24 residential apartments at Central Sussex College Queensmere House, East Grinstead

What was proposed

The application sought 24 apartments with 32 bedrooms, undercroft infilling, parking, landscaping, cycle spaces, amenity areas, fencing and a new ramp.

“Proposal: Conversion of a D1 Educational Building to 24no. Residential Apartments (32 Bedrooms) with infilling of existing undercroft areas, associated car parking, landscaping, cycle spaces, amenity areas, 1.1m high metal fence and new ramp.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant three-storey college building is in East Grinstead town centre, with surrounding commercial and residential properties and one vehicle access from Queens Road.

“The site is located on Queens Road in the centre of East Grinstead. There is an existing Use Class F1 building (non-residential institution) on the site arranged over 3-storeys plus undercroft basement and ancillary car parking, supported by brick pillars.”

“Being located in the town centre there is a mixture of commercial and residential properties surrounding the site: a social club to the north with residential dwellings on Dallaway Gardens beyond; Victorian dwellings to the west, with 2 flats in the building immediately adjacent – 51 Queens Road; the Martell’s redevelopment to the south and east (mixed commercial and 129 residential flats – Victoria Place and Elizabeth Place being 4/5-storeys facing the site); and a…”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered educational use, 14 apartments, layout changes and amendments to planning-obligation payment triggers; the residential permission was considered lawfully implemented.

“In January 2018, planning permission was granted for the conversion of a D1 educational building to 14 no. residential apartments (13 x 3-bed and 1 x 2-bed) with new additional set back third floor and infilling of existing undercroft areas, associated car parking, landscaping, cycle space, amenity areas, 1.1m high metal fence and new ramp (DM/17/2725).”

“In January 2021, an application was approved for the Modification of the Planning Obligation for application DM/17/2725 to change the payment triggers of the SANG (Condition 8) and SAMM as referred to in Sections 4 and 5 of the Section 106 Agreement dated 25 January 2018 (DM/20/4504).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the scheme complied with relevant policies, delivered significant benefits and its adverse effects did not outweigh them.

“In these circumstances paragraph 11 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development which means that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole (having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-”

“In terms of the scheme’s further benefits, the proposal would provide 24 new dwellings in a highly sustainable location, which should be given significant weight. The development will bring back to life a vacant building in a highly prominent location, which currently acts as an eyesore. The design and landscaping will enhance the street scene and the building’s re-use should be commended. The development will result in construction jobs over the life of the build.”

Officer report

Consultation and local views

A resident objected to parking and access, while comments raised bats, drainage, outlook and light; consultees generally supported the scheme subject to conditions.

“- Welcome the redevelopment of the site but concerned about the small number of parking spaces - Increased pressure on Queens Road parking which could lead to less visibility and more collisions - Access is very close to Victoria/Elizabeth Place car park entrance, in constant use, with further likelihood of collisions…”

“- Have seen bats around the building, so cannot fully support proposal until a bat survey is undertaken and mitigations followed - Concerned if drainage is sufficient, particularly during heavy rains - May impact negatively on outlook and light to flats opposite if existing height of building is exceeded…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The senior planning officer introduced the application and highlighted the update sheet, including highway advice, a travel plan and changes to the conditions.

The committee vote

Councillors unanimously supported the recommendation, with 11 voting in favour and none against.

“The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendation, which was proposed by Councillor Sweatman and seconded by Councillor Cherry. This was agreed unanimously with 11 in favour and none against.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was approved subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A.

“Planning permission was approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A.”

Minutes