RUSTINGTON PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 MINUTES: of the Meeting held on 20 June 2016 RUSTINGTON PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE PRESENT: Councillors R Grevett (Chairman), J Bennett, Mrs K Callaghan, A Cooper, Mrs A Cooper, T Field, Mrs P Gregory and Mrs P Partridge In attendance: Councillor P Warren 49/16 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE An apology for absence was received from Councillor Ceiriog-Hughes (Personal Commitment). This apology was accepted by the Committee. 50/16 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS There were no Declarations of Interest recorded by Members. 51/16 MINUTES The Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 May 2016 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record. 52/16 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES R/37/16/PL - Refurbishment and change of use from ground floor car showroom (sui generis) and first floor flats (C3 dwellings) to A3 (restaurant and cafes) Ash Lane, Rustington The Clerk referred to Minute 23/16(b) and reported the receipt of a notification from the local Planning Authority that this application was now expected to be determined by the Development Control Committee on 15 June She reminded Members that the Council, as an interested party, was entitled to make a representation to the Committee. It was NOTED that Councillor Mrs Cooper had represented the Council at the Meeting to reiterate the Council s support in respect of this Application. Councillor Mrs Cooper advised the Committee that the Application had received Conditional Approval at the Meeting. The Committee was pleased to NOTE this information. 53/16 LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISIONS The Clerk reported that she had previously circulated notifications received from the local Planning Authority, advising that planning permission in respect of the following applications had been granted conditionally:- R/37/16/PL R/83/16/PL - Refurbishment and change of use from ground floor car showroom (sui generis) and first floor flats (C3 dwellings) to A3 (restaurant and cafes) Ash Lane - Removal and reinstatement of grass of existing single lane practice facility, construction of an ECB twin lane cricket practice facility in an alternate location from existing facility including security fencing, an electrical connection for bowling machine and facility maintenance and construction of

2 synthetic wicket to western end of existing cricket square - Western side of Woodlands Recreation Ground, Jubilee Avenue R/99/16/HH - Render finish to all existing brick elevations and installation of 3 No. non obscurely glazed windows at first floor level on the side elevations - 87 Sea Avenue R/102/16/HH - First floor extension - Acorn House, 22 Seafield Road R/109/16/HH - Demolition of detached garage, erection of side and rear extensions, loft conversion including 2 No. dormers - 7 Meadway R/110/16/T - Reduce crown of 1 No. Holm Oak tree by 2-3 metres - 43 Woodlands Avenue R/111/16/HH - Single storey rear extension and 1 No. window to side elevation - 17 Sussex Gardens R/115/16/HH - Rear/side single storey extension - 7 Old Manor Road (b) The Clerk reported that she had previously circulated a notification received from the local Planning Authority, advising that planning permission in respect of the following application had been approved:- R/101/16/HH - Timber shed to front elevation to house motability scooter - 11 Wakehurst Place (c) The Clerk reported that she had previously circulated a notification received from the local Planning Authority, advising that planning permission in respect of the following application had been refused:- R/31/16/HH - Cladding works to front and side elevations and retrospective permission for cladding of dormer window to rear - 34 Hawke Close 54/16 PLANNING APPLICATIONS A/77/16/PL - Leisure development consisting of 9 No. 5-a-side pitches, trampoline/laser tag centre, hotel, pub/restaurant, forest adventure kiosk, nursery, sub-station and associated infrastructure and car parking. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan - Rustington Golf Centre, Golfers Lane, Angmering The Committee AGREED that whilst it had no problem with the overall development of the site, it wished to make specific objections on grounds relating to the planned access and egress from the site, as it was of the opinion that both the Travel Plan and Transport Assessment did not actually address the following issues:- Issue 1 Access by motor vehicles on to the A259 via the roundabout was not acceptable in its current form. In the light of the current difficulties of exiting from this site, namely having to cut across traffic to exit into Rustington, the Committee was of the opinion that this situation would only get worse. In fact the Traffic Assessment itself stated that there had been significant accidents and that as numbers increased, this junction would have to be enhanced by The current reported accidents on this roundabout number 28 (Section 4.16 to 4.18), and had, it seemed, been put to one side and discounted in the Summary (Section 4.19) on the basis that they were caused by drivers being careless/reckless/in a hurry/failing to look or being nervous or uncertain. This was how most accidents happen, and more traffic would, on average, see more accidents.

3 The reliance, as part of the plan, being to cut increases in cars by greater car sharing, was felt to be over optimistic and, whilst some success might be achieved with staff, by enforcing car sharing, it was not realistic to assume that this was something already endorsed by the general public when they could. The Committee s proposal to alleviate these problems and its objection was to review:- The bringing forward of the enhanced 2021 plan for entry, egress and road improvements With the West Sussex County Council Highways Department, the possibility of a new second entrance, with appropriate slipways in and out, from the A259 at the western end of the site, close to the proposed Restaurant. This would have the effect of splitting the traffic between the two ends of site, thereby reducing the pressure from the roundabout exit. Issue 2 Accessibility to access site by foot - The Committee believed that the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan did not fully address this issue and appeared to have a number of omissions relating to foot passengers. Its main concerns were for pedestrians crossing from Rustington, on the south side of the roundabout and new retail site, to the proposed development, on the north side of the roundabout. As there was no pedestrian crossing at the roundabout, the only access by foot to the site from Rustington, was to walk some distance to the east and use a light controlled traffic crossing at the junction for the Sainsbury s Supermarket and Retail Park. Again, the Committee felt that this was where both the Travel Assessment and Travel Plan fell down, as there was no real provision for pedestrians to walk from the aforementioned crossing to the site, other than at points across grass verges. It was also noted that when entering the site by foot, and in particular with pushchairs, prams, wheelchairs and electric buggies, the entrance was small and there was no adequate pedestrian provision. This followed on to the actual access road within the site which was very narrow and afforded no pedestrian areas or paths, and there was no evidence that this was to be enhanced in any way. The Committee s proposal to alleviate the problems and its objection was to review:- The provision of a foot bridge or subway from the South West side of the roundabout over/under the A259 to the North West side of the entrance to proposed development The provision of a suitable footpath between the Sainsbury s/retail Park crossing and the north-east entrance to the site, so that pedestrians from the eastern end of Rustington and East Preston could safely enter and exit Issue 3 (iii) Moving forward the 2021 enhancement of the entrance (as mentioned above) to be implemented at the same time as the development, to provide improved pedestrian access at the entrance to the site and along the main site access road to the proposed development. Accessibility of accessing and egressing the site by cycle - Apart from the access from the east where there was a cycle path, though not continuous, to the development entrance, all cycle access appeared to be the same as for motor vehicles. The Committee found this to be inadequate on such a busy roundabout. The Travel Assessment did not cover, or make clear, these cycle requirements and this was not covered to any degree in the Travel Plan.

4 Its proposal to alleviate the problems and its objection was to review:- Much the same as with pedestrian access, and consider the provision of a subway from the south west side of the roundabout, under the A259, to the north-west side of the entrance to the site The provision of a cycle path between the Sainsbury s/retail Park crossing and the north-east entrance to the site, to facilitate the safe passage of cyclists from the east end of Rustington and East Preston to enter and exit the site (iii) The bringing forward of the 2021 enhancement of the entrance (as mentioned above) and to implement improved cycle access at the entrance to the site and along the main site access road to the proposed development. (b) EP/63/16/PL - Demolition of existing hotel and erection of 9 No. dwellings with associated parking - Bradbury Hotel, Station Road, East Preston The Committee AGREED to support the objection being made by the East Preston Parish Council, in respect of this application. (c) R/128/16/HH - Single storey side/rear extensions and loft conversion - 11 Jervis Avenue, Rustington (d) R/129/16/A - 2 No. non illuminated fascia signs and 1 No. free standing sign located at the West elevation - Unit B2, Rustington Trading Estate, Dominion Way, Rustington (e) R/123/16/HH - To refurbish existing stable/outbuilding, make good brickwork. Hobby room upstairs accessed via internal stair, storage downstairs. Remove existing conservatory on the house and partial removal of existing lean-to. Extension to increase living room space. Resubmission following R/32/16/HH - The Laurels, 44 Ash Lane, Rustington (f) R/134/16/HH - Single storey rear extension - 32 The Crescent, Rustington (g) R/135/16/HH - Single storey extension to rear elevation to replace existing conservatory - 1 Brookside Avenue, Rustington (h) R/136/16/HH - Single storey rear extension - 9 Amberley Road, Rustington

5 R/127/16/CLE - Lawful development certificate for an existing home office - 12 Frobisher Way, Rustington (j) R/137/16/PL - Change of use from D1 (non-residential institution) to 1 No. residential dwelling (C3 dwelling house) - 1 Artex Avenue, Rustington (k) R/138/16/HH - Raise height of existing chimney. Accommodating works already permitted under R/278/15/HH and R/64/16/CLP - 42 Ash Lane, Rustington 55/16 WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL - WSCC/017/16/R - CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CLASSROOM BLOCK TO PROVIDE 6 ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS. EXTENSION OF HALL TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY AND FORMATION OF NEW ENTRANCE TO SCHOOL BUILDINGS - RUSTINGTON COMMUNITY PRIMARY SCHOOL, NORTH LANE, RUSTINGTON The Clerk reported the receipt of a notification from the West Sussex County Council that this application was now expected to be determined by the Planning Committee to be held at am on Tuesday 21 June 2016 at County Hall, West Street, Chichester. The Clerk reminded the Committee that Councillor Bennett had agreed to represent the Council at this Meeting. The Committee expressed its appreciation to Councillor Bennett. 56/16 ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE The Clerk reminded the Committee of the Recommendation that had been included in the Report of the above Committee held on Wednesday 15 June 2016, as follows:- R/37/16/PL - Refurbishment and change of use from ground floor car showroom (sui generis) and first floor flats (C3 dwellings) to A3 (restaurant and cafes) Ash Lane, Rustington - Approve Conditionally 57/16 ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL - SCHEME OF DELEGATION The Clerk reported that she had previously circulated a copy of correspondence with the Director of Planning Services and Economic Regeneration regarding the recently approved revised Scheme of Delegation, which had already been implemented by the District Council. She said that she had also circulated correspondence with Mrs Marilyn Burt, a local resident, who had expressed her concern, after reading an article in the Littlehampton Gazette in this regard. Following a detailed discussion, the Committee AGREED to make a representation to the Director of Planning Services and Economic Regeneration, expressing the Council s concern that the revised Scheme of Delegation would adversely affect the rights of residents wishing to object and voice their concerns in respect of planning applications in close proximity to their own properties, that might be unsympathetic to their quiet enjoyment and amenities. Chairman:. Date:..