Agenda item

To consider report PES/358bof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.

The Committee considered report PES/358bof the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Outline Application For The Redevelopment Of Car Park To Form Mixed Use Residential With Indicative 15 Units And Commercial Scheme

Councillors A Belben, Jaggard, Purdy, P Smith declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the outline application and updated the Committee regarding two further comments that had been received.

Environmental Health commented regarding air quality expressing some concerns about dust creation during construction but acknowledged this could be addressed through condition as part of a construction management plan.  The Air Quality Officer also raised concerns regarding the air quality for future occupants given the idling traffic queuing on Station Way and at the level crossing and consideration should be given to moving the building further from the road and relocating the residential units to upper floors. It was acknowledged that the applicant had produced an air quality assessment and no objection had been made on these specific grounds.

The Heritage Consultant objected to the proposal due to the impact on the view and setting of the Brighton Road Conservation Area, Grade II listed signal box and the locally listed Nightingale House.

Following the comments from the Heritage Consultant, and the fact that the site is located in a sensitive location in heritage terms, a further reason for refusal was proposed as follows:

10.  The proposed development, by reason of its location, proximity, siting, bulk and massing, would adversely affect views of and the setting of the Grade II listed signal box, the locally listed Nightingale House and the Brighton Road conservation area contrary to policies CH12, CH13, CH14 and CH15 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030.

The Committee was informed that the site would form a mixed use residential and commercial space.  It was explained that whilst there was no objection in principal to development on the site for either residential or commercial, as it would introduce activity to this part of the town, the overall footprint of the proposed development would almost entirely cover the application site and would form a dominant building, where some units would lack adequate natural light. The massing, scale, design and external appearance neglected to respect the streetscene and related poorly to the adjoining allocated Station Gateway scheme.  Whilst town centre developments with low levels of parking had been accepted on some sites, in this case the proximity to the Station Way carriageway was unacceptable and concerns were raised regarding the reliance on a single loading bay, the impact on pedestrians, vehicles passing the site, refuse/recycling arrangements and related access.

It was noted that the submitted drawings misleadingly highlighted the land to the south as a ‘Proposed Landscaped Area’, which was part of the adjoining Station Gateway development.  As such no appropriate provision had been made for trees or open space recreation or affordable housing.

In line with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules, three statements submitted by members of the public in regard to the application were read to the Committee.

A statement from the Agent, highlighted matters including:

·         Applicant felt aggrieved at the lack of engagement received from officers in the determination period of the application.

·         Alterations to the scheme, which resolved issues relating to noise and highways impact had been prepared.

·         It was acknowledged whilst there were clearly some fundamental points of disagreement as to the scheme’s acceptability, such as affordable housing and parking provision, the necessary appraisals were submitted to justify the proposed development.

·         There was a willingness to cooperate in matters and positively respond to recommendations for changes where possible.

·         It was felt a town centre location removed the need for car ownership.

·         There remained commitment to delivering a quality scheme on this site.

A statement from Ward Councillor Brenda Burgess, highlighted matters including:

·         Such accommodation will be very small, squashed into such a small area.

·         Problems of congestion could be caused when the refuse is collected due to the position being at a particularly busy junction and no construction management plan.

·         Excessive fumes from traffic due to the numerous times traffic had to queue whilst waiting at the level crossing and traffic lights.

·         No affordable housing provision.

·         Such a scheme going forward would diminish the planned Station Gateway Scheme.

·         The scheme appeared to be poorly aligned, excessively narrow and awkward, whilst lacking visual interest and being of poor quality.

A statement from Ward Councillor Bob Burgess, highlighted matters including:

·         There was a lack of parking provision.

·         There was a lack of affordable housing.

·         The road outside the proposed development was very busy.

·         The proposed development would overshadow existing properties in the vicinity.

The Committee then considered the application and discussed the following:

·         It was noted that pre-application advice was offered.

·         Concerns were raised regarding the lack of affordable housing, together with the absence of its own amenity space.  It was unsettling that some windows would look out over the pavement or the Station Gateway land/communal garden.

·         Following a query from a Committee member that some of the reasons for refusal were excessive, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the Local Planning Authority would normally look to negotiate improvements to a scheme. However the proposed development unfortunately presented a wide range of issues to address and would require substantial improvement in many areas, which could not be achieved through the current application. The applicant had been advised of these in pre-application advice.

·         Confirmation that the Local Highway Authority had objected to the current layout proposed.

·         Acknowledgement that Crawley Cycling and Walking Forum were consulted.

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, were recorded as follows:

For the recommendation to refuse:

Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Jaggard, Mwagale, Purdy, Rana and P Smith (7).

Against the recommendation to refuse:

None.

Abstentions:

Councillor Irvine (1)

RESOLVED

Refuse for the reasons set out in report PES/358b (as amended above).