Agenda item

2 Public Speakers

Sarah Tyrell - Objector.

Tania Tindale - Agent.

Erection of an upward extension to the existing three storey residential building to provide two additional floors comprising 8 No. flats along with associated external alterations to the existing building. This application may effect the setting of listed buildings, may effect the Littlehampton River Road Conservation Area and is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated) as flats.

The Interim Head of Development Management presented the report with updates.

After the public speakers had been heard the Interim Head of Development Management was invited by the Chair to address comments made. He confirmed that the report detailed that the site was within a conservation area and nearby to listed buildings. He drew members attention to the Conservation officer’s comments relating to the benefits of the application that outweighed the harm identified.

The recommendation was then proposed by Councillor Wallsgrove and seconded by Councillor Lury.

Members then took part in a debate on the application where several points were raised including concerns over the height of building, the application was considered to be overdevelopment, overbearing with a lack of parking to be provided. Comments were made regarding Part P of the Arun Design Guide, specifying that development should ‘continue the rhythm of the street’. It was also debated that the application could have a detrimental impact on the views of the surrounding area. The suggestion of a site visit was made; however, members were reminded that a site visits purpose was to allow for specific elements that needed to be viewed from inside the site location, however anything that could be viewed from the public realm should have already been undertaken by members.

The Interim Head of development Management addressed concerns raised relating to parking by stating that the area was highly sustainable with access to public transport. He also reminded members that whilst there would be no new parking allocation for new flats, there was already existing parking arrangements in place that would remain.

Upon taking the vote on the officer recommendation, it was LOST. Members then had a detailed discussion on their reason for refusal for the application and advice was sought from the Interim Head of Development Management where it was agreed that by virtue of its additional bulk and height and detailed design the proposed development would appear overbearing, unduly prominent and out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development within the conservation area setting. The proposals are thereby contrary to policies DDM1 HER DM3 of the Arun Local Plan and the level of demonstrable harm to designated heritage assets would not be outweighed by the public benefits. This was proposed by Councillor Bower and seconded by Councillor Woodman. In line with the constitution Part 8, Codes and Protocols, section 3, Planning Protocol, Rule 12.5 (iv) a recorded vote was undertaken. Those voting for the recommendation were Blanchard-Cooper, Bower, Hamilton, Kelly, Lury, McDougall, Northeast, Partridge, Patel, Wallsgrove and Woodman (11). The vote was unanimous.

The Committee

          REESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED by virtue of its additional bulk and height and detailed design the proposed development would appear overbearing, unduly prominent, and out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development within the conservation area setting. The proposals are thereby contrary to policies DDM1 HER DM3 of the Arun Local Plan and the level of demonstrable harm to designated heritage assets would not be outweighed by the public benefits.

A short adjournment was then taken at 15:12 to allow members to take a comfort break.