Venue: QEII Room, Shoreham Centre, Shoreham-by-Sea
Contact: Katy McMullan
Democratic Services Officer
01903 221006 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Any substitute members should declare their substitution.
Councillor Jude Harvey substituted for Councillor Jeremy Gardner.
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.
There were no declarations of interest.
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 Wednesday 01 November 2023.
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)
There was one pre-submitted Public Question:
Given significant incidents of flooding (3 in last year) at the junction of Ham Road, Eastern Avenue, junction with A259 at Eastern Avenue/Humphrey’s Gap in Shoreham, what do the members and officers assess to be the threat from SURFACE RUNOFF, GROUNDWATER and FOUL WATER to the new developments in that area of Shoreham and will they commission an independent engineering inquiry into this threat prior to granting permission to the next phases of construction on the surrounding sites? I ask this question in the light of the increasing likelihood of extreme weather incidents in the future during the lifetime of these developments and the un-reliability of advice from a discredited Southern Water Company.
The Planning Services Manager replied:
The threat to any new development, be it surface, ground or foul water, is normally assessed at the time the planning application is considered. In the future phasing of those developments all those issues would be considered with the relevant consultees. If it is judged that there is inadequate capacity in existing systems the developer would be expected to make provision for it. Consultation always takes place, not only with Southern Water, but also with the lead local flood authority, which is West Sussex County Council, and with our own engineers internally, although currently we are using independent consultants to assess those planning applications.
There is a considerable amount of consultation but a cause of frustration is at the end of the questions which mentions unreliable advice from a ‘discredited Southern Water company’. Generally water companies are not allowed to object to any planning applications, they can only say what the situation is, as per capacity, and then instruct the developers to increase that capacity if necessary. This can be a rather difficult position because residents may think that Southern Water is likely to object to an application when in fact they can’t and the planning system doesn’t allow for that.
Another difficulty is that an applicant can make a planning application this year and make allowances for a certain amount of infrastructure provision but then we get events such as last week's heavy rain. It depends on the consultee as to whether they can take action about that. The Environment Agency does predict 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 flood events so that aspect should be covered but it can be questionable in terms of whether the infrastructure has been put in adequately initially. We may have instances when we have to check if what a developer has said would be built, has actually been built. Unexpected flooding events can occur after a development has been constructed and the planning system in which we operate will not normally allow objections on that basis.
There was one non-pre-submitted question on behalf of Adur Residents Environmental Action Group:
Adur and Worthing Council are currently consulting on a draft revised joint Statement of Community Involvement which closes on 6th December. The Council wants people to actively engage ... view the full minutes text for item ADC-PC/50/23-24
Pre-submitted Members questions are pursuant to rule 12 of the Council & Committee Procedure Rules.
Questions should be submitted by midday on Wednesday 01 November 2023 to Democratic Services, email@example.com
(Note: Member Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)
There was one pre-submitted Members Question:
What redress do residents have when a new building or development causes unanticipated harmful consequences to their property?
The Planning Services Officer replied:
Concentrating on us as a planning committee, if a resident felt that consideration at the time of a planning application had been inadequate, they have the option to raise a formal complaint which could then reach the ombudsman. If it was found that the Officers and Committee members hadn’t taken into account all the relevant points and hadn't investigated them fully then that ombudsman could decide whether there had been any maladministration.
Sometimes unexpected consequences can occur because a development has not been implemented in accordance with the planning permission granted. That situation would warrant an enforcement investigation.
If a resident had suffered financial loss because of a developer's actions then that would be addressed as a civil matter and would be out of the Council's remit.
To recap the two forms of redress as far as Planning Committee are concerned are
1. The resident can check that we have done our job properly in terms of considering the application and anticipating possible consequences.
2. The resident can ask us to investigate whether a development has been constructed as anticipated and, if not, to find out why.
The Member asked a supplementary question:
There may be a situation when outline planning permission had been granted a decade ago and in the intervening period of time other things may have occurred, such as later adjacent developments or climate changes, which results in adverse effects on residents. Is there a process to go back to the original agreement that was given and check that it is still suitable and the provisions that were made and the considerations of the variables are up to date?
The Planning Services Officer replied:
An outline permission would have lapsed within 2 or 3 years if the applicant had not followed up with the more detailed reserved matters. If that doesn’t happen the development cannot be implemented.
It is important for us to consider as much as we can about what might happen to affect a development and other residents in the future. This can be difficult because a lot of the time we are subject to the comments of consultees on those matters. It is difficult to anticipate what will happen regarding flooding & drainage as well as traffic and highways in the future. That is why, for example, the Environment Agency in their comments, will predict events using various models of 1 in 100 or 1 in 50 year events. Unforeseen consequences shouldn’t occur because they have gone through that modelling. With Southern Water it is a little different because they will just advise how much capacity is needed. Provided the developer complies with that, Southern Water will have no objections.
It is a wider issue with the planning system as a whole. If we are not directly involved with capacity issues that are at play it ... view the full minutes text for item ADC-PC/51/23-24
Confirmation of Minutes
To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 23 October 2023, which have been emailed to Members.
RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 23 October 2023 be confirmed as a correct record and that they be signed by the Chair.
Items Raised Under Urgency Provisions
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 Place, attached as Item 7.
The planning applications were considered, see attached appendix.