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 5 June 2024.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 5 June 2024 were approved by the Committee and signed by the Vice-Chair in the Chair.

There were no urgent items presented at the meeting.

PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED Erection of 44 No. dwellings with garaging, covered and open resident and visitor parking with new access from internal road serving Osborne Refrigerators and improvements to existing access off Rose Green Road (resubmission following P/111/22/PL). This application falls within Strategic Site SD2 and is in CIL Zone 1 (Zero Rated).

The Team Leader (Development Management) presented the update report reminding members that at the last meeting of the committee they had voted to defer the application pending consideration of provision for a pelican crossing and reconsideration of the distribution of affordable housing. Regarding the affordable housing distribution that remains in a single block to the north of the site as it’s in the form of apartments, the Affordable Housing Manager at Arun had confirmed that the approach now proposed was acceptable and the changes secured since the last committee meeting with respect to the increased pepper potting of affordable housing did address the concerns raised by members. The Transport Consultant advised that, following completion of the relevant highway calculations with enhanced modelling on highway grounds used by Hampshire County Council, a pelican crossing could not be justified on highway grounds as it did not meet the relevant thresholds. However, an alternate provision to assist crossing whilst not impacting highway safety should be possible.

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

          The Committee

                     RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT.

Permanent sitting of 8 workers caravans, 1 utility caravan with the creation of associated access paths, drainage & sewage utilities and associated infrastructure and landscaping. This application is in CIL zon 3 (zero rated) as other development.

1 Public Speaker

Dr Steve Carter, Applicant.

The Team Leader (Development Management) presented the report with an update from the West Sussex Fire consultation.

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

During a short debate members asked additional questions regarding access for emergency vehicles, turning room and signage. It was confirmed by the officer that there was adequate access, emergency vehicles would be able to enter and exit the site in forward drive and that there was no planning requirement for signage for emergency vehicles. 

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

          That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY

Change of use from ancillary annexe to holiday let. This application is in CIL Zone 5 (zero rated) as other development.

2 Public Speakers

Cllr Dave Marr, Kingston Parish Council

Mr Kevin Eaton, Applicant

The Principal Planning officer presented the report. The Vice-Chair in the Chair then invited the officer to respond to any points raised by the Public Speakers where he addressed the size of the annex confirming it was a one double bedroom building.

The recommendation was then proposed by Councillor Partridge and seconded by Councillor Bicknell.

During member debate the following points were discussed, Peak Lane being a narrow access lane and permitted development rights for any future development of the annex. It was advised by the officer that a condition restricting future development rights would not be reasonable. Further discussion was had on the permitted development rights and the concern for potential extension or build of a new out-building on the site. The Group Head of Planning advised members that a new out-building could be used for residential use only, not a further AirBnB. He also confirmed the proposed use for the application was for holiday accommodation which was not subject to permitted development rights.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

          That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY

(Councillor Warr declared a Personal Interest in this application as a Bognor Regis Town Councillor.)

Demolition of former school building and erection of 20 No. new dwellings and associated car parking, cycle parking and landscaping. This site is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated).

1 Public Speaker

Leanne Smith, Applicant

The Team Leader (Development Management) presented the report.

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

During member debate it was discussed that it felt the application was ‘light’ on parking spaces and whilst there were a number of excellent parts to the application various strong concerns were raised regarding the affordable housing element of the application. The officer confirmed that the parking provision had been discussed, with two parking studies having been completed which did not show any highway safety or public community harm. It was explained by the officer that the application was operating within the planning system that allowed the applicant to make changes to the affordable housing. He confirmed that the applicant had been able prove that a number of changes had taken place since submission of the application, of which a review had been completed which concluded that a contribution level of £55,490 was necessary and deliverable towards the provision of affordable housing. There would be a late-stage review completed that would reassess to see if additional contributions could be sought should the viability change during construction. Further clarity was sought if at the point of the late-stage review could the amount be reduced, it was confirmed that it could result in a figure of below £0.

The Group Head of Planning was invited to make comment by the Vice-Chair in the Chair, where he read members part of the AH SP2 Policy, reminding them that whilst he sympathises with the comments made, it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the grounds of a lack of affordable housing contribution due to the application of the VBC. 

 Councillor Tandy requested at the time the vote was to be taken that it be a recorded vote. Final comments in the debate were around the including a condition to stop any future development for the Bungalow to be turned into a house. The officer confirmed that condition 28 limits the permitted development rights and would stop this from happening.

A vote was then taken on the officer recommendation, where the vote FELL. Those voting For, were Councillors Bower and Kelly (2), those voting Against, were Councillors Bicknell, Blanchard-Cooper, Hamilton, O’Neill, Partridge, Tandy, Wallsgrove, Warr and Woodman (9).

Members then took part in a debate to agree a reason for refusal or deferral of the application, a number of suggestions were made including, parking provision, substandard garden size and reconsideration of the affordable housing arrangements. Due to some comments that had been made, the Group Head of Planning was invited to address members, where he stated that he had concerns at some of the language being used. He reminded members that what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Demolition of all existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the existing car salvage and recycling facility to provide 80 No dwellings and a co-working hub, with vehicular access from Fontwell Avenue, provision of public open space, landscaping, and other associated works (resubmission following AL/49/22/PL). This application is a departure from the Development Plan and is in CIL Zone 3 and is CIL Liable as new dwellings.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

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

Members then took part in a debate where the following comments were made, the application conflicted with Aldingboune’s new Neighbourhood Plan, road safety concerns and could consideration be given for a Pelican crossing, protection to be given for the surrounding hedgerows and trees and a query on the working space hub was raised. The officer provided answers to all comments made.  

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY SUBJECT TO A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT

Members noted the appeals report.