RUSTINGTON PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 MINUTES: of the Meeting held on 26 June 2017 RUSTINGTON PARISH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE PRESENT: Councillors R Grevett (Chairman), J Bennett, Mrs A Cooper, T Field, A Jones, J Street and P Warren 58/17 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ceiriog-Hughes (Personal) and Mrs Partridge (Personal). These apologies were accepted by the Committee. 59/17 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS There were no declarations of interest from Members. 60/17 MINUTES The Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 June 2017 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record. 61/17 LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISIONS (a) 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/50/17/HH R/55/17/HH R/67/17/HH R/76/17/A R/77/17/HH R/82/17/HH R/91/17/PL R/94/17/PL - Single storey side extension - 12 Box Tree Avenue - Single storey rear extension, loft conversion including raised ridge and new front extension to replace existing - 39 Seafield Road - Two storey rear extension - 3 Bushby Avenue - 1 No. internally illuminated fascia sign on front elevation and 1 No. internally illuminated totem sign - 1 Ash Lane - First floor extension over existing ground floor - 10 Jubilee Avenue - Side extension to form utility room and new carport - 12 Sutton Avenue - Erection of 2 No. dwellings with 2 No. detached garages - The Spires, Springfield Close, East Preston - Variation of condition No. 3 imposed under R/290/15/HH to change materials on front elevation from render to Cedral weatherboarding (or similar) - 7 The Crescent The Committee NOTED this information. 62/17 PLANNING APPLICATIONS (a) R/64/17/PL - Demolition of 1 No. dwelling and erection of 4 No. dwellings. This application affects the character and appearance of the Station Road, East Preston Conservation Area - St Mary s Close, Hurst Road, Rustington Following detailed consideration, the Committee AGREED to object to this re-advertised application, which related to a change in design and house designs and layout, on the following grounds:- This type of back-land/in-fill development would, if approved, make it increasingly more difficult for the local Planning Authority to resist similar proposals in the vicinity, the

2 cumulative effect of which would be to alter the character of the locality to the serious detriment of the amenities of the area The size and shape of the plot would not permit development of a standard compatible with the existing development in the area and, in consequence, the proposal would represent an over-development of the site (iii) The proposal is in conflict with the Rustington Neighbourhood Plan (Policy 2: Housing Design) and the Rustington Village Design Statement (Character Area 5) (iv) The proposed new dwellings would be out of keeping with the individual and unique character of the established buildings in Hurst Road, and would most certainly have an adverse effect on the street scene (v) The erection of 4 No. dwellings on this site would constitute an undesirable intensification of residential development, at a density which would be completely out of keeping and incompatible with the existing development in the immediate locality (vi) The erection of a further 4 properties in this area, would place yet further pressure on the already over-loaded sewage and drainage system to the detriment of its effectiveness and efficiency (vii) The proposal would give rise to an increased movement of vehicles on to and off the highway at this point, which would be detrimental to the safety and free-flow of traffic, and would add to the risks for highway users to an unacceptable degree (viii) The proposed development, taking account of the Hurst Road Association s Policy in respect of on-road parking, would result in standing vehicles in the already congested Station Road, which would interrupt the free flow of traffic, and thereby add to the hazards of road users at this point. (b) R/65/17/PL - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two storey apartment building (6 No. two bedroom apartments) - 70 Woodlands Avenue, Rustington Following detailed consideration, the Committee AGREED to object to this re-advertised application, which related to the amended position of the apartments, on the following grounds:- The proposal would give rise to an increased movement of vehicles on to and off the public highway at this point, which would be detrimental to the safety and free flow of traffic, and would add to the hazards for highway users to an unacceptable degree The proposal would constitute an unsatisfactory form of back-land development, which would present an over-bearing and unsympathetic appearance to the occupiers of Nos Church Road, which would be severely detrimental to their quiet enjoyment and visual amenities (iii) The proposed development would be likely to attract standing vehicles which would interrupt the free flow of traffic on the public highway and thereby add to the hazards of road users at this point, particularly in such close proximity to the entrance and exit of the Churchill Car Park, an area already severely congested during office/shop opening hours (iv) The proposal, in respect of car parking provision, is inadequate, and in the absence of any visitors parking space, would most certainly increase the pressure for on-street parking in a busy road in which parking restriction areas are already in place and which is the subject of much congestion in close proximity to the site from traffic entering and exiting the Public Car Park. Whilst the aforementioned Car Park is almost immediately opposite the site, this has a restriction of three hours parking and, therefore, should not be considered as an available facility for visitors.

3 The Committee further AGREED that the local Planning Authority should request a full Site Traffic Management Plan, to include wheel washing where required, to cover the period from the commencement to the end of construction, as a condition of any permission subsequently granted in respect of the application. (c) R/104/17/PL - Change of use from office (B1(a)) to dwelling house (class C3), alterations and single storey rear extension - Mowbray, Station Road, Rustington (d) R/115/17/HH - New open porch with pitched roof to front elevation, small pitched roof addition to existing flat roof on west elevation and replacement of existing Redland 49 roof tiles with reconstituted slate - 20 Seafield Road, Rustington (e) R/129/17/HH - Proposed replacement of existing single storey PVCu conservatory with new brick extension with tiled roof - 95 Chaucer Avenue, Rustington (f) R/102/17/PL - Retention of patio and brick boundary wall, exterior lighting onto front elevation, removal of porch from side elevation with former entrance doors replaced by 1 No. window, removal of door on front elevation replaced by 1 No. window, kitchen extraction system and exterior ducting, internal/external eight camera CCTV system, wooden dual pitch roof structure to rear elevation, exterior car park and rear garden lighting, children s wooden play equipment to rear elevation, raised patio area in rear garden with pergola, raised patio in rear garden adjacent to rear boundary, smoking shelter adjacent to car park and remove storage of beer kegs from car park to be stored in lockable keg store to side elevation - The Windmill Inn, Mill Lane, Rustington The Committee AGREED to raise no objection to this application. (g) R/130/17/HH - Demolish rear store/wc and construct single storey rear extension - 27 Henry Avenue, Rustington (h) A/84/17/PL - New retail unit with mezzanine together with associated car parking and service road - This is a Departure from the Development Plan - Rustington Golf Centre, Golfers Lane, Angmering Following a detailed discussion in respect of this application, the Committee AGREED that its previous objections in respect of Planning Application No. A/77/16/PL on the same site should be reiterated as follows:- 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 2021.

4 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. 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.

5 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. 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. It was further AGREED that Councillor Mrs Cooper should be AUTHORISED to include additional comments/objections, if appropriate, after studying the contents of the Retail Assessment, Travel Plan, and other related documents, with a full report back to the next Meeting. Chairman:. Date:...