Decisions

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Housing Options Manager presented the report which sought approval for the adoption and implementation of the Council’s revised Housing Allocations Policy (HAP) 2022. She explained that every local housing authority must publish a Housing Allocations Policy to explain how it prioritised applicants and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) and (14)). The current Housing Allocations Policy had not been fully reviewed since 2012.

Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised including:

·       the addendum regarding residents with pets, and the role pets played especially for more vulnerable or isolated residents

·       re-registration and the changes in the policy meaning that the numbers on the register could increase

·       the Council having a surplus of sheltered housing and what was being done to address this

·       the help that was available to residents in the application and bidding processes and how those in need of additional assistance were identified

·       the need for safe face-to-face appointments for the most vulnerable residents

·       the help available from charities and outside agencies, such as Stonepillow, and the role of the team being in part to advise residents of these services

The Housing Options Manager and Group Head of Residential Services provided Members with responses to all points raised during the debate. It was confirmed that this policy sought a flexible approach to balance the risks for anti-social behaviour whilst reflecting the importance of pets for some residents, that the policy aimed to open up particular types of accommodation (sheltered etc.) to people without a local connection in order to address over-supply and that advertisements were being placed to generate more interest, and that a team of assistant housing options officers were available to support people through the application and bidding processes and that it was hoped in-person appointments would continue to be available for those most in need of them.

The recommendations were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

          RESOLVED that

1.    The revised Housing Allocations Policy 2022 be approved

2.    Delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Residential Services to make minor changes to the policy and any amendments necessary to reflect legislative changes

The Chair welcomed Glenn Smith, Director of Housing Finance Associates Ltd, to the meeting. Upon the invitation of the Chair and after an introduction from the Group Head of Residential Services, Mr Smith presented the report which provided an annual update on the baseline position for the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan (HRABP) projections.  The HRABP forecasted income, expenditure, investment and borrowing in respect of council housing stock over a 30-year period. Regular review of the HRABP was essential to ensure short, medium, and long-term viability of the plan.  The update had been produced by the Council’s retained expert consultant, Housing Finance Associates Ltd, and was based on the Council’s best available information and realistic assumptions for the coming years.

Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised including:

·       the capital programme and new house building, and the assumptions in the graphs

·       interest cover and its movement over the life of the plan in relation to costs and rents

·       the ‘recycling of stock’ and what this meant in terms for selling off housing stock when costs outweighed revenue and properties stopped contributing to the Housing Revenue Account budget

The Group Head of Residential Services and Consultant provided Members with responses to all points raised during the debate. On behalf of the Committee, the Vice-Chair thanked Mr Smith and Housing Finance Associates Ltd for their work in preparing the report.

The recommendation was then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That the annual update of the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2021/22 be noted.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Group Head of Community Wellbeing presented the report which provided an update to Members on the Arun Local Community Network (LCN), the local grouping of Primary Care Networks encouraged to work in partnership in order to better and more sustainably achieve common goals of addressing local health inequalities and wellbeing related issues. He drew Members’ attention to two key points – the proposal to replace the Arun Wellbeing and Health Partnership with the Arun Local Community Network, and that the Local Community Network operated at a District level and could therefore identify and prioritise the issues which were most relevant to our communities. In Arun, the poorest health outcomes were to be found in the areas of highest deprivation and for this reason the initial focus of the Local Community Network would be Courtwick with Toddington and Bersted.

Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised including:

·       the importance of having identified the areas of our community that initially needed the most help, and then how the programme might role out and expand

·       the involvement of local GPs within the Local Community Network

·       the commitment needed from the representative of the Committee on the Arun Local Community Network board

·       the nomination of Cllr Mrs Cooper as the Committee’s representative on the Arun Local Community Network board, with Cllr Daniells as deputy

·       the potential of the project and thanks given to the Officer team for their work on it so far

·       whether other partners, in particular West Sussex County Council, were matching the financial contributions made by Arun

The Group Head of Community Wellbeing and the Communities and Wellbeing Manager provided Members with responses to all points raised during the debate. It was confirmed that work had been done with different partners in the Health sector and County Council to really look at what the local health inequalities were in the targeted areas, as well as get to know the other partners in the network and what each’s roles, responsibilities and contributions were. The work done so far was a good foundation upon which to mobilise on-the-ground action.

The recommendations, amended to reflect Cllr Mrs Cooper’s nomination as the Committee’s representative, were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

          RESOLVED that

1.    The annual Wellbeing Grant Fund of £5,000 be allocated to the Arun Local Community Network board to be distributed in line with its priorities

2.    The Arun Wellbeing and Health Partnership be replaced by the Arun Local Community Network partnership

3.    Cllr Mrs Cooper be nominated to the Arun Local Community Network board as representative of the Housing and Wellbeing Committee

The Committee

RESOLVED

That under Section 100a (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and accredited representatives of newspapers be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act by virtue of the paragraph specified against the items.

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 30 September 2021 [under the previous name as the Residential and Wellbeing Services Committee] were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chair.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader presented his report. He explained that Southern Water were in the process of preparing their first Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan (DWMP) and had reached the early scoping consultation stage. Following workshops with Officers, the provisional comments summarised in the report and any further matters raised by Members would form the basis for the Council’s response to the documents published for consultation. He highlighted particular concerns mentioned in the response, including wastewater capacity and storm water discharging, Pagham harbour and water neutrality, the need for strategic guidance in the area to support higher design standards with regards water efficiency, climate change and carbon reduction and the potential for water storage and nature-based solutions.

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

·       this being a strategic issue not just for Arun, and questions over the role being played by and consultation with the Strategic Planning Board

·       the need for more to be made of Arun being a tourist economy and the impacts to the economy when water quality is negatively impacted

·       regeneration being hampered by a private company not doing what they should be doing

·       the District’s Victorian plumbing and the recent growth in housing numbers

·       concern that, in the data provided in the report, Ford is clearly at the bottom and in need of urgent attention in terms of water treatment

·       strengthening the messages around blockages which were a significant problem, wet wipes being a key element and the need for something to be done nationally to stop this happening

·       Arun being in a lesser position to challenge Southern Water than other Authorities

·       the Environment Agency and actions at Pagham Harbour

·       climate change and the predicted extra rainfall causing significant problems in the future, and the need to keep extra rainwater out of the system

·       the need for an emphasis on the impact new housing developments would have on worsening pre-existing sewage and wastewater issues that were not being dealt with now

·       untreated sewage going into Pagham harbour and being strong with Southern Water about what needs to be done

·       the re-commissioning of redundant assets, as mentioned in the report

·       tidal and pumped water storage and nature-based solutions, and too much of a focus on keeping water on the land when perhaps we should focus on getting it off the land

·       whether more on-land water storage could lead to more flooding

·       discharges on the eastern side of the District, and the impact on draining capacities of developments in neighbouring Authorities and whether concerns over these impacts could be strengthened around the Ferring Rife

·       whether nature-based solution, for example, would need to be delivered through the planning system and paid for through development, and Southern Water’s role as a stakeholder and in providing infrastructure

The Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader provided Members with responses to all points raised during the debate. He noted that Natural England had yet to do a study into pollutants at Pagham Harbour (as it had at Chichester Harbour, which in turn evidenced higher design needs to meet identified requirements) and the response in part calling for the need for a consistent approach across regions. And in response to questions about water storage and nature-based solutions, he highlighted that Arun had a high water table and was prone to surface water flooding, and that Southern Water would be asked to look at all sorts of flood alleviation as well as requirements now for biodiversity net gain (through wetlands and carbon storage etc).

The recommendation was then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That comments set out in sections 1.7 and 1.8 of this report (including Appendix 1) together with any other matters raised by members be agreed as the basis for Arun District Council’s formal response to the consultation.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader presented his report and explained the proposed approach to implementing the Government’s 30% ‘First Homes’ policy as part of the affordable housing tenure mix in Policy AH SP2 Affordable Housing and Policy H DM1 Housing Mix of the Local Plan. He also outlined concerns about the accessibility of the product given income levels in Arun.

Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised including:

·       the scope and mix of housing (apartments, houses etc) and whether a range of property types was intended to be offered

·       the implications or limitations when a property purchased in this way is sold on, and the discount being maintained through future sales

·       the affordability of the scheme for younger people

·       whether the figures in the policy could be revised if house prices continued to rise

·       concerns over second homes and changes to working caused by the pandemic and potential impacts for Arun

·       the relationship with the Local Plan, and whether it was included or separate from the affordable housing allocations of the Local Plan

The Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader provided Members with responses to all points raised during the debate. He highlighted that all housing development schemes and their mix of affordable properties would be different depending on the Council’s identified local housing needs set out in the Local Plan supporting evidence base, as well as the needs of the market, and that the discount would entered into the deeds of the property by the Land Registry.

The recommendation was then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

The proposed approach to accommodating the Government’s ‘First Homes’ policy requirement, as part of the Affordable Housing tenure mix provision in Arun, as set out in section 1.12 and Appendix 1 of the report and that it should be published as an interim policy statement on the Council’s web site.

[During the debate, Councillor Elkins declared a Personal Interest as a Member of Ferring Parish Council.]

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader presented his report which updated Members on the remaining evidence position and whether any further studies to those already committed to should be commissioned following the decision at Planning Policy Committee on 6 October [Minute 338] and Full Council on 10 November [Minute 422] to pause the preparation of a revised Local Plan until details of the new plan making system be agreed. He also noted a typo in Table 1 under the Housing Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) Study, which should read ‘the prescribed formula’ rather than ‘the proscribed formula’.

Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised including:

·       support for the conclusions of Officers to halt or not start many studies as most of the studies started with a need to know housing numbers which could not be known at this point, and may have led to expensive studies needing to be repeated

·       support for certain studies being progressed now (Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Heritage and Conservation Area studies) and how these could possibly help determine current planning applications under the current Local Plan

·       whether the Infrastructure Development Plan should be progressed, as the District has infrastructure issues now that crop up in planning applications, and whether identifying these now would go some way to dealing with issues now and help inform future works

·       concern that the Active Travel Study was being put on hold, and why this study was dependent on new housing numbers when there was a need for it now and sufficient funding coming from new development

·       the need for guidance to Parish Councils of the work they could do rather than pausing everything whilst the Local Plan updates are paused

·       the importance of infrastructure to residents and the usefulness of an update on the work of Transport for the South East

The Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader provided Members with responses to all points raised during the debate and amended the Officer recommendation in response to issues raised around infrastructure requirements arising from non-strategic development.

The recommendation was then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the conclusion in section 1.5 of the report be agreed as the basis for work programming the pending evidence studies, and that a further topic paper be prepared alongside those infrastructure studies listed in section 1.4 of the report to scope out the need for further studies on infrastructure requirements arising from non-strategic development to inform Development Management decisions.

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 30 September 2021 were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chair.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader presented the report. He explained that the Barnham and Eastergate Neighbourhood Development Plan 2019-2031 passed examination in October 2021 and the examiner concluded that its material modifications did not change the nature of the plan and therefore it did not require a referendum before proceeding to be ‘made’. This ‘making’ of the plan would give it legal force and it would form part of the statutory Development Plan for that area. Consequently, decisions on planning applications in the neighbourhood area would need to be made in accordance with the Neighbourhood Development Plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise.

The Chair and Vice-Chair thanked the whole team and wanted to recognise the significant amount of work involved in bringing this plan to fruition.

The recommendation was then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That it ‘makes’ the Barnham and Eastergate Neighbourhood Development Plan 2019-2031 and it becomes part of the Development Plan for Arun District Council.

[Councillor Pendleton declared a Personal Interest as an Arun District Councillor and West Sussex County Councillor for the ward.]

3 Public Speakers

Siobhan Jasper - Objector

Paul Carnell - Agent

          Cllr Shirley Haywood - Arun District Council Ward Member

Change of use of existing farm shop and agricultural buildings to light industrial (Class E(g)) and storage and distribution use (Class B8). This site is in CIL Zone 5 (Zero Rated) as other development.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report. 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:

·       whether designation as a locally listed building would have any impact on the uses suitable for the building and afford any protections from light industrial use

·       the conditions restricting storage on site and whether this was also possible for restricting vehicle parking or access for larger vehicles

·       the agricultural land having been taken on by another farmer

·       the recoverability of previous Section 106 agreements

·       the ambience of this part of Middleton village and its agricultural/rural setting

·       the state of Yapton Road and its already high levels of traffic, and how further increases would compromise the use of the road for local residents

·       vehicular access by a narrow alley and the potential risk of damage to the fabric of the barn, and therefore whether Newlands Barn (Building 1 in the Officer’s presentation) should be excluded from the application and protected

·       the risk of setting a precedent for development/storage on surrounding fields and changing the character of the area

·       contrary to the Local Plan EMP DM1

·       the restrictive conditions on previously approved applications on the site to limit the risk of damage to the barn

·       whether the application could be deferred until the listed designation and any protection is known

With the Chair casting a second, deciding vote,

The Committee

RESOLVED

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

Construction of a two-storey office building (Use Class E). This application is in CIL Zone 2 (Zero Rated) as other development.

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 as detailed

2 Public Speakers

Partial demolition of number 57 River Road, change of use & redevelopment to provide a flatted development comprising 6 No apartments, with private amenity space, parking & cycle storage. including the partial demolition of the adjacent boundary wall to provide a new pedestrian access & the creation of a floating pontoon with resident morning spaces (resubmission following LU/247/21/PL). This application affects the character & appearance of the Littlehampton River Road Conservation Area & is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated) as flats.

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:

·       protection of the flint walls and whether more could be done to protect the heritage of the building

·       support for the design and the sympathetic use of the existing building

·       concerns raised over underground car parks next to flood areas

·       that historical information on the area would be publicly available for visitors

The Committee

RESOLVED

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

6 Public Speakers

Cllr Stephen Abbott – Ferring Parish Council

Peter Hyatt - Objector

Ed Miller – Objector

Joanna Goodman – Applicant

Hugh James - Agent         

          Cllr Roger Elkins - Arun District Council Ward Member

Development comprising of marine workshop & boatyard, martial arts gym (Class E) & storage container compound (Class B8) to replace former glasshouses. This site is a Departure from the Development Plan & is in CIL Zone 3 (Zero Rated) as other development.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report. This was followed by 6 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 site being previously horticultural and bounded by countryside on east, west and largely to south in a strategic gap between settlements

·       proximity to Highdown Hill and an ancient burial ground

·       the application having the effect of extending the semi-industrial boundary southwards

·       there being no exceptional reason to approve this application in the strategic gap contrary to the Local Plan

·       whether the activities proposed were appropriate for the site, consequences for traffic on the A259 and why a pre-existing business needed to move to this site

·       there being commercial development in a settlement gap

·       it being material that the South Downs National Park Authority have objected to this application

·       the proposed design having an adverse visual impact

·       concerns over the height of the development and impacts on surrounding residents

·       the width of roads especially when considering vehicles towing boats

·       the issue of noise and odour

·       the extent of the opening hours and the impact on residents

·       positive development for future of small businesses in the area

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED by reason of its location, types of use and heights of buildings will have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and serve to unacceptably erode the strategic gap between Angmering and Worthing contrary to policies C SP1, D DM1 and SD SP3 of the Arun Local Plan and policy 7 of the Ferring Neighbourhood Plan.

[Councillor Pendleton re-declared her Personal Interest made at the beginning of the meeting. Councillor Thurston joined the meeting at the beginning of this item. Councillor Charles joined the meeting during this item and declared a Personal Interest as a Member of West Sussex County Council.]

5 Public Speakers

Cllr Colin Humphris – Climping Parish Council

Nigel Searle - Objector

Philip Atkinson - Objector

Robin Shepherd - Agent

Paul Collins - Supporter

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 presented the report with both written and verbal updates and explained the Officer recommendation had changed from Delegated Conditional Approval to Deferral due to the need to clarify discrepancies between odour assessments carried out on the site. This was followed by 5 Public Speakers and a representation from Alan Lovell read out by the Chair.

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

·       several questions remaining unanswered (the need for improvements to the Oystercatcher junction, increased vehicle numbers including cyclists, whether improvements needed or should be completed before any of the new properties are occupied, public money via the Section 106 agreement going to a private cricket club, the viability of a bus service only once a third of properties are occupied and whether the developers should subsidise a service) and the issue of the odour assessment not being the only grounds for deferral

·       concerns over the allocations of the section 106 contributions, and the need for these details to be agreed by Committee in order to more appropriately assess the application

·       the objection from Grundon, why they are objecting on the grounds of odour given their role in producing some of it and Grundon’s own planning application with West Sussex County Council which Arun opposed due to conflicts with the Local Plan

·       support for the Masterplan having been developed with the community and for working within the constraints it had to, but the need for more joined-up thinking on all the infrastructure issues in the area (Ford Lane, Horsemere Green Lane) with Active Travel Plans and public transport arrangements to be in place before people begin move into the development to foster positive transport habits

·       an increased strategic significance to be made of Ford Rail Station

·       the application being an Outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access

·       the length of time (22 months) the application has taken to reach Committee, it being a strategic site for house building in the District, and whether if after two sets of odour assessments deferral was a reasonable course of action or imposing further conditions was more appropriate

·       no objection from West Sussex County Council Highways, but willingness from the developer to work with some of the issues posed (Horsemere Green Lane, Ford Lane)

·       further appreciation that the developers and community had worked hard to create something effective and desirable, but recognition that issues still remained - highway issues and increased traffic (Climping, Ford Lane, level crossings, North End Road, into Arundel, Oystercatcher junction) in conflict with NPPF paragraph 111 and the need for a plan to deal with these issues before a decision could be made; odour issues and the differing views of consultants; conservation issues and comments from Historic England; development not providing essential road link needed between A27 and A259

·       different modes of public transport – shuttle services between villages

·       the need for historical information relating to the site to be made available

·       whether the rail bridge at Ford should be a top priority and without it whether other improvement works would have limited impact

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED to allow for further consideration of the trigger points of Heads of Terms of the Section 106 agreement and the odour assessments.

1 Public Speaker

Sioned Vos – Objector

Alterations to existing premises to facilitate use as Office. This site is in CIL Zone 4 (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:

·       the Arun design guide and how it should be being used

·       preservation of the building’s fabric

·       a desire that the colour be sympathetic

·       the use of materials

·       the building not being in a conservation area or listed, and the shopfronts differing across the row

The Committee

RESOLVED

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

1 Public Speaker

Creation of 1 No 1 Bed & 1 No 2 bed Units to roof space of existing block with 2 No new car parking spaces and revised access provision. This site is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated) as flats.

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

·       concerns over traffic and parking on Highfield Road, but this application having more parking per unit than previously approved applications on the road

·       the extra land acquired for additional parking

·       concerns of overlooking and the possibility of obscured glass

The Committee

RESOLVED

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

[Councillor Goodheart was absent for the vote on this item.]

Demolition of existing property and erection of new 4 bed dwelling house with ancillary parking.

The Planning Area Team Leader presented the report.

Members then took part in a debate on the application where the habitat survey conditions were clarified.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report subject to the conditions as detailed. If a suitable Phase 1 Habitat survey is not submitted within 2weeks following theCommittee theapplication shallbe refusedfor thefollowing reason:

Due to the lack of a Phase 1 Habitat study/mitigation strategies the development has not demonstrated itwill not have an adverse impact on wildlife in accordance with policy ENV DM5 of the Arun Local Planand EH12of theAldingbourne NeighbourhoodPlan.

If a Phase 1 study/mitigation strategies is submitted in the timescale the final decision shall be delegatedto theGroup Headof Planning,following referenceto theCommittee Chairon anyadditional conditions.

[Councillor Goodheart was absent for the vote on this item.]

Proposed alternative vehicular accesses of Tye Lane and emergency access of Avisford Park Road, along with minor highway works following WA/95/18/RES (resubmission following WA/93/20/PL). This site is CIL Zone 2 (Zero Rated) as other development.

The Chair again welcomed Stephen Gee from West Sussex County Council to the meeting. The Principal Planning Officer presented the update report which dealt specifically with the reasons given for deferral at the Planning Committee on 27 October 2021:

a)    traffic movements at the junction of Tye Lane and The Street

b)    traffic movements through the village centre along The Street

c)    confirmation that the reduction in the width of Tye Lane to accommodate the pavement would not impair the free flow of traffic

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

·       whether there were any public benefits to the application of a new access to balance the harm caused to Walberton Conservation Area by the increase in traffic through the village

·       the issue of narrow roads in the village, in parts only 5m wide, with significant on-road car parking and the reality of one-way traffic in response to this

·       traffic already generated by the school

·       it being a Conservation Area and the report confirming that harm would occur

·       the development already having an access and whether this precluded the granting of a new access being regarded as public benefit

·       contrary to various points in the Local Plan and NPPF (paragraphs 199-203)

·       the new access being unnecessary and it now being the responsibility of the Planning Authority if the developer cannot sell the houses due to delays in the A27 Arundel bypass decision process

·       whether the condition in the original report that the proposed improvements to Tye Lane and The Street being made in advance of the access works could be added to other similar planning applications in future where evidence demonstrated

·       road widths not meeting Arun’s criteria and the role of criteria if they are not being worked to

·       whether, if approved, the original access would be closed

·       acceptance that there would be harm but less clarity there would be public benefit

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED as the implementation of the proposed alternative vehicular access off Tye Lane would result in an increased intensity of traffic movements along The Street in Walberton Village Conservation Area which would have a negative impact on the Conservation Area and its setting resulting from the development proposed which would conflict with paragraph 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended). Whilst there would be less than substantial harm to the Walberton Village Conservation Area there are no public benefits of the proposed development to sufficiently outweigh the harm caused to the Conservation Area. Consequently, the proposed development is contrary to Policy HER SP1 and Policy HER DM3 of the Arun Local Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), and Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2021 were approved by the Committee and signed by the Chair.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Engineering Services Manager introduced his report to the Committee.

Councillor Stanley proposed an amendment to the recommendations, which was that 1 (f) would be changed to ‘Chair of the Working Party: Cllr Worne’. This was seconded by Councillor Thurston.

Following a brief discussion Councillor Stanley, with the agreement of the meeting and the Seconder, altered his amendment to 1 (f) to ‘the Chair of the Working Party would be elected at its first meeting’.

            Following a vote, the altered amendment was CARRIED.

Councillor Stanley proposed an additional amendment to the recommendations, which was that 2 (a) would be changed to ‘An invitation be extended to Bognor Regis Town Council Access Group for three representatives to join the Working Party (without voting rights)’. This was seconded by Councillor Thurston.

Members then took part in a full debate where the following points were raised:

·         There were people with varying mobility requirements that were part of the Bognor Regis Town Council Access Group, and extending the invitation to an additional person would help to gain varying views.

·         Increasing the size of the Working Party could make it too large and make it difficult to make progress.

·         Opinions from people living outside of Bognor should also be taken into consideration as people from across the District would travel to the site.

·         The Working Party needed to look objectively at making the beach accessible.

·         The Working Party should be kept small and the representatives could feed in the views of other people.

·         Increasing the Working Party by one person would not make it much larger, but it would be good to have the views of other people.

·         The Working Party was put together by the Group Leaders who consulted with Members.

·         If Membership of the Working Party was not increased, they could invite guests to input and give opinions.

            The amendment was put to the vote and there being an equality of votes, the Chair used his casting vote against the amendment, which was LOST.

The substantive recommendations (with amended Committee names to reflect the recent change) were Proposed by Councillor Edwards and Seconded by Councillor Chace.

The Committee

                        RESOLVED that

1.    The establishment of a Bognor Regis Beach Access Working Party be supported based on the following terms:

(a) Terms of Reference – to consider the issues surrounding the provision of an access to the beach for the disabled and elderly persons in Bognor Regis and to examine the options available for such an access

(b) To determine what part of the beach to improve access to (waterline or shingle etc) and to consider options for geographic location

(c)   The Working Party will report to Environment Committee,

(d) Size of the Working Party – 6 Arun District Councillor seats with two further seats (without voting rights) to be offered to the Bognor Regis Town Council Access Group.

(e) Nominations to the seats – Cllrs Worne, Needs, Brooks, Staniforth, Edwards and English - to be confirmed by the relevant Group Leaders immediately if the proposal is accepted by Environment Committee.

(f)   The Chair of the Working Party would be elected at its first meeting

(g) Proposals for the allocation of seats if vacancies occur – to be for the relevant Group Leader / Bognor Regis Town Council Access Group to fill the vacant seat as appropriate and this information to be reported this to the next Environment Committee meeting

(h) The Working Party will take the form of a Task & Finish exercise and conclude in not more than 12 months from the date of the first meeting.

(i)    Timescale for the work to be undertaken – the first meeting of the Working Party will be in Spring 2022 with the site visit timed appropriately for sufficient daylight at around the time of Low Water.

(j)    Presentation(s) will be made by officers as soon as possible to enable the Council to progress with any recommendations it supports.

2.   

(a) An invitation be extended to Bognor Regis Town Council Access Group for two representatives to join the Working Party (without voting rights)

(b) The suggestion be made to Bognor Regis Town Council Access Group that Cllr Goodheart be one of the two Group representatives should they choose to accept the invitation – this and the second representative to be confirmed by Bognor Regis Town Council Access Group.

(c)   Review its terms of reference at its first meeting or thereafter and recommend any change back to Environment Committee

(d) Make any recommendations to Environment Committee based on the Terms of Reference – it will have no decision-making authority

(e) Meet in private unless it agrees that it will work to the Meeting Procedure Rules at Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution. Meetings will be held virtually until such time as the Working Party considers that ‘in person’ meetings are appropriate and then they shall be held in Bognor Regis Town Hall; and

3.    Consideration be given as to how to approach similar issues in other locations if they have not already been resolved

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Group Head of Technical Services introduced the recommendations fromthe meeting of the Residential & Wellbeing Services Committee (which was now named Housing and Wellbeing Committee).

There were no questions from Members

The recommendations were Proposed by Councillor Chace and Seconded by Councillor Stanley.

The Committee

            RESOLVED that

1. A review be undertaken of the incentives and services we (could) offer property owners to increase engagement with our Empty Homes Team and support tenant management issues and misconceptions.

2. A review be undertaken of how we promote our Empty Homes service and how we communicate success stories.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Engineering Services Manager introduced his report to the Committee. He highlighted and explained key areas in the report including climate change; the South East Coastal Group; partnership funding; coastal monitoring; Pagham Beach; Climping Beach; revenue works; capital works; land drainage; drainage plans.

The Chair thanked the Engineering Services Manager for his concise and very informative report, and for all the excellent work that he and his team had done for the District.

Members then took part in a full debate where the following points were raised:

·         What was the long-term solution to the flood risk in Climping. The Engineering Services Manager explained that this was not the responsibility of ADC, however they do work closely with the Environment Agency (EA). The work the EA was doing was working well, however there was an issue of cost, the area was attacked by both the open coast and the river. All the work that was being done was in line with the Coastal Defence Strategy developed by the Council and EA.

·         Members further acknowledged the good work done by the Engineering Services Manager and his team.

·         Funding coming from the Government for the Council to do Resilience work. The Engineering Services Manager confirmed that the funding for this term would be approximately double that of last term.

·         Clarification was sought around some of the figures and terminology in the report.

The recommendation (with amended Committee names to reflect the recent change) was Proposed by Councillor Andy Cooper and Seconded by Councillor Huntley.

The Committee

                        RECOMMEND TO THE POLICY & FINANCE COMMITTEE

1)    additional resources of £40,000, in the Coast Protection Revenue Budget commencing in 2022/23 and for a further 4 years thereafter, to allow for shingle management works associated with West Beach and other beaches e.g. East Beach, Littlehampton.

2)    a £180,000 contribution to the Community Flood Fund in 2022/23 and a further £100,000 in 2023/24, to enable required Partnership Contributions to continue.

RESOLVED

3)    that the Engineering Services Manager be authorised to undertake the necessary preparatory work relating to the new Capital schemes, to make Grant in Aid funding applications to the Environment Agency accordingly and to receive and draw down related funds.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Principal Environmental Health Officer introduced her report to the Committee. She explained the Council was committed to tackling empty properties in the private sector, and there was an approved 5-year strategy that came into place in 2018. The report aimed to highlight all the work and achievement in this area, including the improvements this could make to neighbourhoods. Properties could be empty for a number of reasons, and work was carried out with the owners to try to understand the reasons and ensure they were brought back into use. There was an approved Empty Property Assistance Programme which provided funding for grants and loans, helping to finance repairs to properties to bring them up to standard. The fund was also used for enforcement work when necessary. More could be done and they were looking to learn from good practice from other local authorities. They were trying to increase awareness and also partnership working. Additional resources were required to support the current full-time Empty Homes Officer.

Members felt Arun District Council performed well with regards to Empty Homes, and thanked the Group Head of Technical Services, the Principal Environmental Health Officer, and the Empty Homes Officer for their work. It was felt that one of the reasons this worked so well was due to the delegations given to the Officers.

The recommendations (with amended Committee names to reflect the recent change) were Proposed by Councillor Stanley and Seconded by Councillor Alison Cooper.

The Committee

            RESOLVED

1.          that authority be delegated to the Group Head of Technical Services to make changes resulting from identified good practise and legislative changes to the Empty Property Assistance Programme, grants and loans criteria.

RECOMMEND TO THE POLICY & FINANCE COMMITTEE

2. that growth of £17,523 be included in the 2022-2023 revenue budget, to recruit on scale 4, an additional part time Technical Support Assistant for 23hrs per week to support and enhance the empty homes work.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Principal Environmental Health Officer introduced her report to the Committee. She explained that Fuel Poverty was a complex public health issue and was not the responsibility of just one agency or organisation. The West Sussex Fuel Poverty Coordinator, hosted by Arun District Council, was an externally funded post. The framework document attached to the report brought together all the actions for the coming 5 years across the County. The aim was that it would be possible to support funding bids going forward and to engage with a range of other organisations to develop initiatives.

There were no questions from Members

The recommendation was Proposed by Councillor Andy Cooper and Seconded by Councillor Stanley.

The Committee

            RESOLVED

That the West Sussex Fuel Poverty Framework for Action 2021-2026 be adopted.

[During this item Cllr Chace declared a Personal Interest as Chairman of Friends of Brookfield Park]

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Customer & Parking Services Manager introduced his report to the Committee. He explained that each year the Council was required to review it’s discretionary charges, which included parking charges. The report identified a set of proposed increases in parking charges plus a proposal to introduce charges in a number of car parks that currently had no charging regime. He clarified that 5.2 in the report, which stated that parking for the first hour in the car parks in which they propose to introduce charging, would be free, this would be the case with regard to Bersted Brooks and Brookfield Park, but in the case of Links Avenue, Grassmere and Shrubbs Field this would in fact be 2 hours free parking as shown on Appendix A. He also clarified that where it said ‘estimated income’ on Appendix A, it should actually refer to ‘additional estimated income’. After completing the consultation, a report would be brought back to the Committee in March, for Members to make a decision on the charges.

            Members then took part in a full debate where the following points were raised:

·         It was right to put this out for consultation and encourage members of the community to provide thoughts on the direction they thought the Council should take.

·         It was asked whether it would be explained in the consultation documents what the income from the increase in charges would be used for. The Group Head of Neighbourhoods explained that this could be promoted across the Council’s social media platforms.

·         It was asked whether Friends of Bersted Brooks should be added to the list of consultees. The Customer & Parking Services Manager confirmed the Friends of Bersted Brooks would be added.

Councillor Chace declared a personal interest as Chairman of Friends of Brookfield Park. He asked that Friends of Brookfield Park also be added to the list of consultees.

The recommendation was Proposed by Councillor Andy Cooper and Seconded by Councillor Chace.

The Committee

            RESOLVED

That the proposed charges as set out in Appendix A be put out for consultation after which a report will be returned to Committee for final approval.

            Upon the invitation of the Chair the Group Head of Neighbourhoods and the Customer & Parking Services Manager introduced the report the Committee. They explained the vision in the Strategy which set out some key themes – to provide safe, well-maintained car parks; meeting the needs of residents, shoppers and visitors; providing an income for the Council and supporting economic growth; promoting a sustainable environment and creating a positive parking experience. It looked at the emerging new technologies and opportunities. There was a summary list of actions on Page 48 and 49. These actions picked up work already underway, but also new actions such as installation of electronic charging points and on all ticket machines being contactless by 2024.

            Members then took part in a full debate where the following points were raised:

·         It was felt the Strategy met the aims of what it was intended for.

·         It was good that climate change and sustainability were included, tree planting in car parks and sustainable surfacing alternatives would be welcomed.

·         The progress around electric parking and charging was welcomed.

·         Whilst contactless technology was welcomed there was concern by Members about the prospect of complete removal of cash by 2024.

·         Could consideration be given to the locations of disabled bays, as it may be that not all needed to be placed at the front of the car parks as proximity wasn’t always the issue for disabled users. It may be that other priority bays could be considered in addition.

Following further debate regarding contactless payments and the removal of cash, the recommendation, and with the addition of ‘all pay and display machines to be contactless and accept cash’ was Proposed by Councillor Stanley. This was Seconded by Councillor Huntley.

The Committee

            RESOLVED

That the Councils Off-Street Parking Strategy 2021-2026 as shown on Appendix A, with the addition of ‘all pay and display machines to be contactless and accept cash’, be adopted

[Councillor Goodheart arrived during this item]

            Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Environmental Services & Strategy Manager introduced his report to the Committee. He explained this strategy was for Arun District Council’s (ADC) own parks and open spaces and did not extend to land beyond ADC’s control. He felt the proposal was a perfect balance between ambition and deliverability, and a huge amount of work had been put into the planning and development of the strategy and planting plan by the expert Tree Officer and the Parks Officers. The proposal was to plant 33,000 whips and 500 standard trees as a minimum. 90% of the standard trees would be native species, and the whip trees would be 100% native species. This would be phased over 10 years. The planting plans and species list would be published each year on the Council’s website for information. There would also be at least 2 community tree planting events each year.

Members then took part in a question and answer session as summarised below:

·         Clarification was sought on the number of trees that would be planted each year, and whether a regular update would be provided to the Committee. The Environmental Services & Strategy Manager explained they were expecting to plant around 60 standard trees and 2,000-3,000 whips in the first year. It was expected to average approximately 50 standard trees and 3500 whips each year.

·         Expectation of survival rates for the whips. The Environmental Services & Strategy Manager said there would be a proactive after-care programme for 3 years.

·         The reason for non-native species being introduced. The Environmental Services & Strategy Manager explained there was a place for non-native trees, some of which may be the trees of the future.

·         The reasons for established trees being removed. It was confirmed that established trees would only be removed for very good reason such as being dead or dying.

·         It was noted that there was no tree planting planned for Pagham. This was due to Arun District Council not owning much open space in Pagham, so no opportunity to do so.

·         Would there be an opportunity for community groups to work with ADC, and for ADC to procure trees on their behalf. The Environmental Services & Strategy Manager said there would be opportunities for community groups to get involved. A discussion would need to be had with any groups wishing to plant on Arun’s land, as this would need to fit with the Strategy. If Officers were in agreement with the proposals, they would be able to procure trees on behalf of community groups for this purpose.

·         The Queens Canopy was a great opportunity to create a legacy for the residents, and it was asked that this be fully explained, and that community involvement be sought when building up the interpretation of what this would look like.

·         Clarification was sought on the budget for the programme.

·         Members were keen on the idea of tree-lined avenues, however noted this was under West Sussex County Council’s remit.

·         Concern was raised over the large number of whips due to be planted in West Park. The Environmental Services & Strategy Manager reassured Members that the planting would be appropriate to the location and would not interfere with how the site was used on a daily basis.

·         Members welcomed the report, and sent thanks to the Environmental Services & Strategy Manager and his team.

The recommendation was Proposed by Councillor Andy Cooper and Seconded by Councillor Huntley.

The Committee

            RESOLVED

That the proposed Arun Greenspace Tree Planting Strategy 2021-2031 and associated planting plan be approved and adopted.

            Upon invitation of the Chair, the Internal Audit Manager introduced the report. He explained that he was presenting the report on behalf of the Group Head of Policy, who was unable to attend the Meeting. He highlighted paragraph 3.2, an agreed definition of what constituted a partnership arrangement for this purpose, and paragraph 2.7 which excluded purely contractual relationships with key partners (e.g. Biffa, Freedom Leisure, etc.), which should have formal governance and reporting in place.  The Register would need to be maintained by Officers and reviewed periodically by Members and, should it be required, further review of some partnerships may be requested, to consider the role of the Council and to confirm that appropriate benefits were being achieved. 

A discussion then took place, and the following points were raised:

·         The report was welcomed, along with the opportunity for Internal Audit to carry out detailed reviews, as prior to this there had been no mechanism to carry out Partnership reviews.

·         Clarification was sought on how often the register would be reported back to the Audit & Governance Committee, and also how the work would be resourced and funded. It was agreed the Committee Manager would request an update from the Group Head of Policy, to be circulated to Members.

            The recommendation was Proposed by Councillor Chapman and Seconded by Councillor Staniforth.

The Committee

            RESOLVED

That the Audit and Governance Committee review the Partnerships Register on an annual basis and direct Internal Audit to carry out detailed reviews where necessary