Agenda and minutes

Any substitute members should declare their substitution.

There were no substitute members.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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 Wednesday 10 January 2024.

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)

There were no pre-submitted Public Questions.

Pre-submitted Members questions are pursuant to rule 12 of the Council & Committee Procedure Rules.

Questions should be submitted by midday on Wednesday 10 January 2024 to Democratic Services, democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk.     

(Note: Member Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

There were no pre-submitted Members Questions.

To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings of the Committee held on 4 December 2023, which have been emailed to Members.

RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 4 December 2023 be confirmed as a correct record and that they be signed by the Chair.

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 7.

The planning application was considered, see attached appendix.

To consider a report by the Director for Place, attached as item 8.

The Head of Planning and Development presented the report explaining the reasons for the Officers recommendation which related to the lack of landscaping at the front and rear of the development. He also explained some of the flooding issues. The Officer clarified that there was slightly reduced land available for landscaping at the front of the development due to the land required by West Sussex County Council’s Highway Authority to deliver a future cycle path. Following the issuing of the Breach of Condition notice a revised landscaping scheme was required and this needed to be approved before further notices could be served on the developers to ensure the work was done. The Officer explained that if the landscaping was not delivered within this planting season a further breach of condition notice would be issued.

There were two registered speakers who gave representations voicing concerns over flooding, the quality of the development and lack of landscaping.

The Committee debated the issue of flooding but agreed that, although there was much to be discussed, the recommendation within this report dealt with the landscaping aspect of the development. They acknowledged the urgency to approve the revised plan so that planting could begin.

Members voted unanimously to accept the Officers recommendation to approve the submitted landscaping scheme and to serve a Breach of Condition Notice if the landscaping is not implemented during the current planting season. Members also requested a further report on how the Council could address the flood risk associated with the overtopping of Surry Hard. In this respect the Planning Committee was very concerned that a significant amount of public money was being spent on flood defences but these defences would be compromised by a weak point at Surry Hard.

To consider a Tree Preservation Order, attached as item 9.

The Head of Planning and Development presented the report recommending Members to confirm a Tree Preservation Order on two trees. The Officer clarified that the trees in question fell within a conservation area and as such, the owner was required to give six weeks’ notice of any works to the trees.

There were two registered speakers who spoke in objection to the TPO and one who spoke in favour. One speaker explained that the trees were causing considerable darkness and dampness to their property as they were in such close proximity to it and were so dense. The speaker explained that they had been pruned twice in the past but had grown back quickly, more densely and, because they were competing for light with each other, unevenly. A tree surgeon had advised previously that these were not suitable trees for this position. In addition the speakers highlighted that pruning the trees was very expensive.

There was one registered speaker who spoke in favour of the TPO who considered that the trees not only provided great visual impact on the vicinity but also had significant biodiverse value.

During debate Members recognised the importance of retaining mature trees but also discussed the importance of preserving the Georgian house adjacent to them. It was agreed that the ideal solution would be to regularly have the trees drastically pruned but it was also noted that the fact that the trees were competing with each other for light may prove to have an impact on the regrowth speed. The Officer clarified that if, after drastic pruning, the trees grew back quickly the Committee could reconsider the options available.

The Committee unanimously agreed to accept the Officers recommendation and confirm Adur Tree Preservation Order Number 2 of 2023 without modification. However, Members were sympathetic to the owners concerns about the impact of the tree on the adjoining heritage asset (the Georgian dwelling) and wanted the Committee to consider any future requests for crown reduction if Officers felt that what was being proposed by the applicant's tree consultant was considered excessive.

An update on appeal decisions, attached as item 10.

The Head of Planning and Development presented the latest appeal decisions which the Committee noted.