12 homes and flats at Land at 197 Three Bridges Road, Three Bridges, Crawley

The site and surroundings

The site included a roadside dwelling, parts of two properties and a backland area of garages, workshops, hardstanding and parking.

“The area surrounding the site is predominantly residential in character. Many of the properties in the surrounding area in Three Bridges Road and New Street date from the Victorian period when the railway line was developed (circa 1840). The application site is located around 300m to the west of Three Bridges Station.”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

Officers found the scheme poorly designed and inefficient, with inadequate information and harmful effects on future and neighbouring occupiers.

“The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the necessary design work which informs the design and layout of the development has been undertaken . As a result the proposed development is considered to be an inefficient use of brownfield land with a resultant layout and design that does not respect the character of the area or provide a well planned or adequate layout and environment for future occupiers.”

“Furthermore, the development would have a harmful impact upon neighbouring occupiers and would fail to deliver any affordable housing to address the Borough’s housing need. The level of information provided has not addressed the concerns of key consultees and as a consequence the applicant has not been invited to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure any infrastructure contributions.”

Officer report

Consultees and residents

Some consultees requested more information or objected, while residents raised concerns about heritage, parking, drainage, ecology, traffic, privacy and affordable housing.

“CBC Energy Efficiency & Sustainability Comments provided 12. CBC Urban Design Objection 13. CBC Parking Services Comments provided 14. CBC Air Quality Officer Objection - Insufficient information provided 15. Place Services Ecology No objection subject to conditions 16. CBC Planning Arboricultural Officer No response 17. GAL Planning Department No response received 18. GAL Aerodrome Safeguarding No objection 19. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) No objection 20.”

“Increased noise and traffic • Impact on highway safety • Displacement of existing vehicles that use the site for parking • Lack of parking management • Overlooking and loss of privacy of surrounding residential property • Noise during construction phase • Presence of Japanese knotweed that could spread • Loss of historical building • Out of keeping with surrounding historical properties • Lack of affordable housing.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A neighbour, a representative supporting local groups, the agent and two ward councillors spoke in support of the application.

What members discussed

Members considered density, local character, site constraints, design, layout, affordable housing and whether deferral would resolve the many outstanding problems.

“Committee members discussed in detail the density of the proposed development and refusal reason 1, which stated that the proposed density did not make effective use of the land at the site. In response to queries, officers explained that site density had to be assessed alongside other factors in the Local Plan design policies with a key consideration being the character of the area.”

“In response to criticism by Committee members of the lack of affordable housing provision, the officer confirmed that the application conflicted with Local Plan policy H5 as it did not provide any on-site affordable housing, nor had an off-site contribution been offered in lieu of this. A Viability Assessment had been provided but was lacking important information, so it was not possible to assess the feasibility of affordable housing provision at the site.”

Minutes

The vote

Members agreed to remove the density refusal reason, then voted on the amended recommendation.

“It was proposed by Councillor Jaggard and seconded by Councillor S Mullins that the recommendation be amended to remove refusal reason 1. It was felt that this reason was not relevant as the Committee agreed that the density of the proposed development was not inadequate for the site considering its constraints and the character of the area.”

“The Committee then moved to a vote on the recommendation as amended. The recommendation was moved by Councillor Rana as the Chair and seconded by Councillor Bidwell as the Vice-Chair.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused for reasons 2 to 11, including the amended reason concerning outlook, shading, defensible space and private amenity space.

“Refuse for reasons 2 – 11 (including amended reason 4) set out in report PES/514c.”

Minutes