural England on the appropriate assessment.

‘9. The revised parking layout shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking/turning of vehicles in connection with the occupation of the units and those areas shall not be used for any outside storage of any goods or refuse associated with the business units.

REASON: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is retained for the accommodation of vehicles clear of the highways in accordance with Policy CH3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider report PES/406bof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.

The Committee considered report PES/406b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Demolition of existing garage and erection of proposed two storey side, single storey side and single storey rear extensions.

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 sought permission to extend a detached house on St Mary’s Drive in Pound Hill.  The Officer confirmed that the site was not within the Sussex North Water Resource Zone and was therefore not impacted by water neutrality restrictions, and then gave detail of the various relevant planning considerations as detailed in the report.

Kieran Gill, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The extension was sought to enable a multi-generational family to live together with sufficient space.

·       Previous applications for an extension to the property had been submitted, withdrawn/refused, reduced in size, and resubmitted on two occasions.

·       There were many different styles of home on St Mary’s Drive, a number of which had been substantially extended, including the neighbouring houses.  The proposal was therefore not out of character.

James Nayler, the agent, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The size and mass of the proposed extension was appropriate – the two-storey side extension was in a large open area of the site, and the proposal resulted in a dwelling that was less deep than previously-refused applications at the same site.

·       There was no negative impact on neighbours’ amenity as the distances between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring houses complied with standards.

·       All materials used in the proposed design of the extensions were in keeping with the existing building.

The Committee then considered the application.  Clarity was sought regarding the distances to neighbouring houses – it was confirmed that the nearest point from the proposed extension to the boundary with 24 Byron Close was 805mm.  Committee members discussed the relationship between the two properties and whether the proposal could have a negative impact on the neighbour’s amenity.  It was noted that the residents of 24 Byron Close had not objected to the proposal.

Following a query from a Committee member, the Officer clarified that the proposed single-storey extensions were not able to be constructed under permitted development rights due to the siting and size of each of the elements of the proposal. The cumulative impact of the resultant development needed to be considered in this case.

A Committee member raised the matter of the previously-submitted applications at the site, which had been withdrawn or refused based on their size.  The Officer clarified that it was not within the remit of the Local Planning Authority to advise applicants on the detailed design specifications of any resubmitted applications.

Committee members queried the reasons for the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application and suggested that the proposals would not be out of place considering the mix of styles and sizes of properties in the area.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider report PES/406cof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/406c of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Road and access improvement works to encourage sustainable means of transport from the end of the Eastern Boulevard Scheme to the junction of the High Street.

Councillors A Belben and Burrett declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which was submitted by Crawley Borough Council and sought a continuation of the recent road improvement works along The Boulevard which had formed part of West Sussex County Council’s Eastern Gateway scheme.  The Officer updated the Committee that, since the publication of the report, further information had been received from the applicant’s Construction Project Manager which necessitated the addition of one further condition (condition 6).  The Officer then gave detail of the various relevant planning considerations as detailed in the report.

The Committee then considered the application.  During a discussion regarding the proposed cycle paths and bus lanes, the Officer confirmed that these were to be one-way in order to continue the existing arrangements at the eastern end of The Boulevard.  It was suggested that this could improve traffic along the road and at the junction with the High Street, especially with the service road on the north side of The Boulevard/outside the Post Office also becoming one-way (east to west).

Committee members discussed the proposal’s impact on parking arrangements.  It was confirmed that 14 spaces in total would be lost as a result of the proposed scheme.  The chevron spaces which were to be retained were not currently in line with parking standards, so were to be revised to be at a greater angle and slanted against the direction of traffic flow.  As a result of this, vehicles would reverse into the bays, which was considered safer than reversing out into oncoming traffic.

It was noted that the scheme proposed the removal (and subsequent replacement) of one tree.  It was considered positive that all other trees in the area were to be retained.

RESOLVED

Permit subject to conditions set out in report PES/406c and the following additional condition:

‘6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details set out in the email from the Construction Project Manager dated 27 September 2022 regarding phasing, working areas, traffic control, storage and compound facilities unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy CH3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030’.

To consider report PES/406d of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/406d of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Installation of external wall insulation to properties on the Creasys Drive estate, Broadfield.

Councillors A Belben and Burrett declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought permission for the fitting of energy-efficient insulation to the external walls of 48 dwellings owned by Crawley Borough Council.  The Officer updated the Committee that, since the publication of the report, minor amendments were required to conditions 3, 4, 5, and 6.  It was brought to the Committee’s attention that the schedule of materials and finishes had not yet been finalised as discussions between the applicant and the Local Planning Authority were ongoing, so the recommendation was to be amended in order to delegate authority to the Head of Economy and Planning to permit the application.  The Officer then gave detail of the various relevant planning considerations as detailed in the report.

The Committee then considered the application.  Committee members discussed the proposed materials to be fitted over the insulation, and it was confirmed that the intention was to ensure that all replacement materials were of the same durability and were as weatherproof as the existing materials.  It was possible that some materials (such as tiles) could be re-used, but those that could not would be replaced – wooden cladding, for example, was likely to be replaced with UPVC cladding.

A Committee member sought clarity over the ownership of the properties in receipt of the proposed insulation.  The Officer confirmed that the 48 properties affected by the application were all Council-owned homes, some of which were terraced with or connected to privately-owned homes which were not included in the insulation project.  In response to a further query as to whether the owners of those homes had been offered the insulation in order to create a greater positive environmental impact, officers agreed to seek this information from the applicant (the Council’s Crawley Homes team).  Previous similar schemes had involved dialogue with local homeowners so it was possible there had also been communication on this occasion.

It was confirmed that the blocks of flats within the area were not covered by the current application.  It was suggested that insulation of the blocks could be explored as part of a further stage in the process – however the mix of Council-owned and privately-owned flats was likely to make the process of insulating the blocks more complex.

RESOLVED

Delegate the decision to permit the application to the Head of Economy and Planning, subject to receipt of a satisfactory schedule of materials and finishes and the conditions set out in report PES/406d – with conditions 3, 4, 5, and 6 amended as follows:

‘3. No development, including site or setting up works of any description, shall take place on or adjacent to Nos. 14 Carman Walk, 8 Tatham Court and 11 Bevan Court unless and until the existing trees adjacent to those  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.