Decision details

WSCC/034/18/CR  Amendment of condition 4 of planning permission WSCC/051/16/CR to restrict requirement for sheeting of vehicles to HGVs only.  Rivington Farm, Antlands Lane, Shipley Bridge, Horley, RH6 9SR

69.1   The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services (copy appended to the signed minutes).  The report was introduced by Jane Moseley, County Planning Team Manager, who provided a presentation on the proposals, details of consultation and key issues in respect of the application. 

69.2   Mr Richard Burrett, Member for Pound Hill, spoke in objection to the application and in support of the recommendation that planning permission be refused.  Concerns were raised about the impact of site activities on local residents.  The site is not well situated, a better access exists onto Antlands Lane but the applicants choose not to use it.  Residents have concerns about dust from commercial vehicles which lands on homes, gardens, cars and people when out and about.  Residents accept the Committee had little choice but to approve the previous application WSCC/056/16/CR but feel that maintaining condition 4 is the most important thing and to remove it would be a retrograde action.  Residents are disappointed with the level of enforcement activity but accept that officers cannot be there 24 hours per day.  Crawley Borough Council agrees with the recommendation.  The Committee was urged to refuse the application.

69.3   During the debate the Committee raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers, where applicable:

Dust

Point raised – There was clear evidence during the site visit on the impact of dust, so residents’ concerns are understood.

Response – None required.

Reasoning behind the application

Point raised – What does the applicant hope to gain by the application?

Response – The applicant feels that the condition is unreasonable and should only apply to HGVs, not all commercial vehicles.

Sheeting versus covering

Points raised – What does the applicant mean by ‘sheeting’ rather that ‘covering’.  How many HGVs would be sheeted?

Response – Sheeting is likely to involve HGVs with a sheet that is placed over the top of the HGV by means of an extending arm.  The applicant has not provided details of numbers of HGVs to which this would apply.

69.4   The substantive recommendation,was proposed by Mr Patel and seconded by Lt. Cdr. Atkins and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

69.5   Resolved – That planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the committee report and agreed by the Committee.

69.6   The Committee recessed at 1.52 p.m. and reconvened at 2.07 p.m.