Agenda item

To consider report PES/447bof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.

The Committee considered report PES/447b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Erection of 4 x three bedroom semi-detached dwellings with surrounding landscaping. Formation of two new vehicle access drives off Ifield Drive with associated garage and on-site parking.

Councillors Ali, Bounds, Charatan, Jaggard, S Mullins, Mwagale, Nawaz, and Pritchard declared they had visited the site.

The Group Manager (Gatwick Northern Runway DCO) provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought planning permission for the erection of four residential homes on an area of land forming part of the front curtilage of Ewhurst Place in Ifield.  It was explained that the Committee was recommended to refuse the application for the four reasons stated in report PES/447b.  The Officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

Peter Rainier, the agent (DMH Stallard), spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The trees within the curtilage of the site which had significant historic and amenity value were to be retained, including those visible from Ifield Drive. 

·       The trees proposed to be removed were mostly younger category C trees which formed low-level planting; they did not form a significant screen and had little amenity value.

·       An improved landscaping scheme was proposed.

Peter Rainier spoke on behalf of Lorraine King (Stantec) in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       Historic England was consulted regarding the potential impact of the application on the heritage of the site and had issued a non-intervention letter advising that it did not wish to comment.  This suggested that there were no significant issues with the proposals.

·       The site was separate to the historic moated area and was beyond an area of modern planting.  Nearby residential development had already impacted the site’s heritage.

·       The less than substantial harm on the heritage of the site would be significantly outweighed by the benefits, such as the provision of homes and jobs.

Trevor Harman, the applicant (Barclay Developments), spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The issue of water neutrality could be resolved if the application was to be given more time – the site had been earmarked to be part of Crawley Homes’ retrofitting programme and discussions were ongoing.

·       There would be ecological benefits to the application and measures were proposed that would encourage biodiversity.

·       A considerable amount of time and money had been spent on the application, and no objections had been raised by neighbours of the site.

Brenda Burgess, Councillor for Three Bridges, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       Previous developments constructed by the applicant were well-produced.

·       It was important to strike a balance between preserving the heritage of the site and finding a way to move forward with the application.

·       The application looked promising and of good quality.

The Committee then considered the application.  Further information was sought about the historic boundary that intersected the site and was marked by a tree belt which was proposed to be removed (with the exception of one tree).  The Officer explained that historic mapping showed that some form of marked boundary had been in the same location for hundreds of years, so the tree belt was considered a significant marker of the character of the site.  Although the trees themselves were not historic specimens, the boundary was an original feature of Ewhurst Place, so their removal would amount to the loss of the feature and the significant value it was considered to add to the site and the setting of Ewhurst Place.  Committee members felt that, generally, it was important to retain notable historic features, but in this case the tree specimens themselves were not particularly substantial or of high quality.  It was highlighted that the application did not propose removal of the entire boundary and the good quality specimens were retained beyond the site boundary.  The extent to which the removal of the trees would negatively impact visibility to and from Ewhurst Place was also discussed, but the Committee did not consider this a significant issue.  On balance the Committee felt that the loss of the tree boundary was not sufficient to justify refusal of the application, although the loss of any trees was regrettable.

In response to a query from a Committee member about the site’s designation in historic town plans, the Officer confirmed that plans dated from 1953 had earmarked the land in front of the boundary for housing development and these plans had proposed to retain the boundary feature.

Committee members discussed the application’s failure to demonstrate water neutrality.  It was heard that the applicant had stated that an agreement had been made with Crawley Homes that the Crawley Homes retrofitting scheme would be utilised in order to offset water usage created by the development.  It was the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate this, however the Officer confirmed that no information about or evidence of such agreement had been provided.  Committee members sought to further understand this, to which the Officer confirmed that the reasons for the agreement not being secured were not known.  The Chair commented that the Committee’s discussion should be reported to Crawley Homes.

The Head of Governance, People & Performance provided advice on the Committee’s options for making a decision on the application.  It was confirmed that it would be unlawful (as a breach of the Habitat Regulations) to grant planning permission in the application’s current form as no confirmation of water neutrality had been provided.  Committee members sought advice on the legitimacy of a vote to delegate the decision to permit the application to the Head of Economy and Planning subject to details of proposals to demonstrate water neutrality.  The Head of Economy and Planning explained that this application differed from others that sought delegated authority to permit as the applicant had provided no information on how water neutrality would be achieved; whereas other applications had proven water neutrality and their proposals were simply subject to agreement from Natural England. 

Committee members felt that, generally, the development was of good quality design and provided much-needed housing. 

The Committee then moved to a vote on the recommendation to refuse the application set out in the report.  The recommendation was overturned.

The Chair summarised that the Committee seemed to disagree most strongly with refusal reasons 1 and 2 and felt that these were not valid grounds for refusal of the application.  It was suggested that Planning Officers be asked to work towards a resolution to reasons 3 and 4.  Following this, a Committee member proposed an alternative motion as follows:

To defer the application to a future meeting of the Planning Committee subject to officers coming to a conclusion on issues of water neutrality and the Section 106 agreement, and securing appropriate affordable housing and tree mitigation contributions.

The Committee moved to a vote on the alternative motion.

RESOLVED

Defer the application to a future meeting of the Planning Committee subject to officers coming to a conclusion on issues of water neutrality and the Section 106 agreement, and securing appropriate affordable housing and tree mitigation contributions.