Agenda item

There were no public speakers on this item due to public speakers being heard at the meeting on 12 July 2023.

Construction of 6 No new dwelling with new access from Bilsham Road, sustainable drainage and landscaping. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan, may affect the setting of listed buildings and is in CIL Zone 3 and is CIL Liable as new dwellings.

          The Vice-Chair explained to the Committee that a panel of members attended the site visit that took place on 25 July 2023 where they viewed the site and were able to carry out an external view of the site where members found several concerns including HGV movements from the industrial units that sit at the back of the site, residential relationships verses industrial noise and highway safety, character and sustainability, the proximity to a grade II listed building and the extra traffic at Comet Corner and the impact this would have on the local infrastructure. She then invited members who were present at the visit to make any additional comments.

          Upon entering into debate, it was raised immediately that the application be refused on the basis that it was a departure of the development plan and that paragraph 11D of the NPPF did not outweigh the character if the area, this was proposed by Councillor McDougall and seconded by Councillor Lury. Additional comments raised were that the location was an inappropriate place for the application and the committee should support the previous inspector’s decision and refuse the application.

           The Interim Head of Development Management then advised members that the use of paragraph 11D of the NPPF would be correct and allow for a reason for a refusal reason to be found. However, he reminded members that the means testing that needed to be done, was, would it significantly outweigh and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Members continued to raise additional concerns including the footway connections to other amenities within the area and whilst it was understood a footpath would be introduced it was the opinion of members that the footpath would remain dangerous to anyone travelling by foot or in a wheelchair.

          Following further significant discussion regarding the reasons for refusal it was agreed that the application would cause less than substantial harm to the appearance of the area and secondly the development would lead to less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset, but that harm would not be outweighed by public benefit. It was then suggested that the proposal would be detrimentally affected by what exists within and adjacent to the area of the site. Furthermore, it was also comment that there were additional policies the application was in conflict to these were TSP 1 parts A and B, TSP1 part F 2,3 and 5 and TDM1 parts A and D.

The Interim Head of Development Management and the Planning Area Team Leader both provided advice to members regarding all comments made for the reasons for refusal, and suggested that members used the following wording as the reasons for refusal;

1)the dwellings by reason of their position outside of the built-up area boundary and in the countryside, which would cause harm to the character of the area and the benefits of the development do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm to contrary policies C SP1, SD SP2, D DM1 and D SP1 of the Arun Local Plan and the NPPF.

2) The sites proximity to the industrial/commercial development would create unacceptable living conditions to future occupier’s contrary to policies D DM1 and QE SP1 of the Arun Local Plan and paragraph 130 (f) of the NPPF.

3) The public benefits of the development do not outweigh the harm caused to the designated and non-designated heritage assets contrary to policies HER SP1, HER DM1 and HER DM2 of the Arun Local Plan and paragraphs 199-203 of the NPPF.

          The recommendation was proposed by Councillor McDougall and seconded by Councillor Lury.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

To REFUSE the application as

1) the dwellings by reason of their positionoutside of the built-up area boundary and in the countryside, which would cause harm to the character of the area and the benefits of the development do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm to contrary policies C SP1, SD SP2, D DM1 and D SP1 of the Arun Local Plan and the NPPF.

2) The sites proximity to the industrial/commercial development would create unacceptable living conditions to future occupier’s contrary to policies D DM1 and QE SP1 of the Arun Local Plan and paragraph 130 (f) of the NPPF.

3) The public benefits of the development do not outweigh the harm caused to the designated and non-designated heritage assets contrary to policies HER SP1, HER DM1 and HER DM2 of the Arun Local Plan and paragraphs 199-203 of the NPPF.