Agenda and draft 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 16 October 2024.

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 October 2024 were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chair.

There were no urgent items presented at the meeting.

5 Public Speakers

Mr Atkins, Pagham Parish Council

Jenny Henderson, Agent

Mr David Maclean, Objector

Mr Colin Hamilton, Objector

Millie Dodd, Supporter 

Outline application with some matters reserved for a proposed residential development of up to 110 No. dwellings including means of access into the site (not internal roads), with all other matters (relating to appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) reserved. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan and affects a Public Right of Way.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report with updates.

After Public Speakers had been heard the Chair invited the officer to respond to any points raised. The Officer confirmed that all points raised had been addressed in the report and report update.  

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

During member debate the following was raised, how many applications a year where they fall outside of the built-up area boundary did the council consider, it was confirmed approximately 4-5 a year. Concern relating to the protection of the Black Poplars that were in situ was raised, these absorb thousands of litres of water a year and currently there was no TPO in place for them, whilst those on the southern and northern boundaries were protected with TPO’s, the officer confirmed that TPO’s had been requested for these. It was stated that a balanced approach should be applied to the consideration of the application, whilst it was a departure from the Local Plan, in a strategic gap and close to Pagham Harbour, the council did have a housing shortfall, and this application would assist with that. Comments regarding flood risk mitigation, and the public perception of the Local Plan that sets out an allocated number of dwellings to be built versus the continued and increased amount of development seen to be coming forward. It was also commented that having Green Space was also important for communities.

The Group Head of Planning reminded members of an appeal that was held 12 months ago for 100 homes, nearby to this site and this was an important material consideration that had shaped the recommendation. 

Members continued their debate, considering points on building on Grades 1 and 2 land and its impact for the area, it was queried if the appeal referred to by officers had been approved, it was confirmed it had. Further concerns made relating to the strategic gap, built-up area boundary and traffic. As the debate moved on there were comments made in support of the application which considered affordable housing allocation with sites of this size, it was also noted that at this point in the debate no refusal reason had been heard.  A statement was made relating to flood risk urging members to consider using an online flood risk website. On request it was confirmed by the Group Head of Planning the council uses Environment Agency based data , which was the most up to date data for the area and includes climate change factors.  Final points raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 265.

5 Public Speakers

Mr Atkins, Pagham Parish Council

Mr David Maclean, Objector

Mr Ian Brooks, Objector

Jenny Henderson, Agent

Millie Dodd, Supporter

Outline application with some matters reserved for a proposed residential development of up to 120 No dwellings including means of access into the site (not internal roads), with all other matters (relating to appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) reserved. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan and affects a Public Right of Way.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report with updates.

The Chair then asked the officer if he had any points he wanted to address after the public speakers the officers advised all issues raised had been covered by the report.

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

During member debate it was clarified and confirmed that this application was for an additional 10 houses only, the increase in the density was of concern due to the number of objections that had been received which contained this concern. It was asked how many of the dwellings in total would be classed as ‘affordable housing’, the officer confirmed that there would be 36 affordable housing dwellings. Discussion was had on the location of the additional 10 dwellings where it was confirmed that a condition would be included to stipulate that the locations would need to be in accordance with the parameter plan.  Members returned back to their concern relating to the density increase an additional 10 dwellings would have on the site, it was stated that as with previous applications where this had been seen as a concern.

The Chair then put the recommendation to the vote, where it FELL. He then advised members that those who voted against the recommendation should now provide a reason for refusal. Councillor Lury proposed that the application should be refused due the extra 10 dwellings increasing the density to an unacceptable level. This was seconded by Councillor Bower.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the density would increase from 19.7 dwellings per hectare to 21 dwellings per hectare. Member debate continued with additional suggestions for refusal reasons being put forward, including flooding and access concerns, although these were not agreed to be included. The Chair suggested an adjournment be taken to allow officers time to write up the refusal reason based on the density concerns raised. The meeting was adjourned at 3:23pm.

The Chair welcomed everyone back to the meeting after a 10-minute adjournment and invited the Principal Planning Officer to read out the refusal wording. The officer stated that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable density to the detriment of the character and appearance of this edge of sufficient site in conflict with the Arun Local Plan DDM1, the Arun Design Guide and the NPPF. He also confirmed that a further 5 reasons would be included due to the absence of a Section 106 Agreement inclusive of financial contributions, disturbance to Pagham Harbour and no provision for the future monitoring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 266.

2 Public Speakers

Mr Joe Lake, Middleton-on-Sea Parish Council

Mr Colin Morris, Supporter

Provision of 6 No. new lights to 2 No. existing tennis courts. This application may affect the setting of a listed building and is in CIL zone 4 (zero rated) as other development.

          The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.

          The Chair asked the officer if he had any comment to make based on the public speakers where he confirmed that the first public speakers statement that was read out was an email discussion between the Parish and himself, addressing the conditions that they had recommended imposing within their representation.

          The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Wallsgrove and seconded by Councillor Lury.

          During member debate a question was asked regarding a mitigation shield in relation to the additional lighting, it was confirmed that the mitigations referred to by the speaker did not form part of the application. It was also commented that the Tennis Club appeared to be very aware if its neighbours and were being respectful of them with the application.

 The Committee

                    RESOLVED

                    That the application be approved conditionally.

2 Public Speakers

Councillor Dave Marr, Kingston Parish Council

James Lloyd, Applicant

Proposed construction of new stables with welfare facility with associated parking. This application is in CIL zone 5 (zero rated) as other development.

          The Planning Team Leader (Development Management) presented the report with an update.

          After Public Speakers had been heard the Chair checked with the officer if he wanted to come back on any points raised by the speakers, where he advised in relation to the first speaker the building had moved 1 meter to the western boundary, it did project slightly into the gap, however this was considered minimal impact. In relation to the comments made about the muck heap, he confirmed that this was not being approved today and a discharge condition would follow along with the controlling mitigations.

          The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper and seconded by Councillor Woodman.

          The Chair invited members to make comments, statements and ask any questions they had to officers, where the following was raised. It was stated that no new bridleway had been introduced since the previous appeal, the site was south of the railway line and the only way an equestrian could access the bridleway would be for them to cross the railway line. Support was voiced for Kingston Parish Council’s objection to the application as there was potential for expansion opportunities that would be a further encroachment on the gap, whilst there was understanding for the applicant it was felt that the changes made since the previous application were not satisfactory. Other members were concerned with the muck heap potentially being located near a water source and therefore contamination concerns were discussed and one member stated that they felt the as application would have a minimal impact on the gap and that it as a reasonable use of the land, they didn’t see any issues.

          As there were no further comments to be made the Chair then put the recommendation to the vote.  

 The Committee

                    RESOLVED

                    That the application be approved conditionally.

No Public Speakers

Non-material amendment following the grant of EP/56/21/HH relating to the size of the rooflight located over the stairwell.

The Planning Team Leader (Development Management) presented the report. He advised members that this was a non-material amendment application and that these don’t usually come before committee, however as it was a staff application to ensure full transparency, it was before members for a decision.

          The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Lury and seconded by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper.

          As there were no questions were asked, the Chair put the recommendation straight to the vote.

          The Committee

                    RESOLVED

                    That the application be approved.

6 Public Speakers

Mr Peter Atkins, Pagham Parish Council

Mr Colin Hamilton, Objector

Mr Jim Weston, Objector

Jenny Henderson, Agent

Izabel Philips, Supporter

Councillor David Huntley, Ward Member

Approval of details reserved by condition imposed under P/140/16/OUT relating to condition 30- management and maintenance for adjacent Pagham Harbour SPA Enhancement land.

          The Principal Planning Officer presented the report with updates where it was confirmed that the applicant had advised council officers they had offered to meet with the Parish Council to discuss the contents on the updated BGMP, however due to availability prior to the committee, this had not been possible. The applicant confirmed they had extended an invitation to the Sussex Ornithological Society (SOS) in August 2024 to discuss the mitigation plan, however this had been declined. A letter from the SOS to the applicants stated that they regarded the principal stakeholders in this matter to be Arun District Council, the Applicant and Natural England. Furthermore, the SOS clarified that their role was to provide data and records to support the consideration of the scheme. They added that as they did not manage land, they were also not able to offer any practical assistance in relation to the mitigation plan.

          The officer then provided members with a detailed updated on consultation responses received from Natural England, Environment Agency (EA) and Arun District Council’s Ecology Officer and Drainage Engineers, all of which had not lodged any formal objections to the proposals. The officer advised members that the requirement for a Flood Risk Activity Permit for the scrapes, as identified by the Environment Agency (EA), was a separate requirement to the consideration of this discharge of condition application. Securing discharge of this condition did not negate the need for any relevant permits from the EA. If the landowner was unable to obtain a permit for the scrapes, a new Brent Geese Mitigation Plan would need to be submitted for consideration. 

          Members were provided with detail on the additional 15 objection responses that had been received, those additional representations received did not introduce any new material considerations, nor did they raise any issues that had not been dealt with as part of the assessment and committee report. Comments, including those concerning the principle of housing and the request for a south coast cycle highway, remained non-material to the decision. Several comments were made in relation to the need for the presence of Brent Geese on the mitigation site to discharge the condition and/or deem that the scheme was successful. However, the requirement of the condition was for the developer to submit details showing the Council how the mitigation land identified would be managed in a way to allow for an overwintering crop suitable for the Brent Geese, that provided an equivalent foraging value for the Brent Geese to that lost by the development, should they require it. The condition required management of the land and favourable conditions, such as the removal of bird scaring and increased sight lines, which had been proposed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 270.

          The Group Head of Planning presented the report.

Councillor Lury congratulated the Planning department on their performance over the last 12 months.

          As there were no questions or further comments to be made, members noted the report.

            Members noted the appeals list.