Agenda and minutes

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 Woodman declared a prejudicial interest in item 8 [LU/278/23/HH 19 DAVITTS DRIVE, LITTLEHAMPTON, BN17 6RU] as she was the applicant.

Councillor Blanchard-Cooper declared a prejudicial interest in item 8 [LU/278/23/HH 19 DAVITTS DRIVE, LITTLEHAMPTON, BN17 6RU] as he was a friend of the applicant.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings held on 13 and 14 December 2023.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 13 December 2023 and 14 December 2023 were approved and signed by the Chair.

There were no urgent items for this meeting.

(This application was deferred by the Committee on 13 December 2023 [Minute 465] to secure clarification as to the impact of the height of the proposed dwellings and the impact this would have on the setting of St Thomas a Beckett Church.)

No Public Speakers

APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS (APPEARANCE, LAYOUT, LANDSCAPING AND SCALE) FOLLOWING OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION P/140/16/OUT FOR THE ERECTION OF 350 NO. DWELLINGS, TOGETHER WITH PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, PLAY SPACE, DRAINAGE, PARKING AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE, LANDSCAPE, ANCILLARY AND SITE PREPARATION WORKS, WITH ACCESS OFF PAGHAM ROAD. THIS SITE MAY AFFECT A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.  The report set out that there had been no changes to the application since the deferral.  However, the applicant had provided further informative material.   An update was provided that one further objection had been received that contained no additional material considerations to consider.

Members having considered the additional information provided to them concerning the dwelling ridge heights and viewpoints, were satisfied that the view pertaining to the impact on the setting of St Thomas a Becketts Church would be protected.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Partridge and seconded by Councillor Bower.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

          That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY

(This application was deferred by the Committee on 13 December 2023 [Minute 466] due to the deferral of application P/153/21/RES [Minute 465], as the proposed access for this application relied on a connection to the internal estate road provided on the adjacent application site.)

6 Public Speakers

Councillor Peter Atkins, Pagham Parish Council

Nigel Munday, Objector.

Colin Hamilton, Objector

Councillor David Huntley, Ward Member

Chris Lyons, Agent

Approval of reserved matters following P/25/17/OUT for the provision of 65 dwellings, access roads, landscaping, open space and associated works. This application affects a Public Right of Way.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.  An update was provided that one further objection had been received that had contained no additional material considerations to consider.  She drew attention to a correction to page 17 of the update report and advised that the ridge heights specified of ‘…between 5.3m and 8.3m.’ should read ‘…between 4.3m and 8.4m’.

          After the speakers had been heard the Principal Planning Officer was invited by the Chair to address any comments made by those who had spoken.  Conditions were imposed on the outline to deal with any flooding concerns, with the council’s drainage engineers requiring surface water run off rates to be no more than the greenfield runoff rate.  The drainage engineers would require details of further drainage solutions if the runoff rates were unsatisfactory, in order to address capacity and run off issues.  Whilst indicative details had been received concerning the provision of play areas, they were not part of the reserved matters and would be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement.  The Greenspace Officer had no objection to the proposals for the play areas.  Condition 16 (external lighting) would deal with on-site external lighting. The ecological assessment had addressed the presence of birds and reviewed by the council’s ecologist who had no objections.  A condition requesting details of the bird box provision would be secured at the discharge of condition stage with the number of bird boxes quoted was the minimum requirement. Condition 27 (and Condition 30 of P/153/21/RES), required more details to be submitted relating to mitigation land for the Brent Geese and was not part of members’ consideration. The mitigation measures relating to the reserved matters involving reducing disturbance of the brent geese had gone through an Appropriate Assessment by the council and agreed with Natural England. Referring to the potential for bird nests, separate legislation was in place to protect birds and their nesting habitats.

Members raised the following points during the debate.  Flood risk concerns were discussed and the importance of adequate drainage solutions being in place to prevent future flooding.  The provision of bungalows was welcomed with clarification sought regarding their protection as bungalows.  The importance of protection being in place for migrating brent geese to mitigate the effect of the development.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that with regards to the flood risk concerns raised, a surface water drainage scheme would be considered at a later stage, prior to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 525.

(At the start of this item Councillors Woodman and Blanchard-Cooper redeclared their Prejudicial Interests in this item made at the beginning of the meeting and left the meeting during the discussion of this item.)

No Public Speakers

The Interim Head of Development Management presented the report.  The recommendation was then proposed by Councillor Bower and seconded by Councillor Patel.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

                     That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY.

(Councillors Woodman and Blanchard-Cooper returned to the meeting at the beginning of this application.)

The Interim Head of Development Management drew members attention to an update to the recommendation set out in the update report.  He advised that following the receipt of Southern Water’s initial consultation response, officers had sought further comments from them regarding existing sewerage capacity issues in the Eastergate area.  Southern Water had now updated their consultation response.  The Sewer Network Manager has raised concerns about the existing network problems and the impact additional dwellings would have, possibly causing surcharging.  The Future Growth Planner has advised that modelling would take place to test whether the flows from the two additional dwellings could be accommodated. He advised that having considered Southern Water’s response officers were now recommending a deferral of the application to allow for the modelling to be undertaken and for wider discussions to take place with Southern Water to discuss the discrepancy with the replies that the Council was receiving during the consultation stage and to get clarity on their position regarding new development within this catchment area.

The deferral was proposed by Councillors Bower and seconded by Councillor Lury.

            The Committee

                        RESOLVED

                        That the application be DEFERRED until such time as this modelling information is available and further discussions have taken place with Southern Water.

            A short adjournment was then taken by the Committee from 3.10pm to 3.17pm.

The Chair invited Alice Humphries, Senior Consultant from Iceni Projects who provided members with a detailed presentation.  An application for a Development Consent Order had been submitted by Rampion Extension Development Ltd for the Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm Scheme for up to 90 offshore wind turbine generators, which had been accepted by the Secretary of State.  As part of the examination process, Arun District Council, as a ‘host Local Authority’ has been invited to submit a ‘Local Impact Report’ (LIR) by 20 February 2024, which was before the Committee today to consider.

Members raised a number of points during a detailed discussion on the proposals: 

·      The importance of the economy and concern that there had been very little study of the disadvantages and advantages regarding the economic impact wind farms had when positioned adjacent to the coastline.

·      Comment was made that the economy had not been included in the assessment of impact at a local level.

·      The detrimental effect on seaside towns, due to the proximity of the wind turbines to the Arun district’s beaches, was a concern, as tourism would be displaced during the construction phase with tourists diverting to neighbouring areas instead.

·       The impact of the cabling works on the quality of agricultural land and the need for this type of land to be reinstated to its original agricultural land classification grade.

·      The issue of ‘pay back’ was discussed, it was of concern that there was little mention of mitigation or compensation, which it was suggested could be used towards a range of projects, such as the improvement of flood defenses at Climping.

·      Treat as an asset with the right investment it may provide a positive economical uplift, providing both skilled and unskilled jobs.

·      The idea of the wind farm becoming a tourist attraction was suggested by providing a visitor education centre, the ‘Look and Sea Visitor Centre’ was suggested as a location, and boat trips to the site.

·      Concern was raised about the negative noise impact, especially at nighttime during the construction stage, which would likely be worse than the issues experienced during Rampion 1, due to a larger generating capacity for Rampion 2 and its location being closer to the coastline.

·      A question was asked whether Arun District Council would receive any money to reinvest in the District to offset any negative impacts?  It was explained that the Council’s representations and the Local Impact Report had highlighted the need for mitigation measures to be in place to offset negative impact. Where mitigation was not possible a mechanism to secure compensation in the form of a Community Benefits Package had been requested and wording to this effect had been requested in the draft Development Consent Order.  As regards to which communities.  Further details had been requested from the applicant, who were the decision maker, as to which of the communities in Arun would benefit from such a package.

The Group Head of Planning responded to question concerning the examination stage.  As regards to member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 528.

Members noted the appeals list.