Agenda item

            (Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor Blanchard-Cooper had declared a prejudicial interest and was placed in the virtual waiting room and so took no part in the debate or vote.)

LU/91/19/PL – Change of use of parts of seafront for temporary food & drink outlets & other seaside uses together with associated temporary portable structures & equipment for use by businesses associated with those outlets, Various sites along Littlehampton Promenade, Littlehampton           

At its meeting on 26 May 2020, the Committee had considered this matter and, as a number of concerns had been raised, it had been deferred for the Littlehampton Regeneration Subcommittee to consider the proposals and indicate its preference as to a way forward.  The Subcommittee had received a detailed report at its meeting on 7 October 2020 and had supported the proposals, with the proviso that restrictions be attached to the operational licenses for enforcement by the Property & Estates Department to ensure that the Riverside site only provided facilities relating to recreation and entertainment with no food or drink and that the Banjo Road site be permitted to sell food but no alcohol and to provide recreation and entertainment.  The relevant minute and that report had been circulated to members of the Committee prior to this meeting to assist in its determination of the application.

The Planning Team Leader presented the application, together with the officer’s written report update which set out the detail of a late representation from an objector and an additional informative relating to the Estates & Property Department restricting/managing the use of the concessions as detailed above.  He then invited the Group Head of Economy to provide input from the Subcommittee’s perspective.  She advised that there had been a comprehensive debate on the matter at the Littlehampton Regeneration Subcommittee meeting and  highlighted the units would be of a temporary nature, with the aim of bringing more flexibility and diversity to the seafront to improve the offer there and to encourage more visitors.  Feedback would be very much welcomed and if something was not working there would always be the opportunity to adapt and change things.

Following comment from Members, the Group Head of Planning reminded the Committee that they had to treat the applicant, in this case Arun District Council, in the same way as it would any other applicant. The applicant was not a consideration in this application. Further, just because Arun, as the applicant, would be unlikely to appeal against the imposition of a planning condition that would not make the imposition of said condition lawful. The same test would apply and the Committee should be acting lawfully at all times.

In the course of discussion, overall support for the proposals was indicated.  However, some reservations were expressed with regard to inadequate toilet facilities in the area and the Group Head of Economy advised that that issue would be managed on a case by case basis with the provision of temporary units when necessary.  It was recognised that there was a need to improve the facilities on the seafront but that would be part of a wider investment strategy for the future.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report and the officer report update.