Page 80 - Appeal bundle 31 files

Appeal Bundle
1809
Wealden House, EDF Site,
East Grinstead
Residential Development

1.14 DP confirmed that sustainability would be re-addressed in a revised DAS to
accompany the revised scheme. WD noted that there were large roof areas that
would be suitable for PV panels to be located.

1.15 DP advised that as far as assessing daylight in terms of internal layouts, the
revised layout was far more spacious and therefore suggested that only the
single aspect units needed to be tested in daylight terms. SK agreed with this
approach.

1.16 With reference to the Neighbourhood Plan and the quantum of 50+ units, DP
referred to the application scheme of 71 been reduced to 58. SK advised that it
was his view that the Neighbourhood Plan had received little examination and
that more weight should be given to the Council’s adopted District Plan. FT
pointed out that the Neighbourhood Plan had been adopted following
consultation and examination. In addition, the original pre-app had made
reference to and recommended 50+ units. SK observed that other District Plan
policies (particularly design) were also relevant.

1.17 DP put forward to SK & WD that there was enough common ground and room
for amendments that a scheme could be brought forward that officers could
support.

1.18 However, DP queried MSDC’s position on the new NPPF as to off-setting
existing floorspace against the provision of on-site social units, as that was key
to the viability of the reduced scheme. SK confirmed that they were not in a
position to comment as MSDC were in the process of obtaining a legal opinion
on this as their recently adopted District Plan now conflicted with the new NPPF.

1.19 FT commented that the NPPF (para.63 and footnote) were directed to just this
type of scheme, where the redevelopment of brownfield land and buildings
needed to be so encouraged. This was reflected in viability.

1.20 DP also asked as to the timeline with the legal opinion. SK thought that as the
process had started it would be weeks rather than months. DP also confirmed
that a Viability Assessment had recently been commissioned by the applicant as
to whether any social units on site were viable. SK advised that if viability was
submitted it would be assessed by the District Valuer or an independent party at
the applicant’s cost.

1.21 DP said that he thought parties were close to agreeing a scheme but confirmed
that if the Council allowed the substitution of drawings the applicant would
need to be satisfied that there was a prospect of officer support on a revised
package of proposals. He added that if this was not the case the current
application would probably have to be appealed. PO stated that it was his
preference for a scheme to now be agreed at local level rather than to go to an
appeal.

1809_4.1_181015 – Planning Office Meeting Notes Page 3 of 4
BATES N0 000077