Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct, councillors are reminded that it is a requirement to declare interests where appropriate.

No disclosures of interests were made.

Councillor A Belben highlighted that he had declared an interest at the previous Planning Committee meeting at which planning application CR/2021/0844/FUL was considered (a neighbour of the site, who had raised an objection to the application, was known to him).  It was clarified that this person was no longer a neighbour of the site in question so the interest was not relevant on this occasion.

The Planning Code of Conduct requires that councillors who have been lobbied, received correspondence, or been approached by an interested party regarding any planning matter should declare this at the meeting which discusses the matter. Councillors should declare if they have been lobbied at this point in the meeting.

Councillor Pritchard had been lobbied regarding agenda item 5 (minute 4), Planning Application CR/2021/0844/FUL – 9 Mill Road, Three Bridges, but had not expressed views on the application in advance of the meeting.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 6 June 2022.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 6 June 2022 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

·       That Councillor S Sivarajah be marked as present at the meeting.

·       That minute 5 (CR/2022/0034/TPO – 8 Haversham Close) be amended to show that Councillor S Pritchard had not visited the application site.

To consider report PES/404aof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/404a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Erection of 1 x attached three bed dwelling in the side garden space, and erection of single storey side and rear extension and internal alterations to existing dwelling.

Councillors Ali, A Belben, Burrett, Jaggard, S Mullins, Mwagale, Pritchard, Raja, and Sivarajah declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought planning permission for an extension to 9 Mill Road in Three Bridges and a

separate three bedroom house to the side of the existing property.  The application was originally considered by the Committee at its meeting on 6 June 2022 but was deferred to the 12 July meeting to allow officers to obtain clarification of the flood risk zone at the application site, seek further information regarding parking and access matters, and request that West Sussex County Council (WSCC) as the Highways Authority visits the site.  The Officer updated the Committee that, since the publication of the agenda, the following amendments to the report were required:

·       Part of paragraph 5.13 was now to read, ‘The neighbouring house has a garden that is approximately 31m in length and the proposals themselves would be located 14 metres at ground floor level and 16 metres at first floor level from the boundary with this garden.  It is therefore considered that as there would be approximately 30m between facing windows…’

·       Part of paragraph 5.34 was now to read, ‘The internal floorspace of this dwelling would be 111sqm which meets the standard.’

The Officer also updated the Committee that a further representation in objection to the application had been received since the publication of the report.  The representation consisted of a letter and petition signed by 13 residents (11 of whom resided on Mill Road or the adjacent Hazelwick Road), and this was read to the Committee in full.

The Officer provided updates on the three matters relating to the deferral of the application.

·       Flood risk:

The Committee had previously identified two different flood maps which gave conflicting information about the flood risk zone at the site.  The Environment Agency (EA) had since confirmed that the map to be used for planning application purposes showed the majority of the site as being in flood zone 1 (with a small portion in zone 2).  This map was a re-modelled, more precise, and more up-to-date version that replaced the map that had previously shown the site as in flood zone 3.  The flood risk level was therefore reduced and this was a significant material change from earlier applications at the site.

·       Parking:

The Committee had previously requested that WSCC be asked to undertake a site visit to further assess the impact of the development on parking capacity in the area.  WSCC stated that there was no justification for doing so and emphasised its position that it had no objection to the application, and therefore declined to visit the site.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.