130 homes and flats at Land Parcel at Winchester Road, Tilgate, Crawley

The site and its surroundings

The site was a former school site beside Desmond Anderson Primary School, K2 Leisure Centre, Titmus Stream, ancient woodland and Tilgate Forest.

“The site lies at the western end of Winchester Road, to the south of the current Desmond Anderson Primary School. The site was originally developed as Desmond Anderson infant and junior schools, opening in 1958. Those schools became a single primary school in 2004, located in the current building which occupies the northern part of the original school site.”

“To the south of the site is an area of ancient woodland, which runs east-west between the site’s southern boundary and Tilgate Drive. There is a public right of way running along the southern boundary, within the ancient woodland. Beyond that is Tilgate Forest, which is designated as Structural Landscaping and some of which is also ancient woodland.”

Officer report

Planning history

No previous applications had been determined on the site by Crawley Borough Council, while an earlier school application was approved in 2004.

“No previous applications on the site have been determined by Crawley Borough Council.”

“West Sussex County Council determined the following planning application, which relates to the Desmond Anderson Primary School site to the north of the current application site:”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the development acceptable because it would provide housing and affordable homes, with acceptable design, highways, ecology, drainage and sustainability measures.

“The scheme is considered to have a good standard of design, with the layout carefully planned and the design of the individual buildings drawing on Crawley’s character whilst also delivering a modern distinctive development in its own right. It fully meets the required internal space standards for new dwellings. The main shortfall against local policies relates to private garden areas, a number of which are below our standards.”

“There would be no amenity impacts upon neighbouring residents and, despite minor shortfalls in the distances between buildings, the proposal would create an acceptable residential environment for future occupiers. There would be some additional traffic arising from the development, but WSCC Highways are satisfied that this is acceptable. The proposed on-site parking which is slightly overprovided would avoid overspill onto surrounding streets.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the Woodland Trust, Active Travel Crawley and some policing representatives objected on specified grounds.

“WSCC Highways Comments provided 2. Thames Water No objection 3. Police Comments provided 4. CBC Drainage Officer No objection subject to conditions 5. CBC Planning Arboricultural Officer No objection subject to conditions 6. CBC Contaminated Land Officer Comments provided 7. CBC Environmental Health Officer Comments provided 8. Crawley Cycle & Walking Forum Comments provided 9. CBC Refuse & Recycling Team Objection to bin stores for proposed flats 10.”

“CBC Housing Enabling & Development Manager Comments provided 23. CBC Sustainability Team Comments provided 24. CBC Crawley Homes No response received 25. WSCC Lead Local Flood Authority No objection subject to conditions 26. NHS Crawley Clinical Commissioning Group No response received 27. NatureSpace No objection 28. CBC Retail & Employment Comments provided 29. Forestry Commission Comments provided 30. Active Travel Crawley Object to the proposal 31.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Speakers included representatives supporting the application and three neighbours speaking against it.

Members’ debate

Members discussed road and pedestrian safety, traffic controls, K2 noise and lighting, infrastructure, open space, biodiversity, parking and flooding.

“The committee then considered the application. Several concerns were raised regarding existing road and pedestrian safety issues in the area (in particular around the nearby school) and the impact of the proposed development on these issues.”

“In response to further queries from committee members, officers provided the following clarifications: • The Local Plan did not require applicants to make contributions to facilities such as doctors’ surgeries or schools. Funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy could be used for these matters but this was a separate part of the planning process.”

Minutes

The vote

The recommendation was moved by Councillor Rana and seconded by Councillor LeTissier before the committee voted.

“The Committee then moved to a vote on the recommendation set out in the report. The recommendation was moved by Councillor Rana as the Chair and seconded by Councillor LeTissier as the Vice-Chair.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee delegated permission to the Head of Economy and Planning, subject to acceptable lighting and noise strategies, a Section 106 agreement and amended conditions.

“Delegate the decision to permit the application to the Head of Economy and Planning following confirmation that acceptable floodlighting and noise management strategies can be achieved, and subject to a Section 106 agreement and the conditions set out in report PES/530a (including amended condition 2).”

Minutes