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

The Declaration of Interest Sheet set out below confirms those Members who had made a declaration of their personal interest as a Member of a Town or Parish Councillor or a West Sussex County Councillor, as confirmed in their Register of Interest as these declarations could apply to any of the issues to be discussed at the meeting:

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 September 2024.

          The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 11 September 2024 were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chair.

          There were no urgent items presented at the meeting.

1 Public Speaker

Lynn Pack, Applicant

Hybrid application: 1)- Full planning application for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and the construction of residential dwellings, public open space including recreation space and associated infrastructure and works to be constructed in 5 distinct areas (A-E) each one independent from the other and 2)- Outline application with all matters reserved other than means of access for a care home. This application falls within Strategic Site HD5, CIL Zone 1 and 2 (Zero Rated) and may affect the setting of listed buildings. This application is subject to an Environmental Statement.

The Strategic Planning Team Leader presented the report. He confirmed the application was a hybrid application for the demolition of existing dwellings and outbuildings and construction of 551 residential dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure. There was also an outline element with all matters reserved for a Care Home. The application location sat within the Barnham, Eastergate and Westergate strategic allocation, that was allocated for residential development.

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

During debate members raised the following concerns, the application had been outstanding for 2-years, with a number of matters outstanding, the council could not have any application sat for that length of time when the district needed these homes built. Parking provision detailed in the application in conjunction with the already known parking issues in and around Felpham was a further concern highlighted, refusal reason 11 detailed in the report was highlighted as disappointing to still be seen as outstanding. The Drainage, Flood risk assessment, Ecology and Education objections detailed on page 11 of the agenda were highlighted as showing that work was still required before the application could move forward and be deemed as acceptable to the council.  Relating to the drainage objection the Vice-Chair stated that the development would be connected to same sewer network that serviced Barnham which had seen significant flooding issues over the last 12 months, she highlighted that Southern Water had confirmed it would take 2-years for any reinforcement work to that network to be completed.

As there were no other comments to be made the Chair stated that he was disappointed that despite the council liaising with the applicant regularly over the last 12 months to ensure the application was moved forward, these attempts had failed, through no fault of the council officers. He went on to say that the application was an example of why the imminent NPPF changes may not work, highlighting that flooding and drainage issues detailed within the report were unacceptable, 2 years for Southern Sater to implement an infrastructure solution was also concerning, the a29 realignment to the north that was planned to support this development still had land ownership issues to be resolved, education requirements were not acceptable, the district had a serious housing crisis it was dealing with and the 30% affordable homes was needed to be delivered to assist addressing this issue. In summing up he stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 284.

1 Public Speaker

Luke Austin, Agent

Proposed front extension (remodelling of existing built front extension to accord with approved application BR/158/19/PL).

The Minor Applications Lead Officer presented the report. It was confirmed the application followed a previously approved application in 2019, due to the extension constructed not being in accordance with the previously approved plans.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Lury and seconded by Councillor BBC.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

                     That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY

1 Public Speaker

Dawn Appleton, Agent

Demolition of 2 No. dwellings and garages and erection of 2 No. semi-detached dwellings. This application is a resubmission of M/24/24/PL, is in CIL Zone 4 and is CIL Liable as new dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report with an update, members were reminded that the application had been previously refused on flood risk assessment grounds and these had now been resolved. The officer confirmed that the Parish Council had objected relating to the ‘up and over pipework’ solution for the garden wall at the rear of the property. However, this solution was no longer required, as other drainage solutions are available.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Lury and seconded by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper.

It was queried was drainage still a reserved matter for the application and could the solutions mentioned by the Public Speaker still be considered, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed, yes, the condition for the surface water drainage design and solution was detailed and the council still had full control over it.  Finally, a comment was made regarding rainwater harvesting, it was stated that it was a shame developers were not taking the initiative to include rainwater harvesting within their plans.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

                     That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY

          Members noted the appeals list.