Agenda item

Hybrid Planning Application, Phase 1 (Full application) - erection of new 5 no. buildings for manufacturing and ancillary uses, extension and reconfiguration of existing facility including demolition works and removal of temporary structures, creation of new vehicular access from Roman Road, car and HGV parking and other associated works and infrastructure, including earthworks, drainage, utilities, landscaping and diversion of footpath. Phase 2 (Outline Planning application) - extension to new main building to deliver decked car parking, and new building(s) on existing Stane Street Car Park, for assembly and ancillary uses and other associated works, demolition/site clearance and infrastructure, including earthworks, drainage, utilities and landscaping. (All Matters Reserved except access).

REPORT TO FOLLOW

Defer for S106 then permit.

Ms Bell presented the report, Mrs Rollings, Economic Development Officer and Mr Gledhill from West Sussex County Council Highways were also in attendance.

Ms Bell informed the Committee that following the application’s deferral at the meeting of 6 March 2024 further clarification had been sought on the proposed access arrangements and detailed in bold text within the report.

Ms Bell outlined the site location and highlighted its proximity to Stane Street, the A27, the Solar Farm and the boundary of the SDNP. The site was situated within a rural area but adjacent to Westhmapnett.

Ms Bell reminded the Committee the site was identified for expansion within policy A21 of the emerging Local Plan.

Ms Bell explained the application was a Hybrid application which would be delivered in two phases; Phase One being a full application and Phase 2 an Outline application. Details of proposed delivery during each phase was set out in the report (pages 3-5).

Ms Bell detailed the proposed landscaping arrangements and drew attention to Condition 19 which required ‘an extra heavy standard Oak Tree’ to replace the one which would need to be removed during construction.

Ms Bell went through the different access options which had been considered. All options were assessed against the four key objectives;

-       Ni increase traffic through Maudlin

-       No increase in HGV’s through Maudlin

-       A reduction in the number of HGV movements on Stane Street through Westhampnett

-       No queuing on Stane Street and Roman Road

Of the nine scenarios modelled only Option F met the four key objectives.

Ms Bell highlighted footpath 417 which the applicant had applied to divert, this was a separate process and a decision from government would be made in due course.

Representations were received from;

Mrs Rosalind Craven – Objector

Mr John Brown – Objector

Mr Andrew Blanchard - Objector

Mr Andrew Ball – Applicant

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to concerns regarding HGVs continuing to travel through Westhampnett; Ms Bell acknowledged the concerns. However, she reminded the Committee of the current operating situation at the site, which meant all HGV movements (both entering and exiting the site) travelled along Stane Street. Whilst there would be a slight increase in HGV movement along Stane Street it would not be a substantial increase as HGVs would be entering the site from the A285. In addition, movement through Maudlin would be removed as vehicles would use the internal road.

Regarding the installation of a roundabout on the A285; Mr Gledhill explained junction improvements were not necessary as part of the development based on the site access arrangements being offered by the applicant. In addition, Mrs Stevens advised it would not be reasonable to request such an improvement, it would not meet any of the legal tests for planning conditions and obligations, and could therefore not be secured through the application.

On the matter of tree mix as part of landscaping proposals; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 19 which would secure all landscaping and planting. It was officer understanding the mix of planting would replicate what was currently onsite.

Responding to concerns regarding the impact of noise and traffic on the health of residents; Mrs Stevens acknowledged concerns raised, and offered sympathies to those who were affected. Unfortunately, there was no evidence to support these concerns.

With regards to noise; Mrs Stevens informed the Committee the application had been subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which considered the impact of noise, from traffic, construction and operation as part of the process. This had been reviewed by the Environmental Health Team and no objection has been raised.

Mrs Stevens advised the Committee there were no reasonable grounds to refuse the application on the grounds of health and noise impact.

Mrs Stevens advised the Committee it would not be reasonable to include a condition dictating the types of vehicles staff were permitted use, noting that the applicants are in the room and have heard the concerns and could make staff aware. It was an issue which could also be addressed through the new Community Liaison Group.

Mrs Stevens reminded the Committee the NPPF placed significant weight on the development of Economic Growth and that the site was identified for expansion in the emerging Local Plan Policy.

Responding to concerns HGVs would be crossing the highway; Mr Gledhill assured the Committee this had been considered through the Road Safety Audit. He acknowledged some vehicles may have to wait, but the proposal met all the relevant design standards.

Mrs Rollings provided further information on the economic significance of the site and how it contributed to the local economy.

Responding to further concerns the development will have on local residents; Ms Bell explained the internal road network would mean no site traffic would travel through Maudlin. In addition, it was important to note the change in shift patterns which would mean shifts were not exiting or entering at the same time.

Mr Gledhill confirmed there would be traffic monitoring at the site. The applicant also had a Travel Plan which would look at the assumptions made in Travel Assessment.

Mr Gledhill confirmed no road widening was require as part of development.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for S106 then permit.

Resolved; defer for S106 then permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

*Members took a 10 minute break