To consider report PES/352cof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.
The Committee considered report PES/352c of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Erection of two storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension.
Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Jaggard, Jhans, and Purdy declared they had visited the site.
The Principal Planning Officer (VC) provided a verbal summation of the application. The Committee was informed that a previous application for planning permission for a separate dwelling at the site had been received and refused, partly due to its classification within Flood Zone 3a and that the applicant had failed to satisfy the flood risk tests. The current application was for an extension to the existing dwelling at the same site. The Environment Agency had advised that the site was now classified as being within Flood Zone 2, and so the application did not require those specific flood risk tests to be carried out. The application was thus to be judged against the Environment Agency’s standing advice and the flood resilient measures proposed were considered to be acceptable.
In line with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules, five statements submitted by members of the public in regard to the application were read to the Committee.
Two statements from objectors (Mr A Bayne and Ms N Edwards) highlighted matters including:
· Existing difficulties with car parking in the area and access limitations due to the narrowness of Mill Road
· A potential for the proposed development to cause a loss of historical value to the Crawley Conservation Area.
One statement from the planning agent (Architecture for London) highlighted matters including:
· That issues with the previously submitted application had been addressed
· The sustainable location of the proposed development.
Two statements from Ward Councillors for Three Bridges (Councillors B Burgess and R Burgess) highlighted matters including:
· The scale of the proposed extension in relation to the existing property
· The previous refusal of a planning application at the site and the similarities between that application and the current application.
The Committee then considered the application. Members of the Committee expressed concerns that the proposed development may not be in keeping with the size and style of properties on Mill Road due to its scale and thus would have a detrimental effect on the character of the Conservation Area. It was noted that conditions four and five of the recommendation required that details of the materials and windows to be used in the construction of the extension be submitted for approval. The Committee also considered car parking availability on Mill Road, and noted that West Sussex County Council’s Highways department had no objections on highway safety grounds. It was also clarified that whilst there would be a loss of two to three off-road spaces arising from the construction of the extension, it was considered that there was sufficient capacity in terms of on-street parking.
In response to a query from a Committee member as to whether a condition could be applied to prevent the property being split into two dwellings at a later date, it was explained that such a condition would not meet the relevant tests for a domestic extension, but if the unit was subdivided, this would constitute a breach of planning control and the Council could enforce against the development.
A recorded vote was 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, are recorded as set out below:
For the recommendation to permit:
Councillors Hart, Irvine, Jhans, Malik, McAleney, and P Smith. (6)
Against the recommendation to permit:
Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Jaggard, Mwagale, and Purdy. (5)
Permit subject to conditions set out in report PES/352c.