Agenda item

5 Public Speakers

Nadine Phibbs, Ferring Parish Council

Andrew Crabb, Objector

Stephen Abbott, Objector

Michael Austin, Agent

Kieran Rafferty, Supporter

1 No dwelling. This application is in CIL Zone 4 and is CIL Liable as a new dwelling.

          The Senior Planning Officer presented the report with updates to members.

          After public speaking had been completed, the Chair invited the officer to make any comment on the points raised by the speakers where she clarified comments made regarding the applications Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), she explained that work had taken place since the application was originally submitted and a small section at the front of the property had now been secured to ensure the application now exceeded the BNG required.

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

The Chair invited members to make their comments and ask any questions they had of Officers, where road safety concerns were raised specifically, the cross over was considered inappropriate for a residential dwelling, comments were heard from some members who felt that the application was an overdevelopment of the site, considering the ‘increase’ in the site’s footprint. It was asked if Officers had completed a site visit, this was confirmed by the Senior Planning Officer, it was then suggested that members complete a site visit to review the road safety concerns that had been raised. In response to this suggestion the Group Head of Planning asked members, what was it that they couldn’t see from the report, presentation or the public realm currently, that would make a site visit appropriate. He also reminded members of previous advice he had given them regarding deferral of applications for site visits to take place.  With this advice having been given, members asked to review pictures from the presentation again that showed where the ‘cross over’ was, the Officer confirmed that the cross over did have planning permission and would also require a licence to be given from West Sussex County Council (WSCC). It was asked if there were other cross overs on the road, the Officer confirmed that there was a parking area in from of 108 Sea Drive and that there was an assumption that there were other cross overs within the road. Some members where in agreement that the pictures in the Officer presentation showed there was risk that would be faced by anyone reversing out from the site onto the road, however there was mixed support for the suggested proposal of a site visit for this purpose. Question then turned back to the footprint size of the development where it was queried if the footprint for the application did have an increase of 35% in comparison to previous applications. It was confirmed that the current scheme proposed 123sqm, the previous application proposed 124sqm and the application previous to that proposed 161sqm. Members agreed that they wanted more detailed information regarding the ground floor footprint size, Officers advised they would require time to obtain this information at which point the Chair proposed an adjournment to allow officers to provide this information which was duly seconded by Councillor Hamilton.

The meeting adjourned at 3:00pm and readjourned at 3:11pm. 

The Chair welcomed everyone back to the meeting and invited the Senior Planning Officer to provide members with the footprint information requested. She confirmed that the calculations in the first application had a Ground Floor footprint of 89sqm, the second application 71sqm and the current application before members today was 90sqm, she confirmed that the First Floor accommodation was ‘a lot less’.

The Chair asked members if the wanted to continue with the overdevelopment reasoning debate, where it was agreed to put the recommendation that had been proposed and seconded to the vote, upon the vote being taken:    

           The Committee

                    RESOLVED

                    That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY.