Agenda and minutes

Venue: QEII Room, Shoreham Centre, Shoreham-by-Sea

Contact: Heather Kingston
Democratic Services Officer
01903 221006  Email:


No. Item


Substitute Members

Any substitute members should declare their substitution.


There were no substitute Members.


Declarations of Interest

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 Carol Albury declared an interest in item 5.2, Wadurs, Kingston Broadway, as a Trustee for Impulse Leisure but no pecuniary interest.


Councillor Stephen Chipp declared an interest in item 5.2, Wadurs, Kingston Broadway, as a member of Impulse Leisure.


Confirmation of Minutes

To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings of the Committee held on Monday 5 August 2019, which have been emailed to Members.


RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 5 August 2019 be confirmed as a correct record and that they be signed by the Chairman.


Items Raised Under Urgency Provisions

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


There were no items raised under urgency provisions.


Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 915 KB

To consider the reports by the Director for the Economy, attached as Item 5.




Application Number:  AWDM/1953/16


Grazing Land South West Of Flyover, Steyning Road



Outline planning permission for the erection of up to 52 no. dwellings (including the provision of 30% on-site affordable housing) internal roads and parking, informal open space and landscaping together with new vehicular access on the south-eastern side of the site onto Steyning Road (all matters reserved apart from the access). The application also includes details of the proposed realignment of the new Adur Tidal Wall flood defence scheme as an amendment to that approved under reference AWDM/1614/15 and is accompanied by an Addendum to the original Environmental Statement.


The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and advised Members that,  since the agenda had been published, 5 additional letters of objection had been received, making the total 55; and that the Environment Agency had withdrawn their objection to the application, therefore reason number 4 could be removed from the final list of reasons. 


The Officer advised the application was considered at the Adur Planning Committee meeting back in 24 July 2017 when the decision was deferred to await the Adur Local Plan Inspector’s full report and for consideration of  outstanding information in relation to noise and air quality.  He advised the Local Plan had subsequently been adopted in December 2017.


The Officer summarised the application for Members’ consideration, which was  for outline planning permission, with all matters reserved apart from access.


The Officer referred to the proposed realigned flood defence bund which currently crosses the site.  


Since last reporting to Committee, the Officer advised there had been several updates and the Local Plan Inspector’s report had been published.  The Inspector agreed with the Council’s approach to not include the site within the built up area, not to allocate for housing and that the land should remain outside the settlement boundary within the countryside.   


The applicants had submitted a Heritage Statement following initial objections from Historic England (HE) however, HE remained concerned but had left it to the Council to weigh up the harm to any heritage assets with any public benefits which may arise with the development.

The Officer referred to other changes since last considered, which included the landscape impact, noise concerns, flood defence and air quality. 


In conclusion, taking all matters into consideration, Officers recommended refusal for the reasons stated in the report.  The recommendation was in two parts -  Part A for outline planning permission and B for the proposed realignment of the Adur Tidal Wall flood defence scheme. 


There was a further representation from:-


Objector:         Ms Ann Cox

Ward Councillor:         Cllr Kevin Boram

Supporter:       Mr Robert Thornton


Following discussion, all Committee Members agreed the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons stated in the report, with the deletion of reason number 4 relating to flood risk.




A.                    That Outline planning permission be REFUSED, for the erection of up to 52 no. dwellings (including the provision of 30% on-site affordable housing), internal roads and parking, informal open space  ...  view the full minutes text for item ADC-PC/23/19-20


Public Question Time

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 –


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


The Chairman invited members of the public to ask questions or make statements about any matter for which the Council had a responsibility or which affected the District.


A member of the public raised a query in relation to the flood barrier on the grazing land site and why it stopped, at such a height, adjacent to the road.  The Head of Planning and Development answered by saying the flood defence barrier was required to be maintained at the height constructed to prevent flood waters coming across the field at the end of the flood defence built along along the River.  It was originally intended that the Old Shoreham Road would be raised in height to also provided an additional flood defence but the EA had since dropped this idea as its re-modelling of potential flood risk had determined that the road raising was now unnecessary.  The Head of Planning and Development explained that this was why the Agent in connection with the development site had mentioned earlier in the meeting that the flood barrier crossing his clients land was too high.