To consider report PES/361bof the Head of Economy and Planning.
RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.
The Committee considered report PES/361b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:
Erection of 2 no. commercial buildings; 1 no. commercial building (unit 100) for class B8 and 1 no. commercial building (unit 200) for flexible class B2, B8 and E(g)(iii); along with access and servicing arrangements, car parking, landscaping, relocation of substation and associated works (amended description).
Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Jaggard, Mwagale, Purdy, and P Smith declared they had visited the site.
The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application regarding the construction of two buildings for commercial use in Churchill Court in the Manor Royal business district. One building was proposed to have a use class of B8 (storage or distribution) and the second building was proposed to have a flexible use class of either B8, B2 (general industrial), or E(g)(iii) (industrial processes) which was to be decided by the building’s occupier. Three scenarios for car parking provision were outlined, of which one would be employed dependent on the chosen use class. The Committee was updated that the wording of condition nine had been amended since the publication of the report.
In line with the Council’s Virtual Committee Procedure Rules, a statement submitted in regard to the application was read to the Committee.
The statement from the agent, Quod, on behalf of the applicant highlighted matters including:
· The sought-after use classes and high quality design of the buildings.
· The economic benefits of the proposed development, such as the creation of jobs throughout the construction period and beyond, and the generation of local spending.
· The environmental benefits of the proposed development, such as the buildings’ receipt of BREEAM ‘excellent’ ratings, the installation of solar panels, and the planting of trees at the site.
The Committee then considered the application. Committee members expressed general support for the proposal, which was hoped would encourage regeneration in the area in the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic. A query was raised regarding the adequacy of cycle links to the site. It was confirmed that there was a break in the cycle network path that ran adjacent to the site but that this application did not include proposals to join up or upgrade the path – these requests had not been made in consultations with West Sussex County Council’s Highways department or the Crawley Cycle and Walking Forum. The Officer stated that this may be able to be considered as part of the Travel Plan which formed one of the application conditions.
Also discussed was the manoeuvring space for large heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) at the roundabout leading to the site. The Officer confirmed that WSCC’s Highways department had been consulted and confirmed the space was sufficient, and swept path analysis drawings had demonstrated this.
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:
Councillors Ascough, A Belben, Hart, Irvine, Jaggard, Mwagale, Pickett, Purdy, Rana, and P Smith (10).
Against the recommendation:
Permit subject to the conclusion of a Section 106 agreement and the conditions and informatives set out in report PES/361b, including amended condition 9 as follows:
The development hereby permitted shall be implemented and thereafter maintained in accordance with the Drainage Maintenance and Management Plan dated October 2020 contained within Appendix I of the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application.