Page 100 - MJC submissions

1809 Lytle
Wealden House, EDF Site, ARCHITECTS
East Grinstead
Residential Development

Meeting: Planning Officer; Steven King

Venue: Mid Sussex District Council Offices, Oaklands, Haywards Heath, West
Sussex.

Date& Time: 20 August 2018 @ 11.00am
th
Present: Steven King - MSDC Planning Officer SK
Frank Taylor - Planning Consultant FT
Darren Page - Lytle Associates Architects DP
Henry Jezeph - Lytle Associates Architects HJ

CC: Peter Owen - Ashgrove Homes
Stephen Matthews - Ashgrove Homes

1.0 Points of Discussion

1.1 SK noted that he agreed with the comments of the DRP (although awaiting Will
Dorman's urban design consultation) and that the application scheme
represents an over development of the site and that ultimately the number of
units needs to be reduced to address the issues raised.

1.2 FT noted that otherwise the consultee responses overall were positive and that
any other minor comments raised could be readily addressed.

1.3 SK agreed that the allocation of 50+ units to the site originated with the
Neighbourhood Plan: it was an estimate that had had not been the subject of
detailed analysis. Agreed that the eventual number of units would be a product
of the design process.

1.4 DP/FT explained that the applicant could consider a reduction of units in order
to address the comments however was likely to create a viability problem. DP
had sent SK a reference to the NPPF that suggests offsetting existing building
floorspace against affordable housing and sought the Council's view on this
approach. FT noted that it was material that the scheme was composed of 1-
and 2-bedroorn flats directed at the first-time buyer market. SK would take
advice and revert in due course.

1.5 Any alternative number of units would have to be subject to examination of
viability.

1.6 SK queried the position regarding the neighbouring allocated site. DP stated
that the applicant does not have an interest in the site at this time and that the
sketch scheme in the DAS for the site was only to illustrate that the application
scheme does not inhibit the neighbouring site coming forward in the future.
This approach was suggested in the previous pre-application response.

1809_4.1_180820- Planning Office Meeting Notes Page 1 of 3