Venue: Council Chamber at the Arun Civic Centre, Maltravers Road, Littlehampton BN17 5LF
Contact: Carrie O'Connor (Ext 37614)
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors B. Blanchard-Cooper, Coster, Edwards, Northeast and Mrs Stainton.
Declarations of interest
Members and Officers are reminded to make any declarations of pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interests that they may have in relation to items on this agenda and are reminded that they should re-declare their interest before consideration of the item or as soon as the interest becomes apparent.
Members and officer should make their declaration by stating :
a) the application they have the interest in
b) whether it is a pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial
c) the nature of the interest
d) if it is a prejudicial or pecuniary interest, whether they will be exercising their right to speak to the application
Councillor Brooks – Planning Application M/80/19/PL - personal interest as my niece lives in a property in Yapton Road but it is sufficiently away from the development.
Councillor Mrs Hamilton – Planning Application M/80/19/PL – I wish to make the meeting aware that I recently sent an incomplete 5 word email in error that may have been misconstrued by some regarding possible opposition to item M/80/19/PL, in short that I agreed with Councillor Dixon that more information was needed regarding this application, that is all. However, I have an open mind regarding it and will listen and consider very carefully all relevant issues and interest presented to the Committee today and confirm that \I will reach my decision based entirely on merit.
Councillor Charles challenged the statement made by Councillor Mrs Hamilton and advice was given by the Planning Lawyer.
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2020 (attached).
The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2020 were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
(Prior to consideration of this item, Councillors Brooks and Mrs Hamilton had declared a personal interest and remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote.
In taking part in the public speaking process, Councillor Coster declared a prejudicial/pecuniary interest as a member of his family had part ownership in a property near by. He stated that he would leave the room during the debate and vote.)
Demolition of the existing structures & redevelopment to provide a new 66 bedroom care home (Use Class C2) arranged over two storeys together with associated access, car and cycle parking, structural landscaping and amenity space provision, Former Poultry Farm, Land West of Yapton Road, Middleton on Sea
Having received a report on the matter, the officer’s written report update was circulated at the meeting which detailed:-
· Additional objections received since publication of the agenda and relevant new points addressed
· Additional representation of support not raising any new points
· Further comment from the agent
· Recent appeal decision relating to a site 2.5 miles away in Climping
· Need for Extra Care development
· Additional ecology response
· Change to Conclusion section of the report to note that the S106 Agreement was required to be completed by 31 March 2020 due to the adoption of the Community Infrastructure Levy on 1 April 2020
· Amendment to Plans Condition and amendment to pre-commencement conditions
· Further comment from County Highways regarding access width
· Tree Preservation Order
The Planning Team Leader presented the detail of the report and advised that this application followed on from Planning Application M/45/16/PL which had been granted approval for 13 dwellings. This new application was for a 66 bedroom care home and, whilst it was recognised that the building would be higher and cover substantially more of the site, officers considered that it was acceptable. He informed the meeting that the Council’s Engineering Services Manager was in attendance to provide responses to queries Members might have in relation to drainage/surface water issues.
In participating in a lengthy debate, Members expressed serious concerns around the proposal which centred on:-
§ The potential for an increase in traffic, together with the nature of Yapton Road which had a blind bend
§ Proposal not sympathetic or complementary to the locality and was considered to be out of character with the surrounding area. It was also felt that it was overdevelopment and, due to its height, it was out of scale with nearby existing properties. It would therefore have an adverse impact.
§ Danger to the TPO trees – Members were assured that the Tree Officer was satisfied that the trees could be retained if the details the applicant had submitted were adhered to.
§ Parking provision was considered to be inadequate and any overflow would then have a consequential detrimental impact on nearby roads. Officer advice was given that the car parking provision was in accordance with the Council’s Parking Standards SPG (Supplementary Planning Guidance).
§ Ditch structure would be compromised and clearance of the ditches would ... view the full minutes text for item 419.
EP/148/19/PL – Application for variation of condition No. 2 imposed on planning permission EP/52/18/PL relating to amended internal layout & external appearance of plots 4, 5, 6 & 7 and alterations to external layout and landscaping, Scorton, 9 Lime Tree Close, East Preston
Having received a report on the matter, together with the officer’s written report update detailing an additional objection received, the Planning Team Leader explained that this application sought to vary a condition to convert the roof space to additional living space, with additional windows which were considered to be acceptable. No additional car parking provision was being proposed within the site and a street survey had been undertaken by the applicant which indicated that that would be acceptable.
In discussing the proposal, Member comment was made that the Council had recently adopted its own Parking Standards SPD, which would not be complied with in this instance. Concerns were raised that the overflow parking would spill onto the road, which was felt to be unacceptable due to its layout and that it could be described as a country lane; there were a number of pinch points; and it was a busy bus route.
The Group Head of Planning advised that it had been established that additional parking provision could not be accommodated within the site and the applicant had therefore provided evidence about the car parking in the area. There was sufficient on street parking in the area which would allow a degree of flexibility. When the development was completed under its current approval, what was being proposed could be implemented anyway under Permitted Development.
Members expressed the view that the new policy relating to parking should be supported.
The Group Head of Planning provided advice that the Committee was required to make reasonable decisions and had to take account of what the applicant might do in the future. The proposals could be implemented under Permitted Development once the dwellings were occupied.
On being put to the vote, Members did not accept the officer recommendation to approve and, having been duly proposed and seconded, considered that the application should be refused as it did not adhere to the Council’s Parking Standards SPD and was clearly in breach of it.
The Committee then
That the application be refused for the following reason:-
The lack of additional car parking provision will result in increasing road congestion adversely affecting highway safety in the area in conflict with policy TSP1 of the Arun Local Plan and the Council’s Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (January 2020).
BR/227/19/PL – Removal of condition 5 imposed under BR/84/16/OUT (APP/C3810/W/16/3153767) relating to – details of all trees/bushes/hedges to be retained along with measures to protect them during demolition & construction works, 3 Southdown Road, Bognor Regis
Having received a report on the matter, the Planning Team Leder advised that the condition no longer had merit as the development had been completed.
Following a brief discussion and having received an assurance that no trees had been damaged, the Committee
That the application be approved as detailed in the report.
In receiving and noting the appeals received, the Group Head of Planning advised that the following appeals had been allowed by the Planning Inspector :-
CM/16/18/PL - Land to rear of Bairds Farm Shop, Crookthorne Lane, Climping, Development of a 64 bed Specialist Dementia Care Home, etc
EP/82/19/HH – Erection of a fence, 31 Cheviot Close, East Preston
K/19/19/HH – Two storey rear extension with a small canopy projecting the footprint to the front. Demolition of existing living room and additional first floor for habitable use with alterations to fenestration, Little Tangley, Middle Way, Kingston Gorse, East Preston
The Committee received and noted a comprehensive report from the Planning Team Leader which detailed the Council’s performance in the calendar year 2019 in respect of appeals.