Decision Maker: Planning Committee
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
[Councillor Warr declared a Prejudicial Interest at the beginning of the item and left the meeting for its duration. She did not participate in the discussion or vote on the item.]
1 Public Speaker
Tania Tindale – Agent
Upward extension of one storey and conversion of the existing first and second floors of the building to provide 38 student rooms along with associated elevational changes and reconfiguration of ground floor, including provision of refuse and recycling facilities and cycle store to the rear. This application may affect the setting of a Listed Building and is in CIL Zone 4 (zero rated) as flats.
The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates. This was followed by 1 Public Speaker.
Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:
· whether the accommodation was solely for students and whether any agreement had been entered into with a local university
· the lack of justification for the extra floor
· concerns of overdevelopment
· the loss of character to the area around the High Street
The Planning Area Team Leader confirmed that, in this instance, the development was a HMO in planning terms with the intention that they be student accommodation not a planning issue.
The recommendation was then proposed by Councillor Edwards and seconded by Councillor Chace.
To delegate to the Group Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair authority to:
(a) Grant planning permission subject to conditions; and
(b) Subject to a Section 106 Agreement, the terms of which are substantially in accordance with those set out in this report with any minor amendments authorised by the Group Head of Planning
Should the Section 106 Agreement not be completed within 4 months of the date of the Planning Committee's resolution to grant planning permission, then the application shall be refused for the following reasons:
1. In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement, the development makes no provision for contributions to improving local fire & rescue services and is thereby contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF and Arun Local Plan policy INF SP1.
2. In the absence of a signed Section 106 Agreement, the application fails to make a financial contribution towards the cost of providing accessible natural open green spaces to mitigate the harm to the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area and the proposal is therefore not in accordance with Arun Local Plan policies ENV DM1 and ENV DM2.
Report author: Nicola Spencer
Publication date: 07/10/2022
Date of decision: 28/09/2022
Decided at meeting: 28/09/2022 - Planning Committee