Crawley development officers have given assurances to local people that anxieties regarding a large residential building in Three Bridges are misplaced.

At a gathering of the town’s planning panel on Tuesday (March 10), several inhabitants urged that proposals for 12 dwellings on land beyond Three Bridges Road receive backing.

They were not enthusiastic about the construction itself but worried that without it, something far less desirable might be constructed instead.

An officer’s report advised against the scheme, noting that the proposals did not show efficient use of land, with the concentration of homes on the 0.23-hectare plot falling short of requirements set out in the Local Plan.

This was where the worries centred.

John Cooban, speaking on behalf of the Three Bridges Forum, displayed a visualisation of a five to six-floor apartment building on the site, near the Moonraker public house, emphasising how such a structure would affect the area’s appearance.

All three Three Bridges ward members backed his position.

However, the council’s planning officer maintained that such a scheme would be completely unacceptable and that there had been some confusion regarding density.

She stated that the correct process involved first considering the area’s character, then the design, before determining what suits the proposal.

She added that if this method were properly applied, the design could return in an improved form resembling what was presented that evening.

The submission, put forward by Redwood Land Investments Ltd, requested consent to knock down number 197 Three Bridges Road to create improved access to an area where five pairs of semi-detached properties and two apartments would be constructed.

Yet the panel sided with the planning officer and decided to throw out the application.

Julian Charatan (Lab, Ifield) commented on the inadequate density and poor arrangement of the scheme, noting that accepting something of substandard design in that location would let down both the council and Three Bridges residents, and that superior developments could be achieved.

The matter of density was dropped from the refusal grounds. Kim Jaggard (Con, Maidenbower) observed that describing the layout as too tight and insufficiently using the site implied the council was favourable towards apartments being built there.