Agenda and minutes

Any substitute members should declare their substitution.

Councillor Sophie Cox substituted for Councillor Andy Whight

Councillor Kevin Jenkins 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. Also, in relation to item 8, he declared he was Ward Councillor for Salvington ward.

Councillor Russ Cochran declared that in relation to item 8 he was Ward Councillor for Salvington Ward.

Councillor Kevin Jenkins declared that in relation to item 9, which referred to the S106 agreements which he had been party to, those decisions were related to a premises that he was now a director of but was not at the time of the decisions.

Councillor Rosey Whorlow declared she was Ward Councillor for Central ward

Councillor Odul Boskurt declared she was a Ward Councillor for Central ward

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 15 September 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 three pre submitted questions received from the public and one question submitted at the meeting. 

1. Is the council aware that the ICNIRP Guidelines state that people with "implantable medical devices" and "metallic implants" in the body are "outside the scope of these guidelines" (as mentioned on page 2 of the 2020 ICNIRP Guidelines report) and, therefore, does the council agree that such people are particularly vulnerable and need to be afforded extra protection under the council's obligations within the Health and Social Care Act 2012?

 If there is no disability impact assessment in relation to this technology, it could be argued that provisions of the Equality Act 2010 may well have been broken.

(Background information)

The ICNIRP Guidelines published in 2009 state: 

SCOPE AND PURPOSE: "These guidelines apply to occupational and general public exposure to static magnetic fields. The guidelines do not apply to the exposure of patients undergoing medical diagnosis or treatment. Detailed consideration of protection of patients is given in an ICNIRP statement on protection of patients undergoing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination." https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPMR2009.pdf

FURTHERMORE, the ICNIRP 1998 guidelines state that the prevention of harm and advice about interference is beyond the scope of ICNIRP. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf 

“Compliance with the present guidelines may not necessarily preclude interference with, or effects on, medical devices such as metallic prostheses, cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators, and cochlear implants. Interference with pacemakers may occur at levels below the recommended reference levels. Advice on avoiding these problems is beyond the scope of the present document but is available elsewhere (UNEP/WHO/IRPA1993). These guidelines will be periodically revised and updated as advances are made in identifying the adverse health effects of time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic field.” 

AND 

Global System for Mobile Communications (GSMA), "a global organisation unifying the mobile ecosystem" states: 

"ICNIRP says that the updated guidelines provide a high level of protection for all people against substantiated adverse health effects from exposures to both short- and long-term, continuous and discontinuous radio frequency EMFs…The guidelines exclude electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) considerations, the influence of implanted metallic implants and the application of RF-EMF for medical procedures." https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/GSMA_International_EMF_Exposure_Guideline_Oct21.pdf 

NOTE:  OFCOM states that "We refer to the 1998 Guidelines, the 2020 Guidelines and any subsequent version collectively as the “ICNIRP Guidelines”."

The Planning Services Manager replied - 

The question mentions both the Social Care Act and the Equality Act. This is a question for the Planning Committee and in terms of dealing with these applications, the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 118, dictates that the planning authorities must determine these applications on planning grounds only. Therefore, I think the question is wider than the scope of this Planning Committee. In the vast majority of applications for 5G masts that we receive, the Council can only determine them on the siting and appearance of those masts. We do receive many comments on health grounds on every mast application. We have lost half a dozen of these on appeal and at each point the inspector will  ...  view the full minutes text for item WBC-PC/32/23-24

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

Questions should be submitted by midday on Friday 15 September 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 26 July and 23 August 2023, which have been emailed to Members.

RESOLVED, that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on Wednesday 26 July and 23 August 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 applications were determined as set out in the attached appendix.

Vote to continue after 3 hours is taken and approved

To consider an Enforcement Report, attached as item 8.

9. 25pm – A vote to continue after 3 hours is taken and approved by the Committee.

The Head of Planning and Development outlined the details of the report and explained that the development in question had been a phased and undertaken over several years and this has caused some difficulties in discharging some of the planning conditions.  He clarified however that various conditions had been breached and there were also some CIL issues regarding additional floor space. The requirement to demolish the existing building was one of the breaches. This building had a very close proximity to the adjacent property.

Where a single garage had been approved the developer had begun the erection of a double garage. The Tree Officer felt that the structure was unreasonably close to a large tree that was the subject of a TPO and had suggested that any application to retain the double garage should not be supported. The Officer clarified that a future visit to the site accompanied by the tree officer was necessary to gauge what damage had already occurred to the tree roots and to determine whether any prosecution action should proceed.

A resident spoke in support of the Officer's recommendation. She drew the Committee’s attention to several areas where she felt the developer had breached conditions.

The developer spoke to address the breaches suggested within the report and mentioned by the resident. He voiced an opinion that the construction of the double garage had not inflicted any damage to the tree and referred to works within a larger preserved tree close to the entrance into the site. 

During debate the members concurred that when a plan was brought to a committee and approved that created an expectation that the conditions set would be adhered to. In addition they agreed that it was important to avoid setting a precedent allowing a TPO to be ignored.

It was proposed that the committee agreed with the Officers recommendation and approved that a Breach of Condition Notice be served and an enforcement notice in relation to the unauthorised construction of a double garage and to delegate possible prosecution action in relation to the TPO tree subject to there being satisfactory evidence of wilful damage to the tree. This was seconded and voted in favour of unanimously.

To consider a report by the Director for Place, attached as item 9.

Members AGREED the revised approach regarding the delivery of the Community Park.  The decision was delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to secure the Deed of Variation to the originals106 agreement.

Councillor Jenkins excused himself from the meeting at 10.05pm

To consider a report by the Report by the Director for Place, attached as item 10.

The recommendations were AGREED by the committee.

To consider a report by the Director for Place, attached as item 11.

The recommendations were AGREED by the committee.