Agenda item

Planning Application CR/2017/0974/FUL - Zurich House, East Park, Southgate, Crawley

To consider report PES/281 (a) of the Head of Economic and Environmental Services





The Committee considered report PES/281 (a) of the Head of Economic and Environmental Services which proposed as follows:


Demolition of existing building and erection of a new part 3 and part 4 storey building comprising 56 apartments (30 x one bed and 26 x two bed) together with 56 car parking spaces and landscaping (amended description and amended plans received)


Councillors Boxall, Jaggard, Sharma, Stone and Tarrant declared they had visited the site.


The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application and provided the following updates:


·         The following clerical corrections, relating to plans and drawings in the report, should be made to reflect the following:

-       Plan 051603-ESH-P11 related to the proposed 1st floor plan

-       Plan 051603-ESH-P12 related to the proposed 2nd floor plan

-       Plan 051603-ESH-P13 related to the proposed 3rd floor plan

·         An additional drawing relating to the parking layout had been submitted.  It was confirmed that the layout did not alter the design.  Further illustrative material had also been submitted to support the revised application such as coloured elevations.

·         Two further objections had been received since publication of the report:

-       One raised no additional objections to those outlined in the report

-       The second representation included video clips of parking in East Park.  The video had been viewed and forwarded to West Sussex County Council (WSCC), although it was not possible to display them on the website.  Following consideration of the video clips, WSCC had stated that the information did not change WSCC’s opinion and recommendation on the application.


Mr Con O’Driscoll, Councillor Pickett (Ward Councillor for Southgate) and Councillor Jones (Cabinet Member for Housing), addressed the Committee in objection to the application, whilst Mr Philip Allin, the Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application.  Many of the objections raised reflected those detailed in the report, including parking issues, refuse collection and the potential impact on the character of the area.  In addition, there was also concern expressed regarding the consultation process relating to the application.


The Committee then considered the application.  The Committee discussed the issues arising, including the comments raised by the speakers and concerns raised by objectors.  In response to issues and concerns raised, the Group Manager (Development Management):


·         Advised that the development was a housing allocation and accorded with the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030.

·         Emphasised that the design of an application did not necessary need to match the surrounding buildings and that in addition the Planning Inspector had identified the location as a ‘transitional site’.  The site was not within close proximity to the local conservation areas and these would not be harmed by the development.

·         Confirmed that the application site was not located within the controlled parking zone, and as such residents of the development would therefore not be entitled to apply for parking permits.

·         Stated that visitor parking to the site was included within the parking standard against which the application was assessed, and that the number of parking spaces provided complied with Crawley Borough Council’s Policies.

·         Clarified that refuse would be collected from the front of the site and that the Refuse and Recycling Team had confirmed this to be acceptable.

·         Advised that reference within the Urban Design SPD to recommended separation distance  between dwellings related to the rear windows of opposing properties and that the distance detailed in paragraph 5.15 of the report referred to the front facing windows of the dwellings.  Those separation distances were considered adequate and provided a greater distance between facing dwellings than other premises in the vicinity.

·         Emphasised that the level of consultation undertaken in relation to the application exceeded that required for such a development.




Permit, subject to:


    (i)        The conclusion of a Section 106 agreement as set out in Paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 of report PES/281 (a)


   (ii)        The conditions set out in report PES/281 (a)

Supporting documents: