NORTH AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 21 st SEPTEMBER 2006

Transcription

1 1. DELEGATED DECISION LIST (HE) NORTH AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 21 st SEPTEMBER 2006 DOCUMENT C 1.0 The Delegated Decision List - showing decisions issued by the Head of Environment is attached. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 The Committee is requested to note this report. 1 North Area Planning Ctte

2 DELEGATED DECISION LIST Application No. Address/Proposal Decision AD/06/01194/FUL Detached oak frame one bay garage with side store. Honeypot Cottage Cansiron Lane Ashurst Wood East Grinstead AD/06/01511/FUL 2 bedroom Cottage to replace existing lounge garage and and porch. 26 Maypole Road Ashurst Wood East Grinstead West Sussex REFUSAL AR/06/01235/FUL Mobile home for 4 agricultural workers for temporary permission for two years. Land At Hill House Farm Ardingly Road Lindfield Haywards Heath AR/06/01255/FUL Removal of existing shop front and replacement with new. 1 Devon House Street Lane Ardingly Haywards Heath AR/06/01302/LBC Conversion of attached coach House to Granny Annexe. Lywood House-St Quentin Co Lindfield Road Ardingly Haywards Heath AR/06/01329/FUL Retention of mobile Home and 3m high fence. Gardeners Arms Selsfield Road Ardingly Haywards Heath REFUSAL GR/06/00672/FUL Retrospective application for the erection of a trellis to the top of a close boarded fence. 94 Milton Crescent East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 1TQ GRANTED UNCONDITIONAL GR/06/00939/FUL Retrospective application to show increase in height, side window, door and external stairs to approved three bay detached garage. Boyles Farmhouse Harwoods Lane East Grinstead West Sussex GRANTED UNCONDITIONAL GR/06/00987/ADV Advertisement hoarding and four flag poles. Cranfield Lodge Hotel Maypole Road East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01042/FUL Two storey extension to create three storey block containing 3 one bed flats. 12 King Street East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 3DJ REFUSAL GR/06/01228/FUL Erect up to 4ft high brick wall to front boundary with entrance to car port which is gated inwards. 96 Sackville Gardens East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 2AR 2 North Area Planning Ctte

3 GR/06/01254/FUL Change of use of farm building to residential accomodation. One new detached garage and serving Unit 2 and new glass corridor. Unit 2 Hazelden Farm Turners Hill Road East Grinstead GR/06/01270/FUL New dormer window to rear elevation. 33A Green Hedges Avenue East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 1DZ GR/06/01271/FUL Rear single storey extension and retention of existing shed. 58 Dorset Avenue East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 2AE GR/06/01288/FUL Ground and first floor rear extensions to create new one bed dwelling on ground floor whilst retaining retail space. 88 London Road East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 1EP GR/06/01306/LBC To attach a 15mm diameter black poly cable to the outside wall of East Court from the underground BT pipe following the existing cable to fascia height, along the fascia and north east wall (access via flat roof) to a new entry point at 2nd floor level to the right hand side of the fire escape - distance 38 metres. Council Offices East Court College Lane East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01346/LDC Conversion of existing loft space and proposed dormer to northern (front) elevation. This is an application to determine whether the proposed development is lawful. This will be a legal decision where the planning merits of the proposal may not be taken into account. Amended description stating correct elevation. Ramblers Edenvale East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01353/FUL Conversion of existing garage to bedroom with shower and wc. 9 St. Agnes Road East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 3RP GR/06/01356/FUL Two storey extension to side of existing dwelling. 11 Blenheim Close East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 3XN GR/06/01371/FUL Proposed conversion of first floor to three bedroom flat. First Floor High Street East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01372/LBC Proposed conversion of first floor to three bedroom flat. First Floor High Street East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01375/LBC Change of use from 'D1 for chiropractor use only' to D1 use. First Floor High Street East Grinstead West Sussex 3 North Area Planning Ctte

4 GR/06/01379/COU Change use from 'D1 for chiropractor use only' to D1 use. First Floor High Street East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01399/FUL Refurbishment and alterations to existing shopfront units to become off licence and delicatessen. La Farola London Road East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01400/FUL New door screen, creation of balcony. 8 Martyns Place Fairfield Road East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01409/LBC Installation of "bird-point" spikes to the flat roof areas of the front elevation to replace the existing ineffective sprung wire bird deterent system. Constitutional Buildings High Street East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01413/FUL Single storey front extension and replacement conservatory to rear. 26 Southlands East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 4BZ GR/06/01416/FUL New shopfront with new entrance doors. Clarks 36 London Road East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01417/ADV New shopfront and signage. Clarks 36 London Road East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01431/FUL Study on ground floor of house, and detached double garage. Highfields West Hill East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01438/FUL Rear dormer. 40A Cantelupe Road East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 3BJ GR/06/01446/ADV One non-illuminated temporary directional sign on two posts. Sackville School Bourg De Peage Avenue East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01463/TREE Remove one lower branch from each of two Scots Pines. 1 Stoneleigh Close East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 3DY GR/06/01464/TREE Fell three Ash, lift canopy to 3.5m above ground of one Oak tree. Oakdene Furzefield Road East Grinstead West Sussex 4 North Area Planning Ctte

5 GR/06/01465/TREE Reduce height by 25% and reshape on Northern and western sides by approx 25% to balance Oak tree. 2 Kingfisher Rise East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 4TE GR/06/01468/FUL Single storey side and rear extension to provide enhanced clinical facilities. Amended description deleting reference to two-storey extension. Moatfield Surgery St. Michaels Road East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01504/TREE Trim back branches of two Limes (T7 and T8) by 3 feet 9 Maypole Road East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 1HL REFUSAL GR/06/01477/FUL Two storey rear extension over existing single storey outbuilding and conservatory. Fieldsview 121 Imberhorne Lane East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01517/FUL Single storey front extension to extend existing hall and kitchen and provide new w.c. 18 Kennedy Avenue East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 2DE GR/06/01519/TREE Remove two lowest branches of Oak (T11) on southern side. Lift canopy of Oak (T12) by 1 metre and thin by 20%. Remove lowest branch of Pine (T17) on southern side and trim others to clear roof by 2 metres. Weavers Cricket Court Hackenden Lane East Grinstead GR/06/01539/ADV Internally static illuminated fascia and proecting signs. Waterstone's (Ottakars) 37 London Road East Grinstead West Sussex GR/06/01547/FUL Internal alterations, relocation of kitchen door and window. Conservatory. 28 Musgrave Avenue East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 4BS GR/06/01555/TREE Lift canopy of Willow (T1) by 1m. 87 Queens Road East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 1BG GR/06/01655/FUL Addition of a gable end style conservatory on the rear of the house. UPVC white construction with brick dwarf wall. 1 Smeeds Close East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 3AL GR/06/01721/TREE Lift canopy of Holly (T1) over drive by 750mm. Lifty canopy of Holly (T2) over chapman's Lane to provide 5m headroom. Chapman House Chapmans Lane East Grinstead West Sussex 5 North Area Planning Ctte

6 GR/06/01722/TREE Lift canopy of Lime (T3) by 3m. Chapman House Chapmans Lane East Grinstead West Sussex HK/06/01307/FUL Two storey extension providing kitchen/family room with two bedrooms over. Newnhams Wood Birch Grove Horsted Keynes Haywards Heath HK/06/01418/FUL Minor amendments to approved palns for single storey garden room extension. Lucas Farm Birch Grove Road Horsted Keynes Haywards Heath HK/06/01419/LBC Minor amendments to previously approved scheme for alteration to kitchen and new single storey garden room extension showing new velux rooflight and relocation of external doors. Lucas Farm Birch Grove Road Horsted Keynes Haywards Heath HK/06/01529/FUL Retrospective proposal for stationing of caravan within curtilage of 28 Oddynes Cottage for ancillary residential accommodation 28 Oddynes Cottages Cinder Hill Lane Horsted Keynes Haywards Heath REFUSAL HK/06/01604/TREE Reduce / reshape canopy of Copper Beech (T1) by 15% Hope Cottage The Green Horsted Keynes Haywards Heath HO/06/00692/FUL New detached garage. Moatlands Vowels Lane East Grinstead West Sussex HO/06/00716/FUL New detached garage. 5 Duckyls Cottages Selsfield Road West Hoathly East Grinstead HO/06/01224/FUL New Velux window. Balcony Flat Brook House Hammingden Lane Ardingly HO/06/01390/STAT Proposed partial undergrounding of an existing 11,000 Volt Wood Pole overhead Line and erection fo new wood terminal pole. Land Adjacent To Top Road Sharpthorne East Grinstead NO OBJECTION 6 North Area Planning Ctte

7 HO/06/01487/FUL New two storey front entrance porch with interior alterations, also enclosing rear loggia. To also include the continuation of the existing tile hanging to all elevations and the replacement of an assortment of metal framed windows to purpose made hardwood windows. The Sun House Highbrook Lane West Hoathly East Grinstead TH/06/01432/FUL Front porch extension. 11 Medway Turners Hill Crawley West Sussex TH/06/01459/TREE Fell five Sycamore stems. 7 Nuthatch Way Turners Hill Park Turners Hill Crawley GRANTED UNCONDITIONAL TH/06/01507/TREE Trim silver Birch to clear home by 2m. 6 Kingfisher Lane Turners Hill Park Turners Hill Crawley TH/06/01585/TREE Fell one Birch. Trim back one Goat Willow to clear home by 2m. Lift canopy of one Beech by 2.5m - 3.0m 21 Wren Street Turners Hill Park Turners Hill Crawley TH/06/01643/TREE Remove one lower branch from one Ash and fell two Ash, one Alder and one Willow 9 And 11 Linnett Close And Land Adjacent Turners Hill Park Turners Hill Crawley TH/06/01677/TREE Remove lowest limb on North Western side of Birch (Within Group 2) 24 Hill House Close Turners Hill Crawley West Sussex WP/06/00438/FUL Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension. Amended plans received 19/7/06 showing reduced depth of rear single storey extension, extensions stepped away from boundary and amended block plan. 8 Hazel Close Crawley Down Crawley West Sussex WP/06/01250/LDC Construction of a detached timber building for use as music room and exercise room. This is an application to determine whether the proposed development is lawful. This will be a legal decision where the planning merits of the proposal may not be taken into account. Wallage Lodge Wallage Lane Rowfant Crawley WP/06/01317/FUL 3 bedroom detached dwelling Land Rear Of Dunster Brookhill Road Copthorne Crawley 7 North Area Planning Ctte

8 WP/06/01322/FUL Renewal of permission WP/01/1200/FUL for the demolition of existing garage block, 2 storey barn and residential bungalow. The reconstruction of three car garage and stable block and 2 bedroom residential annex. Kenwards Farm Snow Hill Crawley Down Crawley WP/06/01363/FUL Single storey side extension. The Jayes Vicarage Road Crawley Down Crawley WP/06/01437/FUL Single storey rear and side extension. Orchard Croft Crawley Down Road Felbridge East Grinstead WP/06/01455/FUL Proposed detached double garage with playroom over. 74 New Town Copthorne Crawley West Sussex WITHDRAWN WP/06/01462/TREE Reduce height by 20-25% of two Oak trees (T6 and T7) 55 West Way Copthorne Crawley West Sussex REFUSAL WP/06/01503/TREE Oak (T1) - Remove weak limb on northern side, thin by 20% and lift to 2.5m on roadside. Oak (T2) - remove lowest limb Land Adjacent To 13 Bridgelands Copthorne Crawley WP/06/01533/FUL Single storey front extension 6 Beech Gardens Crawley Down Crawley West Sussex WP/06/01559/FUL Erection of a short wave amateur radio aerial attached to 1.82 metre aluminium pole. 119 West Way Copthorne Crawley West Sussex 8 North Area Planning Ctte

9 2. PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS 1. Decisions Received 1.1 There are four outstanding appeal decisions to be reported: Date Decided Reference Site Description Decision Procedure GR/04/02692/FUL St. Margarets Convent St. Johns Road East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 3LE Erection of 61 flats with associated parking, landscaping and works to the highway. Amended plans received 14/9/05 showing confirmation of highways arrangements. Allowed Inquiry This appeal was dealt with at and Inquiry which sat for two days on 11 and 12 July As well as determining the Planning Appeal the Inspector also determined an application for Costs that was made by the appellants against the Council. After describing the key planning policies and the location of the site at the end of St. Johns Road and the development that existed in the vicinity the Inspector concluded that the main issue arose from the proposed retention of the access to the site via St. Johns Road. In what is a detailed and lengthy decision letter the Inspector did make a number of interesting comments in coming to his conclusions. For example, in paragraph 8 the Inspector states perhaps the best starting point for examining this scheme is the strong sense of community that exists in St. Johns Road. This was very evident to me at the Inquiry and I agree with the residents that it is a precious things these days, under threat from many quarters, and that it is a legitimate aim of planning policy to seek to protect this amenity However the Inspector did indicate that he did differ from the residents in the assessment of the consequence of the proposed development for the character and living conditions for residents in St Johns Road he felt that assessments by residents should be properly considered along side those by the District Council, the County Highway Authority and the appellant in drawing conclusions. He then considered the impact on parking in St Johns Road of the proposal. He noted the good location of St. Johns Road relative to the town centre and bus and train services and that there was a need to restrain the use of cars which results in congestion, pollution and accidents. He concluded that the on-street parking envisaged by the scheme would be adequate for the existing residents. He then considered the parking proposals for the flats themselves and concluded that there would be adequate provision for existing and future residents of the flats. The Inspector then considered the effects of increased traffic generation by the flats but noted that this increase would not be in proportion to the number of flats to be developed, mainly because existing traffic flows in St Johns Road are augmented by extraneous traffic already using the road. Having examined traffic flow information in detail the Inspector asked himself the question what harm would the extra traffic cause. He 9 North Area Planning Ctte

10 concluded that chief concern is harm to the feeling of community through factors such perceived loss safety and disturbance. The Inspector considered that the Institute of Environmental Assessments guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic Impact. He noted that design bulletin 32 says that surveys showed that was no statistically significant increase in accident rate per dwelling associated with size of cul-de-sac up to at least 80 dwellings. He further noted that the draft manual for streets which will replace DB32 envisages that shared surface road to vehicles and pedestrians might accommodate up 100 vehicles per hour and this would be well within the vehicle movement at expected for St. Johns Road. He then commented that he found it hard to accept that St. Johns Road at present is as safe for pedestrians, particularly children, as was being contended at the Inquiry. He noted the cul-de-sac was used by commuters, shoppers, users of a nursery school, allotment holders, various recreational and sporting users and visitors to the cemetery. In his opinion the road works proposed as part of the proposal would assist in making the road safer for pedestrians and vehicles. In conclusion on traffic matters, the Inspector accepted the proposal would bring about a notable increase in traffic along St. Johns Road but was convinced that when the impact was analysed it will not sever the community, increase existing traffic hazards or have any other harmful impacts or such serious consequence for living conditions as to justify refusal of the proposal. He also commented that the proposed introduction of parking controls in the road would enable the road to take on a more marked residential character. The Inspector then considered point made by the residents concerning conflict between passing cars in St. Johns Road. He felt any increase in conflict would be mitigated by the proposed passing places and that vehicles would able to pass more easily and that the expected traffic would be well within the capacity of the single track road with this amount of passing places. Finally the Inspector examined the possibility of an alternative site access. The Inspector turned his attention to the Council s small scale housing allocations development plan document which will form part of a forthcoming local development framework. This document was approved in May 2006 for a consultation period to be followed a public examination. In the document the appeal site is shown as part of a larger site including the meadow to the west with a new access from the junction of Moat Road and St. Johns Road in containing demolition of two vacant houses at that point. Interestingly the Inspector said in paragraph 22 I am not able to find that that is at present a genuinely available alternative access. In terms of planning policy the May 2006 document is at an early stage and may be amended following consultation reducing the weight that I can attach to it. The Meadow s site is Greenfield land and so would carry a lower priority for development than the appeal site, even if allocated. Neither The Meadow nor the proposed access to is controlled by the appellant nor do I have any evident of any schemes from any other party which will enable access to the appeal site contained in this way. Another factor to consider is the affect on the setting of the Old Convent as a Listed Building. These introduce uncertainty as to the feasibility of this option, particularly in the short term. Meanwhile to bring forward a site such as the appeal site to assist in meeting housing needs is urgently required and it is not desirable that the former convent should simply be left to go derelict. 10 North Area Planning Ctte

11 The Inspector s overall conclusion was that the proposal would comply with relevant policies on the Development Plan and he concluded the appeal should succeed. He then considered conditions and Section 106 planning obligations. He noted that the Council sought amendments to the undertaking relating to the management of the affordable housing in the event of failure to enter into a contract with the registered social landlord. However he found difficultly with the suggested amendments in that they would require a default housing scheme to include management by an RSL in an envisaged scenario where there had been a failure to reach agreement with an RSL. The Inspector considered that the terms of the undertaking are to be preferred and are capable of enforcement if necessary by the Council. The appeal was allowed subject to 12 planning conditions together with the Section 106 Planning Obligation. The Inspector then considered the application for Costs made by the appellant against the Council. In concluding his decision on this matter he reminded the parties circular 8/93 advises that irrespective of the outcome of the appeal costs may only be awarded against a party who have behaved unreasonably and thereby caused another party to incur or waste expense unnecessarily. The Inspector summarised the objections and fears expressed by many local residents and considered that the Council acted properly in giving those objections significant weight. He also indicated that the environmental impact of the increased traffic was a legitimate consideration at the appeals. He felt his planning decision was a question of balance and that he was quite clear that the Council acted reasonably in reaching a different judgement. He felt the Council assessment might be criticised in detail such as the question of Local Plan Policy B23 on noise but as part of the overall presentation of the case he did not consider this amounted to unreasonable. He then went on to refuse the application made by Fairfiew New Homes Limited for an award of costs against the Council. Date Decided Reference Site Description Decision Procedure WP/04/03051/CO U Barn At Huntsland Farm Turners Hill Road Crawley Down Crawley West Sussex Change of use of redundant farm building to storage of exhibition display and event materials. Allowed Hearing In this appeal the Inspector dealt with three separate matters. Firstly an appeal against an Enforcement Notice, secondly an appeal against a planning refusal and thirdly the appellants made an application for costs to be awarded against the District Council. In summary the Inspector dismissed the Enforcement Appeal but did vary it. In respect of the planning appeal the appeal was allowed subject to planning conditions and finally in respect of the costs application the Inspector awarded no costs against the authority. 11 North Area Planning Ctte

12 After rehearsing the relevant development plan policies the Inspector considered that there were two main issues. Firstly whether the character and appearance of the area would be adversely affected and secondly whether there would be adverse consequences for the living conditions of nearby residents and countryside users. After hearing the evidence the Inspector concluded that the use for the building for storage purpose would accord with the relevant planning policies and would not impinge upon the rural character of the area. However he did not extend this view to the outside storage element which the enforcement notice encompassed. He considered the Council s concerns and those of the local residents was wholly understandable and the open storage is unsightly, visually intrusive and contrary to provisions for the development plan Policy 13 sub para (c). He went on to state that if such an activity were to be consolidated the predominantly open quality and integrity of the strategic gap would be eroded to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. In considering the planning appeal the Inspector was satisfied that the outside storage could be covered by a planning condition. This could not be so for the Enforcement Appeal as it did refer to both storage within the building and storage outside of the building. On the second issue, the Inspector noticed the nearest house was some 75 metres from building and he did not consider that the use would be unduly disturbing to neighbours and that the traffic generation to and from the property was unlikely to be great. The Inspector felt that the use would not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the living conditions of nearby by residents. In respect of the Enforcement Notice the Inspector varied the compliance period for the removal of items stored at the site from three to six months. In granting the planning permission the Inspector did impose a series of restrictive planning conditions including limitation on the use of the building to the storage of exhibition display and event materials only. In respect of the application for costs the Inspector noted that basic premise underpinning the appellants claim was that the Council had failed to consider properly whether the impact on the development in question could be controlled by conditions or by attaching less onerous requirements to the Enforcement Notice. The Inspector felt that the Council s case did not lack substance and that there was clear evidence that outside storage and activity associated with the use of the building had occurred and that Council s apprehension as aired at the hearing was well founded. It was the Inspector s view that the Council were reasonably entitled to have regard to opposition based on what he regarded as valid and coachwood planning reasons. He concluded that unreasonably behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense had not been demonstrated and that an award of cost was not justified. 12 North Area Planning Ctte

13 Date Decided Reference Site Description Decision Procedure GR/05/02123/TEL 56 Hurst Farm Pond Hurst Farm Road East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 4BJ Installation of telecoms equipment comprising one 9.7 metre high slimline mast with 3 antennas and associated equipment cabinet. Dismissed Written Representations In this appeal the Inspector did not set out any main issues. He described Hurst Farm Road as pleasant suburban road with grass verges separating the footway from the carriageway and that the mast would be in the grass verge close to the carriageway with two equipment cabinets in the verge close to the footway. He noted that the mast would be 9.7m high about 2m taller than the street lights along this part of the road. He felt the mast and its associated cabinets would be conspicuous features in the immediate street scene. The height of the mast and the alignment of the road and the result resulting in the top of the mast being seen against the skyline in some views. Overall he considered the proposal would detract from the street scene of this part of Hurst Farm Road. He noted an existing installation a little further along Hurst Farm Road to the west which was allowed on appeal in He felt the sighting of this mast was quite different from that of the present proposal and that the impact and acceptability of street installations are very sensitive to their precise location and setting and that permission for the other mast did not alter his assessment of the impact of the appeal proposal. The Inspector did not agree with local residents who were concerned about impact on the character and wildlife of the nearby pond and he felt the mast would not harm this special quality or interfere with wildlife using the pond. He then turned to consider the residents concerns about possible health risks from the development. He referred to Planning Policy Guidance 8 Telecommunications which indicates that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It goes on to state that if the proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines it should not be necessary to consider further the health aspects of the development and concerns about them. The appellants confirmed the proposed equipment would comply with ICNIRP guidelines and that there is nothing to indicate that there would an actual risk to health nor is there evidence to outweigh advice in PPG 8 on health considerations. The Inspector concluded that the health fear of local residents did not weigh significantly against the development. Finally the Inspector agreed that the appellants did have a clear need for an installation in this area of East Grinstead to provide 3G cover and that this was most likely to be achieved by one or more street work installations. He felt that these factors weighed significantly in favour of allowing the appeal but on balance did not outweigh the harm that the proposal would impose on the street scene. 13 North Area Planning Ctte

14 Date Decided Reference Site Description Decision Procedure GR/05/02454/FUL The Dene College Lane East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 3LY Demolition of existing house and redevelopment of the site to provide seven 2 bedroom apartments. Dismissed Written Representations In this appeal the Inspector did not note any main issues. However he set out the background to the appeal and noted that the site lies with an area of townscape character whilst opposite is a Conservation Area and the site itself contains a number of trees which are included in Tree Preservation Order. The Inspector noted that the proposal would require the removal of a substantial Cypress tree that was subject to a Tree Preservation Order and that its loss would dramatically alter the view from the south along College Lane. He considered the tree made positive contribution to the Area of Townscape Character and its removal would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of the Conservation Area. He concluded its removal would be contrary to Local Plan Policies B7 and B16. The Inspector also noted that the proposal included the removal of the stone wall along the front of the site and its replacement wrought iron railings. He accepted the wall did not benefit from any statutory protection but did not consider that this was a good argument for its removal and its proposed replacement would not respect the character of the area and again would be contrary to Local Plan Policy B16. He then turned his attention to the rear part of the site and determined the combined width and height of the proposal when viewed from Laurel Dene would represent a building that would be entirely out of scale with the properties around it and while retention of some trees would continue to offer screen and additional planting is proposed this would not reduce the overall impact of the scale and mass of the proposal. The Inspector then considered Planning Policy Guidance note 3 which encourages the full and effective use of previously developed land and that this proposal would make efficient use of such land close to the centre of the settlement and to public transport links. He also noted the development would improve the supply of small dwelling units. However, the Inspector points out that PPG 3 makes it clear that development should respect local character and the local environment should not be compromised. The Inspector dismissed the appeal. 2. Recommendation 2.1 Members are requested to note the report. 14 North Area Planning Ctte

15 2. ENFORCEMENT UPDATE (DE) 1.0 This the regular quarterly report concerning enforcement action authorised by this Committee. 1.1 The enforcement action report attached updates the position on cases referred to in the previous report to members on 29 th June RECOMMENDATION 2.1 The Planning Committee is requested to note this report. 15 North Area Planning Ctte

16 Enforcement Number: Planning Reference Number: EF No application submitted. Premises: Mount Pleasant Nursery, Cansiran Lane, Ashurst Wood. Date Enforcement Authorised: Breach Details: Steps To Be Taken: Progress Report: Next Action: (Delegated). Change of use of Nursery land to storage of building material. Cease the use of the land for storage of building material. On the a Notice for the Requisition of Information (Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990), necessary for the issue of an Enforcement Notice was served on the owner of the land. This Notice was returned completed on the To avoid enforcement action, the owner agreed to remove the building material on a voluntary basis. A site inspection is now required to confirm whether enforcement action is still required. A convenient date is yet to be set. 16 North Area Planning Ctte

17 Enforcement Number: EF03870 Premises: Silverwood Industrial Estate (Turvey Corporation PLC). Snow Hill, Crawley Down, Crawley, West Sussex. RH10 3EN. Date Enforcement Authorised: Breach Details: Steps to be taken: Progress Report: (Delegated Powers). Extension to a car park without the benefit of planning permission. Cease the use of the extended car park for the parking of motor vehicles. Remove the extended car park. Remove the debris from the site. Restore the land to its previous state, namely grass papers handed to the Council's Legal Section for issue of Enforcement Notice. Legal action was delayed pending the determination of a Lawful Development Certificate application (WP/05/01535/LDC) in respect of these works. This application was refused. The owner recently submitted a Unilateral Undertaking (pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended) which endeavoured to address the Council s concerns by agreeing to the implementation of a suitable landscaping scheme at the site and by prohibiting the overnight parking of HGV s on the extended car park. Next action: The Council s Legal Section reviewed the Unilateral Undertaking and considered that it failed to adequately address the Council s concerns. Accordingly, the Council have written to the owner s agent requesting various changes to the form/content of the Unilateral Undertaking. The Council have not yet received an amended version but have received its costs in respect of the legal work undertaken. 17 North Area Planning Ctte

18 Enforcement Number: Premises: Date Enforcement Authorised: Breach Details: Steps to be taken: Progress Report: Next Action: EF Queens Road, East Grinstead (Delegated). Poor condition of the land adversely affecting the amenity of the area. Remove from rear garden loped branches, hedge cuttings and any other rubbish that has accumulated through neglect. Clear brambles and other self seeded plants and trees from the rear garden. Remove the following items of rubbish from the front basement:- paper, plastic bottles, drinks cans, polystyrene, pieces of wood, bin-liners, a rubber glove and any other items of rubbish that have accumulated through neglect. Clear self-seeded trees from the front basement. Fit a new front door. Fit a rear door and frame to the basement. Fit a rear window and frame to the basement. Fit glass to all the side windows and paint the frames accordingly. Section 215 Notice issued on The Notice takes effect on the with a five months compliance period. The owner is now challenging the issue of the Section 215 Notice. The hearing is to be heard at Mid Sussex Magistrates Court on the North Area Planning Ctte

19 4, DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PERFORMANCE APRIL 2006 JUNE INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report provides members with information about the Development Control performance for the quarter April to June PERFORMANCE 2.1 No. of decisions delegated to officers as a percentage of all decisions % of Delegated Decisions No.of Decisions Q1 91% % Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD Average Percentage 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% % of Delegated Decisions Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Target 85% % of Delegated Decisions 2.2 Appeals Allowed* % of Appeals Allowed No.of Appeals YTD Average Q1 33% 20 33% Q2 Q3 Q4 Percentage 60% 40% 20% 0% % of Appeals Allowed Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Target 30% Target 30% %Appeals Allowed * This figure excludes enforcement appeals 19 North Area Planning Ctte

20 2.3 Percentage of major applications determined within 13 weeks* * These are defined as follows: residential developments a major is where 10 dwellings or more are to be constructed or where the site area is 0.5ha or more. For other types of development, a major site is one where the floorspace is 1,000sq m or more, or the site area is 1ha or more. % of Major Applications No.of Major Applications YTD Average Q1 82% 11 82% Q2 Q3 Q4 Percentage 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% % of Major Applications Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Target 60% % of Major Applications 2.4 Percentage of minor applications determined within 8 weeks* *These are defined as follows: minor application is one which does not meet the criteria for major application, nor the definition of a change of use or householder development. % of Minor Applications % of Minor Applications No.of Minor Applications YTD Average Q1 59% % Q2 Q3 Q4 Percentage 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Target 65% % ofminor Applications 2.5 Percentage of all other applications determined within 8 weeks* % of Other Applications No.of Other Applications YTD Average Q1 86% % Q2 Q3 Q4 Percentage 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% % of Other Applications Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Target 85% % of Other Applications *All other applications are classed as householder, change of use, Listed Buildings etc 20 North Area Planning Ctte

21 2.6 Percentage of housing commencements on previously developed land % of New Homes Target Q1 31% 55 Q2 Q3 Q4 Percentage 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% % of Housing Commencements Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Target 55% % of Housing Commencements 3.0 COMMENT 3.1 It is pleasing to note that performance in this quarter has been strong for processing major applications and other applications. However, the performance for processing minor applications has declined. The Area Team Leaders are reviewing the reasons for the decline. It is important this matter is tackled since it is one of the national indicators used to assess PDG. 3.2 Following the concerns about the Council s appeal performance expressed in the previous report it should be noted performance has significantly improved in this quarter. 3.3 The previous report referred to investigation work underway to identify areas where improvements need to be made to the handling of applications and appeals. This work is nearing completion and is expected to be reported to a Performance and Scrutiny Committee Meeting for consideration. Percentage of housing commencements on previously developed land 3.4 This indicator monitors the percentage of all new residential development being built (commenced) on previously developed land (PDL). The current target for this indicator is 55%. The first quarter figure (06/07) is 31%, which is significantly lower than this target. However, this is not unexpected. 3.5 The indicator is monitored on a quarterly basis but 'accumulates' to provide a 'running total' for the annual return. For this reason, the first quarter figures will always be subject to a greater degree of fluctuation than any other (for example the first quarter figure for this indicator in 04/05 was 99%). 3.6 In addition, this figure (31%) needs to be placed in context with data collected in previous years. In 04/05 a total of 73% of new dwellings commenced on PDL and in 05/06 this figure was 68%. In both of the previous years the annual figure has far exceeded the target figure of 55%. The target figure has remained at this level as MSDC were always aware that a number of allocated 'greenfield' sites were likely to commence within a short time period. Some of these sites took longer to come forward than first envisaged but building work has now started on several sites and this is now impacting on the figures for this return. 21 North Area Planning Ctte

22 3.7 A total of 127 new dwellings were commenced in the first quarter, of which 87 were being built on 'greenfield' land. These 'greenfield' commencements related to Local Plan allocations at Pease Pottage and Bolnore Village. 3.8 This indicator does not lend itself to detailed analysis on a short term (quarterly) basis the figures must be placed in the context of a longer period of time. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Members are requested to note the Development Control performance for the period 1 st April 2006 to 30 th June North Area Planning Ctte