Agenda and minutes

Members and Officers must declare any disclosable pecuniary interests in relation to any business on the agenda.  Declarations should also be made at any stage such an interest becomes apparent during the meeting.

If in doubt contact the Legal or Democratic Services representative for this meeting.

Members and Officers may seek advice upon any relevant interest from the Monitoring Officer prior to the meeting.

Councillor Kevin Boram substituted for Councillor Pat Beresford.

Councillor Andy McGregor substituted for Councillor Brian Coomber.

Councillor Joss Loader declared an interest in Item 7, Shoreham Beach Neighbourhood Forum - Designation, as a member of Shoreham Beach Residents’ Association and as a Forum member.  The Councillor had elected to leave the meeting when the item was considered.

So as to provide the best opportunity for the Committee to provide the public with the fullest answer, questions from the public should be submitted by midday on

Where relevant notice of a question has not been given, the person presiding may either choose to give a response at the meeting or respond by undertaking to provide a written response within three working days.

Questions should be submitted to Democratic Services –

democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk

(Note:  Public Question Time will last for a maximum of 30 minutes)

The Chairman announced that 3 questions had been submitted ahead of the meeting and that she would read them out on behalf of the members of the public who had chosen not to join the remote meeting.   

Q1 - Mr Bill Freeman, a Lancing resident, had asked the following question:-

We are still awaiting the Southern Water proposals for upgrade of sewage infrastructure for the Shoreham area. Major developments are now coming forward within the JAAP and local plan – Old Civic Centre redevelopment, Mannings with increased dwellings, Free Wharf, Albion Street all creating substantial, additional foul waste output. 

For Free Wharf in 2018 Southern Water confirmed that there was insufficient capacity in the system without causing issues for existing users.

How can we be sure that any Southern Water proposal will provide the additional capacity and foul waste treatment required for all those developments mentioned above and others known to be coming forward?

The Head of Planning and Development advised that in preparing the Local Plan the Council consulted with all statutory providers, developed an infrastructure delivery plan and bodies, such as Southern Water, were made aware of developments coming forward in the Local Plan and the timescales involved.

On individual planning applications, the Council also sought Southern Water’s reassurance whether there were any particular works that needed to be done and how we would condition particular developments.  For Free Wharf and other developments the Council usually agreed with Southern Water a condition that required any improvements prior to connection, but there were also separate legal agreements between developers and Southern Water to connect to the foul sewage  system and if there were any issues conditions were put in place to ensure no commencement of development until improvements undertaken.

Q2 - Geoff Hodgson, a member of AREA, had asked the following question:-

The Adur Housing Delivery Test states in point 2.4.4 that the provision of important infrastructure is important to support new development and continues to remain a key aspect of local plan preparation and progression. So why are there no concrete plans put forward in the recent major applications  for increased health facilities, improving traffic, increasing the number of school places and including a nearby well equipped playground for children?

The Head of Planning and Development advised that in preparing the Local Plan the Council did a significant amount of work on assessing what infrastructure was necessary to support additional housing growth.  He said the Infrastructure Delivery Plan ran through what improvements were necessary to support particular developments.  Usually there was a need to collect a number of contributions from different developers to secure significant and sufficient funds to improve facilities e.g highways, medical facilities or open space improvements.  As an example, for the Shoreham Harbour area, the Shoreham Transport Plan identified key junctions that would need improvements and similar work had been carried out in relation to the impact of New Monks Farm and Shoreham Airport developments.  Once funds had been pooled the County Council would then  ...  view the full minutes text for item ADC-PC/9/19-20

To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings of the Committee held on 8 June 2020, which have been emailed to Members.

RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 8 June  2020 be confirmed as a correct record and that they be signed by the Chairman.

A recorded vote was taken as follows:

For: Councillors Albury, Balfe, Boram, Chipp, Cowen, Loader, Mansfield and McGregor.

To consider any items the Chair of the meeting considers urgent.

There were no items raised under urgency provisions.

To consider the reports by the Director for the Economy, attached as Item 6.

1

The Head of Planning and Development referred Members to the report, and the  previous committee report, as an appendix, and advised the sole reason for deferral related to the design of the development.  The report set out some of the discussions held with the applicants since the last Planning Committee meeting in June to address some of the concerns.

As the make-up of the Planning Committee was the same as the last meeting held in June, and the Members were familiar with the site, the Officer briefly outlined the proposal, showing various plans, photographs and CGIs.    

Members were shown previous residential CGIs that were considered at the last Planning Committee meeting.  The proposed brickwork had been light in colour, common to all the riverfront blocks, with a slightly different brick for the intervening ‘ribbon’ buildings along the A259.  Members were shown views from the river, east and west across the undeveloped Howard Kent site, a typical side elevation and cross sections of the blocks fronting onto the river.    

The Committee Members were then shown a number of revised residential plans and the Officer summarised the design amendments for consideration. Amendments included breaking the parapet line on each of the blocks, creating a more wharf-like building, more visibility through the building by introducing steel columns on the corner of the buildings and the use of different coloured brickwork.  The Officer advised that the precise brick colour and architectural detailing would be covered by condition and the subsequent application to discharge this condition could come back to Members for approval.  

The Head of Planning and Development advised the Officer’s recommendation had been revised as satisfactory additional and amended material referred to in the report had been received, as well as satisfactory comments of consultees from the Highway Authority and the CCG.  However, ongoing discussions were still being held with Environmental Health regarding the hours of use of the business centre in relation to the adjoining residential building and this issue would be resolved during the delegation period.  The Officer also advised that during the delegation period, there would be a need to negotiate the precise provisions of the legal agreement.  With regard to the Heads of Terms, the Officer referred to page 75 of the previous report and indicated that the Highway Authority had required additional modelling to understand the impact on local junctions and had increased its request from approximately £750,000 to £903,500 towards offsite improvements of junctions and a contribution towards the proposed cycle path. Other matters included a request for £65k towards off site open space contributions and approx £88k for air quality mitigation (however, the amount would vary depending on the sustainability measures incorporated into the development to address this issue).

Finally, there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item ADC-PC/12/19-20

To consider a report by the Director for the Economy, attached as Item 7.

Councillor Joss Loader left the remote meeting whilst this matter was considered.

The Head of Planning and Development outlined the report for Members.

Committee expressed concern that the matters raised during the Consultation suggested that the Forum had not been representing the views of the residents and there were concerns about the governance in place for the Forum.  The Committee wished these views to be forwarded to the Joint Strategic Committee when deciding whether to redesignate the Shoreham Beach Neighbourhood Forum for a further 5 years.

Decision

The Committee Members would submit the above comments to the Joint Strategic Committee (JSC) when it considers the application to designate the Shoreham Beach Neighbourhood Forum.

To consider a report by the Director for the Economy, attached as Item 8.

Councillor Joss Loader returned to the remote meeting.

The Head of Planning and Development outlined the report for Members.

Members expressed the desire that the checklist should require more exacting environmental standards given the Council's declaration of a climate change emergency.  Nevertheless, they accepted that the checklist was interim guidance and the Local Plan would have to assess the viability of requiring different environmental standards and this would be undertaken in connection with the Local Plan Review next year.

Decision

The Members of the Planning Committee would submit the above comments to the Executive Member for Regeneration before he is asked to approve the Adur Planning and Climate Change Checklist (June 2020) to be used as a material consideration when determining any relevant planning applications.

To consider a report by the Director for the Economy, attached as Item 9.

The Head of Planning and Development outlined the report for Members. 

Decision

The Committee Members supported the proposal to introduce S106 monitoring fees. Members asked the Head of Planning to review the salary figure used to calculate the proposed £300 trigger amount before asking the Executive Member for Regeneration to approve the introduction of a S106 monitoring fee for Adur District Council. The Committee endorsed a set fee per trigger approach, with the fee for each signed S106 agreement payable upon commencement of the development.