Agenda item

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

Change of use from public highway pavement to residential garden use

[Note This application was deferred at the Planning Committee’s meeting on Wednesday 16 May 2018 for a site visit by members (scheduled to take place on Monday 16 July 2018) and for officers to seek further advice from West Sussex County Council Highways]   

RESOLVED

Permit

Mr S Shaw (West Sussex County Council (WSCC) County Highways Manager) was in attendance at the committee table for this item.

Mr Whitty presented this application for a change of use from public highway pavement to residential garden use.

The application had been deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting on Wednesday 16 May 2018 for a member site visit and for officers to seek further advice from WSCC Highways. The site visit took place on Monday 16 July 2018. The additional information from WSCC Highways appeared in bold in para 6.2 on pages 110 to 111 and in the planning comments in paras 8.6 to 8.12 on pages 115 to 116 of the agenda report. 

Mr Whitty explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan; (b) a drawing of the pavement area in question; (c) a plan dated 1988 showing the original hotel on the site with a wide pavement and lay-by for the likely use of coaches bringing guests (which could explain the width of the present pavement); and (d) photographs affording various views of the pavement in both directions.

The agenda update sheet reported additional third party representations: (a) two letters of objection, (b) comments by the applicant on third party matters, (c) West Wittering Parish Council’s response to the applicant’s comments and (d) a letter from WSCC Legal Services on the process to be followed if planning permission were to be granted.

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee for this item:

(a)  Mr M Lawson (East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council) – parish representative as an objector

(b)  Mr B Buckland (West Wittering Parish Council) - parish representative as an objector

(c)  Mr B Couchman – objector

(d)  Mrs C Barton -  objector

(e)  Mrs J Culverwell – objector

(f)    Mr P Collard - applicant

(g)  Mrs E Hamilton – CDC member (West Wittering) as an objector

(h)  Mrs S Taylor – CDC member (East Wittering) as an objector, who also spoke on behalf of her co-ward member Mr K Martin

Prior to the debate Miss Golding and Mr Hayes advised respectively that members should not take into account (a) comments made by the speakers with regard to WSCC selling the land to the applicant or this matter being referred to the ombudsman and (b) seeking costs against the local planning authority if an appeal were to be made against refusal.

Also prior to the debate, Mr Shaw summarised the approach taken by WSCC Highways in assessing the highways aspects presented by this application, namely (a) the changing ie seasonal use of Shore Road during each year; (b) the relevant local planning policy criteria, the National Planning Policy Framework and planning guidance factors taken into account relevant to this application; and (c) the entirely separate roles and functions of  WSCC in this matter as a local authority and as a private landowner.  

During the debate a majority of members spoke in favour of the application. However, several members expressed concerns and felt unable to support it for various reasons, notably: (a) the assessment carried out by WSCC Highways did not take into account properly the traffic and pedestrian use of the road and the need for the wider pavement section as an important safety refuge for people with children going to and from the beach; and (b) the risk of harm and personal injury to pedestrians because of the conflict between them and vehicles. It was also remarked that WSCC Highways had incorrectly stated that Shore Road was a no-through road.

Mr Shaw and Mr Whitty responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail with respect to (a) how pedestrians would adapt their use of the changing dimensions of a pavement according to the road conditions; (b) the absence of a highways safety reason to justify refusal of the application; (c) the extension of the garden wall onto the pavement could not be said in planning terms to cause demonstrable harm to the character of the area; (d) the suggestion that the applicant should be required to plant natural screening behind the boundary wall to circumvent the possible subsequent erection of a fence to protect the amenity of his property from passers-by would not be reasonable as he was entitled to an open vista if he wished; and (e) there was justification for including an additional condition 4 to require the permitted wall to be completed in accordance with the approved plan prior to the first use of the land.  

Decision

The Planning Committee voted on a show of hands by nine to four against and with no abstentions in favour of the officer recommendation in the report for the application as set out below with an additional condition 4 (boundary wall).

RESOLVED

Recommendation to permit with additional condition 4 (boundary wall) agreed.

[Note at the end of this item there was a short adjournment between 14:19 and 14:29]