Issue - meetings

Retrospective wooden boundary fence.

Permit Against Officer Recommendation

Mr Mew presented the item to Members and drew attention to information provided in the Agenda Update Sheet.  This included additional information from the Council’s licensing team that a Premises Licence was held as granted under the Licensing Act 2003 since 2019.  A condition of the licence stated ‘The outside area shall be clearly delineated by wind breaks or a barrier or fencing’ as requested by Sussex Police ‘to ensure patrons are aware of the extent of the premises and …..to prevent patrons spilling out across the pavement.’.  The Licencing team had concluded that from a compliance perspective, a removable barrier or permanent solution would be in accordance with the condition.  Third party comments had also been received regarding the positive aspects of the fence.

The Committee received the following speakers:

Edward Sye – Applicant

Tim Johnson – Ward Councillor (statement read)

The Chairman summarised that Members comments had reflected their inclination to support approval of the application, and therefore invited a proposal to be made. Rev. Bowden made a proposal to permit the application which was seconded by Mr Barrett. 

Mr Whitty responded to Members’ comments and questions: 

Mr Whitty confirmed that if Members were satisfied with a weathered rather than painted appearance for the fence there would not requirement for that to be included within a condition, but the Committee must be aware that their decision must accord with the statutory duty to conserve and enhance a conservation area.  Mr Whitty expressed disappointment with regards the height of the gate and its impact on the interaction of the property with the street.  Miss Golding reminded Members that the reasons for the decision must be clear.

On the matter of whether a condition could be imposed that the fence was linked with the use of the property and should that change, the fence must be removed, Mr Whitty advised it would be difficult to do so as the impact would be the same and it could also be argued that the fence was in place for a number of reasons, so the condition would be unlikely to meet the test of necessity. 

Mr Whitty advised that paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework set out where there is less than substantial harm, the public benefit test could be used and further advised against a requirement for the fence to be painted.

In a vote Members agreed the proposal to permit the application as the perceived harm to the conservation area was outweighed by the public benefit.

Recommendation to Permit against officer recommendation agreed.

Mr Wilding left the meeting and did not return