Decisions

            AL/84/19/PL – Application for removal of conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 imposed on planning reference AL/93/86 relating to timescale, number of caravans, electric lines, site licence & hedges, Aldingbourne Park, Hook Lane, Aldingbourne

            Having received a report on the matter, Members were supportive of the proposal but did express reservations with regard to the condition relating to the removal of the existing boundary hedges, even though the applicant had stated that was not the intention.  It was therefore agreed that conditions 1, 2, 3 & 4 could be removed and condition 5 would be amended to ensure retention of the boundary hedge.

            The Committee then

RESOLVED

That removal of conditions 1, 2, 3 & 4 be agreed and condition 5 be amended to read:-

No hedgerow currently growing on the Hook Lane frontage of both Beechfield and Aldingbourne Parks shall be damaged, uprooted, felled, topped or lopped without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.  Any hedgerow removed without such consent or which becomes severely damaged or seriously diseased or dying in the future shall be replaced with a hedgerow of such size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority to ensure boundary landscaping is retained in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure the retention of existing screening vegetation important to the visual amenity of the streetscene in accordance with policy D DM1 of the Arun Local Plan.

            (Councillor Huntley spoke to this application in his capacity as Ward Member.)

            P/58/19/PL – Erection of 9 No. dwellings with associated access, parking, cycle & refuse storage & landscape design.  This application is a Departure from the Development Plan & may affect the setting of a listed building, Rear of Inglenook Hotel, 253-255 Pagham Road, Pagham

            This application had been deferred from the meeting held on 6 November 2019 as Members had requested that an independent assessment be undertaken of the highway impacts of the proposals for all highways users, to include consideration of safety issues for all users.

            The report on the table presented the conclusions of the Independent Highway Assessment & Road Safety Audit (RSA), which, in summary stated that the application should not be refused as the likely impacts would not be sufficient to justify refusal.  However, a series of recommendations for improvements were proposed and a number of key issues highlighted that should be addressed.  The report also detailed responses from the applicant,  County Highways and the Parish Council, together with additional letters of objections and the officer’s response.  In order to secure the improvements suggested, relevant conditions had been amended/added as detailed in the report.   In addition, the applicant had proposed an alternative footpath around the back of the public house to be accessed by a security code.

            The Principal Planning Officer also directed Members to the written report update that had been circulated at the meeting which detailed the following :-

·         additional advice received from the Council’s independent highway consultant regarding measurements taken of the access road and a summary of the risks to certain groups of people using the access

·         response (e) to Further Local Resident Objections which had been omitted from the report in the agenda

·         additional local resident objections and relevant officer reponses

·         additional Informative following advice from West Sussex County Council Fire & Rescue relating to the installation of a fire hydrant within the site

·         additional condition relating to the securing of lighting of the alternative footpath route

·         additional condition relating to the securing of lighting to improve the safety of the access road

The Council’s Independent Highways Consultant was in attendance at the meeting and provided a presentation of his findings.  An officer from County Highways also advised the meeting of the issues that were pertinent to their consideration of the matter.

In inviting discussion on the matter, the Chairman reminded the Committee to restrict their comments to the access to the site as that was the only issue on which Members had requested further information be brought back for consideration. 

            Members participated in a full debate and continued to express serious reservations regarding the safety of all users with regard to the shared access for both pedestrians and vehicles.  Refuse lorries and larger delivery vehicles using the access were of particular concern as there was not a clear sight line due to bends in the road.  Views were expressed that the access to and egress from the access could be problematic on occasion due to the parking on Pagham Road and the location of the nearby bus stop.  It was felt that the mitigation measures that were being proposed were not adequate to ensure the safety of all users.

            Member comment was made that the proposal was a justified use of the land but that the access was unacceptable.  It was suggested that the developer should negotiate the use of a ransom strip to improve the situation and advice was given that officers had recommended the developer have conversations with the relevant party to that effect.

            The Committee centred some discussion around the measurements of the access for both vehicles and pedestrians, which was felt to not be wide enough.  In addition, the shared surface could lead to people believing they could walk along its length in safety but, with the blind bend, that might not necessarily be the case.  A further view was expressed that there was a real potential for crime and that should be designed out of the development.

            The Principal Planning Officer and  the County Highways Officer reiterated that no evidence had been presented by way of the RSA to support a refusal of the application on safety grounds

In the course of debate, matters were raised relating to the location of the static caravans; Manual for Streets; gated access and requirement for key pad; and potential for the general public to use the footpath rather than just residents of the development.  These points were addressed by officers at the meeting.

The Group Head of Planning reiterated, as advised at the previous meeting, that the proposals were not ideal but County Highways and an independent traffic consultant had provided advice with regard to the safety of the access and both had concluded that it was not so unsafe as to refuse planning permission.  In terms of the existing use, the assessment was not against its current use but was against how it could be used without the benefit of planning permission.  A number of comments had been made that the access was not as safe as it could be – that was not a test in planning terms, rather, the correct test was to assess whether the access was so unsafe as to refuse the application.

In turning to the vote, the Committee did not accept the officer recommendation to approve and, as indicated by the debate, discussed reasons for refusal.  The Committee then

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

The proposals will introduce a form of development that will result is significant conflicts between highways users to the detriment of highway safety. It will result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, not result in pedestrian priority or a safe and secure development contrary to policies T SP1, D DM1 and Q SP1 of the Arun Local Plan and polices within the NPPF. 

R/268/19/PL – Demolition of existing garage & store on existing dwelling & erection of 1 No. 4 bed chalet style dwelling (re-submission of planning ref R/72/19/PL), 6 Manor Road, Rustington

            The Committee received the report, together with the officer’s written report update which provided information on the following:-

·         Revised plans relating to west driveway crossover location; visibility splay; existing (east) driveway to remain as existing; and provision of new bin store provision

·      Amended conditions relating to plans and highways

·      Additional informative relating to the need for a sprinkler system

·      Correction to density to 15 dwellings per hectare

In considering the matter, views were expressed that this was ‘garden grabbing’ and a concern was raised that approval of this proposal would set a precedent in the

area.

In turning to the vote, Members did not accept the officer recommendation to approve and, having been formally proposed and seconded, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

The proposal will not result in a form of development that will enhance the quality of the environment contrary to policy QE SP1 of the Arun Local Plan.

K/32/19/PL – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 1 x 3 storey dwelling with swimming pool and associated amenity space and parking

            The Planning Team Leader presented this report and directed Members to the officer’s written report update circulated at the meeting which set out the detail of an additional letter of objection and additional information received from the agent regarding materials, which had resulted in a materials condition being attached to any approval.

            The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report and the officer report update.

F/18/19/PL – 1 No. new dwelling.  This application is a Departure from the Development Plan, Land adjacent to 3 Wicks Farm Cottages, Ford Lane, Ford

            In presenting the detail of this report, the Planning Team Leader also advised the Committee by way of a verbal report that:-

·         The Council’s Tree Officer had originally objected to the proposal. He was re-consulted and, subject to a pre-commencement condition, he was now satisfied with the proposal as it stood.

In response to a Member comment, it was confirmed that there was no defined gap between Yapton and Ford.

     The Committee then

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report, subject to the addition of a pre-commencement condition to read a follows\:-

Prior to the commencement of development the applicants will need to employ the services of an Arboricultural Consultant to carry out a tree survey exercise and then prepare an Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA) which must be inclusive of; a 'Tree Survey Schedule', a 'Root Protection Area (RPA) Schedule' and a 'Tree Constraints Plan' - with the trees accurately plotted on same.

In the event that a RPA of any tree which is proposed for retention overlaps the development then BS5837:2012 requires that an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) is submitted and also most importantly a Tree Protection Plan - to describe and illustrate the mitigation measures which are to be employed to ensure that the trees survive without detriment to their vigour and vitality and are given adequate protection both above and below ground.

All documents above including the Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement & Tree Protection Plan as required shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works carried out in accordance with approved details.

            F/11/19/PL – Construction of agricultural barn with flexible storage use (B8 Use Class) with ancillary office space, Wicks Farm, Ford Lane, Ford

            The Planning Team Leader presented this report, together with the officer’s written report update detailing amendment to condition 5 to better protect Poplar trees on the site and an additional informative regarding safe evacuation in the event of fire.

            Following consideration, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report and officer report update.

FG/135/19/PL – Demolition of a silo & erection of an office building (B1(a) Business), 6 No. parking spaces for  office workers & erection of boundary fencing, Silo at Former McIntyre Nursery, Littlehampton Road, Ferring

            Having received the detail of the proposal from the Planning Team Leader, Members participated in a full debate.  In opening the debate, comment was made that the existing silo was preferable to the building that was being proposed to replace it and, in addition, the development would impinge on the Angmering/Worthing Gap which had now been adopted.

            Members were reminded that existing planning permission FG/56/18/PL had been approved in November 2018 to convert the existing silo to office space and was still valid therefore this proposal would be difficult to refuse due to its slight increase in footprint.  However views were expressed that the proposed development was obtrusive and did not sit well in the setting of Highdown Hill.  The design, colour and materials were not suitable.

            The Group Head of Planning gave advice that, although the previous permission was for a conversion and this proposal was for a new build, the design was in a similar style to be built on the same plot for the same use.  With reference to the Angmering/Worthing Gap, there was no requirement to enhance the quality of the gap as it was not a land quality policy.  Furthermore, the integration of the gap was not significant.  In response to Members’ comments with regard to disliking the design, he also pointed out that that was subjective and that was why it would be difficult to go back to policies.

            In order to alleviate Members’ reservations with regard to the design, the Planning Team Leader suggested that an additional condition could be included to require the applicant to submit details of materials, finishes, colours and textures to the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of any works.

            The Committee voted unanimously on that course of action and asked that the application be brought back to enable Members to consider the materials, etc as they wished to see the effect of the proposal softened. 

            The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred to enable the applicant to submit details of materials, finishes, colours and textures to the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of any works.

EP/168/19/PL – 1 No. dwelling & alterations to roof of existing dwelling (4 Beechlands Cottages) ,  the provision of new dormer to fron elevation4 Beechlands Cottages and land adjacent, Beechlands Close, East Preston

            In presenting this report, the Planning Team Leader reminded the Committee that planning permission had been granted in May 2017 for an identical development under planning application EP/41/17/PL.

            On discussing the matter, comment was made that the Council had recently adopted its own parking standards and this proposal did not adhere to that.  There were problems already in the locality with regard to parking.  A view was expressed that the side entrance to the dwelling was not suitable and that the side window would overlook the neighbouring bungalow.  Officer advice was given that it was a bedroom window and would be obscure glazed.  Further Member comment stated that, as the proposal was at the end of a terrace, the design needed to be more symmetrical and, again, did not adhere to the Council’s own emerging Design Guide.

            On being put to the vote, the Committee did not accept the officer recommendation to approve and it was duly proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of the Council’s recently adopted Parking Standards DPD (Development Plan Document) and the design was not acceptable.

            The Group Head of Planning advised that he did not think there was any prospect of defending an appeal on those grounds.  However, a Member view was voiced that the Committee should stand behind its own Parking Standards and design principles and the Committee therefore

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

The proposed dwelling by virtue of its poor design and lack of sufficient car parking will result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the locality and areas highway safety contrary to policies D SP1, D DM1, T SP1 of the Arun Local Plan, Arun District Council Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document and policy 1 of the East Preston Neighbourhood Plan January 2020..

CM/65/19/PL – Demolition of existing dwelling & construction of new dwelling on existing footprint of original & retaining the same vernacular style (Resubmission of CM/33/19/PL) Departurefrom the Development Plan, Atherington Lodge, Climping Street, Climping

The Planning Team Leader presented the report, together with the officer’s written report update circulated at the meeting which detailed the consultation response from the Council’s Engineers and resultant additional informative relating to flooding.  The Engineering Services was in attendance and provided clarification on the flooding issues in the locality.

The debate highlighted some Members’ serious concerns in respect of the application, particularly as it was felt the design was out of character with this part of Climping and that the large dormer windows would create unacceptable overlooking.  As the dwelling was partly constructed the question was asked as to how it could be checked that the floor levels adhered to condition 2 and an officer response was provided that, if asked, it could be investigated to ensure compliance with the condition.

Officers addressed the issues raised and confirmed that the first floor space was broadly similar in appearance to previously approved CM/3/18/HH.  The dormer windows, whilst large, would not cause overlooking as there was a distance of some 40m to the neighbouring property and was at an oblique angle.  In addition, dormer windows had been included in the previous application.  An explanation was provided as to why the original building had been demolished and building recommenced and why the application was now before the Committee as a retrospective application.  Members were advised that insufficient footings had been provided to support the conversion of the roof space.

Having considered the matter, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report and the officer report update.

CM/64/19/PL – Residential development comprising 2 x 3 bedroom bungalows, 2 x 3 bedroom houses, 2 x 2 bedroom houses, 3 x 4 bedroom houses along with access and parking following demolition of existing dwelling.  This is a Departure from the Development Plan, Langford, Horsemere Green Lane, Climping

            In presenting this report, the Planning Team Leader also directed Members to the officer’s written report update which had been circulated at the meeting and which set out the following:-

·         Clarification of points relating to car parking; change of one property from bungalow to chalet style property; reference to Apple Tree Road should be Apple Tree Walk; and Policy QE DM4 was relevant to determination of the application

·         Amended plans were detailed and condition amended accordingly

·         No objection consultation response received from Southern Water

·         2 further objections received advising on the absence of street lights in the lane

·         Traffic issues had been addressed in the officer report

·         Conditions – amendment to  conditions and additional conditions detailed

·         Unilateral Undertaking/Footpath – the provision of a footpath from the entrance of the site to meet up with the entrance to Apple Tree Walk to the east had been offered by the applicant in the form of a now completed Local Unilateral Undertaking.  This had secured £10,000 in funding and the recommendation had been updated to “Approve with a S106”.

Members participated in some debate on the matter and serious concerns were raised that this and forthcoming development In the immediate locality would have a severe detrimental impact on Horsemere Green Lane due to the potential for a significant increase in traffic movements.  Although the contribution to the footpath by way of this development was welcomed, the view was expressed that a footpath along the entire length of Horsemere Green Lane was required – this point was reiterated by several Members and a view expressed that the lack of a footpath was unacceptable and dangerous.

            Comment was made regarding the density of the development and a response given by the Planning Team Leader.  Further remarks were made that it was unfortunate that the development along the Lane was piecemeal  rather than providing a cohesive form in the area and was there a Design Plan?  It was confirmed by the Planning Team Leader that there was no Design Plan – there were strategic allocations which could promote good design and planning principles but that did not apply to this development.

On the issue of drainage being raised, Members were informed that that was covered by pre commencement conditions whereby the applicant was required to provide details for consideration by the Council’s Engineers to ensure suitable drainage would be provided.  The Engineering Services Manager provided more detailed advice to assure Members that drainage matters would be satisfactorily addressed.

            The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report and the officer report update.

            BR/243/19/PL – Change of use of house in multiple occupation to form 2 No. self-contained flats with a rear extension to form bathrooms at ground and fist floors, and a single storey pitch roof and side extension to form a studio flat, 130 Longford Road, Bognor Regis

            In presenting this report, the Principal Planner emphasised that this scheme was a reduction from a 5 unit scheme to a 3 unit scheme with a resultant reduction in bed spaces.  The change from a HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) was generally supported, although some concerns were raised with regard to the lack of parking in the immediate vicinity.  The Group Head of Planning confirmed that this was probably the most sustainable location in the District where a shortage of parking spaces within the development should be a necessity.

            Having considered the matter, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report.

            The Chairman then called a half hour adjournment to the meeting.

            BN/121/19/PL – Removal of redundant polytunnel & construction of 4 bedroom detached chalet bungalow with new vehicular entrance & relocation of Nursery parking area.  This application is a Departure from the Development Plan, Swallowfield, Eastergate Lane, Eastergate

            Having received a report on the matter, and following a brief discussion by Members, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report.

            BN/66/19/PL – Erection of 2 No. dwellings, Land off Canal Mews, Barnham

            In presenting this report, the Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal update detailing that Barnham and Eastergate Parish Council had resubmitted its previous objection despite the reduction in the number of proposed dwellings from 3 to 2 and that 3 further letters of objection had been received stating that

·         Previous comments to this application still applied;

·         The plan to re-route the sewage pipe/pipes was likely to cause further problems to existing residents; and

·         Plans as submitted included the land which was not in the applicant’s ownership

As the consultation process did not expire until 19 March 2020, it was proposed that the decision be delegated to the Group Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, to make after that date.

The Principal Planner confirmed that Southern Water and the Council’s own Engineering Team had no objections with regard to foul water drainage, subject to standard conditions.  The relevant pipe could be diverted – no condition had been included in the recommendation as permission would have to obtained from Southern Water before any work could commence.

Members raised issues relating to amenity space; and size of the gardens within the proposed development, which were addressed by the Principal Planning Officer.

Following consideration, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report and the decision be delegated to the Group Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman following expiry of the consultation period after 19 March 2020.

            A/122/19/OUT – Outline application with some matters reserved for the erection of up to 160 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage systems (SuDs), vehicular access point from Arundel Road, together with up to 1,393 square metres (15,000 square feet) of B1/B2 units with associated parking provision and vehicular access point from Arundel Road and land made available for expansion of current sports pitch provision (following the demolition of existing commercial units and one bungalow) (re-submission following A/36/18/OUT).  This application is a Departure from the Development Plan, Land off Arundel Road, Angmering

            The Committee received a comprehensive report and presentation from the Principal Strategic Planner on the detail of the proposal, together with a written report update which was circulated at the meeting setting out the following:-

·         Triggers for S106 contributions relating to Primary, Secondary and Sixth Form Education, together with the triggers for the Library, Fire and Rescue and the Transport contributions

·         Requirement for the Council to provide a footpath connection from Palmer Road Recreation Ground to the Public Right of Way 2176 to be removed from the S106 Agreement

·         Reference within the S106 Agreement of a contribution towards the implementation of a cycle route along the “Arundel Road Corridor”.

·         Information relating to an Appraisal of Agricultural Land Quality, which included a Soil Resources Plan, and which had been submitted since the agenda had been uploaded to the Council’s website.

·         Additional condition relating to the occupiers of the existing commercial units being given the opportunity to take up the new commercial floorspace provided if they so wished.

·         An additional representation from a resident of Littlehampton.

·         Officer’s response, including an additional condition relating to the soil handling measures.

In discussing the matter, a concern was raised regarding traffic issues and the County Highways Officer in attendance was able to address the matters raised.

A further concern was expressed relating to the S106 contribution for the NHS.  This was based around the involvement of the CCG (Coastal Commissioning Group) in health care provision in Littlehampton when funding had not been utilised and two surgeries had now closed.   The Principal Strategic Planner was able to give a reassurance that the CCG had confirmed exactly what the contribution would be going towards, i.e. Willow Green Surgery or Coppice Surgery and the proposed Health Hub in Littlehampton.  He was able to advise that the CCG was working more closely with the Council than in the past and was supportive of joint working.

Following comment around the employment site and the 20m green buffer zone and responses from the Principal Strategic Planner, the Committee expressed support for the development and

RESOLVED

That the Group Head of Planning be granted delegated authority, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, to grant planning permission as detailed in the report and the officer report update and

a)    If the grant is on or before 31 March 2020, subject to a Section 106 Agreement, the terms of which are substantially in accordance with those set out in the revised Heads of Terms circulated at the meeting, with any minor amendments authorised by the Group Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman; or

b)    If the grant is on or after 1 April 2020, subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payable.

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2020 were approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

            AL/91/19/PL – Removal of conditions 2, 3, 4 & 5 following AL/95/86 relating to number of caravans on site, electric service lines, no works constituting development required by the condition of a site licence & existing boundary hedges retained in current form, Beechfield Park, Hook Lane, Aldingbouorne

Having received a report on the matter, Members were supportive of the proposal but did express reservations with regard to the condition relating to the removal of the existing boundary hedges, even though the applicant had stated that was not the intention.  It was therefore agreed that conditions 2, 3 & 4 could be removed and condition 5 would be amended to ensure retention of the boundary hedge.

            The Committee then

RESOLVED

That removal of conditions 2, 3 & 4 be agreed and condition 5 be amended to read:-

No hedgerow currently growing on the Hook Lane frontage of both Beechfield and Aldingbourne Parks shall be damaged, uprooted, felled, topped or lopped without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.  Any hedgerow removed without such consent or which becomes severely damaged or seriously diseased or dying in the future shall be replaced with a hedgerow of such size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority to ensure boundary landscaping is retained in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure the retention of existing screening vegetation important to the visual amenityof the streetscene in accordance with policy D DM1 of the Arun Local Plan.

             AL/85/19/PL – Retention of shop used only by students of One School Global, their parents and friends of One School Global, who are registered to use the shop with no sale or display to visiting member of the public (sui generis use).  This is a departure from the Development Plan, Aldingbourne Nurseries, Church Road, Aldingbourne

            Having received a report on the matter, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report.

The Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 10 February 2020 were approved by the Cabinet as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

            (Prior to consideration of the following item, Councillor Elkins declared a personal interest as a member of West Sussex County Council.)

            The Director of Place presented this report which sought endorsement of the Council to a series of high-level development principles to guide the form of development at Barnham/Eastergate/Westergate (BEW).  Appendix 1 to the report detailed these principles and Members were advised of some minor amendments to 5 of them.  In discussing the amendments, Members made further suggestions, particularly around SDP24 Low Carbon Energy and SDP29 Broadband and, for clarity, those amended principles are listed below with the amendments shown in bold and underlined:-

SDP 1 Access and Strategic Movement - The new community at BEW will have a permeable layout that integrates and maximises and prioritises sustainable patterns of movement, linking the area to the wider community.  The development will also make provision for parking and access to and from the Barnham Railway Station as well as seeking to improve local bus services. Key routes through the development will be wide enough to accommodate buses in addition to parked vehicles.

SDP 7 Place-Making Objectives - The allocation will exemplify high standards of urban, landscape and architectural design to create a distinctive and attractive place with legible character areas that maximise the potential for sustainable design and non-car-based travel.    There should be high quality public realm and public art resulting overall in a place where people will want to live, work and visit for generations to come. The layout should seek to avoid the physical coalescence of the allocation with the existing communities unless there is a sound place making objective to do so such as where part of the allocation may reasonably be regarded as an urban extension.  To reinforce the sense of creating a new community any development which is physically separate from the existing communities by means of the strategic open space being created,  should have a cohesive modern contemporary design approach for the whole of the new community.

SDP 13 Education - The allocation will facilitate the provision of a new Secondary School at Ford, at least two Primary Schools and nursery provision on site, where a need is identified by West Sussex County Council. These new facilities will be a significant focus for community life, playing a key role in fostering a new community through the development and education of younger people. and should be constructed so as to provide a climate-smart benchmark through use of technology, renewable energy and sustainable materials.

SDP 24 Low Carbon Energy - Development at the allocation will promote low carbon energy technologies and opportunities should be taken to incorporate renewable energy features on all buildings.  The development should also embrace the transition to electric vehicles. 

SDP29 Broadband – The allocation will ensure that all development has access to gigabit capable full fibre infrastructure and where appropriate make provision for future changes in technology, subject to viability.

The remaining high level principles were accepted without change.

            The Subcommittee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That the High Level Development Principles appended to the report and as amended at the meeting be endorsed to guide the form of the development at the Barnham / Eastergate / Westergate (BEW) Strategic Planning Allocation.

            (During the course of consideration of this matter, Councillor Elkins declared a personal interest as a member of West Sussex County Council.)

            The Subcommittee received this report from the Director of Place which set out the detail of a Green Infrastructure Masterplan – Coast to the South Downs, which set out a vision for green infrastructure linking the coastline at Bognor Regis with the South Downs National Park at Fontwell.  To assist Members in their deliberations, illustrative plans 1-6 of the relevant areas were circulated at the meeting.  At this time, Members were being requested to endorse the report both for the purposes of assisting the assessment of any planning applications currently under consideration and for the purpose of public consultation; the illustrations should therefore be treated as informative rather than suggesting a definitive outcome.  Any responses received would then be reported back to the Subcommittee so that it could consider whether to recommend to Full Council adoption of the Green Infrastructure Masterplan as a formal Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).   Whilst some weight could be attached to the document in the determination of planning applications at it stood, that weight would be increased significantly if it became an SPD.

            The Director of Place emphasised that the document was a vision of what could be achieved and delivered through development but that negotiations would have to be undertaken with landowners and, also, that the challenges of accessing funding would have to be addressed.

            Members supported the approach being taken and views were expressed that a coherent connection between the coast and the South Downs National Park was to be welcomed. 

            Following a number of questions which were responded to at the meeting by the Director of Place, the Subcommittee

RESOLVED

That the report be endorsed, both for the purpose of assisting the assessment of any planning applications currently under consideration and for the purpose of public consultation.

            The Planning Policy Team Leader presented the detail of this report which informed Members of the requirement to produce a Brownfield Land Register in two parts.  Part 1 established a baseline stock of brownfield land which would meet specific previously developed land and delivery criteria (as described at paragraph 1.6 of the report).  Part 2 introduced permission in principle (PiP) as a new route to obtaining planning permission for those sites that made it onto Part 1 of the register, in order to help to maximise the numbers of new homes built on brownfield land.  However, Part 2 had not yet been established because it required a significant level of technical work, consultation and legal/procedural steps.  Work had commenced on this and an update on progress would be brought back to a future meeting.

            Members participated in a brief debate, during which it was mentioned that a brief summary within the report indicating the location of sites would be useful in the future.  It was also suggested that, for clarity, it should be highlighted that the register provided an annual snapshot at a particular point in time.  Further, it was clarified that the process for giving permission in principle would be a Development Management Committee function and so the report recommendation focused on agreeing that officers progress the work and report back to a future meeting on this process.

            The Subcommittee

RESOLVED – That

(1)  the 2019 Brownfield Land Register (Part 1) be noted; and

(2)    officers work towards the production of the Brownfield Land Register (Part 2), including the carrying out of consultation and public requirements, as well as other procedures, in line with the Brownfield Land Register Regulations 2017.

            The Planning Policy Team Leader presented this report to the Subcommittee which set out a proposed response to Crawley Borough Council’s Regulation 19 Publication Local Plan for the period 2019 – 2035.

            The report illustrated that Crawley would have a housing shortfall of 5,945 against its Objectively Assessed Need (OAN,) as based on the Government’s Standard Housing Methodology (SHM).  It was therefore important for this Council to understand how that shortfall would be met under the Duty to Co-operate regime.  Crawley’s Plan did set out an expectation that Horsham and Mid Sussex would help with the shortfall  but, also, it was recognised that other neighbouring authorities would need to be asked to help.  It was therefore imperative for Arun to seek information as to how Crawley would meet its unmet need.  In addition, Arun was looking for an assurance within their Statement of Common Ground and under the Duty to Co-operate that Crawley would not be expecting Arun to help with that unmet housing need.

            In opening up the debate, Member comment was made with regard to the urgency of achieving progress on the update to the Local Strategic Statement (i.e. LSS3) as set out at paragraph 1.4 of the report.  It was stated that negotiation of LSS3 should be undertaken through the Local Strategic Planning Board (LSPB) and it seemed inappropriate that this Council’s representative was not the Cabinet Member for Planning, who would be in a stronger position to  push that progress.    Paragraph 1.8 was welcomed which stated that:-

            “It must be stressed that Crawley Borough Council has not asked ADC to assist with any unmet housing need given the Crawley Local Plan (CLP) seeks assistance from Horsham and Mid Sussex and other authorities within the North West Sussex Housing Market Area (NWSHMA).  However, given the wider unmet need outlined above, and risks should there be insufficient progress on LSS3, ADC should seek a specific Statement of Common Ground with Crawley Borough consolidating this position.”

            Members were in agreement with the proposed response but did express reservations that the Cabinet Member for Planning was not the Council’s appointed representative on the Local Strategic Planning Board.  The Director of Place gave advice that the appointment of a member to the LSPB was solely within the gift of the Leader of the Council and the Subcommittee could of course express its view which could then be brought to the attention of the Leader.  The Subcommittee therefore unanimously agreed that the Leader of the Council be asked to amend the Council’s membership of the LSPB from Councillor Huntley to Councillor Lury, Cabinet Member for Planning.

            Following a brief discussion around the Duty to Co-operate and Statement of Common Ground, the Subcommittee

RESOLVED – That

(1)  In response to the Crawley Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation, Crawley Borough Council be urged to clearly set out in updated Statements of Common Ground with neighbouring authorities within its Housing Market Area, how its unmet need is to be resolved before the plan is submitted for examination;

(2)  In the absence of progress on the LSS3 update, a Statement of Common Ground be agreed specifically with Arun District Council to clarify that no assistance will be required in order to help with the level of unmet need arising from the Borough; and

(3)  The Leader of the Council be requested to replace Councillor Huntley with Councillor Lury as the Cabinet Member for Planning on the Local Strategic Planning Board.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

            The Subcommittee received a report from the Planning Policy Team Leader which sought agreement to the following older sets of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) and Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) being revoked by removing them from the Council’s website and deposit points.

·         Open Space & Recreation Standards October 2000 SPG

·         Parking Standards SPG 2000Telecoms October 2000

·         Advertisements September 2003

·         Archaeology September 2003

·         Telecoms October 2000

Whilst accepting that these documents should be revoked for the reasons outlined in the report, Members also requested that the relevant procedures should be reviewed to ensure that when new planning documents and guidance were adopted by the Council, the old ones could be automatically revoked as that would negate the possibility of any confusion arising by having two sets of guidance relating to the same topic.  An officer assurance was given that that point would be taken on board and actioned accordingly.

The Subcommittee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That the older Supplementary Planning Documents and Supplementary Planning Guidance set out under paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the report be revoked because they are replaced, are out of date and have no material weight.

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2019 were approved by the Subcommittee and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Committee received a report from the Group Head of Council Advice and Monitoring Officer which sought the agreement of the Committee to recommend the appointment of two further Independent Persons to the Standards Committee.  It was outlined that in line with Paragraph 4.5(7) of Part 3 (Responsibility for Functions) of the Council’s Constitution, any recommendations for appointment needed to be made by Full Council.        

Councillor Bennett was invited to present the detail of this item as he had chaired the interview panel that had conducted interviews on 16 January 2020.

Councillor Bennett explained that the interview panel had consisted of himself, Councillor Mrs Daniells, and the Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer.  The selection process had considered the candidate’s application form and their response to questions posed at interview against the selection criteria and job description for the role.  All applicants had also been assessed against the requirements of Section 28 of the Localism Act 2011 which confirmed what would disqualify a candidate from being appointed to this role.

Councillor Bennett outlined that out of the four candidates interviewed, the Panel had unanimously agreed that two be recommended to the Committee for appointment, being John Cooke and Sandra Prail based upon their excellent skills and experience that they could bring to the role.  As both candidates had been invited to attend the meeting they were introduced to the Committee and they provided a brief overview of their professional backgrounds. 

The Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer reminded the Committee that it had originally agreed to recruit one additional Independent Persons to extend the number of Independent Persons to three to ensure that there was always adequate independent opinion available to both the Committee and the Monitoring Officer.  Appointing an additional Independent Person would always ensure that there was adequate coverage and would allow the opportunity to rotate independent persons around complaint issues to extend experience and cover.  It was outlined that the legislation did not set a maximum of Independent Persons to be appointed.

Following brief debate and having agreed to the two suggested appointments, the Committee

            RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That

(1)  John Cooke is appointed as an Independent Person to the Standards Committee for an initial term of office of one year from the date of the Full Council decision;

(2)  Sandra Prail is appointed as an Independent Person to the Standards Committee for an initial term of office of one year from the date of the Full Council decision;

(3)  Subject to the appointments being confirmed at (1) and (2) above, the Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer be authorised to confirm the appointment terms to John Cooke and Sandra Prail; and

(4)  The Standards Committee review any extension to these terms of office in January 2021 and then report back to Full Council.

In discussing the feedback from the consultation exercise, the Committee welcomed the overall support to the proposed areas of change to both the Members’ Code of Conduct and the Local Assessment Procedure that had been received from those Town and Parish Councils and District Councillor who had responded.  The Committee did consider two areas where there had not been consensus and:

1.    maintained its previous view on Best Practice Recommendation 3 (the timing of reviews of the Code of Conduct) that reviews should be undertaken every two years timed to be undertaken at the end of years 1 and 3 of each administration; and

2.    supported the views of Town and Parish Councils on Best Practice Recommendation 11 (who should make complaints about the conduct of a parish councillor towards a clerk) that this should not be restricted to the Chairman of the Parish Council.

The Committee also agreed that the proposed areas for change to the Members’ Code of Conduct should include an obligation that a Councillor must not conduct themselves in a manner which could be reasonably regarded as bringing their office as a Councillor, or the Council itself into disrepute.  A request was also made for the review to consider the latest Probity in Planning guidance issued by the Local Government Association in December 2019.

            The Committee then reviewed whether the Principles of the Code of Conduct, as set out in Section 1, Paragraph 2.1 of the Code should be updated with the CSPLs redefined definitions.  The Committee was not comfortable with all of the redefined Principles and asked the Monitoring Officer to review whether there could be a mix and match between the current and redefined wording, and whether the Council could introduce its own wording.  It was agreed that a report back would be made on this as part of the ongoing review.

            The Committee then

RESOLVED – That

(1)  the Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer brings back a revised draft of the Members’ Code of Conduct and Local Assessment Procedure to a future meeting taking account of all the proposed areas for change agreed by the Council on 18 September 2019 and highlighted at this meeting; and

(2)  the final amended versions then be presented to the Full Council for approval with an estimated completion date of November 2020.

(Prior to the commencement of the discussion on this item, Councillors Bennett, Bower, Coster and Mrs Worne re-declared their interests made at the start of the meeting).

            The Committee received a report from the Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer which provided Members with an update on the complaints made against Councillors over the past two years.

            The Committee was advised that this report was being provided in a slightly different format in that it was being presented in open business with the latest list of complaints being provided to Members of the Committee only as an Exempt Appendix, on the basis that it included information relating to individuals.  It was made clear therefore that should the Committee wish to discuss any information contained within the Appendix, then it would be necessary for the meeting to move into Exempt business.

            It was highlighted that since the Committee’s last meeting, ten complaints had been received under the Code of Conduct.  Of the seven complaints completed, none had required a Stage 2 assessment.  The Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer outlined that since the last meeting, practices had been reviewed on whether a modified public register of complaints should be introduced for publishing via the Committee onto the Council’s website.  This review had highlighted how few Councils published information on the outcome of complaints received, however, two examples found from the review were circulated to the meeting for discussion.  One was from Huntingdonshire District Council and the other was from Durham County Council.  The views of the Committee were sought in terms of whether it felt that this Council should publish an annual report of its Code of Conduct complaints.

            The Committee agreed that this would be a transparent way of updating the public on complaint cases received and would illustrate how thoroughly complaints were investigated. It did not express any specific view in terms of when this report would be presented, either at the end of each Municipal Year or as part of the first cycle of meetings in the new Council year.  Having examined the two examples circulated, the Committee highlighted the Huntingdonshire model as its preference.

            The Committee

                        RESOLVED – That

(1)          The Register of Complaints against Councillors be noted; and

(2)          A change to the publication on the outcome of complaints be made by producing a public register of complaints to be published annually, using the Huntingdonshire model circulated to the meeting.

The Minutes from the meeting held on 25 July 2019 were approved by the Committee as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.

This urgent report is presented at the request of the Leader, Councillor Dr Walsh, so the Cabinet can be updated on the actions taken to respond to the most recent consultation on the A27 Arundel Bypass.

In accordance with Part 3 (Responsibility for Functions) Section 2.0, Paragraph 2.3 of the Council’s Constitution, the Cabinet may consider items of an urgent nature where special circumstances apply.  The circumstances for presenting this report as a matter urgency are to ensure that Members are aware of the response made by the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to the most recent consultation on the A27 Arundel Bypass.  As this is a key decision, the agreement of the Chairman of the Overview Select Committee, Councillor Coster, has been sought and he has agreed to this report and the reason for its urgency.  As this will be dealt with as an urgent matter, under special urgency, the report is being published with less notice than the ‘five clear days’ and will not be subject to the Call-In procedure as set out in the Scrutiny Procedure Rules at Part 6 of the Council’s Constitution.

The report provides the background to the consultation by Highways England on a set of corrections to the revised ‘A27 Bypass – Further Consultation Brochure’, published in September 2019.    It explains the urgency of the decision and the reason for the response given by the Leader of the Council to Highways England.  

The Cabinet

            RESOLVED

            The action taken by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Dr Walsh, on 2 March 2020, as set out in the report, be endorded in reconfirming the Council’s decision on its preferred route for the proposed A27 Arundel by-Pass as agreed at the Special Meeting of the Council held on 10 October 2019.

Littlehampton Harbour Board (LHB) is proposing changes to its governance through a Harbour Revision Order (HRO). The proposed changes will significantly reduce Arun District Council’s and West Sussex County Council’s representation on the LHB, which in turn would substantially decrease the two Council’s influence over the LHB.  Despite this proposal, there are no changes proposed to remove, reduce or cap the two Councils financial liability to fund the harbour.  Both Councils will have an opportunity to make formal representations on LHB HRO during the statutory consultation period when this commences in due course.

This report considers the draft LHB HRO and options available to the Council.

This is an urgent report which is being taken in accordance with Part 3 (Responsibility for Functions) Section 2.0 Paragraph 2.3 of the Council’s Constitution, the Cabinet may consider items of an urgent nature where special circumstances apply. 

The circumstances for presenting this report as a matter of urgency are because it would be helpful if the Councils wish to proceed with any alternative options, for these to be discussed now, prior to the validation of LHB’s application.  LHB are keen to avoid their HRO being unnecessarily delayed, so a short time period has been provided for the Councils to consider their options at this stage.

As this is a key decision, the agreement of the Chairman of the Overview Select Committee, Councillor Coster, has been sought and he has agreed to this report and the reason for its urgency.

As this will be dealt with as an urgent matter, the report is being published with less notice than the ‘five clear days’ and the call-in arrangements will not apply.

Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

1)    A further report to be brought to Cabinet to consider representations to be made in response to a statutory consultation on Littlehampton Harbour Board’s Harbour Revision Order; and  

2)    The Council makes a formal proposal to West Sussex County Council for the two Councils to explore jointly commissioning an options appraisal.

As this was an Urgent Decision taken in line with the Constitution, this decision is not subject to the Call-In Procedure at Part 6 of the Constitution.

The report sets out the detail of the procurement of an external consultant to undertake an independent review of the Planning Service.

Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the delegated authority by the Chief Executive for the procurement of external consultancy services for the sum of approximately £40,000 (plus expenses) in order to conduct an independent review of the Planning Service, be noted.

The Cabinet considered the Minutes of the meeting of the Housing & Customer Services Working Group held on 6 Februaryy 2020 which contained recommendations at Minute 12 Asbestos Policy & Management Plan; Minute 13 Tenancy & Lettings Policy; Minute 14 Pets Policy; Minute 15 Empty Homes Update; and Minute 16 Energy Efficiency Strategy.

Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

Minute 12 – Asbestos Policy & Management Plan

(1)  The Asbestos Policy 2020 be adopted;

(2)  The Asbestos Management Plan be adopted;

(3)  Authority be delegated to the Group Head of Residential Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Residential Services, to make minor changes to the Policy and Plan.

Minute 13 – Tenancy & Letting Policy

(1)  The Tenancy & Letting Policy April 2020 be adopted;

(2)  All current flexible tenancies be converted to secure lifetime tenancies from April 2020; and

(3)  Authority be delegated to the Group Head of Residential services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Residential services, to make minor changes to the Policy.

Minute 14 – Pets Policy

(1)  The Pets Policy April 2020 be adopted;

(2)  Authority be delegated to the Group Head of Residential services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Residential Services, to make minor changes to the Policy.

Minute 15 – Empty Homes Update

(1)  The updated enforced Sale Procedure be adopted;

(2)  Authority be delegated to the Group Head of Technical Services to make changes to the Enforced Sale Procedure with a review to take place by the end of 2022; and

(3)  Approval of the use of existing revenue funds identified below for Empty Homes Assistant Programme with any unspent funds to be earmarked at the end of the financial year:

a.    £66k currently earmarked for Empty Homes;

b.    Unspent receipts from discretionary housing grants repayments (current balance £20k)

c.    Unspent receipts up to £44k from disability facilities grant repayments

Minute 16 – Energy Efficiency Strategy

The Energy Efficiency and Fuel Poverty Strategy 2020-2025 be adopted.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Overview Select Committee held on 28 January 2020 included a recommendation to Cabinet at Minute 411 Corporate Plan 2018-2022 – Q2 Performance Outturn Report for the period 1 April 2019 – 30 September 2019.

It was noted that Cabinet considered and approved the recommendation from the Overview Select Committee as part of the Agenda item on the Corporate Plan Quarter Two Performance Reports for the period 1 July to 30 September 2019 – this being Minute 411 - Corporate Plan 2018-2022 – Q2 Performance Outturn Report for the period 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2019

The project proposes to provide Pop Up Retail space in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.  This would be available on a short-term basis, the exact maximum term to be agreed, to allow businesses to market test their product or, where they already have this confidence, to give them a start with High street Trading.  This report provides an outline and asks Cabinet to agree this project.

Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1)  The contents of the report be noted;

(2)  Funding set aside in the 2020/21 budget for “New Start Up Business Town Centre Fund” be used for this project instead;

(3)  The use of Unit 10 Bognor Regis Arcade for the project be noted;

(4)  Agreement be given to enter into negotiations to take a lease, at a competitive price, on an appropriate property in Littlehampton, with delegated authority being given to the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Economy; in conjunction with the Director of Place to approve this.

(5)  Authority be delegated to the Director of Place, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Economy, to determine the details of the scheme.

To consider the recommendations included in the Minutes of the meeting of the Environment & Leisure Working Group held on 27 February 2020.

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

Minute 16 – Cemeteries Policy

(1)    From 1 April 2020 Arun District Council does adopt the proposed Cemeteries Regulations and all procedures as outlined in this report;

(2)    The new associated fees & charges as outlined in the report are approved for implementation from April 2020;

(3)    The service enhancements & projects identified within the report are endorsed and where appropriate, delivery will be considered as part of the Council’s future annual budget setting;

(4)    Future changes and amendments to the regulations, procedures and fees & charges, can be made in consultation with the Cabinet Member with delegated responsibility for Cemeteries; and

(5)    Within 12 months following the Councils adoption of these regulations, the Cemeteries Service shall submit to the ICCM a request for Arun, as a burial authority, to become a member of the Charter for the Bereaved, which further enhances the Council’s reputation as a modern, compassionate, lawfully and legally compliant Cemeteries Service provider.

Minute 17 – Enforcement Contract Update

1)    the agency agreement with East Hampshire District Council is extended for a further two years from 15 May 2020 until 14 May 2022;

2)    the charging model of the agreement is amended, as outlined in the report. This is in order to provide Arun District Council with greater flexibility and options for additional targeted enforcement activities.

This report sets out the Q2 performance outturn for the Service Delivery Plan (SDP) performance indicators for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 September 2019.

Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1)  The Council’s Q2 performance against the targets for the Service Delivery Plan (SDP) indicators, as set out in the report and Appendix B, be noted; and

(2)  The Minutes from Overview Select Committee on 28 January 2020 and associated comments and queries, be noted.

This report sets out the Q2 performance outturn for the Corporate Plan performance indicators for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 September 2019.

Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1)  The Council’s Q2 performance against the targets for the Corporate Plan indicators as set out in the report and Appendix A; be noted; and

(2)  The minutes from Overview Select Committee on 28 January 2020 and associated comments and queries, be noted;

Cabinet also

            RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That approval be given to amend the target figure for indicator CP10 from £91m to £99m be approved with effect from Q1 2020.

To extend the existing electrical supply contract by 12 months and regularise authority for previous agreement ending 31 March 2020.

The Cabinet

            RESOLVED – That

(1)          The appointment of the Council’s existing electricity supplier via a Broker until 31 March 2020 be approved;

(2)          The renewal of the existing contract for an additional twelve months to 31 March 2021 be approved;

(3)          Retrospective delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Corporate Support to enter into the existing agreement; and

(4)          Delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Technical Services to enter into the renewal contract.