Page 82 - All files for Planning Inspectorate

1809
Wealden House, EDF Site,
East Grinstead
Residential Development

1.7 WD voiced his concern as to the provision of open space and that the proposed
development was car reliant because of the location. He felt that the increased
area of open space didn’t go far enough and that more should be provided. He
would like to improve the vista to woodland. DP pointed out that more
generous spacing of buildings gave better views generally.

1.8 WD also commented that the buffer to the ancient woodland would not be
counted as open space, was visual amenity only and access should be restricted
to this area. He thought that the play area was the best area to enlarge to
provide additional open space and would seek advice from their Leisure Team.
DP would look at redesigning/re-siting block 13-23 to create more open space
in this area. DP confirmed that the parking had all but been removed from the
buffer zone, only 0.01% remaining, but WD asked that it was completely
removed. DP confirmed that this could likely be done with some re-design. As to
the revised parking arrangement generally, WD confirmed that it was now more
acceptable as was tucked away and not overly dominant.

1.9 SK commented that the buffer should be defined by a boundary fence, say post
and rail, and that it was merely visual amenity and a break between the
development and the ancient woodland. FT noted that MSDC’s ecologist had
not made any request concerning the buffer; the NPPF’s guidance relates solely
to the protection of ancient woodland. The District Plan only requires that there
should be a buffer zone, not how it should be used. WD advised that the buffer
zone could be treated in a number of ways, including being maintained as
mown grass, but should not be used.

1.10 SK also commented that he didn’t wish to see residents encouraged to access
the ancient woodland and that it was an area of preservation. DP confirmed the
applicant was agreeable to restricting access and a revised ecology
management report would reflect this position.

1.11 DP showed how gaps between buildings had been increased and balconies and
terraces introduced. WD had not seen the revised elevations and noted that
balconies were included but would prefer them partially integrated rather than
‘bolted on’.

1.12 DP noted how the revisions to the elevations played down the framing device
referred to by the DRP and that the proposal was not dissimilar in its approach
to the completed ‘Beacon Heights’ scheme which was nominated for a Council
Design Award.

1.13 It was agreed that the revisions worked well as far as increasing the parapet and
terraces/balconies being introduced where appropriate. DP confirmed render
panels had been removed and replaced with brickwork. On this point WD
pointed out that Mid Sussex was more of a red brick district rather than buff.
WD added that the elevations were horizontal in proportion and would benefit
from features to provide more verticality. Where there were undercrofts, he
would prefer columns being expressed to ground. DP would explore this further
with WD.

1809_4.1_181015 – Planning Office Meeting Notes Page 2 of 4
Bates No 000081