Agenda and minutes

Any substitute members should declare their substitution.

Councillor Nigel Morgan substituted for Councillor Dan Coxhill.

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 as 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 Noel Atkins declared an interest as an elected member of West Sussex County Council in relation to any issues that may affect West Sussex. In relation to Item 8, the appeal update regarding 113 Salvington Road, he declared he was a Ward Councillor of Salvington and a member and deacon of The New Life Church.

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 Friday 18 August 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 –

democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk

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

There were no pre submitted questions received from the public.

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

Questions should be submitted by midday on Friday 18 August 2023 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 questions from Members.

To approve the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings of the Committee held on Wednesday 12 July and 26 July 2023, which have been emailed to Members.

RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday 12 July 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.

1

The Planning Service Manager presented the report explaining that there had been no further representations since the agenda had been published. The Officer highlighted an amendment on page 14 of the report, where it stated the class was AD, it should have read class A, the difference being that the impact upon neighbouring premises could also be taken into account.

Members enquired how many of the residents had objected and the Officer clarified that residents in fourteen of the eighteen residences had submitted objections.

There were three registered speakers present who gave representations in objection, one resident and two Ward Councillors. In addition there was a statement from a third Ward Councillor that was read out by the Officer.

All four representations voiced concerns that the additional twelve parking spaces proposed would reduce the visual amenity of the residents. It was also raised that, as these spaces were not planned to be allocated parking, there would be very little deterrent to non-residents parking in them. An additional concern was that adding twelve parking spaces was not in line with the council's policy of encouraging sustainable travel, particularly considering that the property was close to both the train station and bus routes. The planned cycle racks were a cause for disquiet as they could encourage non-residential use and were to be sited extremely close to a window of one of the flats, resulting in a loss of light and privacy for that resident. The lift shaft within the plans was thought to also detract from the visual amenity of residents. 

One Ward Councillor addressed the areas of the Local Plan that he and the objectors felt the application did not align with, those being DM5 (Adversely affecting amenity), DM15 (Overprovision of parking), DM18 (Not increasing biodiversity) and DM19 (trees not being replaced on a greater than 1:1 basis).

There was one registered speaker, the agent, who gave a representation in support of the application. He explained to members that this application was a precursor to a future plan of adding two floors on top of the existing blocks, providing much needed two bedroom homes in the area. He described that the proposal also added an eighteen cycle storage rack where none existed currently, EV charging points and additional landscaping with a potential for adding up to 40% biodiversity. In addition the applicant planned to add electrification to the current garages via solar panels. He clarified that the installation and future maintenance costs of the lift would only be borne by the residents of the twelve additional flats.

In response to Members queries regarding the parking allocation the agent explained that the West Sussex County  ...  view the full minutes text for item WBC-PC/28/23-24

An update on appeal decisions, attached as item 8.

The appeals decisions were noted by members.

With regards to the Chatsmore Farm appeal update, Members unanimously agreed with the recommendation to oppose any further appeal on the following grounds, subject to any further comments from Counsel and to attach an additional refusal reason relating to Biodiversity Net Gain/infrastructure requirements.

1.         The proposed development is outside of the built-up area as defined by the

Worthing Local Plan (2023) and does not comprise development essential to the countryside nor does it comprise development of entry level exception sites. The proposed development also and would have an adverse impact on the setting of the adjacent South Downs National Park and therefore is contrary to paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy SS4 of the Worthing Local Plan.

2.         The proposed development comprises development in a designated Local

Green Gap which would undermine the physical and visual separation of Goring and Ferring therefore compromising the integrity of the gap. Further, the proposed development by virtue of its scale would fail to conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area’s Natural Capital nor maintain the site as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy SS5 of the Worthing Local Plan (2023).