Page 69 - All files for Planning Inspectorate

st
NOTES OF MID SUSSEX DESIGN REVIEW PANEL (A) 31 July 2018

Present: Nick Lomax (Chair), Richard Morrice, Giles Ings, Jenny Lewin, Mike
Alete, James Rae

In attendance: Will Dorman (MSDC Urban Designer)

EDF Energy, Wealden House, Lewes Road, East Grinstead

Description of Scheme
Proposed new build residential development consisting of 71 units following the
demolition of all existing site buildings (current planning application DM/18/1548)

Presenters
Architect/Designer: Henry Jezeph (Lytle Associates Architects)
Planning consultant: Frank Taylor
Developer: Peter Owen and Steve Matthews (Ashgrove Homes Limited)

In attendance
Ward Councillors: John Belsey

Apologies
Case officer: Steve King

The Panel’s Comments

The panel agreed that while the building heights are acceptable the building footprints
occupied too much of the site. The initial illustrative diagram was ill-conceived
showing buildings up against the woodland boundary and too close to adjacent houses with
an uncomfortably constrained internal street. For instance, the internal plan of block 7-12
does not work because of the constrained aspect with the woodland and suggests a lack of
analysis and care.

The scheme was consequently dominated by parking and hard surfacing and the soft
landscaped spaces are incidental. The buildings are too close together and there is
insufficient space to comfortably accommodate balconies. Many of the flats do not have a
good relationship with the attractive woodland boundaries including the internal street which
is narrow and generates overlooking problems.

The lack of outdoor space and balconies (not even Juliet balconies) is an issue as the site is
not centrally located and does not benefit from nearby facilities to compensate for this.
Roof terraces could nevertheless be accommodated if the top floors were more set-back.

It was noted that the scheme encroaches upon the 15m ancient woodland buffer that
normally needs to be free of development including SUDS, access road, useable open
space and services. If, as is likely, this needs to be addressed it will further reduce the
available space and constrain the development.

The elevations are unconvincing and the repeated framing device is over-used. The
proportions of the frontages are uncomfortable with the set-back top floor too dominant (this
could be helped in part by raising the brick parapets) and the render does not work well.

Bates No 000068