Decisions

It was proposed and seconded that a new start time for the remaining meetings of the Planning Committee for 2022/23 be 14:00pm.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the start time of all remaining meetings of the Committee for 2022/23 would be 14:00pm.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Group Head of Planning presented his report which built on the report brought before Committee on 15 December 2021 [Minute 530]. One of the recommendations was to undertake a focused consultation of properties on Amberley Close and the eastern side of Highdown Drive to gauge public opinion. This was undertaken in January and February 2022. The results were contained in the report [pages 236 to 241 of the Agenda Pack] but he highlighted that the majority supported a reduction in the height of the barrier regardless of whether there was a greater noise disturbance.

The recommendations were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

RESOLVED - That

1.    The principle of reducing the height of the acoustic barrier to 2.5m was supported subject to further work being undertaken regarding the quantification of the costs that the Council would be liable for the physical works, potential scale of any future compensation claims, and the likely costs associated with pursuing a formal modification of the planning permission through Section 102 & 103 was supported;

2.    Discussions continue with West Sussex County Council and Persimmon Homes to seek an agreed solution seeking to negate the need for any formal legal process;

3.    A further report was required to be provided to the Committee on the progress of these matters.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Planning Area Team Leader presented his report which sought to update the Compliance Strategy which was last amended in 2019. He explained that, although the update was not a complete overhaul, some of the changes were far reaching and gave the example of not all enforcement cases being investigated going forward as often no action was taken for a variety of reasons and so was deemed not the best use of Officers’ time.Officers’ time would instead be put to better use tackling cases that were problematic and caused harm to the amenity in Arun.

After the Chair had outlined the four recommendations of the report, Members took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·       clarification of case priority and in particular caravans and development related to travellers

·       the Officer allocation for this work and staffing levels within Planning more generally, and whether the proposed reduction in work was due to a reduction in staff

·       support for the principle that the public have to be clearer in the information they give to add the triage of problems

·       whether online only forms would exclude residents who were uncertain of what they were reporting and sought advice and assistance of the process

The Group Head of Planning confirmed that the Compliance Strategy was based on a team that was fully resourced and, although there were issues in resourcing the team, it was not a reaction to these issues. The Planning Area Team Leader confirmed that Parish Councils would be consulted on the Strategy before it was formally implemented.

Following comments from the Acting Monitoring Officer and Planning Solicitor on the Officer recommendations around the date of adoption for the Strategy and the consultation with Town and Parish Councils from an enforcement and prosecution point of view, deferral was proposed and seconded pending the outcome of the informal consultation with Town and Parish Councils.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the item be DEFERRED pending the outcome of the informal consultation with Town and Parish Councils.

Hybrid Application comprising of Full application for Phase 1 for 30 No residential dwellings, new access from Bilsham Road, public open space, landscaping, sustainable urban drainage and associated works; and Outline planning application for further phases of up to 110 No dwellings and associated infrastructure (with all matters reserved). This application is a Departure from the Development Plan and is in CIL Zone 3 and is CIL Liable as new dwellings.

The Planning Area Team Leader informed the Committee that on 23 May 2022 National Highways had submitted a new 3 month holding objection to the application with a request for additional information on top of what had already been requested and provided. On this basis it was recommended that this application be deferred to a later meeting in order for these matters to be looked into.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED to a later date.

[Councillor Haywood re-declared her Personal Interest made at the beginning of the meeting as a Ward Member for Middleton-on-Sea.]

1 Public Speaker

Andrew Riley – Applicant

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 1 No 2-storey, 4-bedroom detached house with 3 No off road car parking spaces. This site is in CIL Zone 4 and is CIL Liable as new dwelling.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report. This was followed by 1 Public Speaker.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·       support for the improvement of the area’s housing stock

·       the public’s concern for the loss of bungalows in the area

·       the changes to the character of the area

·       the condition of the local sewage system and the need to ensure other properties did not flood as a consequence of this development

The Committee

RESOLVED

That delegated authority be granted to the Group Head of Planning (in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee) to approve planning permission subject to conditions as detailed in the report and any further conditions recommended by the Environment Agency.

[Councillor Haywood re-declared her Personal Interest made at the beginning of the meeting as a Ward Member for Middleton-on-Sea.]

Replacement residential dwelling. This application may affect a Public Right of Way.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·       the Officer conditions regarding drainage and the risk of flooding being welcomed

·       the diversity of the housing stock in the area

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report subject to the conditions as detailed.

1 Public Speaker

Ian Kuehnel – Objector

Installation of 3000mm high welded mesh fencing and associated single leaf gate along a section of the northern boundary line and along the rear elevation, ornamental fencing and associated gates to be installed, located adjacent to the existing southern side entrance to the building, as well as the installation of 3000mm high welded mesh fence encapsulating the existing boiler room to the rear of the building. Demolition of existing side secondary entrance including existing ramped access and associated fittings. Repairs to the section of wall affected by the removal of the entrance. This application affects the character and appearance of the East Street Conservation Area and is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated) as other development.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates. This was followed by 1 Public Speaker.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·         the height of the mesh fence

·         the security of the site

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions as detailed.

[Councillor Blanchard-Cooper declared a Personal Interest as a Ward Member for Brookfield. Councillor Chace also declared a Personal Interest as a Ward Member for Brookfield.]

1 Public Speaker

Joseph Pearson – Agent

Single storey rear extension to 215 Timberleys and single storey rear extension to proposed new dwelling at 215A Timberleys (approved under application reference LU/350/20/PL). This site is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated) as other development.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates. This was followed by 1 Public Speaker.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions as detailed.

Change of use from C1 Guest House to a 16 bed House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis) including first floor extension, demolition of existing detached garage and external alterations.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·         the number of HMOs in the area and the character of the area

·         concerns over the design of the driveway and vehicular accessibility

·         proximity to the roundabout and the issue of on-road parking

The Committee

RESOLVED

That delegated authority be granted to the Group Head of Planning (in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee) to approve planning permission subject to conditions as detailed in the report and report update and a Section 106 Agreement.

[Councillor Thurston declared a Personal Interest as a Ward Member for Barnham.]

3 Public Speakers

Christopher Smith – Objector

Lisa Pridie – Objector

Clare Bartlett – Supporter

Erection of 4 No dwellings with associated car parking. This application is in CIL Zone 2 and is CIL Liable as new dwellings.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates. This was followed by 3 Public Speakers.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·         the planning history of the site

·         not an allocated site in Barnham Parish Council’s Neighbourhood Plan and application would seem to go against it

·         the need for both hedges and fencing on certain boundaries to protect existing residents from increased noise disturbance

·         support for the design and what could be achieved when using a small private architect

An amendment to the Officer’s recommendations was proposed by Councillor Thurston and seconded by Councillor Haywood that the means of enclosure should be retained at its current height in perpetuity. The amendment was CARRIED and now formed part of the application being decided.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions as detailed and any further conditions to be agreed with the Group Head of Planning and Chair of Planning Committee.

[Councillor Thurston declared a Personal Interest as a Ward Member for Barnham.]

1 Public Speaker

Glynn Curtis – Supporter

Retention of existing site entrance (resubmission following BN/97/21/PL). This site is in CIL Zone 3 (Zero Rated) as other development.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report. This was followed by 1 Public Speaker.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·         contradictions between the Officer’s report and the recently updated and adopted Neighbourhood Plan with Church Lane having been made a site of special character

·         the flint walls, the role they play in preserving the tradition and character of the area and their restoration

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report subject to the conditions as detailed.

2 Public Speakers

Claudia Kelly – Objector

Elizabeth Lawrence – Agent

Demolition of large agricultural buildings, removal of concrete yards and access, erection of 4 No 2 bed houses, 2 No 3 bed houses, 2 No 4 bed houses, gardens, access, parking, soft landscape and ecology areas (resubmission following AL/75/21/PL). This application is a Departure from the Development Plan and is in CIL Zone 3 and is CIL Liable as new dwellings.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report. This was followed by 2 Public Speakers.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·         whether there was any possibility of keeping the bund, and if it had to be replaced whether it could be replaced as a bund

·         the condition against building if barn owls were found to be present during the breeding session

·         the width of Sack Lane, the lack of verges or footpaths and concerns over pedestrian safety following an increase in housing and residential vehicles

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report subject to the conditions as detailed.

Approval of reserved matters (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) following outline consent P/140/16/OUT for the ‘local centre’ parcel which comprises of retails, community and commercial uses, 20 No residential apartments and a 70 bed care home.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the update report which dealt specifically with the reason given for deferral at the Planning Committee on 28 April 2022 – the height of the buildings with regards the mass and bulk of the roofs.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·         pleasure in the reduction in the height of the buildings but concern remaining for the impact on the semi-rural/ecclesiastical setting and listed buildings

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions as detailed.

[Councillor Blanchard-Cooper declared that, due to his absence from the previous Committee meeting at which Agenda Items 7 and 8 were first heard, he would withdraw from the debate and note vote on these items.]

Erection of a warehouse (Use Class B8) with ancillary office, associated vehicle parking, van storage, plant, ancillary structures, lighting landscaping and infrastructure works including earthworks to facilitate flood compensation areas. This site may affect listed buildings, may affect the character and appearance of the Shripney Conservation Area, is a Departure from the Development Plan, affects a Rights of Way and is in CIL Zone SP3 (Zero Rated_ as other development.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the update report which dealt specifically with the reason given for deferral at the Planning Committee on 27 April 2022 – in order to seek further clarification in respect of the development’s impact on the capacity of the access roundabout and to secure confirmation of how the financial contributions will be spent to mitigate the impact of development on the operation of the access roundabout. A verbal update was also given on drainage and flooding.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers from Arun District Council and guest Officers from West Sussex County Council, including:

·         the lack of a relief road built for the new A29 and all additional traffic (particularly at night, which the studies have identified is when these are likely to happen) using the existing A29 through a residential area

·         how, when and how frequently West Sussex County Council would look to determine whether the roundabout was above capacity in future and whether Arun would need to keep asking for reviews of this or if work would be undertaken proactively

·         the development exacerbating already high levels of traffic on surrounding roads at certain times of day and the potential conflict of a junction being ‘over capacity’ but still acceptable in terms of Highways approval

·         future capacity capability and the accumulative effect of future planning applications on the site, and the need for roundabout design to build-in potential capacity

The Committee

RESOLVED

That delegated authority be granted to the Group Head of Planning (in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee) to:

a)    approve planning permission subject to conditions

b)    subject to a Section 106 Agreement, the terms of which were substantially in accordance with those set out in the report with any minor amendments being authorised by the Group Head of Planning

Following either:

a)    receipt of drainage plans/documents, deemed to be acceptable by ADC Engineers, which will be included in the list of approved plans and ion conditions requiring compliance with the plans/documents, within three months from 27 April 2022, OR

b)    receipt of written confirmation by the applicant to the imposition of the standard pre-commencement drainage conditions (as set out in the report or any alternative wording agreed by both the applicant and Local Planning Authority).

[Councillor Needs declared a Personal Interest at the start of this Item as a Member of Bognor Regis Town Council]

          The Chair of the Bognor Regis Beach Access Working Party gave a brief update to the Committee and presented the Minutes of the first meeting of the Working Party, which contained a recommendation at Minute 4.

          The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Worne and seconded by Councillor Edwards

          The Committee

RESOLVED

That 1a) of the Terms of Reference of the Bognor Regis Beach Access Working Party be changed to ‘to consider the issues surrounding the provision of an access to the beach for all in Bognor Regis and to examine the options available for such an access’

          The Committee

RESOLVED

That its start times for meetings for 2022/23 be 6.00pm.

          Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Environmental Services & Strategy Manager presented the report to the Committee. He explained the Committee had two choices, one being the recommendation which would bring a change to current services, the other option was to continue with current services for the time being. The recommendation was a move to alternate weekly collections for residual waste, with a bin provided to residents from the council, alongside a commitment to introducing food waste collections at the earliest opportunity when funding was available from the Government. Officers believed this was the right approach which was supported by partners at West Sussex County Council and through the work that Ricardo had undertaken on the council’s behalf. The recommendations sought to build on the success of the council’s recent 1-2-3 food waste trial, and the anticipated direction of the Government Resource & Waste Strategy. A weekly residual collection was around £358,000 more expensive compared to an alternate weekly residual collection. The recommendations were based on alignment with the council’s adopted Vision; including a stated recycling target of 55% by 2025 and to ‘ensure climate change and sustainability is at the heart of all council services’. He highlighted there were around 6000 properties within the District where moving to a fortnightly residual waste collection would be difficult, and the report proposed to keep these properties on a weekly collection until further proposals could be considered regarding how the transition for those properties could be made.

          The Environmental Services & Strategy Manager explained that if the Committee decided to retain the existing services, the council would need to move to alternate weekly collection when the Government introduced mandatory food waste collection. This was because there would be no viability or argument for a  weekly residual service in addition to weekly food waste collection, which would be impractical and costly to deliver.

          The Chair then invited Sam Pullinger, Category & Commercial Procurement lead for External Partners, Hampshire County Council to address the Committee, who gave a summary of the procurement process and options.

          The Chair then invited Steve Read, Director for Environment & Public Protection West Sussex County Council, to address the Committee. He believed that the success of the food waste trial showed that Arun had potential to be one of the UK’s top performing authorities in recycling if they chose the right option for waste collection. He explained modelling and predictions showed moving to alternate weekly collection over the next 3 years would increase recycling levels, and reduce waste disposal significantly. This would be more significant upon the introduction of food waste collection.

          The Chair then invited John Woodruff, Ricardo Consulting, to address the Committee. He explained that the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) funding would be in place from April 2024. This would be a contribution from producers to councils for recycling and waste collections. The process for allocating funding had not yet been finalised, but levels of contribution would be based on efficiency of scheme, recycling performance and material quality. Food waste collection would be compulsory from 01 April 2023, and specific costs for introducing food waste collection would be funded by New Burden Funding. However there was uncertainty around this which represented risk, and therefore price increases. When the final date was to be announced by DEFRA, there would be a bottleneck due to a surge in demand, there may not be enough vehicles and containers. The sooner a decision was made, the better chance of getting what Arun wanted, and if left longer the prices would increase.

          The Chair thanked Sam Pullinger, Steve Read and John Woodruff for their contributions. He recognised that the recommendations supported alignment with the Vision of the council, and would support residents to do the right thing. He proposed an amended version of the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Chace. This was as follows:

That subject to Policy & Finance/Full Council confirmation of the finance available, the Environment Committee approve:

1.           The award of a three-year contract extension with modifications from the 1st February 2023 at an initial annual cost of £6.749 million (an additional annual cost of £655k on the current £4.918 million subject to indexation); To consist of service configuration ‘A’ which represents an ‘as is’ service comprising a weekly residual collection from sacks. The award will include a provisional annual sum of £1.176 million (plus indexation) for food waste should it be mandated to be rolled out within the life of the extension.

2.           To authorise the Director of Services to sign off a Deed of Modification to incorporate the service changes agreed at 1 above.

3.           To approve that if food waste collection is mandated to be rolled out by government within the three year extension that the Council must switch to an alternate weekly collection service for residual collections at the point of roll out. And that on this basis that authority be delegated to the Director of Services to procure the 240 litre residual waste bins required to deliver services, for a one-off capital sum of £1.32million (subject to inflation) and a further capital sum of £300k (subject to inflation) for indoor/outdoor food caddies, utilising an existing framework(s) for such procurement and to be completed in consultation with the Council’s procurement advisors.

The Committee then took part in a full debate, summarised below, during which time some non-Committee Members were also given permission to speak by the Committee.

Questions were asked on how the alternate weekly collection would be rolled out once the food waste collection was introduced, and whether there could be an overlap. The Chair said that although the detail would not be decided yet, this would be noted, and that residents would need to be well informed prior to roll-out.

Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) were discussed and it was asked whether the timescales for rolling out food waste collection had been decided. The Environmental Services & Strategy Manager explained that as per the report, HMOs would be audited on an individual basis.

It was asked whether Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHPs) collection service could be provided, as this was a major contribution of waste. The Environmental Services & Strategy Manager explained that this had been trialled as part of the 1-2-3 Food Waste Trial, however it was a very costly option and not considered necessary in a 1-2-2 collection. This was something that could be considered moving forward.

There was disappointment expressed that the recommendations in the Officer’s reports were being altered. There was no reason to delay and it was felt the amended proposal would be a backward step, that there should be alternate weekly collections now with food waste collections being brought in as soon as possible. Many councils were already running an alternate weekly waste collection.

There was concern that if Arun funded food waste collection now, they may not be eligible for government funding when it became mandatory, so funding it themselves now would be a big risk.

It was important that preparations were made now to ensure Arun were ready to roll-out in a years time. It was suggested that the bins and food caddies should be ordered now, and not paid for until funding was secured. It was felt there should not be two changes to collections in a short space of time, and weekly waste collection should continue until a 1-2-3 collection could be properly rolled out. Residents should be educated in order to reduce food waste.

It was asked whether multi-functional split vehicles would be an option. The Environmental Services & Strategy Manager explained that these vehicles were very expensive, and although successfully used by some councils, were not an efficient option for Arun at this time.

A recorded vote was requested. Those voting for were Councillors Bicknell, Chace, Edwards, English, Goodheart, Huntley, Needs, Pendleton and Warr. Councillor Thurston voted against. Councillor Worne abstained from voting. The vote was therefore declared carried.

          The Committee

RESOLVED

That subject to Policy & Finance/Full Council confirmation of the finance available, the Environment Committee approve that:

1. The award of a three-year contract extension with modifications from the 1st February 2023 at an initial annual cost of £6.749 million (an additional annual cost of £655k on the current £4.918 million subject to indexation); To consist of service configuration ‘A’ which represents an ‘as is’ service comprising a weekly residual collection from sacks. The award will include a provisional annual sum of £1.176 million (plus indexation) for food waste should it be mandated to be rolled out within the life of the extension.

2. To authorise the Director of Services to sign off a Deed of Modification to incorporate the service changes agreed at 1 above.

3.    If food waste collection is mandated to be rolled out by government within the three year extension that the Council must switch to an alternate weekly collection service for residual collections at the point of roll out. And that on this basis that authority be delegated to the Director of Services to procure the 240 litre residual waste bins required to deliver services, for a one-off capital sum of £1.32million (subject to inflation) and a further capital sum of £300k (subject to inflation) for indoor/outdoor food caddies, utilising an existing framework(s) for such procurement and to be completed in consultation with the Council’s procurement advisors.

          Demolition of 4 No. existing bungalows and erection of 5 No. 2 bedroom dwellings with associated parking and landscape. This application is in CIL Zone 2 and is CIL liable as new dwellings.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report subject to the conditions detailed.

2 Public Speakers

Hazel Johnston – Objector

Mr Nigel Jarvis – Agent

Outline planning application with all matters reserved (except access) for residential development with up to 95 no. dwellings (Use Class C3), informal and formal public open space, landscaping, drainage and other associated works. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates. This was followed by 2 Public Speakers.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·       the reluctance of Members to approve an application without the Section 106 Heads of Terms available

·       the need for more detail around CIL contributions and proposed projects

·       the quality of the trees on the site

·       rural nature of the site and the loss of agricultural land

·       the accumulative impact of traffic from this and other developments in the area

·       the odour issue from the landfill site

·       the site being outside the built-up area boundary and the location not being sustainable (not walking distance to shops, will not support local economy, no environmental benefit, accessibility to high quality public transport)

·       the potential problem of the lack of visibility for the access onto Lidsey Road

·       the need to create development where people do not need to use their cars

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That delegated authority be granted to the Group Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee to:

1.    Grant outline planning permission, subject to conditions;

2.    Subject to a Section 106 Agreement, the terms of which are substantially in accordance with those set out in this report with any minor amendments authorised by the Group Head of Planning;

Should the Section 106 Agreement not be completed in 4 months of the date of the Planning Committee's resolution to grant planning permission, then the application shall be refused for the following reasons:

a)    In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement, the development fails to make any affordable housing provision and is thereby contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF and policy AH SP2 of the Arun Local Plan.

b)    In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement, the development will not provide the highway improvements necessary to deliver the development & mitigate any residual harm to the local and strategic road network and is thereby contrary to ALP policies T SP1, T DM1 and the NPPF.

1.     

2.     

3.    Subject to receipt of a satisfactory consultation response from the Environment Agency, be completed in 4 months of the date of the Planning Committee's resolution to grant planning permission.

1 Public Speaker

Claire Howes – Applicant

Demolition of existing dwelling and ancillary outbuildings and erection of a 66 bedroom care home with associated access, parking and landscaping. This site is in CIL Zone 3 (Zero Rated) as other development & is a Departure from the Development Plan.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates. This was followed by 1 Public Speaker.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·       site having planning permission that had not been implemented and the impact of the new application on Arun’s housing land supply

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions detailed and a Section 106 Agreement.

1 Public Speaker

Jozie Bannister – Agent

Installation of ground mounted solar panels. This application is in CIL Zone 3 (zero rated) as other development.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report. This was followed by 1 Public Speaker.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report subject to the conditions detailed.

1 Public Speaker

James Hutchinson – Agent

          Change of use from Class E (retail) / B8 storage to C3 residential and the creation of three dwelling units through the conversion of the rear of nos. 73 & 75 and the erection of a part single storey / part two storey rear extension with associated amenity space and refuse / recycling stores.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report. This was followed by 1 Public Speaker.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·       the built nature of the Aldwick area

·       difficulties with parking in the area already and surprise that lack of parking provision within the application is not seen as an issue

·       impact the lack of parking has on the bus layby and bus service

·       concern over the lack of access for emergency services

·       cramped development

·       support for infilling in sustainable areas

·       support for car-free development, and whether car-free conditions could be put on future residents

·       whether this could be considered unsustainable development due to the parking concerns and the impacts on the local bus service

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That delegated authority be granted to the Group Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee to:

1.    Grant outline planning permission, subject to conditions;

2.    Subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

[Councillor Thurston arrived at the beginning of this item.]

2 Public Speakers

Mr McGeehan – Objector

Peter Matley – Applicant

Extension of first floor rear balconies at 32 & 33 Mariners Quay (resubmission of LU/349/20/HH). This application affects the character & appearance of the Littlehampton, River Road Conservation Area and is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated) as other development.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates. This was followed by 3 Public Speakers.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·       the lost of privacy and impact on neighbouring properties

·       privacy screens and impacts to the views of other properties

·       the extension being out of character

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED as:

1.    The proposal if permitted by reason of the scale and appearance of the balcony extension would cause substantial harm to the existing character and appearance to this terrace of buildings and the contribution they make to the conservation area in conflict with policies D DM1, D DM4 and HER DM3 of the Arun Local Plan and the Arun Design Guide.

2.    The proposal if permitted would unacceptably and significantly harm the residential amenity of the adjoining properties by reason of overlooking which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by planning conditions contrary to policies

          Those voting for the application to be refused were Councillors Bower, Chace, Chapman, Clayden, Coster, Kelly, Lury and Thurston. There were no votes cast against and there were no abstentions.

3 Public Speakers

Cllr Peter Atkins – Pagham Parish Council

Cllr David Huntley – Arun District Council Ward Member

Cllr June Hamilton – Arun District Council Ward Member

          Approval of reserved matters (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) following outline consent P/140/16/OUT for the 'local centre' parcel which comprises of retail, community and commercial uses, 20 No residential apartments and a 70 bed care home.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report with updates. This was followed by 3 Public Speakers.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·       the nature and design of the buildings, in particular 3-storey buildings with high pitched roofs when other roof designs would lower the overall height and be more in keeping with Pagham and the surrounding area

·       design not in keeping with Pagham and needed to be more sensitive to the area

·       healthcare provision, or lack of, in the area and the pressure of building another care home in the area

·       considering this application in light of sea level rise predictions and whilst exploring a coastal change management plan for the area

·       issues with flooding already in the area

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED to further clarify the height of the buildings with regards the mass and bulk of the roofs.

          Flexible Generator Plant and associated infrastructure. This application is in CIL Zone 3 (zero rated) as other development and is a Departure from the Development Plan.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report and explained that the reason for deferral at the Planning Committee on 2 March 2022 [Minute 698232] was in order for a site inspection to be completed and for further technical information to be provided from the relevant government department.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report subject to the conditions detailed.

Variation of condition following grant of CM/16/21/PL relating to Condition No 5 – opening hours. This application may affect the setting of a Listed Building.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates. It was explained that this application was deferred from a previous meeting as a vote had not been taken in respect of refusing it and detailing the reasons.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED as the extension of opening hours to 4pm on Sundays at the premises would result in the unacceptable loss of residential amenity from levels of noise and disturbance to the occupiers of The Cottage, Clymping Street from comings and goings of customers to the site in conflict with policies QE SP1 and QE DM1 of the Arun Local Plan.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2022 were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chair.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, theDirector of Place presented the report which presented a summary of some Section 106 funds that had been received by the Council in accordance with Planning Permissions which required the funds to be spent on specific purposes or to be returned to the Developer. He explained that the Council intended to discharge the obligation by transfer of the funds to third parties not beneficiaries under the Deeds and that this report requested authorisation to enter into Deeds of Agreement with the relevant third parties and formally transfer the responsibility for discharging the obligations under the section 106 Deeds.

The Committee

          RESOLVED - That

1.    The Committee allow deeds of agreement to be entered into and subsequently allow the expenditure by way of transfer of funds as detailed in the report;

2.    The Committee approve the virement of funds in accordance with the Council Constitution for the financial recording of the Section 106 agreements.

3 Public Speakers

Cllr John Oldfield – Angmering Parish Council

Ian Johnson – Agent

Diana Hannant – Objector

Variation of condition imposed under A/40/18/OUT relating to condition 4-approved plans.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report with updates and confirmed that this application was only looking at the variation of one condition and not those matters that would be considered under a reserved matters application. This was followed by 3 Public Speakers.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions detailed.

3 Public Speakers

Will Cobley – Agent

Mark Stephens – Objector

Victoria Barrett-Nudhoo – Objector

Demolition of the Woodgate Centre buildings (including 3 No. residential dwellings) & the construction of 180 No. residential dwellings with the creation of new vehicular access with footways and cycleways, ancillary road infrastructure, emergency access arrangements, associated parking, public open space, including children's play space, landscape planting, surface water attenuation & drainage & other associated infrastructure. This site in in CIL Zone H SP2, BEW Strategic Site and is not CIL Liable.

The Chair welcomed Tim Townsend from West Sussex County Council to the meeting. The Strategic Development Team Leader presented the report with updates. This was followed by 3 Public Speakers.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·       the junction of Woodgate Road and Lidsey Lane and the issue of larger vehicles parking closely to it

·       questions raised over the improvements as identified in the schedule of developer contributions (for the A259 at the Oystercatcher junction rather than for the A29) and whether deferral is necessary to seek further clarity on the value of this

·       a significant number of Heads of Terms (railway crossings, bus improvements) with amounts still ‘to be confirmed’ and therefore the Committee not being in a position to determine the application at this time

·       the design and cost of a railway bridge and the practicalities of its delivery

·       residents’ concerns over the narrowness of Woodgate Road with on-road parking and traffic passing, and the need for highway improvements to this road and its access onto Lidsey Lane

·       water drainage and the need for further clarification following comment from the Environment Agency and the Lidsey Catchment Area Surface Water Management Plan

·       the difficulty of considering smaller applications within the BEW Strategic Allocation on a phased basis rather than as a single development

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED to allow for further information and clarity on the use of the Section 106 Agreement contributions.

Erection of a warehouse (Use Class B8) with ancillary office, associated vehicle parking, van storage, plant, ancillary structures, lighting landscaping and infrastructure works including earthworks to facilitate flood compensation areas. This site may affect listed buildings, may affect the character and appearance of the Shripney Conservation Area, is a Departure from the Development Plan, affects a Rights of Way and is in CIL Zone SP3 (Zero Rated_ as other development.

The Chair welcomed Jamie Brown from West Sussex County Council to the meeting. The Strategic Development Team Leader presented the report with updates. This was followed by 2 Public Speakers.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:

·       the lack of detail and location of highway improvements agreed through the Section 106 agreement and the distance from this site

·       logistics infrastructure in the area, the number of HGVs using the site at night and the impact for residents

·       the increase in vehicle movements at this junction and the lack of information on what the capacity enhancements can and would be in order to make a decision on the application

·       the issue of flooding and insufficient detail on how the drainage system would work

·       support for the retention of the oak trees and a wild flower meadow within the application but concern that these do not address the issues that this development would cause

·       the need for clear detail on the proposed enhancements

·       neither of the proposed enhancement options put forward by WSCC Highways addressing the capacity issue at the roundabout

·       questions raised over the vehicular figures in the report and specifically the low numbers given for HGV movements at this junction

·       the need for deferral until further information could be sought on impacts and enhancements

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED to allow for further clarity on the developer contributions (what they are for, how they will be spent and where) and a further update on whatever occurs between now and when the application comes back to Committee on the flooding issue.

          1 Public Speaker

          Natalie Styles - Agent

          Approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following the grant of Y/91/17/OUT for 250 no dwellings with associated parking, road/footway/cycleway provision, open space, landscaping, surface water attenuation and ancillary works (resubmission following Y/152/20/RES). this site is not CIL Liable as in Yapton strategic site

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report with updates. This was followed by 1 Public Speaker.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions detailed.

          Reconfiguration of Ford Market, including revised market access, hardstanding for replacement vehicular parking and associated infrastructure, landscape, ancillary and site preparation works.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report which dealt specifically with the reason given for deferral at the Planning Committee on 8 September 2021 [Minute 232] - for further evidence gathering to be undertaken on the transport and highway implications over a wider area than that which had already been studied. He explained that the applicant had commissioned their consultants to provide a Technical Note presenting the outputs of further traffic data collection as well as a further commentary on highway matters. The conclusions of the Technical Note had been summarised in the Officer’s deferral report with the further assessment not identifying any further conflict with the conclusions of the original transport assessment against which WSCC Highways had raised no objections. This confirmed that the proposed reconfiguration of the market would not result in a technical impact on highway safety or a severe cumulative impact on the operation of the road network. The Officer’s recommendations therefore remained unchanged.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report subject to the conditions detailed.

Outlineplanning application (withall mattersreserved exceptfor access)for thedevelopment of up to 1,500 dwellings (Use Class C3), 60-bed care home (UseClass C2), up to 9,000 sqm of employment floorspace (Use Classes B1), localcentre of up to 2,350 sqm including up to 900 sqm retail / commercial (UseClasses A1-AS) and 1,450 sqm community / leisure floorspace (Use Classes D1-D2),landforatwo-formentryprimaryschool(UseClassD1),publicopenspace, allotments, new sports pitches and associated facilities, drainage, parking andassociated access, infrastructure, landscape, ancillary and site preparation works,including demolition of existing buildings and part removal of existing runwayhardstanding. This application affects a Public Right of Way. This application is thesubject of an Environmental Statement. This application may affect the setting of aListed Building.This applicationfalls withinCIL Zone1 -Zero Rated.

The Chair welcomed Stephen Gee from West Sussex County Council to the meeting. The Principal Planning Officer then presented the report. He firstly outlined that he had a brief point of clarification to make in terms of the proposed Officer recommendation with the correct recommendation being on page 15 of the Agenda Pack as part of the deferral report, and in terms of the Heads of Terms that accompanied the report, this was only an overview of the Section 106 contributions and additional wording would be included in the final version in relation to the community facilities and the affordable housing provision agreement relating to the community land trust. He explained that the application was deferred by Committee on 24 November 2021 [Minute 465] to allow for further consideration of the trigger points of Heads of Terms of the Section 106 agreement and the odour assessments.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where concerns over the issue of odour were raised due to the nature of the testing undertaken and the variety of variables that needed to be taken into account (wind direction, heat, humidity etc.). This was responded to by the Principal Planning Officer and the requirements of the condition relating to this were clarified for Members.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That delegated authority be granted to the Group Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee to:

1.    Grant outline planning permission, subject to conditions;

2.    Subject to a Section 106 Agreement, the terms of which are substantially in accordance with those set out in the Heads of Terms with any minor amendment authorised by the Group Head of Planning.