Agenda item

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

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.

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

Full Planning Application For New Residential Dwellings, Erection Of 8 No. Of 2 Bedrooms And 6 No. Of 3 Bedroom Units

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

The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application and updated the Committee that additional responses had been received. Whist the Sustainability Officer had no objection, the comments received from the Ecologist stated that the application was not supported by any reptile survey or assessment despite this being identified as potential habitat in the preliminary ecological appraisal supplied with the application.  In the absence of the survey, the presence of reptiles could not be ruled out and the ecological evidence was incomplete.  Furthermore, the layout did not retain or propose suitable compensatory habitat for reptiles and it was noted that there was a lack of green space and space for wildlife to encourage biodiversity.

As a result a further reason for refusal was proposed as follows:

8.    The proposed layout lacks adequate green space / suitable wildlife habitat and inadequate evidence has been supplied in respect of potential reptiles on the site.  The proposal cannot demonstrate it makes a positive contribution to biodiversity and is therefore contrary to policy ENV2 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030 and paragraph 175 of the NPPF.

It was noted there were also some slight corrections to the report:

Paragraph 1.5 – the TPO trees run along the both the eastern and western boundaries of the site (not just the western boundary as described)

Refusal reason 1 – Typing error GD1 should read SD1 and policy CH2 should be listed in the refusal reason

Refusal reason 2 – Policy CH3 should be added to the refusal reason.

The Committee was reminded of the importance of the rural character of Balcombe Road, along with the overall trees and structural landscaping within the site which were key in regard to the design of the development in its setting.

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer raised concerns and objection in terms of conflict with the retained trees on both sides of the site due to the arrangement of the houses on this narrow site. The layout of the proposed development would result in houses located within close proximity to protected trees resulting in properties that would be adversely affected by loss of sunlight, daylight and outlook to the rear windows and gardens. The proposed design adversely affects the streetscene together with the retained trees and lacks space for new ones to be established.

Whilst overall parking and cycle provision was deemed adequate, however concern was raised about the adequacy of the design for larger service vehicles to turn and re-join the highway in forward gear. Furthermore in terms of infrastructure, there is no S106 agreement in place to secure the required affordable housing and other contributions.  The current layout, design and massing of the development would result in urbanising impact that would harmful to the character and appearance of the existing wooded street-scene, the rural character of the immediate surroundings and the structural which contribute to the sylvan character of Balcombe Road.

The Committee then considered the application and discussed the following:

·         Confirmation provided that there was one addition access route into the site.

·         Concern regarding a lack of agreement on affordable housing provision.

·         It was felt the site layout was overcrowded, with little consideration for potential residents.

·         It was detrimental positioning houses in close proximity to protected trees.

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, Irvine, Jaggard, Mwagale, Purdy, Rana and P Smith (8).

Against the recommendation to refuse:

None.

Abstentions:

None.

RESOLVED

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