Agenda item

5 Public speakers

Ms Christine Johnson

Mr Tim Kerss

          Mr Timothy Bell

          Mr Nik Smith – Agent

          Councillor Hayward – Ward Member

          Demolition of the existing structures & redevelopment to provide a new 66-bedroom care home arranged over two storeys together with associated access, car & cycle parking, structural landscaping & amenity space provision (resubmission following M/80/19/PL). This application is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated) as 'other development’. Poultry Farm, 87 Yapton Road, Middleton-on-Sea

          Councillor Edwards was invited by the Chairman to ask his question prior to the presentation of the item. He asked based on the report update why were the Committee being asked to review this today, given that West Sussex County Council contributions were still being sought and he was unsure how the Committee would be able to come to a decision while this was still outstanding. The Director of Place advised that his understanding was the unilaterally undertaking that the Council would normally seek is yet to be finalised.  So, his advice was depending on the decision made by Members on this item, it may be a case to include in the recommendation that this unilaterally undertaking is completed before the decision notice was issued. Councillor Edwards was unhappy with this answer as he felt that the Committee should be presented with all the facts prior to making a decision.  

The Planning Officer then presented his report to Members where he advised that further information had been received from the Agent in relation to the basement element of the application where he confirmed that the Ground Floor around the site would remain the same and there would be no area dug into, meaning that the overall height of the building would be reduced by lowering the ridge lines. He went on to explain that this application followed application M/80/19 that had been REFUSED and was now under the appeal procedure. He specified that in terms of this application the footprint, layout and number of bedrooms was the same as the previous refused application, the difference was on the north-western corner of the site where a  basement was proposed to accommodate a plant room, laundry room, changing room,  training room, kitchen and other ancillary rooms. This would allow the roof to be lowered sufficiently so that now the building would be similar to a previously approved application M/45/16PL. In terms of the Ash Trees, like the previously refused application, there is a suitable condition included in the application that meant that the trees would now be protected.

The Chairman then invited the Planning Officer to respond to the comments made by the public speakers.  The Chairman then invited the Director of Place back to respond to Councillor Edwards earlier concerns. He referred Members to page 13 of the agenda that detailed the s106 agreement, the update that Councillor Edwards was referring too states simply that should Members decide to support the application, that it would be normal practice for this action to be delegated to the Director of Place to complete.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where the following concerns were raised.

The first statement made by Councillor Mrs Pendleton who reminded the Committee that each planning application should be reviewed in its own right, and she was concerned at the references made to passed applications. It was also felt that the density was not sympathetic and would compromise the local setting. The 1.8-meter fence with locked gates were felt to be an eyesore. Lighting was believed to contribute to light pollution. Vehicles that would have to wait for a gate to be opened and the risks that would come with this. The detail of the 27 parking spaces that was included in the application as unsuitable. Concern was raised that the application was being built on a flood plain area, however this was confirmed by the Engineering Services Manager to be incorrect. He stated that the Environment Agencies flood risk map and it was not listed as being within flood zone 2 or 3. He also advised that while the ground water was high, the investigations that had been completed and now it was evident that a basement could be suitably constructed so it was water tight.

The Planning Officer then addressed the comment made by Councillor Mrs Pendleton regarding reviewing the application as a standalone. He explained that usually this would be normal practice and she was correct. However, 9 months ago a very similar application was refused by this Committee for specific reasons that had been detailed within the report and he reminded members that consideration should be given to the reasons for refusal should that be the decision made today and that it wouldn’t be advisable to consider refusal for any additional reasons other than detailed on the previous application. 

In turning back to the debate, the following questions were asked;

·       What statistical info has been used in order for them to declare that the project is needed?

·       Numerous non compliances with the local plan and the new NPPF

·       If the Committee approve this app, what happens to the previous applications at appeal?

The Director of Place was then invited by the Chairman to respond to the questions asked. He firstly reiterated the Planning Officers advice that while Members were correct that usual practice is for applications to be considered in its own right, he agreed with the advice the Officer had given stating again that a similar application was rejected with only two grounds of refusal being sighted. That application had now been considered at appeal and the Council has presented its case only the previous week based on these 2 reasons only. He further stated that at this meeting Members were sighting a larger number of other issues that ultimately were not reasons for refusal when the previous application was in front of the Committee. He advised that as a Committee, members were responsible for the decisions they made, and he urged them to carefully consider if the issues being raised now would justify a refusal. The Planning Officer then referred members to page 9 of the agenda where it set out the need for this proposal. 

The Debate resumed and discussion moved to a concern over recommendation no.22. where Members were of the opinion this should state prior to commencement of the works and not prior to occupation of the building. The Planning Officer advised that in relation to the basement and the need for air extraction as the Council was requesting that this work was to be completed prior to occupation, he believed that requesting this to be changed to state prior to commencement of works was not needed. As discussion progressed it was clear that Members were in support of changing the wording to recommendation no.22. As this was largely supported by the Committee the Planning Officer made this update to the recommendation during discussion, prior to the vote being taken.

In addressing final comments that had been raised during the debate the Director of Place stated that if Members were of the view that the changes in the application in front of them had not satisfied their previous reasons for refusal on the previous application then these could be reasons for refusal but they would still need to be justified. Responding to a question raised regarding the costs associated with an application going to appeal and being overturned he explained that costs could be awarded against the Council on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour e.g. unable to justify the decision that had been made. He stated that he believed that the costs would be very significant and reminded Members that they needed to act reasonably and consistently. 

The Committee

          RESOLVED

          that the application be approved subject to conditions