Minutes of a meeting of Planning Committee A held on Thursday,19 October 2017 from 7.00 p.m. to 8.28 p.m. Present: Edward Matthews (Chairman) Antony Watts Williams (Vice-Chairman) Jonathan Ash-Edwards* Ginny Heard* Margaret Hersey Gary Marsh Norman Mockford Neville Walker John Wilkinson Peter Wyan * Absent Also Present: Councillors Pru Moore, Andrew Macnaughton, Norman Webster 1. SUBSTITUTES Councillor Pru Moore substituted for Councillor Ginny Heard. 2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Councillor Ginny Heard and Councillor Jonathan Ash- Edwards. 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Margaret Hersey declared a personal interest in item DM/17/2661 as the applicant is a personal friend of a family member. Councillors Matthews, Mockford and Wyan declared a prejudicial interest in item DM/17/1340 as Members of the applicant Council. They confirmed that they will leave the room during the debate and take no part in the vote on this item, although Councillor Wyan will remain to speak on behalf of East Grinstead Town Council. 4. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 September 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 5. APPLICATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS CONSIDERED DM/17/1340 High Street, London Road and Railway Approach, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 3AY [Councillors Mockford and Matthews left room at 7.04 p.m.] Andy Watt, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application for a change of use from highway to street market between 07.00 and 14.00 any Thursday for a maximum of 15 stalls, between 07.00 and 22.00 hours for up to 18 occasions per year limited to Sundays and bank holiday Mondays for a maximum of 60 stalls and
between 07.00 and 22.00 hours for up to 18 Saturdays a year for a maximum of 60 stalls. He highlighted that the application seeks to regularise a number of markets that already exist in East Grinstead, as listed on p.12 of the report. Signage will be put up in advance of each market, to close roads and indicate the traffic diversion. He drew Members attention to Condition 3 on p.18 of the report which states that no development can take place until a Service Management Plan for each market day has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. He also confirmed that the Conservation Officer deems the proposal acceptable in relation to the character and appearance of conservation area and setting of listed buildings and the Highways Authority are satisfied with the information provided by the Town Council regarding traffic management. Councillor Wyan spoke for two minutes on behalf of East Grinstead Town Council to explain the history behind the application s origin. There have been a number of markets in the town in past years but recently one lone stall holder set up every day, prompting complaints from local shop owners. The stall holder had a 6 day licence granted by Mid Sussex District Council so the correct way to solve the issue of ad hoc traders was to put in place measures to allow the Town Council to control which markets are held. The markets are of great economic value and social benefit to East Grinstead but it is also crucial to be aware of the needs of residents and shop owners who have vehicular access to properties on the market streets. He then left the room. A number of Members were in agreement with the general proposal but had concerns over how it will be managed, and whether there has been consultation with all shop keepers. They requested assurances of stringent management arrangements, and that road closure signage is put up and taken down promptly on the day of each market, so as not to cause confusion and unnecessary traffic issues. Clarity was also sought on how the Town Council would advise residents of the proposals for each market. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that each market will be supported by a bespoke service plan, to be submitted 21 days in advance of the market. Exact details regarding the signage will be submitted in due course and a stipulation can be made that the signage be put up and removed within one day (which can be added to recommended condition 3). He confirmed that the Town Council has consulted with local shops and have arrangements in place for those who don t have rear parking access, and will therefore be directly impacted by the market. He also reiterated that the markets have been in place for a number of years, without significant impact to shops, and this application is mainly to provide better control over them. In terms of assurances that the management arrangements are maintained, he pointed out that it would be a reputational issue for the Town Council, so in their interest to maintain standards. In response to a Member s concern over the appearance of the stalls he also confirmed that this was covered under Condition 3. Councillor Marsh proposed that the recommendation be approved. This was seconded by Councillor Walker and approved unanimously. That the application be approved subject the conditions set out in Appendix A.
[Councillors Mockford, Matthews and Wyan re-joined the meeting at 7.25 p.m.] DM/17/1935 Dart Court, Quarry Rise, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 3HE Steve King, Planning Applications Team Leader introduced the application for the replacement of 22 one-bedroom flats with 7x two and three bedroom houses and 9x two bedroom flats with associated landscaping and parking. He highlighted the main issues with the application, particularly the loss of 6 units of residential accommodation. However, planning policy allows for this under special circumstances, for example where the current site is not fit for purpose, as with this location. The proposed development will retain 5 affordable rented units and the remainder will be shared ownership, which does qualify as affordable housing under the Mid Sussex Local Plan. He confirmed that there is no legal obligation for the current units to remain as affordable housing. In terms of the design, car parking provision and ecology matters the Officers view is that the scheme is acceptable. Alex Bateman spoke in support, representing the client Affinity Sutton Homes Ltd. He confirmed that the existing building had been surveyed and found to be unsuitable, and that existing residents have been relocated to other schemes. The new scheme will be sustainable and have adequate parking, therefore alleviating parking issues on local roads. A number of Members sought assurances that the units would be retained as affordable housing and not sold off. One Member also sought confirmation that there was adequate bin storage, to ensure that bins were not left on the street. The Planning Applications Team Leader confirmed that the bin storage areas for the flats are of an adequate size and that the houses have individual bin storage. Regarding the shared ownership there is no legal agreement proposed to enforce this. It is taken on assurance and the fact that the client receives funding from the Government to operate based on them providing affordable housing. If they went against this, funding could be revoked and they could suffer reputational damage. A number of Members expressed concern that shared housing proposed would not alleviate the social housing problem as it is not affordable rented accommodation which is most needed in the area. It was felt that the social element has been taken away and that there was a lack of Section 106 money which a private client would have to provide. In this respect the application appeared to be biased in favour of the applicant and not the community. However, a number of Members countered that the application had to be looked at purely in planning terms, and noted that the existing building is in disrepair. The loss of capacity is regrettable, but preferable to a building not in use, and the proposed car park would be preferable to the current issues with on road parking. Therefore there are overall benefits to the community. The Planning Applications Team Leader confirmed that there are still some requirements for infrastructure payments to West Sussex County Council for education and transport provision, and confirmed that the new scheme design would provide a higher quality of accommodation. To allay concerns from some Members regarding potential vacant units, he confirmed that if permission was granted, the Council could encourage the applicant to implement it as soon as the grant is in place.
The Chairman took Members to the recommendation, which was approved with 8 in favour and 1 against. That the application be approved, subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the necessary affordable housing and infrastructure contributions and the conditions listed in Appendix A. DM/17/1937 Manor Court, Valebridge Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex RH15 0AT The Planning Applications Team Leader introduced the application for the replacement of 15 one bedroom units with 14 two bedroom flats with associated parking and landscaping. He highlighted that the application had similar issues to the previous item, with the loss of one unit of residential accommodation and a change to shared ownership, in this case for all units on site. He again noted that whilst the units that are currently on site are operated as affordable housing, there is no legal agreement on the site that requires this to be the case. Alex Bateman spoke in support, representing the client Affinity Sutton Homes Ltd. He confirmed that the grants obtained have to be used on the specific scheme, or the money is lost, therefore there is every intention to deliver, and not leave the sites vacant. A Member queried why a legal agreement was not put in place to keep affordable housing on the site when the Council sold off the stock in 1972. The Council Solicitor confirmed that they were sold in 1989 on the same basis that the Council owned them on. A number of Members raised concerns that shared ownership is not truly social housing in an affordable sense, and that they were concerned that the units would be sold on in the future and become private residences. It was also noted that although existing elderly residents had been rehoused, they had been dispersed, and lost their support systems and friendships. Whilst neither are planning reasons to refuse an application, they felt unhappy at the way the usage of the site had been changed, as it seemed to benefit the applicant more than the community. A Member expressed concern at the lack of Section 106 monies and the lack of rented accommodation. It was also noted that Burgess Hill Town Council judged the application as acceptable on grounds of the development of the site, but not on the social housing aspect. With regard to the loss of a unit, it was felt that the developer was deliberately bringing themselves under the required amount, by opting for more two bedroom properties. If they reduced the number of two bedroom units, they could provide like for like. A Member queried whether the application could be refused on the grounds of the mix of accommodation, both in terms of the size of units and the mix of shared ownership and rented accommodation. The Planning Applications Team Leader reiterated that shared ownership is a form of social housing as set out in the Council s policy and that the policy applies to
schemes of 15 units or more than half a hectare in size. This application does not meet this size, but the applicant is still providing shared ownership and will be improving on the design of that exists currently. He also noted that there were similar infrastructure payments due to West Sussex County Council and confirmed that it was not within the remit of this planning committee to discuss where the money from the shared ownership would be reinvested. Councillor Moore proposed a recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds of an insufficient mix of units on the site and a lack of a signed Section 106 agreement. This was seconded by Councillor Mockford. The Planning Applications Team Leader noted that the Council could not compel the applicant to sign a Section 106 agreement for affordable housing as it was under the threshold, so this was not a substantial reason for refusal. With regard to the mix of units on site, if it was a larger site you could expect a better mix, but as this is one block, the Officers view is that two bedroom units are acceptable. The Solicitor to the Council highlighted that there was no breech to planning policy, and pointed out the grant being provided was coming from the same ministerial body as the Planning Inspectorate so there are limited options available at appeal. With regards to concern about the units being sold on, it depends on the grant conditions and whether the person buying the share can buy 100%. Without a legal agreement in place, the shared ownership properties could be sold on, and if people cannot meet the requirements for paying, it is more likely that the mortgage provider, and not the housing association would reclaim the property. The Chairman took Members to the first recommendation to refuse the application. 4 Members were in favour of refusal, with 5 Members in favour of approving. The Chairman then took Members to the recommendations as set out in the report. This was approved, with 5 Members in favour and 4 against. That the application be approved, subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the necessary infrastructure contributions and the conditions listed in Appendix A. DM/17/1941 Packer Close, Quarry Rise, East Grinstead, West Sussex RH19 3EE The Planning Applications Team Leader introduced the application for the replacement of 21x bedsits and one bedroom flats with 8x semi-detached /terraced two and three bedroom houses and 6x two bedroom flats with associated parking and landscaping. The application has similar issues as discussed earlier in the meeting with a loss of accommodation and all units being shared ownership, however there is no issue with the design or the parking provision. There were no speakers for this item. One Member queried whether the Town Council refused the application and whether the Neighbourhood Plan should hold weight on this occasion. The Planning
Applications Team Leader confirmed that the Town Council did recommend refusal of the application. A number of Members expressed serious concern regarding the continuation of a loss of units throughout all the applications from Affinity Sutton, and the fact that shared ownership may be affordable housing according to the policy, but not necessarily affordable to those who need accommodation in the area. It was also noted that this application had more houses than the previous one, but with less contribution going to West Sussex County Council. The Planning Applications Team Leader confirmed that the contributions were based on the particular mix of accommodation, not necessarily the number of units. The Chairman noted that the concerns regarding the loss of affordable housing were justified as there are a considerable amount of people who cannot afford to buy property and a limited amount of affordable places to rent. However, he noted that this is not a relevant planning reason to refuse the application under discussion. He took Members to the recommendation which was approved with 7 Members in favour and 2 against. That the application be approved, subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the necessary infrastructure contributions and the conditions listed in Appendix A. DM/17/2661 Garage Block, Street Lane, Ardingly, West Sussex, RH17 6UA The Members agreed that a presentation was not required, and there were no public speakers. The Ward Member, Councillor Marsh noted his support of the application and moved to recommend approval. This was seconded by Councillor Margaret Hersey and unanimously approved. That the application be approved subject the conditions set out in Appendix A and a completed section 106 agreement. WP/04/TPO/00 18 Abergavenny Gardens As noted in the Agenda Update sheet, this item was deferred from the agenda by officers. Chairman.