CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 TH JUNE 2004

ITEM REF NO LOCATION RECOMMEND

001 CR/2004/0053/ADV BROOK STREET, 8 THE BROADWAY, CONSENT NORTHGATE, CRAWLEY

002 CR/2004/0200/FUL 174-180 WOODFIELD ROAD, REFUSE NORTHGATE, CRAWLEY

003 CR/2004/0215/COU UNITS 9 & 10, OAKWOOD PERMIT INDUSTRIAL PARK, GATWICK ROAD, THREE BRIDGES, CRAWLEY

004 CR/2004/0246/RG3 ROUNDABOUTS AT LONDON CONSENT ROAD/GATWICK ROAD; O/S THE HAWTH THEATRE, HAWTH AVENUE; BALCOMBE ROAD/ANTLANDS LANE; STATION WAY/COUNTY MALL CAR PARK; TUSHMORE ROUNDABOUT, NORTHGATE, CRAWLEY

005 CR/2004/0251/FUL LAND AT GATWICK HOUSE, PEEKS REFUSE BROOK LANE, HORLEY, SURREY

006 CR/2004/0276/FUL LAND TO REAR OF 89 MALTHOUSE REFUSE ROAD, SOUTHGATE, CRAWLEY (AMENDED ADDRESS)

007 CR/2004/0278/FUL 19A PARKWAY, POUND HILL, REFUSE CRAWLEY

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 TH JUNE 2004

ITEM REF NO LOCATION RECOMMEND

008 CR/2004/0280/FUL 54 OAKFIELDS, POUND HILL, PERMIT CRAWLEY

009 CR/2004/0281/FUL 50 EAST PARK, SOUTHGATE, PERMIT CRAWLEY

010 CR/2004/0301/FUL 5 WENLOCK CLOSE, GOSSOPS PERMIT GREEN, CRAWLEY

011 CR/2004/0303/FUL ALTEON, CRAWLEY BUSINESS PERMIT QUARTER, MANOR ROYAL, CRAWLEY

012 CR/2004/0307/FUL MANN CLOSE, BROADFIELD, PERMIT CRAWLEY

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 001

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0053/ADV

LOCATION: BROOK STREET, 8 THE BROADWAY, NORTHGATE, CRAWLEY PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 1 ILLUMINATED FASCIA SIGN, 1 ILLUMINATED PROJECTING SIGN AND 4 WINDOW IMAGERY SIGNS & 1 ILLUMINATED SHOWCASE SIGN (AMENDED DESCRIPTION RECEIVED)

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Brook Street, AGENTS NAME: Sign 2000 Ltd., ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

1 VIS-16028-1C-C Site-Location Plan. 2 Block Plan. 3 Amended Plans dated 30/01/04. Received Complete - 29/04/04.

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

1. CP49 Head of Transport Services No objection.

Consultation expiry date: 23 February 2004

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT:-

5, 6, 7, 10 The Broadway; 2 The Boulevard

REPLIES RECEIVED:-

One reply has been received from the occupiers of the adjacent shop premises ‘Action Bikes’ expressing concern at the following:-

• Projecting sign will require further reduction in width of adjoining retail shop front • Projecting sign will result in visual clutter

OBSERVATIONS

1. The application relates to consent to display advertisements in connection with a ‘Brook Street’ employment agency at first floor level. The advertisements comprise a 944mm x 533mm projecting sign, a 1095mm x 920mm fascia sign and a 1200mm x 300mm display ‘showcase’, all in blue finished aluminium with white acrylic internally illuminated lettering and for the showcase, display case panels. The proposal also includes 4 vinyl advertisements to the first floor windows measuring 1180mm x 350mm.

2. The main issues to be considered in this case are the effects of the proposal on public amenity and highway safety. Policies relevant to the application are GD28 and GD31. Supplementary Planning Guidance 8 ‘Signs and Advertisements’ is also relevant.

3. GD28 states that proposals for advertisement consent will be granted provided the proposal does not create dangers or hazard to public safety or have any detrimental impact upon the amenity of its surrounds or the building on which it is sited.

4. GD31 states that proposals for the introduction of illuminated signs and advertisements will normally be permitted provided that they are appropriate for the surrounding area and buildings; do not adversely affect the amenity and environment of the area; do not give rise to dangers and hazards for the public and do not give rise to light nuisance and pollution.

5. SPG8 ‘ states that fascia signs should be in proportion to the design of the shopfront and should not be too large or bright. It states that projecting signs should not project more than 0.8m from the face of the building and should be at least 2.2m above ground level to prevent danger to pedestrians. Proposals for illuminated signs will not be acceptable where the illumination will be detrimental to the amenity of the area.

6. In relation to high level signs, it states that non-illuminated high level signs will generally be acceptable in the industrial or commercial areas of the town, providing that they are designed to complement the building on which they are displayed. Within shopping areas, signs will not normally be approved above ground floor level.

7. In terms of the effect of the proposal on public amenity, the fascia sign is considered appropriate to the size and proportion of the space above the entrance door and in relation to the depth of adjoining fascia signs. It will not be unduly prominent with lettering only illuminated. The internally illuminated ‘display showcase’ is considered to be in proportion with the entrance surround and not overly prominent. The projecting sign at fascia level would not comply with the usual requirement in SPG8 that projecting signs should not project more than 0.8m from the face of the building as the sign measures 0.944m in depth. However, although it is set amongst projecting signs to the adjoining retail premises, it reads as a separate sign for this entrance way and is not considered to result in an overly cluttered appearance to the retail frontage. It is not considered overly prominent at this location with lettering only illuminated and being set beneath the canopy to this row of shops. The 4 high level signs to the first floor windows are considered acceptable given the use of the upper floor premises for commercial purposes. There are a number of other similar high level signs in the vicinity.

8. In terms of highway safety, it is considered that the signs would not be unduly prominent and would have no harmful effect on public safety.

9. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in the context of policies GD28 and GD31, and SPG 8.

RECOMMENDATION RE: CR/2004/0053/ADV

CONSENT for a period of 5 years - Subject to the following condition(s):-

1. (a) All advertisements displayed and any land for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. (b) Any hoarding or similar structure, or any sign, placard, board or device erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. (c) Where any advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal thereof shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. (d) No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission. (e) No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure or hinder the ready interpretation of any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of any highway, railway, waterway (including any coastal waters) or aerodrome (civil or military). REASONS: (a) to (e) - To comply with the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.

REASON FOR GRANT OF CONSENT

The decision to grant consent has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000 as set out below including Supplementary Planning Guidance 8 ‘Signs and Advertisements’:

• GD28 Shop Fronts, Advertisements, Signs and Hoarding • GD31 Ilumination

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 002

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0200/FUL

LOCATION: 174-180 WOODFIELD ROAD, NORTHGATE, CRAWLEY PROPOSAL: DUPLICATE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF NOS 174-180 WOODFIELD ROAD AND ERECTION OF 42 X 1 & 2 BED APARTMENTS (12 AFFORDABLE) INCLUDING ASSOCIATED WORKS AND LANDSCAPING

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: CDC2020 PLC, AGENTS NAME: Lennon Planning Limited, ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

1. WSCC Planning No strategic objection, subject to library contributions and satisfaction of HOTS in respect of highways/parking. 2. BAA Safeguarding No safeguarding objection. 3. Thames Water No objection. 4. Env. Health Division Recommends detailed contamination survey.

5. Sussex Police Recommends amendments to increase building security in the interests of crime prevention. 6. CP49 Head of Transport Services Raises highway objection due to inadequate parking provision. 7. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) No safeguarding objection. 8. Environment Agency No objection.

Consultation expiry date: 21 April 2004

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT :-

The Occupier: 177–185 (odds), 172-180 (evens) Woodfield Road; 1, 3, 5 & 7 Woolborough Lane; 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 122 & 124 North Road; 1-20 Langley Court.

REPLIES RECEIVED:-

None.

OBSERVATIONS:-

1. This application relates to No 174 - 180 Woodfield Road, located at the corner of Woodfield Road and Northgate Avenue. The site contains four detached bungalows in large plots with individual access. The dwellings are set back within their plot with staggered building line. There is a marginal increase in land levels from the northern side of Woodfield Road which increases the prominence of the site from properties opposite.

2. The site is bounded by mature landscaping on the adjoining highway and amenity land. However, there are few trees of significant amenity value within the site. The surrounding area is residential in character with mix of house type and size including two-storey detached, semi detached and terraced dwellings and bungalows.

3. The application seeks permission for demolition of No 174 – 180 Woodfield Road and erection of a three-storey l-shaped block of 30 one and two bed apartments to the front with three-storey block of 12 affordable units to the rear. The front block is positioned in the north east corner of the site fronting Woodfield Road and Northgate Avenue with affordable units in separate block adjacent to the rear boundary.

4. The front block measures 33m in length along Woodfield Road and Northgate Avenue at a height of 8m to eaves and 13.6m to the ridge. The building is set at an angle to Woodfield Rd. Its north west corner is positioned 0.25m from the boundary with Woodfield Road with eastern flank abutting the side boundary with Northgate Avenue. The entrance to the building is situated to the rear with façade articulated by the use of gable features, corner terraces and varied fenestrations. The three-storey block to the rear has a footprint of 18m width and 15.5m depth with height of 7.6m to eaves and 12.6m to the ridge. This building is rectangular in form with no variation in building line and limited variation in materials and fenestration details.

5. The existing accesses to Woodfield Road are to be closed with formation of a new access in the north west corner of the site. 46 parking spaces are to be provided adjacent to the new drive and central turning area. A cycle store is to be provided to the west of the affordable housing block with separate bin store adjacent to the western boundary. Communal amenity space is provided to the rear of the front block in the form of a court yard adjacent to the entrance. Amenity space is also provided to the east of the affordable housing block adjoining Northgate Avenue.

6. The site lies within the built-up area, where infilling and redevelopment are acceptable in principle, subject to the requirements of Local Plan Policy GD1 on design and impact, GD2 regarding townscape and character of the area, GD3 operational requirements including parking and H5 on the suitability of the particular site and location. The other policies to consider are Policies H6 and H7 which seek a suitable mix of dwellings and the provision of small dwellings. Policy H8 and SPG10 require provision of subsidised and low-cost housing on unidentified sites. GD5 seeks development which retains trees whilst affording them sufficient room to thrive. Policies H20, H22, SPG3 and SPG4 require development of a good size and standard with adequate outdoor space for future occupiers. PPG3 ‘Housing’ seeks to secure a high standard of house design incorporating a mix of dwelling types and sizes whilst making the most efficient use of urban land. PPG1 and PPG13 are also relevant as is the council’s supplementary planning guidance on Parking Standards and Transport Contributions (SPG16). Policies LOC1, LOC2, DEV1, DEV3, DEV4, NE2 and NE(SH) of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 Deposit Draft (incorporating the Proposed Modifications and other changes) must also be considered.

7. The main issues to be considered in determining this application relate to: • Layout and design of the development, • Impact on street scene/character of the area, • Impact on neighbour amenity, • Adequacy of parking provision/impact on highway, • Adequacy of housing mix in meeting local housing need, • Acceptability of dwellings for proposed residential use, and • Impact on existing trees/landscaping

(i) Layout and Design of the development

8. The three-storey block to the front is positioned at an angle to Woodfield Road with the north west corner approximately 0.25m from the front boundary. This fails to respect the existing building line and that of adjoining terraced dwellings to the west. It would result in an over prominent form of three-storey development which would be detrimental to the surrounding street scene, public views/vistas and which would be out of character with the surrounding townscape in terms of street patterns and frontage lines. The building has a substantial footprint (33m by 33m) with limited variation in building lines and no separation to the eastern boundary. It would appear as a solid monolithic block in view of the combined length of frontage with limited attempt to break up the façade through use of varied building lines to reduce its bulk and mass. The height of the building is also excessive largely due to the width and expanse of roofline which increases its bulk, scale and mass making it appear almost four-storey.

9. The manner in which the affordable housing block to the rear is separated from remainder of the development is unacceptable and prevents the development from reading comprehensively. It fails to respect the design guidance of SPG 10 ‘Affordable Housing’ which encourages developers to integrate affordable housing as part of the overall mix of units. The design of the affordable housing block is also unacceptable. It would appear overly institutional with no variation in building line or fenestration to create a more innovative façade. The expanse of parking along the western side of the site is also unacceptable and would result in street scene views dominated by hardstand and parked cars. The manner in which the cycle store and bin store is isolated from main block is also unacceptable and should be located within or adjacent to the building in the interests of security and design. The proposed scale of development is considered unacceptable and represents overdevelopment in terms of the size and orientation of the buildings within the plot. It fails to meet the basic requirements of Policy GD1 (i) in respect of scale, form and spacing and would not provide a satisfactory standard of design and layout.

(ii) Impact on street scene/character of area

10. Whilst the principle of infill development is generally acceptable, the footprint of the front block in terms of length of façade and building height would dominate the surrounding street and result in a development which would be detrimental to the street scene, public views/vistas and character of the area. Whilst the site is heavily screened along its side and rear boundaries, its frontage is relatively open with through views. This increases the prominence of the building and expanse of parking along the western boundary. The location, height and mass of the front block is considered unacceptable in relation to the size of site and scale of development in the surrounding area. It would result in an overly prominent form of development which would be detrimental to the street scene, character of the surrounding area and human scale.

(iii) Impact on neighbour amenity

11. The proposal must also be considered in terms of impact on the outlook of neighbouring properties within Woodfield Road. The properties directly opposite are bungalows set on marginally lower land. It is considered that the proximity of the front building to the northern (front) boundary combined with its height, roof expanse and length of façade would create an overbearing and oppressive form of three-storey development which would dominate and be detrimental to the outlook of those properties and create a perception of visual intrusion and loss of privacy.

(iv) Adequacy of parking provision

12. The application must be considered in the context of PPG3 ‘Housing’ and council’s SPG on Parking Standards and Transport Contributions (SPG 16). The SPG proposes a maximum standard of 1.2 spaces for 1 bed dwellings and 1.5 spaces for 2 bed dwellings outside the town centre. The site falls outside the town centre zone identified by the SPG, however, it is within walking distance and is reasonably accessible by public transport. 46 car spaces are proposed at a rate of 1.1 per dwelling. This represents under provision of 13 spaces and is considered unacceptable for the number and size of properties and site location. Provision at a rate of 1 space per dwelling is only considered appropriate for a town centre development where there is much greater potential for lower car ownership. The Head of Transportation Services has objected on the grounds of inadequate parking and considers that the development would lead to an unacceptable increase in on-street parking. The proposed access arrangements are considered acceptable and the surrounding road network could satisfactorily accommodate the increase in traffic movements arising from the intensified use of the site.

(v) Adequacy of housing mix in meeting housing need

13. Policy H6 seeks to secure a mix of dwelling type and size in all new housing developments whilst Policy H7 seeks to secure the provision of small dwellings to meet housing needs. The Council’s housing needs survey (April 2001) identified localised need for 4 bed houses and 2 bed houses and flats in the Northgate area. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 ‘Housing’ (PPG3) encourages planning authorities to achieve mixed and balanced communities by securing a mix of house types and sizes in housing development including smaller dwellings. The proposal meets the areas need for smaller units, however, it is considered that the scheme could be improved by including some 4 bed houses to meet wider housing needs. Policy H8 seeks to secure affordable housing on appropriate sites and SPG10 requires an element of subsidised and low-cost housing on sites of 15 dwellings or more. 12 affordable housing units are proposed in separate block to the rear. This amounts to 28% of the total number of units. Whilst this is marginally below the 30% threshold specified within SPG10, it results in a shortfall of less than one dwelling and is considered broadly acceptable for a development of this scale. However, the siting of the affordable housing in separate block to the rear is unacceptable in terms of the design guidance of SPG 10 and prevents integration of the housing within the development.

(vi) Adequacy of Dwellings for Proposed Use

14. SPG 3 provides guidance on standards for New Housing Development in terms of internal layout and net floor space. The guidance recommends a minimum of 48m² for a single-storey 2 bed space property and 60m² for a 3 bed space property with 3m² general storage space and separate drying/airing space. The internal size of the 3 bed space dwellings complies with these requirements, however, the 2 bed space dwellings in the front block fall marginally below the requirements of SPG and would not provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupants in accordance with Policy H22 and SPG3.

15. Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4 sets minimum standards for private outdoor space. It identifies that communal provision may be acceptable for dwellings not designed for family use. The proposed amount of amenity space is not considered acceptable for the number and size of properties and would not provide a satisfactory outdoor environment for occupants. The proximity of the amenity space to parking spaces and turning area would also compromise its use. The amount and location of outdoor amenity space is therefore unacceptable in meeting the outdoor space requirements of the occupants and would conflict with Policy GD1, H5 and H20.

(vii) Impact on trees/landscaping

16. Policy GD5 states that new development will be required to incorporate appropriate landscaping and that existing trees and boundary features should be retained wherever possible. There are few trees of significant amenity value within the site, however, the adjoining land contains a number of mature oak and birch. These contribute to the general amenity of the area and surrounding street scene and form a landscape buffer which helps to screen the site from the side and rear. The applicant has provided a detailed tree survey, however, the proposal does not clarify the number and location of trees to be felled to accommodate the development. The site layout plan does not provide an accurate representation of the location of trees to be retained both within the site and adjoining land and it is considered that the proximity of the front block to trees on the adjoining highway land to the east would cause significant damage to their root system to the extent which would compromise their future growth and retention.

Conclusion

17. The proposal surrounding is considered unacceptable in terms of overall bulk and scale, impact on the street scene, character of the area, neighbour amenity, trees and inadequate parking.

RECOMMENDATION RE : CR/2004/0200/FUL, REFUSE , for the following reason(s):

1. The proposed quantum of development by virtue of its width, height and proximity to the boundary would result in an over dominant form of development which would be detrimental to the surrounding street scene and character of the area, contrary to Policies GD1, GD2 and H5 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

2. The proposed building, because of its width, height, depth and proximity to the boundary would have a dominating and overbearing effect on the neighbouring properties to the north contrary to Policies GD1 and H5 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

3. The proposal makes inadequate provision for car parking to meet the requirements of occupiers, in an area where on-street parking would cause congestion and traffic hazards, contrary to Policies GD3, T2 and T9 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 16 - Parking Standards.

4. The amount and location of outdoor amenity space is considered inadequate for the proposed number of dwellings and scale of development and would not provide a satisfactory living environment for proposed occupants contrary to Policy GD1, H5 and H20 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4 'Standards for Private Outdoor Space'.

5. The proximity of Units 1-30 to the eastern boundary and Units 31-42 to the rear boundary would adversely affect the future growth and retention of adjoining trees, contrary to Policy GD5 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 6 'Trees'.

6. The internal size of the two bedspace properties in Block A (Units 1-30) would not provide a satisfactory living environment for the occupants contrary to Policy GD1, H5 and H22 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 3 'Standards for New Housing Development'.

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 003

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0215/COU

LOCATION: UNITS 9 & 10, OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, GATWICK ROAD, THREE BRIDGES, CRAWLEY PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF UNIT 9 TO MIXED USE OF A1 RETAIL/B1(a) OFFICES/B8 WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE AND CHANGE OF USE OF UNIT 10 TO B1(c) WORKSHOP/B1(a) OFFICES AND B8 WAREHOUSING/STORAGE.

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Ski Rental Shops Ltd., AGENTS NAME: John Van Der Merwe, ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

Consultation expiry date:

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT:-

The Occupier, Unit 3, 8, 15 & 16; Tollers House; 2-4 (All) Kingfisher Close

REPLIES RECEIVED:-

One objection received – concerned with the intensification of the units and the perceived effect of any noise on the health, amenity and privacy of the occupants on the neighbouring dwellings.

OBSERVATIONS:-

1. The site consists of two small industrial units situated at the end of a terrace of ten and located off Gatwick Road, at the edge of the industrial area. The locality is designated as a B1 Light Industrial buffer area, as it is adjacent to the rear gardens of Kingfisher Close and Tinsley Lane. There is a mature, high screen of trees and hedges between the two areas. There is a large car park to the front of the units. Each unit has seven dedicated car parking spaces and an entitlement of 2 visitor spaces each, from a communal area within the site. The existing units’ layout is shown on the submitted plans. Unit 10 is shown to have 128m² of B1(c) light industrial (workshop) floorspace with 226.14m² of storage space, 57m² B1(a) office space and 89m² of retail space. This floorspace is spread over the ground floor and a mezzanine floor. Unit 9 is shown to have 199.89m² of B1(c) workshop floorspace and an B1(a) office of 79.17m².

2. The proposal includes the transfer and extension of the existing ski equipment hire and retail area from unit 10 to unit 9, the extension of the warehouse and storage to unit 10 and the insertion of a shop window to the front of unit 9. The proposed layout of unit 10 would see the retail removed and only the workshop with associated storage and office space remain. The retail would be situated in unit 9 with office at ground floor and the erection of a mezzanine floor for storage.

3. The site has permission for the current use of unit 10. This was granted under planning refs CR/1996/0307/FUL and CR/1997/0307/FUL. The 1996 permission was granted for a showroom and retail element within the unit. The 1997 permission refers to the erection of a mezzanine floor to relocate the existing offices, additional storage and the extension of the public floor area to allow for a supplementary fitting area. Unit 9 has had no previous changes to its use, since the sites’ original permission CR/308/1980. The permissions for unit 10 were granted because the mixed use was considered to be compatible with the site and to the unit’s main use as B1 Light Industrial. This is mainly to the do with the nature of the business, as it provides bulky ski goods through its main mail order business. The retail area is there to allow customers to choose, be fitted with and pick up their ski equipment. The rest of the unit is primarily used for the reconditioning and repair of the hire equipment as well as its storage.

4. One letter of objection has been received. The objection is based upon the intensification of the units and the perceived knock on effect of any noise on the health, amenity and privacy of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling, to the rear of the site. The objector requests that if the proposal was permitted that their home should be sound-proofed and they are compensated for the perceived reduction in privacy to their family.

5. The main issues to be considered are; the amenities of the neighbouring residents; the operational use of the units, including any loss of employment floorspace and the siting of retail floorspace outside of established retail areas; the insertion of a shop window display; and the operational needs of the unit, including car parking requirements.

6. The relevant policies to this application are GD1, GD3, GD10, GD27, T2, T9, E7, E9, E15 and SH3 of the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000. Supplementary Planning Guidance Note Sixteen “Parking Standards and Transport Contributions” is also considered relevant.

7. Policy GD1 of the Local Plan states the normal requirements for all development. These include issues surrounding design, the impact of a proposal on its surroundings and creating a suitable environment for those who would live, work and visit it. Part (i) of the policy deals with design issues surrounding the external appearance of the proposal. In this case the external changes to the units would only consist of the removal of the full height, existing roller shutter door and its replacement with a new glazed, double door, shop window display to Unit 9. The details of the shop window are not to be considered as this application refers to the units’ change of use only. A further planning application would be required. This is also the case for any advertisements the applicant may wish to display. Part (ii) of the policy relates to protecting harm against the amenities and environment of the surrounding area. The proposal’s primary operational use is considered to remain as B1(c) light industrial with associated retail area, storage and offices. The nature of a B1 use is that it can be carried on within a residential area. The use of the units as a workshop is considered to accord with this use class. Therefore the proposal is also considered to be in accordance with policy E15 of the Local Plan. The nature of the workshop itself should not change, as no new staff would be to be employed for this process. Two new staff would be employed for the retail/hire area. Therefore, the number of persons visiting the site is expected to be approximately 10 customers and 11 staff. Part (iii) safeguards any attractive and important features of the natural and built environment of the site. In this case the landscape barrier behind the units would be retained and unaffected by the proposal. Part (iv) requires that the proposal should provide a satisfactory environment for those who will occupy, use or visit the development. This relates to the proposal’s layout, including access from the car park to the unit, a level access through the proposed shop doors and the internal layout of the units. The proposal’s retail area would have a new disabled toilet installed. Part (v) requires the proposal to have regard to all relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes. In this case SPG Note 16 “Parking Standards and Transport Contributions” is relevant.

8. Policy GD3 of the Local Plan states the operational requirements for a site. It requires all development to provide the means necessary for the safe and proper use of the site. In particular it is concerned with; access to and from the site; the parking of vehicles; the loading and unloading of delivery vehicles; the recycling, storage and collection of waste; and ensuring adequate access for the emergency services. The operational requirements of the units would not change, as the site is already serviced by car parking, waste collection and sufficient access for the emergency services. Policy T9 of the Local Plan and SPG 16 contain the current maximum parking standards. All development, as part of its operational needs, is required to provide car parking and in this case also space for lorry and delivery parking. The proposals mixed use should be taken into account when calculating the maximum number of spaces permitted. Advice has been taken from the Transport Policy Officer, who has recommended that a maximum of 20 spaces should be provided. The site is on a road with good public transport links to the town centre and Gatwick Airport. Customers are expected to use the units in the evenings and at weekends, as well as the day time, so there would be the capacity to contain car parking to the site. Therefore, the amount of spaces provided is considered to be acceptable, as the proposed changes would not lead to a significant increase in traffic generation. Therefore, the proposal would be in accordance with policy T2 of the Local Plan.

9. Policy E7 of the Local Plan is concerned with the protection of existing employment floorspace. Employment floorspace refers to mainly the B use classes. Proposals for development which would result in a significant loss of floor space will not be permitted unless the existing employment use has a serious adverse effect upon the environment and amenity of the surrounding area or the loss of a minor proportion of the existing floorspace would lead to a refurbishment of the remaining employment floorspace or the loss of employment floorspace results in a significant social or environmental benefit for the borough. The proposal would involve the loss of 199m² of B1(c) floorspace, the creation of 130m² of storage space and the addition of 90.66m² of retail space. The amount of B1(c) floorspace is not considered to be significant enough to warrant a recommendation for refusal under policy E7. Therefore, it would not have to pass the tests set out under this policy.

10. Policy SH3 refers to new retail proposals outside of the centre and edge of the town centre. These proposals will be refused unless it can be shown that; there are no sites within the main retail areas; the proposed new retail development is in a location and of scale and form that would not affect the vitality and viability of the existing main retail areas; the development cannot be satisfactorily be accommodated within the main shopping area; and the proposed new retail development would be in keeping with the character of the area and would contribute to the image and attractiveness of the town. It is considered that it would be difficult to find a retail unit in the Town Centre which could accommodate this particular nature of use. As the primary operation is considered to fall under B1(c), an application for such a change of use would, most likely, be refused. Therefore, it would naturally be accommodated on a site in the industrial area like this proposed. Provided that the proposal is correctly conditioned to cease the retail use of the unit, if and when the primary use ceases, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

11. The units are currently owned jointly by the freeholder and leased separately. The applicant wishes to lease the units jointly but does not wish to combine them by inserting internal doorways. Therefore, each unit could only be accessed from their respective external entrances and thus will remain separate. It is therefore important to condition the two units to be associated with each other, so that the workshop could not be closed and moved elsewhere, leaving a primarily retail unit. Likewise the retail element should be conditioned in terms of floorspace and to remain associated to the main operational use of the units.

RECOMMENDATION RE: CR/2004/0215/COU

PERMIT - Subject to the following condition(s):-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The retail area hereby permitted shall not exceed 116.85m², as indicated on drawing number 2004-01 and shown on 2004-03. REASON: Retail uses are not normally acceptable within this industrial area however the Local Planning Authority have had regard to the specific operations of the applicant, in accordance with policies GD1, SH3, E7 and E15 of the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000.

3. The retail area hereby permitted shall only be used for the benefit of the ski fitting business of the applicant and for no other purpose, including any purpose within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). REASON: Retail uses are not normally acceptable within this industrial area however the Local Planning Authority have had regard to the specific operations of the applicant, in accordance with policies GD1, SH3, E7 and E15 of the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000.

4. The use of the units 9 & 10 Oakwood Industrial Park shall enure only for the benefit of the applicant. REASON: Retail uses are not normally acceptable within this industrial area however the Local Planning Authority have had regard to the specific operations of the applicant, in accordance with policies GD1, SH3, E7 and E15 of the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000.

5. The use of unit 9 and 10 Oakwood Industrial Park, hereby granted, shall be carried on as a single business operation and for not other purpose whatsoever. REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and that retail uses are not normally acceptable within this industrial area however the Local Planning Authority have had regard to the specific operations of the applicant, in accordance with policies GD1, SH3, E7 and E15 of the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000.

6. The use hereby permitted shall not be carried on until space has been laid out in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority for the turning/loading and/or unloading of vehicles and the parking of 18 vehicles clear of the public highway (as indicated on drawing number 2004-01) and such space shall not thereafter be used other than for the purposes for which it is provided. REASON: In the interests of road safety and to accord with approved policy in accordance with Policies GD3 and T2 of the adopted Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1. This permission shall not purport or be deemed to authorise the display of any advertisements, for which separate consent may be required under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 (as amended). REASON: To ensure that the display of advertising material is considered under appropriate legislation.

2. This permission shall not purport or be deemed to authorise the insertion of a shopfront, as shown on drawing number 2004-02, for which separate permission would be required under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning 1990 (as amended). REASON: This is because the application form referred to a change of use only and to ensure that all development is considered under the appropriate legislation.

REASON FOR APPROVAL

1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000 set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 16, 2004 `Parking Standards and Transport Contributions`: a. GD1- The Normal Requirements of All Development, b. GD3- Operational Requirements for a Site, c. GD10-The Needs of the People with Disabilities and Mobility Problems, d. GD27- Shop Fronts, Advertisements, Signs and Hoardings, e. T2- Transport Infrastructure, f. T9- Parking Standards, g. E7- Protection of Existing Employment Floorspace, h. E9- Warehousing, i. E15- Employment Areas Adjacent to Residential Areas, j. SH3- Shopping General.

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 004

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0246/RG3

LOCATION: ROUNDABOUTS AT LONDON ROAD/GATWICK ROAD; O/S THE HAWTH THEATRE, HAWTH AVENUE; BALCOMBE ROAD/ANTLANDS LANE; STATION WAY/COUNTY MALL CAR PARK; TUSHMORE ROUNDABOUT, NORTHGATE, CRAWLEY PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF ONE NON-ILLUMINATED SIGN AT EACH APPROACH TO THE ROUNDABOUTS

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Christine Aldous, AGENTS NAME: ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

1. CP49 Head of Transport Services No highway objections in principle, provided the signs are linked to sponsorship of the relevant planting and maintenance on the roundabout, and subject to siting conditions.

Consultation expiry date: 5 May 2004

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT:-

The Occupier, 15-25 Blackfold Road; 2 Weald Drive; Vementry House; Spinney Cottage; Oakdene; Knights House; Ikon/Dive; The Management Suite; 1 & 2 Turnpike Road; 50 & 102 London Road; Holiday Inn.

REPLIES RECEIVED:-

No replies received.

OBSERVATIONS:-

1. The application has been made by the Borough Council and relates to 4 roundabouts serving main roads within the town. The application is to allow sponsorship signs 0.4m high x 0.8m wide, pole mounted with a maximum height of 0.8m above ground level.

2. The roundabouts covered by this application are: London Road/Gatwick Road, Hawth Avenue/Weald Drive, Station Way/County Mall car park, and Tushmore Roundabout.

3. Corporate Background - The sponsored roundabouts are part of the Crawley in Bloom initiative which established new schemes for improving the town by additional planting areas and hanging baskets.

4. Policies GD1 and GD2 with regard to the design and appearance of signs are relevant whilst GD28 requires all advertisements to be appropriate to the location without causing a hazard to the public, whilst being suitably landscaped. Policy T7 is also relevant. It encourages the Local Highways Authority to maintain and landscape the network and allows for the Borough Council to undertake its own improvements in exceptional circumstances.

5. The main issues to be considered are: i) the design and scale of the signs, ii) the locations of the signs, iii) the landscaping & improvements to the roundabouts proposed.

6. The roundabouts have been identified for sponsorship potential as they are at junctions of main trunk roads within the town. The majority of the roundabouts are an intersection of 3 or 4 roads and therefore one sign is proposed opposite each approach to the roundabout.

7. Planning consents for signage to roundabouts have been granted since 1996, with a large number of roundabouts already sponsored with an identical design of signs, the last consent being CR/2002/0156/ADV. The design and scale of the signs is therefore consistent with the implemented schemes, with support from the WSCC Highways. No objection has been raised to the proposed sites or signs.

8. The small scale and simple design of the signs would ensure that the signs would not be visually prominent. The signs are to be sited 1m in from the edge of the roundabouts and have been sited away from existing highway signage to ensure that the signs are not distracting to road users and that they will not therefore create a hazard

9. These roundabouts have been assessed and considered by the Amenity Services to ensure that there is potential for landscaping improvements to the specific sites, in line with policies GD28 and T7 of the adopted Local Plan, and that the schemes proposed are suitable to the location of the specific roundabout within the town; The Hawth will remain as art and wild flowers, Gatwick will be a major piece of art plus planting, County Mall to be brightened up with hanging baskets, and Tushmore Roundabout to be devised as part of the Fastway scheme to replant bulbs, trees and/or shrubs.

10. The schemes provide scope for an aesthetic improvement to the roundabouts achieved through the sponsorship that would not otherwise be possible. The indicative schemes will allow the signs to be sited without dominating the landscaping whilst providing improvements to the appearance of the road junctions.

RECOMMENDATION RE: CR/2004/0246/RG3

CONSENT for a period of five years, subject to the following conditions:-

1. (a) All advertisements displayed and any land for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. (b) Any hoarding or similar structure, or any sign, placard, board or device erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. (c) Where any advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal thereof shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. (d) No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission. (e) No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure or hinder the ready interpretation of any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of any highway, railway, waterway (including any coastal waters) or aerodrome (civil or military). REASONS: (a) to (e) - To comply with the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.

2. The advertising signs hereby permitted shall not be erected unless and until their exact locations have been approved by West Sussex County Council as Highway Authority. REASON: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy T2 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 005

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0251/FUL

LOCATION: LAND AT GATWICK HOUSE, PEEKS BROOK LANE, HORLEY, SURREY PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF SINGLE STOREY BUILDING AND ERECTION OF NEW TWO STOREY B1 OFFICE DEVELOPMENT

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Bity & General (South) Ltd., AGENTS NAME: RDJW Architects Limited, ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

1. BAA Safeguarding No safeguarding objection subject to control over erection of cranes and lighting. 2. Tandridge District Council Objects to nature of proposed use in strategic gap and unsustainable location. 3. Reigate & Banstead D. C No objection. 4. Env. Health Division No objection. 5. Sussex Police No objection, advises on safety and crime reduction. 6. CP49 Head of Transport Services Raises strategic objection due to unsustainable location and increase in vehicular traffic on surrounding road network.

7. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) No safeguarding objection.

Consultation expiry date: 10 May 2004

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT:-

The Occupiers; Gable Cottage; The Old School House; Flat 1 & 2 Two Ways; 1 & 2 Holly Cottages; 1 & 2 West View Cottage; 1 & 2 Pullcotts Farm Cottage; Landwade; Broadfield House; Twin Yards; Broadfield Farm; Touchwood Chapel; Suite 1, 3, 5, 7 & 9 (odds); Suite 2, 4, 6 & 8 (evens); Suite 2A, 4F, 5F & 6F; Brooklands.

REPLIES RECEIVED:-

5 letters of objection received from neighbouring properties on grounds of impact on highway safety, traffic speed, traffic generation and congestion, inadequate highway network, inappropriate development within a strategic gap location, possible risk of flooding, loss of privacy, over development.

OBSERVATIONS:-

1. This application relates to the land to the east of Gatwick House, an office development of some 3,250m² floor space. The site is located on the eastern side of Peeks Brook Lane with the M23 lying immediately beyond the eastern boundary. The locality is rural in character, the area surrounding the site is primarily open farmland with scattered residential development. The site is beneath the Gatwick flight path and is affected by aircraft noise, the site is also affected by traffic noise from the M23 mitigated to some extent by a landscaped acoustic bund along the eastern boundary.

2. The application seeks full planning permission for the development of a two-storey office block of some 696m² floor space together with parking provision for 25 cars. The proposal will involve the demolition of an unoccupied single storey building of some 324m² to the south of the proposed office. The net increase in office floor space would amount to 372m². The site would be accessed via the existing entrance from Peeks Brook Lane.

3. A previous application for significantly larger two-storey office was refused in September 2001 in the absence of compelling development circumstances in the strategic gap, unsustainable location and increase in vehicular traffic on surrounding highway (CR/2001/0475/OUT). A subsequent application for a two-storey office was submitted in March 2003 (CR/2003/0151/FUL). This was withdrawn in April 2004 following officer concern over the scale of development, increase in site activity and traffic. The remoteness of the site from the built-up area and public transport was also identified as a concern. The current application is the same as the previous submission, however, the applicant has submitted a company travel plan and transport statement to address previous concerns over impact on and capacity of the surrounding road network to accommodate additional traffic, increase in site activity, parking and traffic movements.

4. The main issues to be considered in determining this application relates to whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies in the adopted Crawley Borough Local Plan, namely C1, C2, C3, C4, T2, T9, E1 and GD1-GD3 together with its impact on the amenity on the neighbouring area. Policies LOC1, LOC2, CH6 and DEV4 of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 Deposit Draft (incorporating the Proposed Modifications and other changes) are also relevant. The requirements of SPG16 ‘Parking Standards and Financial Contributions’ must also be considered.

5. The site is located outside the built-up area within countryside and Policy C1 which seeks to limit development to that related to the needs of agriculture or forestry must be considered. The proposed office use does not require a countryside location and therefore the proposal does not fulfil the requirements of Policy C1.

6. The site also lies within the Crawley and Gatwick Airport/Horley Strategic Gap. Policies C2 and C3 seek to maintain these areas and set a policy framework where development is only allowed in compelling circumstances. Policy C4 states that small scale extensions to non-residential buildings will not be required to meet the compelling circumstances test of Policy C3 providing they do not significantly increase the level of activity of the site. Whilst the net increase in office floor space may be considered small scale, it would result in intensified use and significant increase in urban activity in terms of built development and traffic movements, contrary to Policy C4 (ii).

7. There is no evidence of shortage of office accommodation or land for such use within the built-up area and it is considered that no compelling justification has been put forward to justify development of this kind and of the scale proposed in this location. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy C3.

8. Parking for 25 vehicles is to be provided within the existing car park. Additional parking is not considered necessary given that current parking (172 spaces for 3250m² office floorspace) greatly exceeds the maximum standards for B1 office development in this location, namely 1 space per 30m² gross floor space. Whilst the parking needs of the proposal can be accommodated, the development would generate a significant number of vehicular trips (calculated to be approximately 152 per day) and this would significantly increase traffic movements and urban activity, contrary to Policy C4 of the adopted local plan and Policy CH6 of the Deposit Draft West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 (incorporating proposed modifications).

9. The impact of additional traffic on the surrounding road network must also be considered. The submitted Transport Statement provides an accurate assessment of trip generation and traffic volumes, however, it significantly underestimates the impact of this traffic on the surrounding road network and increased hazards for motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. It is considered that the company Travel Plan would not have a significant impact in reducing increased car movements arising from the development in view of the location of the site and remoteness from established neighbourhoods, shopping facilities, bus and rail interchanges and cycleways. The fact that existing parking provision greatly exceeds current standards would further reduce the effectiveness of the Travel Plan because employees would have little incentive to use alternative modes. The absence of footways and crossing points along Peeks Brook Lane and Fernhill Road must also be recognised. These factors would mitigate against significant behavioural change in terms of uptake of car reduction schemes such as car sharing, cycling and flexible working with result that the vast majority of new employees would drive to the site. It is considered that the proposal would significantly increase vehicle movements to and from the site via Peeks Brook Lane, a narrow, unlit, rural road, increasing hazards for road users, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians, contrary to Policies T2 and GD1 of the Local Plan.

10. The site is also remote from public transport linkages. The level of development proposed would generate a significant amount of additional traffic within a rural area remote from public transport provision. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy E1 which seeks employment provision in accessible locations which minimise car use and STRAT3 which seeks to ensure that new development is directed towards the existing built-up area within locations which are reasonably accessible by public transport in an attempt to reduce the need to travel by car and minimise development within the countryside.

11. Whilst the design and appearance of the proposed office is considered broadly acceptable, the proposal is contrary to adopted countryside and transportation policies and cannot be supported.

RECOMMENDATION RE : CR/2004/0251/FUL

REFUSE on the following grounds :

1. The proposal would result in development within the strategic gap which would significantly increase the level of activity of the site due to additional traffic movements contrary to Policy C4 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 and CH6 of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 Deposit Draft (incorporating the Proposed Modifications and other changes).

2. The proposal would involve development within the strategic gap which Policy C3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 requires should only be permitted where there are compelling circumstances and Policy LOC2 and CH6 of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016 Deposit Draft (incorporating the Proposed Modifications and other changes) states should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where there is demonstrable need. These exceptions are not considered to exist in the present case.

3. The proposed development is in an unsustainable location where public transport and alternative modes of transport are not immediately available. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy STRAT3 and E1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 and Policy DEV4 of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001- 2016 Deposit Draft (incorporating the Proposed Modifications and other changes).

4. The proposal would generate an unacceptable increase in vehicular traffic using Peeks Brook Lane increasing the hazard to existing road users, pedestrians and equestrians and undermining the rural character of the area. The proposal is contrary to Policy T2 and C1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 006

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0276/FUL

LOCATION: LAND TO REAR OF 89 MALTHOUSE ROAD, SOUTHGATE, CRAWLEY (AMENDED ADDRESS) PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 2 X 2 BED FLATS

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Jamel Khan, AGENTS NAME: ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

1. CP49 Head of Transport Services No objections.

Consultation expiry date: 14 May 2004

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT :

The Occupier, 87, 91 & 116-122 (Evens) Malthouse Road; 10, 11, 13, 15 & 18 Southgate Road.

REPLIES RECEIVED :

8 letters received objecting to the on grounds of

• loss of view, outlook and privacy, • development out of character with detached properties in surrounding area • proximity to front boundary out of character with set back of properties in surrounding area, • traffic generation/congestion, • inadequate parking provision, • visual impact of block on street scene, • inadequate site size, • loss of trees, • increased pressure on sewage system.

OBSERVATIONS :

1. This application relates to garden land to the rear of No 89 Malthouse Road. The site is surrounded by large detached houses, set back within their plot. The application property and four adjoining were originally granted on appeal in the early 1960’s. This has resulted in a more varied building line along the southern side of Southgate Road. Whilst the surrounding area is relatively mixed in respect of dwelling style and character, each property is set back within its plot. There are no significant level changes to adjoining properties.

2. The application proposes the erection of 2 two bedroom flats in a two-storey maisonette block fronting Southgate Road. The building would be sited in the north east corner of the site some 1.5m from the boundary with Southgate Road with vehicular access to this road. Two parking spaces are provided to the side of the block and each flat would have access to rear garden space.

3. The main issues to be considered in determining the application relate to its layout and design, impact on the surrounding street scene, character of the area, neighbour amenity and adequacy of parking. The suitability of the units as living accommodation must also be considered in terms of size and adequacy of outdoor amenity space. A previous application for the erection of 2 two bedroom flats was submitted in November 2003 (CR/2003/0850/FUL). This was withdrawn in February 2004 following officer concern over design and layout, impact on street scene and neighbour amenity. The current application is essentially the same as the previous submission, the only difference being the location of the building which has been positioned a further 1m from the boundary with Southgate Rd to provide separation of 1.5m.

4. The relevant policies of the adopted Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 include GD1, GD2, GD3, GD5, T2, T9, H5, H20 and H22. Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to Standards for New Housing Development (SPG3) and Private Outdoor Space (SPG 4) must also be considered. Policy H5 allows proposals for new housing infill or redevelopment sites within the built-up area providing they meet identified need, the site and surrounding area is suitable for residential development and can be integrated into the local area. National planning guidance PPG3 ‘Housing’ seeks to secure a high standard of house design incorporating a mix of dwelling types and sizes whilst making the most efficient use of urban land.

5. The building would be sited in the north east corner of the site approximately 1.5m from the front boundary. It has a footprint of 10.3m width and 7.2m depth at a height of 5m to eaves and 7.8m to the ridge. The building is oriented such that its gable end fronts Southgate Road. A number of bedroom, living room and kitchen windows are proposed at ground and first floor on the west and east elevation.

6. The site is located within the urban area where the principle of housing infill and redevelopment is generally acceptable. However, Policy H5 requires that infill sites are suitable for the scale of development proposed with no adverse impact on the character, appearance and amenity of the surrounding area.

7. The increased separation to the boundary with Southgate Road which provides a distance of some 1.5m does not overcome the council’s previous concern over proximity of the building to the street and it is considered that the proposal would still create an over prominent form of two-storey development which would be detrimental to the surrounding street scene and character of the area in terms of set back of dwellings within their plots. A flatted development is also considered to be out of character with the established pattern of detached houses in the surrounding area. The proximity of the first floor windows on the east and west elevation would create unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to the rear garden and living area of adjoining properties which would be detrimental to their amenity. The proximity of the building to the north and east boundary would also be detrimental to the outlook of No 87 resulting in an overbearing form of development.

8. Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4 ‘Standards for Private Outdoor Space’ provides guidance on the amount of garden space required for new dwellings based on number of bed spaces. The document also provides guidance on space between dwellings in terms of length of garden required to prevent loss of privacy and amenity to adjoining properties. The minimum garden required for a 3 bed space dwelling is 60m² with length of at least 10.5m. Whilst the size of both gardens complies with this guidance on area, they do not have adequate depth and it is considered that this would adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties through loss of privacy and increased noise and activity to their gardens. The internal size of each dwelling complies with the requirements of SPG3 “Standards for New Housing Development” and would provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupants in accordance with Policy H22 and SPG3.

9. The proposed parking provision is considered acceptable in view of the size of the dwellings and proximity of the site to the town centre. It accords with Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking Standards and Transport Contributions (SPG 16) which requires 1 space for a 2 bed dwelling in this location and PPG3 ‘Housing’ and is considered acceptable in respect of local plan policy T9 (Parking Standards). There are a number of ornamental fruit trees within the site which would need to be removed to accommodate the proposal, however, it is not considered that their loss would be detrimental in street scene and amenity terms and could be rectified by replacement planting, albeit not on the street frontage.

10. The proposal is considered unacceptable in terms of visual prominence, impact on the street scene, character of the area and neighbour amenity.

RECOMMENDATION RE: CR/2004/0276/FUL

REFUSE - For the following reason(s):-

1. The proposal, by virtue of its proximity to the front boundary of the site, would create an over-prominent form of two-storey development which would be detrimental to the surrounding street scene and character of the area, contrary to Policies GD1, GD2 and H5 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

2. The proposed building, due to its width, height and proximity to the eastern boundary, would have a dominating and overbearing effect on the neighbouring dwelling to the east, contrary to Policies GD1 and H5 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

3. The proposed building, due to the siting and position of windows would create an unacceptable degree of overlooking to the rear garden and living areas of neighbouring properties to the east and west which would be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of these properties, contrary to Policies GD1 and H5 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

4. The limited garden depth and the proximity of the development to neighbouring properties, would be detrimental to residential amenity in respect of loss of privacy, noise and disturbance, contrary to Policy GD1, H5 and H20 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 and SPG4 'Standards for Private Outdoor Space'.

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 007

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0278/FUL

LOCATION: 19A PARKWAY, POUND HILL, CRAWLEY PROPOSAL: PROVISION OF VELUX WINDOWS IN ROOF

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Mr. D. Pearson, AGENTS NAME: ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

1 PL-08-0 Site plan

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

Consultation expiry date:

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT:-

The Occupier 14-20 (Evens) Park Way; 17-21 (Odd) Park Way; 19-22 (All) Byron Close; 50- 56 (Evens) St. Mary’s Drive.

REPLIES RECEIVED:-

No comments have been received.

OBSERVATIONS

1. The application relates to land at the rear of no.19 Parkway, a detached two storey dwelling with a substantial detached garage to the side. The surrounding area is residential in character and predominantly comprises semi-detached and detached properties with gardens. This property is one of four detached properties with substantial gardens, arranged around the corner of a cul-de-sac.

2. Planning permission was granted on 25 November 2003 for the division of the plot into two and the conversion of the existing garage into a one bedroom dwelling, the new plot to be known as 19A Parkway.

3. Pursuant to the above consent, permission was granted on 7 April 2004 for a single storey extension to the garage/proposed dwelling.

4. The proposed extension allowed for the creation of a further double and one single bedroom, larger dining, lounge and storage areas, a new bathroom and the removal of a study at ground floor level. The proposed double bedroom and ensuite bathroom in the roof would remain as approved. A smaller window to the roof level bedroom was provided between the two pitched roofs to the extension.

5. The existing garage is currently still used as ancillary to the dwelling at 19 Parkway and the approved conversion has not yet taken place. For this reason, the application should be regarded as part of the proposed new dwelling.

6. The merits of the proposal to convert and extend the garage for use as a dwelling have been assessed in determining the two previous applications. This application is for permission to vary condition 3 of the planning permission dated 7 April 2004 to allow the installation of 6 additional velux windows to the south elevation and 3 within the double pitched roof to the rear of the proposed dwelling. Permission had already been granted for one obscure glazed velux window to the first floor bathroom on the south elevation. On the south elevation this would comprise two to the first floor bedroom, one to the ground floor bathroom and three to the ground floor lounge. 3 additional velux are proposed to the ground floor dining room which would face into the valley between the two pitched roofs.

7. The main issues to consider in this case are the impact of the proposal on the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers and the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

8. The relevant local plan policies include GD1, GD2, H5 and H22. GD1 and GD2 require new development to be appropriate to its location and surroundings in terms of scale, form and spacing between buildings and not to cause unreasonable harm to the amenities and environment of its surroundings by reason of overlooking, dominance or overshadowing; traffic generation and general activity; creation of pollution, hazards or nuisance; or any other adverse environmental impact

9. Policy H5 allows proposals for new housing infill or redevelopment sites within the built-up area providing they meet identified housing need, that the site and surrounding area is suitable for residential development and there is no adverse impact upon the character, appearance and amenity of the surrounding area, and they can be successfully integrated into the local area. H22 states that proposals for residential development must create a safe, attractive and sustainable living environment which provides appropriate standards of residential amenities and takes account of the characteristics of the site and surroundings.

10. In terms of the effect of the proposal on the amenities of surrounding residents, it is considered that the velux windows would be likely to increase the sense of intrusion and loss of privacy, and cause additional noise and disturbance to adjoining residents. The applicant states that all velux windows would be 1.8m minimum from floor level and that they are intended as roof lights only. In addition the occupiers to the south are currently screened by the existing conifer hedge along the boundary, however the proposal must be assessed in the context of surrounding buildings and there is no guarantee that the hedge will remain. Even if there would be no overlooking from the velux windows to the south elevation, their presence on the roof would be likely to increase the sense of intrusion and loss of privacy and prejudice adjoining residents’ enjoyment of the rear of their properties.

11. The proposal would also be likely to result in increased noise and disturbance by virtue of additional openable windows at roof level to main habitable rooms. The proposed building is currently ancillary to the existing dwelling and residents enjoy a degree of tranquillity to their rear garden areas. The proposal would be likely to have a significant additional impact beyond the acceptable approved dwelling, to the detriment of adjoining residents’ quiet enjoyment of their properties. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to policies GD1, H5 and H22.

12. In terms of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the property and the visual amenities of the surrounding area, it is considered that there would be no significant impact in this context and that the proposal would comply with policies GD1, GD2, H5 and H22 in this regard.

RECOMMENDATION RE: CR/2004/0278/FUL

REFUSE - For the following reason(s):-

1. The proposal would be likely to cause an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to surrounding occupiers by virtue of an increased sense of intrusion and loss of privacy, and additional noise and disturbance to the rear of the properties contrary to policies GD1, H5 and H22 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 008

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0280/FUL

LOCATION: 54 OAKFIELDS, POUND HILL, CRAWLEY PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Mr & Mrs M Warnes, AGENTS NAME: Mr A Ryrie, ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

1 MW01A

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

Consultation expiry date:

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT:-

The Occupier, 51-53 (All) & 56 Oakfields; 1 Cherry Tree Close; 8 Weller Close.

REPLIES RECEIVED:-

One letter of objection received against the proposal’s impact in terms of loss of privacy, loss of light and the impact on the human rights of the neighbouring occupants.

OBSERVATIONS:-

1. The application site is a detached two-storey dwelling, located in the middle of the row. The property faces west and is set back from the neighbour at 56 Oakfields, which is to the north. The main issues relating to this application are the effect the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the streetscene and on the neighbouring properties.

2. The proposal comprises erecting a first-floor side extension on the north side, above the existing single-storey garage. The garage wall forms the northern boundary of the property, which is continued by 1.8m high panel fence. The relevant policies to this application are policies GD1, GD2 and H19 of the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000 and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note Five, 2001 “Residential Extensions”.

3. The proposed two storey side extension would be built above the existing single storey garage. The proposal would be set back by 0.75m from the front elevation of the main dwelling. It would measure 2.7m wide by 6.6m deep. This is the same as the existing garage. The ridge of the proposal’s roof would be set down 300mm from the ridge of the main dwelling.

4. One letter of objection has been received, concerned that the window shown to be inserted at first-floor level would impact on the privacy and human rights of the neighbouring property, 56 Oakfields. Concerns were also raised about the design of the proposal and its impact on the character of the streetscene and by virtue of its proximity to the boundary, the proposal’s effect on the neighbour’s sun light.

5. The window mentioned in the objector’s letter would allow extra light into the proposed bedroom. It is acknowledged that this would cause some overlooking but it is considered that most of the view would be obscured by the existing rear extension to the neighbouring property. However, it is considered not to be an adverse impact to the amenities of the neighbour and it would not warrant enough reason for refusal on its own. It is recommended that, if permitted, a condition could be placed on the window to allow it to open inwards, for maintenance and cleaning.

6. The proposal’s design is considered to be appropriate to its location in terms of design and its relationship with the character of the streetscene. The set back allows the proposal to be read as a subservient part of the main dwelling, thus reducing its dominance in the streetscene. The roof design also matches the angle of the main dwellings’ roof line and thus would sit comfortably in relation to the main dwelling.

RECOMMENDATION RE: CR/2004/0280/FUL

PERMIT - Subject to the following condition(s):-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The materials and finishes of the external walls and roof of the extension hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those of the original dwellinghouse. REASON: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policies GD1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended), no windows or other openings (other than those shown on the approved plan MW01A) shall be formed in the northern elevation of the extension or original dwelling without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application in that behalf. REASON: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties, in accordance with Policies GD1 and H19 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 .

4. The windows on the northern elevation of the extension (shown on drawing MW01 A) shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass and be fixed to be permanently non- opening. REASON: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property, in accordance with Policies GD1 and H19 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

REASON

1. The proposed works are not considered to have an adverse impact on the character of the building or the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000 set out below, and to all relevant material considerations: a. GD1 - The Normal Requirements of All Development, b. GD2 - Development and its Setting, c. H19 - Residential Extensions and Alterations.

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 009

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0281/FUL

LOCATION: 50 EAST PARK, SOUTHGATE, CRAWLEY PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF ONE 4 BED SEMI TO TWO x 1 BED FLATS

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Mr Zeb, AGENTS NAME: James Nayler, ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

1. CP49 Head of Transport Services No objections.

Consultation expiry date: 17 May 2004

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT:-

The Occupier, 48, 57 & 59 East Park; Allied Dunbar House.

REPLIES RECEIVED:

No replies received.

OBSERVATIONS:-

1. This application relates to 50 East Park, a two-storey semi detached Victorian dwelling located to the south of the railway line. The property is situated in an area of mixed residential, office and commercial buildings with footpath to the side which provides access to the town centre via a foot bridge.

2. This application seeks permission for conversion of the dwelling to provide two 1 bedroom flats. The property is to be subdivided to form separate accommodation at ground and first floor with individual lounge, kitchen and bathroom. Access to both properties would be gained from the existing front entrance with shared lobby. Communal outdoor amenity space would be provided to the rear with on-site parking for two cars. A previous application for conversion of the dwelling to form two 2 bed flats was refused in November 2003 (Ref : CR/2003/0584/FUL) due to inadequate size and layout in terms of the relationship of the first floor flat to the ground floor.

3. The principal issues to be considered in determining this application relates to the suitability of the units as separate units of accommodation in terms of internal size and layout, adequacy of on-site parking provision and outdoor amenity space and impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. Policies GD1, GD2, GD3, H16, H20, H22 and T9 of the adopted local plan are relevant as is the guidance of Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 2 (Sub-Division of Dwellings into Self Contained Flats) and SPG 4 (Private Outdoor Space). The council’s recently adopted SPG on ‘Car Parking and Financial Contributions’ (SPG 16) must also be considered. It is also necessary to consider whether the present scheme overcomes the previous reasons for refusal in respect of internal size and layout.

4. The subdivision of the unit is considered acceptable in principle in view of the mixed nature of the area and proximity to the town centre. The internal size of both units complies with the council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Sub-Division with the original property having a net floorspace of greater than 97 square metres. SPG2 provides minimum sizes for flats according to the number of proposed bed spaces and requires a bedroom of at least 10m², living room of at least 13m² and individual kitchen for a 2 bed space flat. Both flats comply with these requirements and it is considered that they are of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed number of occupants. The internal layout of the flats is also considered acceptable in terms of relationship with one another and would not lead to conflict between the ground and first floor living and sleeping areas. SPG2 advises that all dwellings should be designed and laid out internally in order to minimise the impact of their use on the amenity of adjoining properties and their internal layout and design is now considered acceptable in minimising problems of noise and disturbance for future occupants.

5. The proposal would provide 2 car parking spaces to the side of the dwelling. A further 2 spaces are shown to the rear of the garden. The council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking Standards (SPG 16) requires 1 space per dwelling for 1-2 bed units in the town centre and the proposed level of parking complies with this requirement. The proposal would provide a limited amount of communal garden space which can be directly accessed from the ground floor flat. The location and amount of garden space is considered broadly acceptable for the size and type of dwellings and would provide reasonable outdoor amenity space for the proposed occupants. However, it is acknowledged that the parking layout would impinge on this space and compromise its use and enjoyment to a certain degree.

6. It is considered that the current submission has overcome the previous grounds of refusal and would provide a reasonable standard of residential accommodation in accordance with Policies GD1, GD2, GD3, H16, H20, H22, T2, T9 and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 2 ‘Standards for the Sub- Division of Dwellings into Self Contained Flats’.

RECOMMENDATION RE: CR/2004/0281/FUL

PERMIT - Subject to the following condition(s):-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2. 2 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained within the curtilage of the site at all times. These parking spaces shall be kept available for such use except with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure adequate provision of parking clear of the highway in accordance with Policies GD3 and T9 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

3. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site on Sundays or Public Holidays or at any other time except between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays. REASON: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with Policy GD34 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

4. The use hereby permitted shall not be carried on until the premises have been sound insulated in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To safeguard the environment from excessive noise by ensuring a satisfactory degree of sound insulation required to make the proposal acceptable in accordance wtih Policy GD1 of the Local Plan 2000.

5. Prior to occupation of the flats hereby permitted, details of a boundary treatment along the (rear) western boundary to 48 East Park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the residential amenity of adjacent residential properties in accordance with Policy GD1 and H16 of the adopted Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 2 'Standards for the Sub-Division of Dwellings into Self-Contained Flats'.

INFORMATIVE

1. The applicant should be aware that this permission does not purport to grant consent to any works required under other legislation including Environment Health or Building Regulations.

REASON

1. The proposal is not considered to have an adverse impact on the character of the building or the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000 set out below, and to all relevant material considerations including Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 2: `Standards for the Sub-Division of Dwellings into Self-Contained Flats` a. GD1 - The Normal Requirements of All Development, b. GD2 - Development and its Setting, c. H16 - 'House Conversions' d. T2 - 'Transport Infrastructure' e. T9 - 'Parking Standards' f. H20 - 'Private Outdoor Space' g. H22 - 'Design'

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 010

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0301/FUL

LOCATION: 5 WENLOCK CLOSE, GOSSOPS GREEN, CRAWLEY PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION OVER EXISTING GARAGE

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Mr. E. Downey, AGENTS NAME: James Nayler, ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

Consultation expiry date:

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT:-

The Occupier, 4-6 (Evens) & 11-14 (All) Wenlock Close; 126-128 (Evens) Buckswood Drive.

REPLIES RECEIVED:-

One letter of objection received on grounds of design and streetscene impact, loss of privacy, increased noise/disturbance from building works, encroachment, storage of materials on surrounding highway, inability of existing garage to support extension, future maintenance necessitating access to No. 6 Wenlock Close and likelihood of structural damage to adjoining dwelling (No. 6).

OBSERVATIONS:-

1. This application relates to a two-storey semi detached dwelling with flat roofed garage situated in a cul-de-sac of mixed semi detached and detached properties. The property has three parking bays including the parking space within the garage. There is limited on street parking available given the proximity of the property to a turning head. The neighbouring property to the east (No 6) has a flat roofed garage which extends across to the boundary with No 5. There is a marginal increase in land levels between the two properties such that No 6 is set approximately 0.4m above the application property (see front elevation drawing).

2. The application seeks permission for the erection of a first floor side extension above the existing garage. The extension would be set back 2.9m from the main (front) elevation with ridge height set down some 0.4m from the main house. The extension would create a new bedroom and bathroom with windows front and rear.

3. The main issues to be considered in determining the application relate to the impact on the street scene, neighbour amenity, adequacy of parking and impact on the original dwelling and character of the area.

4. First floor side extensions can be visually prominent when viewed from the surrounding street scene. In order to minimise their visual impact and prevent a ‘terracing’ effect in relation to neighbouring properties, Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 5 ‘Residential Extensions’ recommends that a minimum 1m gap should be maintained to the side boundary of the site and 2m gap to the neighbouring property. If a 1m gap cannot be achieved, the guidance recommends setting the extension back some 2m from the front elevation.

5. The existing garage extends fully to the eastern boundary of the site. The existing first floor gap provides a visual break in built form given that the neighbouring property to the east is built up to the boundary. This visual break preserves a degree of openness and spaciousness within a relatively compact form of residential development. Whilst there is some variation in the style of houses in the surrounding area, many of them were originally designed with through views at first floor.

6. The extension would not leave any gap to the eastern boundary at first floor, however, it is set back by 2.69m from the front elevation. This helps to minimise the likelihood of terracing with the neighbouring property to the east (No 6) should they wish to extend above their garage. No 6 is also set back in relation to the application property and has a pitched, as opposed to a gable-ended roof. This helps to reduce the likelihood of terracing and would ensure that a degree of through views could be retained. The set back of the extension accords with the general guidance on two-storey side extensions contained in SPG5 and its design will not harm the character and appearance of the original dwelling. The general bulk and scale of the extension is not considered overly excessive in relation to the size of the plot and character of the surrounding area.

7. The extension must also be considered in terms of its impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in respect of outlook, dominance and privacy. It is considered that the extension will not have any adverse impact on the neighbouring property to the east (No 6) in terms of loss of outlook, shadowing and privacy. This property has no windows on its side flank which would be adversely affected and loss of outlook is not considered to be significant in view of the staggered relationship between the two properties with No 6 set back 2.4m from the application property.

8. The impact of the extension on the outlook of the adjoining semi must be carefully considered given its projection beyond the rear elevation. Outlook from this property is already obscured by the flat roofed garage and the key issue to consider is whether the additional flank and roof line would be detrimental to outlook and create an unacceptable level of shadowing. Whilst the outlook from the adjoining property will clearly change, it is not considered that additional loss of outlook would adversely affect their amenity to the extent which would justify refusal. It would result in an additional 1.4m of flank at first floor with pitched roofline following the original dwelling. Whilst the extension will create a degree of additional overshadowing to the rear living area of the adjoining property, it is not considered that any loss of light would be significant. The application of the 45º test recommended by the British Research Establishment in assessing loss of daylight would not intersect the extension on both horizontal and vertical planes and it is therefore considered that the extension would not have any detrimental impact on daylighting to this property. It is not considered that the visual bulk and scale of the extension will adversely affect the amenities of this property is terms of overbearance, outlook and loss of daylight.

9. The proposal would not affect the level of on-site car parking (3 spaces) which is considered to be sufficient for a 5 bedroom dwelling (if extended). The application is therefore considered acceptable in terms of impact on the street scene, character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area, impact on neighbour amenity and adequacy of parking.

RECOMMENDATION RE: CR/2004/0301/FUL

PERMIT - Subject to the following condition(s):-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The materials and finishes of the external walls (and roof(s)) of the building(s) hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those of the existing building(s). REASON: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policies GD1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended no windows or other openings (other than those shown on the plans hereby approved) shall be formed in the eastern wall of the extension without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application in that behalf. REASON: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties, in accordance with Policies GD1 and H19 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 .

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended no windows or other openings (other than those shown on the plans hereby approved) shall be formed in the western wall of the extension without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority on an application in that behalf. REASON: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties, in accordance with Policies GD1 and H19 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 .

REASON

1. The proposed works are not considered to have an adverse impact on the character of the building or the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the adopted Crawley Borough Council Local Plan 2000 set out below, and to all relevant material considerations including Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 5 `Resdential Extensions`; a. GD1 - The Normal Requirements of All Development, b. GD2 - Development and its Setting, c. H19 - Residential Extensions and Alterations.

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 011

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0303/FUL

LOCATION: ALTEON, CRAWLEY BUSINESS QUARTER, MANOR ROYAL, CRAWLEY PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF TRANSFORMER SUB-STATION

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Alteon Trainig UK Ltd., AGENTS NAME: ETC Design Ltd., ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

Consultation expiry date:

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT:-

The Occupier, Virgin Atlantic; Unilever Best Foods; Asahi Diamond (site is vacant); Elekta Oncology.

REPLIES RECEIVED:-

No comments received

OBSERVATIONS:-

1. The application site is situated to the west of the Crawley Business Quarter, Manor Royal, west of the five storey Virgin Atlantic building. The site is part of a larger site that has planning permission for the erection of a flight training facility. The flight training facility is currently under construction, as is the proposed transformer sub-station. The site is located within a commercial area, with a variety of different building types.

2. The proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of a transformer sub-station. The sub-station would have a maximum height of 3.95m and a maximum depth of 13.3m and a width of 8.8 m. The transformer sub-station would be used in connection with the approved use of the site as a flight training facility.

3. Two planning applications have been recently approved on the site, subject to a S.106 agreement, for the erection of a flight training facility. CR/2003/0660/FUL approved the first scheme and CR/2003/0904/FUL was an amended re-submission.

4. The relevant policies to this application are GD1, GD2 and E16. Policy GD1 requires that all developments are appropriate in their location in terms of scale and form, GD2 requires all developments to relate sympathetically to its surroundings. Policy E16 requires that all developments be to a high standard of design and environmental quality within Manor Royal.

5. The issue to consider is whether the scale, design and siting of the transformer sub-station are appropriate in its location.

6. The sub-station would be a utilitarian building with a flat roof. It would be clad in similar materials to the main building. The sub-station would be separated from the main building and would be located to the rear of the site, away from the main entrance and parking areas. The character and appearance of this building would be in keeping with the flight training facility and the surrounding commercial area. The siting and use of the building would be appropriate to the use of this site as a flight training facility.

7. The sub-station would not be prominent within the wider area and would be obscured from view from the south and east when the second phase extension of the flight training facility is implemented.

8. The proposal is of an appropriate scale and appearance, it would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding commercial area and would accord with the design of the existing building on the site. The sub-station would be of an appropriate standard for the site and its setting.

RECOMMENDATION RE: CR/2004/0303/FUL

PERMIT - Subject to the following condition(s):-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The materials and finishes of the external walls of the transformer sub-station hereby permitted shall match in colour and texture those of the flight training centre, Crawley Business Quarter. REASON: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policies GD1, GD2 and E16 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

REASON

1. The proposal is considered appropriate to its location in terms of scale, design and siting. It would not have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is considered to accord with the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000 and all relevant material considerations including; a. GD1 - The Normal Requirements of All Development, b. GD2 - Development and its Setting, c. E16 - Manor Royal Estate, d. Design guide for Manor Royal

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 11 June 2004 REPORT NO: PS. 176.00 ITEM NO: 012

REFERENCE NO: CR/2004/0307/FUL

LOCATION: MANN CLOSE, BROADFIELD, CRAWLEY PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF A MIXED DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING A LOCK-UP SHOP AS PART OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 4 X 1 BED FLATS, 7 X 2 BED FLATS TOGETHER WITH ALL ASSOCIATED PARKING

APPLICANT/AGENT

APPLICANTS NAME: Select Developments & Land Ltd., AGENTS NAME: Kent Design Partnership, ______

AMENDED PLANS/DRAWINGS:

CONSULTATIONS

Type Comments

1. WSCC Planning No stratgic objection. A library contribution will be required. 2. Sussex Police No objection. 3. CP49 Head of Transport Services No highway objection subject to transport contribution. 4. BAA Safeguarding No objection. 5. Environment Agency No reply. 6. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) No objection.

Consultation expiry date: 27 May 2004

NEIGHBOUR LETTERS SENT:-

The Occupier: 1 & 2 Mann Close; 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 Hyndman Close; 1, 2, 3 & 4 Kelmscott Rise; 22, 23, 24, 25 & 26 Hammond Road; 1 Faulkener Close.

REPLIES RECEIVED:-

2 letters of objection received: • Loss of open space and trees/wildlife • Potential noise and nuisance from proposed shop • Additional traffic

OBSERVATIONS:-

1. The application site comprises 0.15 hectares of land at the head of Mann Close, a short cul de sac serving just two houses, in the Tollgate Hill area of Broadfield, lying to the west of that road.

2. To the north of the site lies Hammond Road comprising a mix of two storey houses and flats. Hammond Road serves as the main access to the area and although adjacent to the site is set some distance below the level of the site. To the south of the site lies Hyndman Close another small cul de sac serving two storey houses and flats. The rear gardens of 5-9 inc Hyndman Close back onto the site. To the east of the site lies a steeply sloping area of land retained in the Council’s ownership comprising part of a landscaped area stretching alongside the western side of Tollgate Hill. To the west of the site is a pair of flats facing Kelmscott Rise.

3. The site is uneven albeit substantially flat, although there is a slope towards Hammond Hill and Tollgate Hill. There is a group of trees on the site of varying quality and maturity.

4. The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 4 x 1 bedroom flats, 7 x 2 bedroom flats and a lock-up shop all with associated parking. The buildings are shown arranged in an ‘L’ shape around the head of the cul de sac. Parking for the flats is confined to the rear (east) of the site with access gained between two of the proposed buildings. The development is designed as a two storey development. The submitted layout allows for three of the existing trees to remain. The northernmost block would be 4 metres from the pavement in Hammond Hill and 10 metres from the rear façade of properties in Kelmscott Rise. The southernmost block would be 13 metres from the rear façade of houses in Hyndman Close but only 1 metre from their rear garden wall. The three blocks would have dimensions of 11 metres x 11 metres x 9 metres high. The proposed shop would be located at ground floor level in the eastern half of the northernmost building. The shop would have 33.5m2 of retail space and 12m2 of ancillary/storage space.

5. The site lies within the built-up area in an established residential location. The site is allocated on the Local Plan Proposals Map under Policy SH18 for a local shop.

6. Policy GD1 of the local plan relates to the normal requirements of new development (location, height, massing, character etc.) GD2 requires new development to respect its surroundings and GD3 governs the operational requirements of new development. PolicyGD5 requires suitable landscaping and GD6 allowance for the landscaping to mature. Policy H5 is the general policy relating to infill development in the built-up area and T9 requires new development to meet its parking and transport demands.

7. The above local plan policies are supported by Supplementary Guidance Notes on the standard of new developmentSPG3, the standard of private outdoor space SPG4and parking standards and transportation requirements SPG 16.

8. The main issues in this case therefore are: • The suitability of the site for the development and the impact upon surrounding property • The suitability of the development for the future occupants • Parking and traffic issues.

9. The site lies within an established residential area and within the built-up area. The principle of a mixed residential/retail development is not therefore at issue given Policy H5 and SH18of the local plan. The development of this site will result in the loss of most of the existing trees but many are of poor quality and condition. The submitted layout seeks to retain the better specimens within an amenity area for future residents. The site because of its elevation is very prominent and the proposed development will be particularly noticeable in the streetscene/landscape. However, in comparison with an earlier scheme for this site which proposed three storey development with a height of 10.2 metres, this scheme is two storeys, with a height of 9 metres. The relationship with adjoining properties, which was also identified as a weakness in the earlier scheme has been addressed by reducing the height of the buildings as described and by re-designing them to present a hipped roof to the neighbouring properties rather than a bulkier gable. The flats in Kelmscott Rise to the west of the site have small back gardens but the nearest building would be 10 metres away. The houses in Hyndman Close are 12 metres distant and are slightly elevated in comparison with the site thus reducing the apparent bulk of the proposed development. It is concluded that this revised proposal addresses the concerns held in respect of the earlier submission and that the relationship with adjacent development is acceptable.

10 The proposed 1 bedroom flats would have 50.76 m2 of floorspace in comparison with the guidance in SPG3 of 48 m2. The 2 bedroom flats would have 61 m2 of floorspace in comparison with 60 m2. The proposed layout would provide sufficient amenity space around the development for future residents.

11. SPG16 recommends a parking standard of 1.2 spaces/1 bedroom unit and 1.5 spaces/2beroom unit in locations such as this. This would result in a requirement of 16 spaces. The submitted layout shows 18 spaces for the residential development plus 1 motorcycle space with 2 spaces in the front of the development for the shops customers together with a cycle rack. SPG 16 does not require parking spaces for shop units of this size. However, given the location of the proposed shop it is felt that 2 spaces would be acceptable

CONCLUSIONS:

The site is allocated in the local plan for a small shop to serve local needs. The development of this site for a mixed retail/residential development would accord in principle with policies SH18 and H5 of the local plan.

The development as submitted is considered to accord with the Councils Supplementary Guidance contained in notes 3, 4 and 16 and the redesign of the development has addressed concerns expressed with regard to an earlier application in respect of the bulk of the development and its relationship with neighbouring development.

RECOMMENDATION RE: CR/2004/0307/FUL

PERMIT - Subject to the following condition(s):- PERMIT subject to the conclusion of a section 106 agreement regarding library and transport contributions and the following condition

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

2. No development shall take place until details of screen walls and/or fences have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screen walls and/or fences associated with them have been erected. REASON: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy GD1and GD2 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

3. The building(s) shall not be occupied until the parking spaces and turning facilities shown on the submitted plans have been provided and constructed. The areas of land so provided shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking / turning / and garaging of vehicles. REASON: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the accommodation of vehicles clear of the highways in accordance with Policy GD3 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

4. The buildings shall not be occupied until the crossing between the boundary of the site and the adjoining carriageway has been laid out and constructed to a specification to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. (West Sussex County Council, Divisional Surveyors Dept., Northern Area Office, Worthing Road, Broadbridge Heath, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 3LZ. Tel. 01403 223900).

REASON: In the interests of road safety in accordance with Policies GD3 and T2 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

5. The buildings hereby permitted shall not be occupied/until provision has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to prevent surface water discharging onto the public highway. REASON: In the interests of road safety in accordance with Policy GD25 and T2 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

6. No development shall take place unless and until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, hard and soft, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. REASON: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development in accordance with Policy GD5 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

7. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. REASON: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development in the accordance with Policy GD5 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

8. No development, including site works of any description, shall take place on the site unless and until all the existing trees/bushes/hedges to be retained on the site have been protected by a fence to be approved by the Local Planning Authority erected around each tree or group of vegetation at a radius from the bole or boles of 5 metres or such distance as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Within the areas so fenced off the existing ground level shall be neither raised nor lowered and no materials, temporary buildings, plant machinery or surplus soil shall be placed or stored thereon without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. If any trenches for services are required in the fenced off areas they shall be excavated and backfilled by hand and any tree roots encountered with a diameter of 25 mm or more shall be left unservered. REASON: To ensure the retention and maintenance of trees and vegetation which is an important feature of the area in accordance with Policy GD5 and GD34 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.

9. No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishes and, where so required by the Local Planning Authority, samples of such materials and finishes to be used for external walls (and roofs) of the proposed building(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan 2000.