Storrington & Sullington Parish Council
Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held in The Chanctonbury Room, the Parish Hall, Thakeham Road, Storrington on Thursday 8th September, 2016, commencing at 7.00 p.m.
Present: Mrs. A. Worthington-Leese in the Chair, Mr. B. Dent, Mr. R. Evea, Mr. A. Head and Mr M. Lewis.
Attendees: 7 member(s) of the public.
44. Apologies for Absence. Apologies for absence had been received from Messrs. R. Carter and R. Jerman (prior engagements). The reasons for absence were duly approved.
45. To Receive Declarations of Interest from Members. There were no declarations of interest.
46. To Approve and Sign the Minutes of the Meeting held on the 11th August, 2016. These minutes were duly APPROVED as being a correct record of the proceedings thereat and were duly signed by the Chairman.
Matters Arising.
47. (a) Minute No. 34(a): Advertising Signage, Pulborough Road – update. The office had received a response on 30th August from the new compliance officer for the South Downs sites, informing that he had undertaken a site visit and confirming that advertising consent was required. He had since written to the owner, informing them of their need to make an application or remove the adverts within 21 days.
(b) Minute No. 34(d): White Horse Court Tree – update. Mrs. Worthington-Leese confirmed that the Deputy Clerk had been in contact with the Management Company of White Horse Court and spoken with the Daytime Manager – Louise Stone. She was aware of the resident’s concerns and promised to look into the matter and if needs be, contact Land Registry to obtain information on ownership. The Deputy Clerk had written to the resident on 24th August, informing him that Louise Stone was looking into the matter on his behalf and that she would be in contact with him in due course.
(c) Minute No. 38(a): DC/16/0572: Land at Fryern Road – Appeal Information. Whilst nothing had been forthcoming from HDC regarding the detail of the Appeal, Mrs Worthington-Leese read out a letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 6th September, which stated that the Inspector would be undertaking a site visit on 13th September at 11.45, where he should be met by a representative of HDC and the appellant.
(d) Minute No. 41(b): DC/14/1515: St Joseph’s Hall – update. Mrs. Worthington-Leese informed members that a further e-mail had been sent to HDC on 26th August requesting an update on the pending decision. A response had been received from their Planning Inquiry Officer stating that unfortunately the Case Officer was on leave until 8th September and that the office should expect a response upon her return.
(e) Minute No. 41(d): Letter regarding noise from Chantry Trading Estate - update. Mrs Worthington-Leese confirmed that the Deputy Clerk had forwarded the resident’s letter to Madeleine Hartley on 16th August. She had responded stating that she had been in correspondence with the resident in July 2015, but had heard nothing until this latest letter. She gave a brief history of the site in her response and confirmed that she would
STORRINGTON & SULLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
8th September 2016
be referring the matter to the Environmental Health team to investigate. The Deputy Clerk had written to the resident on 17th August, explaining this and had since heard that the Environmental Health team were going to send the resident some noise monitoring forms to complete.
(f) Minute No. 43 (a): Diocese Bungalow on the Corner of Amberley Road and Monastery Lane – overgrown hedge – update. This matter had been reported and the hedges had since been cut in Amberley Road and Monastery Lane, bar the HDC bit in the Triangular Car Park. It was suggested that the Deputy Clerk contact HDC about this area.
48. Planning Applications awaiting Comment – Appendix I.
(a) DC/16/1619: St Joseph’s Abbey. This application was for the erection of a single four bedroom detached dwelling with two ancillary parking spaces. The plans were projected for all to see. Mrs. Worthington-Leese objected to the application as it was outside the Built-up Area and in the Conservation Area. She also felt the proposal would be detrimental to the setting of the listed building and informed members that a similar application had been refused in 2002. Messrs. Evea and Dent concurred. Mrs. Worthington-Leese invited comments from the floor. Mr. Carey had been appointed by the residents of St Joseph’s to oppose this application on their behalf. He mentioned that the house was slightly smaller than that previously refused, however they would be excavating deeper, the heritage report was only one page long, which did not comply with Policy 34 of the HDPF and there had been no real public consultation, apart from one meeting. Residents objected to this application for the reasons above and the fact that the proposed development would be near to three Listed Buildings. Mr. Evea said that he strongly objected to the proposal. Mr Head agreed as this was a sensitive location. Mr. Lewis said that the new development would not be overlooked, Orchard Gardens was a fairly new development, he couldn’t see that the access would cause any issues and as such had no objection to the proposals. After a short discussion it was AGREED:
That a comment of STRONG OBJECTION be sent to HDC, listing the reasons above.
(b) DC/16/1801 and DC/16/1802: 4, Brewers Yard. This application was for the change of windows in rear addition kitchen (built after rest of cottage was listed), part of one window to be bricked up, central pier between two windows to be removed and new picture window inserted. Mrs. Worthington-Leese read out members’ comments. Mr. Head had mentioned that whilst the elevation to which the application applied was very utilitarian, it was difficult to see any significant effect on the scene so he had no objection. Messrs. Dent, Jerman and Lewis concurred. Mrs. Worthington-Leese agreed providing the materials used were in keeping. After a short discussion it was UNANIMOUSLY AGREED:
That a comment of NO OBJECTION be sent to HDC, provided the materials and windows were in keeping with the rest of the building.
(c) DC/16/1831: Malt Cottage, 1, Brewers Yard. This application was for the demolition of an existing garage to provide a new one bedroomed dwelling. It was noted that HDC had received four letters of support and one letter of objection. Mrs. Worthington-Leese stated that she felt that our previous objections remained, the proposals were cramped,
STORRINGTON & SULLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
8th September 2016
not in keeping, detrimental to the Listed Buildings and she considered it to be over-development. Messrs. Evea, Head and Jerman (who had commented on the application beforehand) agreed. Messrs. Dent and Lewis had no objections to the proposals as they felt the current building was tatty and needed improvement. With mixed views the decision went to vote. With 4 objections and 2 no objections, the motion was carried:
That a comment of OBJECTION be sent to HDC, reiterating our previous comments.
(d) DC/16/1845: The White Cottage, Nightingale Lane. This application was for a roof extension to create a second storey, including new windows and skylights, new internal alterations and new windows, sliding folding doors to rear elevation. Plans were projected for all to see and the applicants were in attendance. Messrs. Evea, Head and Lewis had no objection to the application. Mrs. Worthington-Leese said she had no objection in principle, but she did not like the design. The applicant explained the reason for the design was to obtain maximum height in order to stand. Mr. Lewis said that he felt this was a clever way to develop a reasonably small house, fairly contemporary, using vernacular catslide roof etc. and felt the design was a bit radical. Mr. Dent objected on the grounds of design. With mixed views the decision went to vote. With 2 objections and 3 no objections, the motion was carried:
That a comment of NO OBJECTION be sent to HDC.
(e) DC/16/1904: Chestnut Cottage, Water Lane. This application was for one new dwelling and one replacement dwelling on land adjacent to Chestnut Cottage. Mr. Jerman had left comments stating that he objected to the proposals on the grounds of the destruction of an old “character” building and also on the grounds of overcrowding the plot. Mrs. Worthington-Leese explained the history of this site. She felt that the proposals would be shoehorning three properties and a double car port onto a relatively small site and therefore objected to the proposals. Mr. Head expressed his concern about the creeping urbanisation of Water Lane that this proposal represented, regardless of the industrial activities and patchwork development, taking a long term view, this area was adjacent to National Trust property and he felt we should be looking for improvements, not more development – as such he objected. Mr. Dent concurred. Mr. Evea agreed saying the proposals would be detrimental to the Listed Building and would severely erode the greenness of the area. Mr. Lewis did not object to the proposals. After a short discussion it was AGREED:
That a comment of STRONG OBJECTION be sent to HDC, listing the reasons above.
(f) DC/16/1905: Chestnut Cottage, Water Lane. This application was for a double carport for Chestnut Cottage and plans were projected for all to see. Members agreed that it was difficult to view this application in isolation from DC/16/1904, because if they weren’t proposing to develop the site, the carport could be located elsewhere. Whilst members did not object to the carport, they did object to the new access, which would lead to overdevelopment of the plot with dangerous access point onto Water Lane. After discussions it was UNANIMOUSLY AGREED:
That a comment of OBJECTION be sent to HDC, listing the abovementioned reasons.
STORRINGTON & SULLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
8th September 2016
(g) DC/16/1991: Coppice Park Communal Areas, Dean Way. This application was for surgery to 1 x Turkey Oak and 1 Oak tree and the felling of 1 x False Acacia and 1 x Turkey Oak. Mr. Jerman had undertaken a site visit prior to the meeting and left his comments as follows: “The most noticeable loss will be the Turkey Oak, 1086, as it is a very large tree on the green, however, it is very visibly infected as stated and needs to be felled before it spreads the disease. I have no objections to the works submitted.” Members concurred with Mr. Jerman’s report and after a short discussion, it was UNANIMOUSLY AGREED:
That a comment of NO OBJECTION be sent to HDC, provided the works were undertaken by a qualified tree surgeon.
49. Planning Application Decisions – Appendix II. These were duly NOTED.
50. Planning Applications, Comment Summary – since the meeting 11th August 2016 – Appendix III. These were duly NOTED.
51. Appeal Decisions
(a) DC/15/1550: Cootham Cottage, Chapel Lane. The Planning Inspector had allowed the Appeal on 11th August 2016.
52. Enforcement Matters.
(a) DC/15/1088: Fryern Park Farm – Access Track. Mrs. Worthington-Leese informed members that a response from Helen Sissons had been received this afternoon, which stated; “Nicola and myself will be undertaking a site meeting with the agent to discuss the application. At this meeting we will discuss the inclusion of the track in the application for either its removal or retention. The determination date for the application is 29th September. If the application is refused the Council will seek to take enforcement action.”
(b) Sawyards, Manleys Hill – erection of 5 bar gate and access on to Chantry Lane. Madeleine Hartley had reported the following to the office on 5th September: “I confirm that an application was submitted on 20th July 2016 for the gate and access (DC/16/1640,) however it is currently invalid as the information submitted is not yet acceptable in order to make it valid. We are in contact with the owners, and are trying to assist them in making the application valid as they are making the application themselves without the use of a planning agent. I am aware that they have now changed the former metal gates for wooden pedestrian and vehicular gates, which is what they will be applying for retrospectively.” Upon receipt of the application, the Deputy Clerk would inform members.
53. Chairman’s Announcements.
(a) SDNP – Town & Country Workshops Autumn 2016. Mrs. Worthington-Leese reminded members that the West Sussex Parish Workshops would be held on 23rd November starting at 6.30pm at the South Downs Centre in Midhurst. Two places were available for each Parish and members. Messrs. Evea and Lewis expressed their interest in attending.
STORRINGTON & SULLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
8th September 2016
54. Documents for Councillors to Read. There were no documents to read.
55. Any Other Business.
(a) HDC Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocation Development Plan. Mr. Evea asked that the Deputy Clerk contact HDC requesting an update on this Plan.
There being no further business the meeting closed at 8.10 pm.
- 18 -