To consider report PES/287 (d)of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/287(d) of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Erection of a two storey building falling within use class B8 (storage or distribution) along with associated landscaping, ancillary first floor office area, parking and service area (amended description and amended plans received).

Councillor Jaggard, P Smith and Stone declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer (VC) provided a verbal summation of the application.  The Committee was advised that, following publication of the report, a statement had been received from West Sussex County Council as Local Highway Authority in response to the objection received from Metrus (occupiers of The Atrium).  The statement supplied by the Local Highway Authority:

·         Stated its awareness of the concerns raised by The Atrium in relation to the access arrangements.

·         Stated that the access to the site is an existing access from the A23 which was already in use.

·         Drew attention to the swept path analyses.  Highways contended that although for larger vehicles there might be some encroachment over the centre line for certain movements, this was not considered to be an unacceptable highway safety risk warranting refusal.

·         Commented that the internal layout was privately owned and that vehicles travelled at low speeds on the site.  Highways considered that the issue of priority could be overcome by the use of ‘give way’ signs and lines on the application site.  It was the Highways Authority’s preference that on the internal private access route, vehicles leaving the application site give way to vehicles accessing and leaving the adjacent site (The Atrium).

·         Referred to the National Planning Policy Framework which stated that “development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.  WSCC Highways was of the opinion that there was no planning policy basis on which the application could be refused on transport grounds

In addition, WSCC Highways had provided an updated consultation response, confirming that they had no objection to the application, that the dropped kerb and tactile paving was required on both sides of the access, the internal access arrangements required signage and lines, this was a pre-existing access and so a Road Safety Audit was not required and that the parking arrangements were sufficient and met the standards.

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that a revision was suggested to Condition 8 and that a new Condition 21 was proposed as follows:

Revised Condition 8

8.         Notwithstanding the details shown on the proposed site plan numbered 002 Rev F, the development shall not be occupied until full details of the dropped kerbs and tactile paving to the north and south of the mouth of the access to London Road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation and thereafter retained.

REASON: To ensure that the development does not prejudice highway safety or cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with Policy IN3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030.

New Condition 21

21.       The development shall not be occupied until the vehicle priority arrangements between the development site and The Atrium to the north have been provided in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

REASON: To ensure that the development does not prejudice highway safety or cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with Policy IN3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030.

A further objection had been received from The Atrium requesting that the application be withdrawn or conditions imposed restricting the size and number of vehicles to cars and vans only, raising concerns about the introduction of heavy goods vehicle movements on site and the risk to other vehicle users and pedestrians.  The Atrium queried whether a Road Safety Audit had been undertaken, queried the number of HGV movements, referred to HGV parking and the need for the dropped kerbs on both sides of the access.

Ms Emma Andrews (on behalf of Metrus, the occupiers of The Atrium) addressed the meeting in objection reflecting the concerns outlined in the report and their further representation.  Mr Aaron McCaffrey (the agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The Committee then considered the application.  In response to queries and concerns raised by the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer:

·         Confirmed that the swept path analyses illustrated that there might be some encroachment over the centre line by heavy goods vehicles but the Committee was reminded that West Sussex County Council Highways had expressed the view that those manoeuvres were not considered to be an unacceptable highway risk and did not warrant a reason for refusal.

·         The application, if permitted, would be subject to the conclusion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure financial funding.  The request by a Committee member for those monies to be allocated to path improvements and connecting the site to the cycle network to the south could be requested and taken into account during negotiations.

RESOLVED

Permit subject to:

1.    Completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the financial contributions of £5,870 for the Manor Royal Public Realm Contribution set out in report PES/287(d).

2.    The conditions and informatives set out in report PES/287(d), and the revised and additional condition above.