(See report at agenda item 5 (pages 24 to 42) of the Cabinet agenda of 7 March 2017)
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
1) That the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission, including the retention of the allocation to the rear of Sturt Avenue Lynchmere, and associated documents be approved for submission to the Secretary of State for examination;
2) That the Proposed Modifications to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission as set out in the schedule in appendix 1 be approved for submission to the Secretary of State; and
3) That during the examination into the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, be given delegated authority to agree minor amendments to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document.
Minutes:
Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services), seconded by Mr Dignum, moved the recommendations of the Cabinet.
Mr Oakley, Mrs Duncton and Mr McAra declared a personal interest in this item as members of West Sussex County Council, who were a consultee on this item.
Mrs Taylor introduced the report, advising that the representations received to the pre-Submission Site Allocation Draft together with the Development Plan Document would be submitted to a Planning Inspector who would conduct an independent examination, assessing the plan against the tests of soundness.
At Council in November 2016 a resolution had been passed that the Site Allocation Development Plan Document be submitted “subject to confirmation from the Environment Agency that there was no objection once the flood zone modelling has been completed”. Since then further information and clarification had been sought from both the Environment Agency (EA) and West Sussex County Council (WSCC).
The EA had not completed the flood zone modelling but it had reviewed a flood model for the site and was “satisfied that the approach taken to assess flood risk on the proposed development was sufficiently precautionary” and that it could be used by the council to give a better understanding of the flood risk on the site. In light of technical advice received from WSCC as the statutory consultee, there was no sound evidence in relation to ground water flooding to justify the removal of the site from the DPD.
Residents’ concerns regarding highway safety and site access were also considered in the report and these issues would be further considered at planning application stage.
Mrs Hardwick was concerned that key evidence anticipated at the Council meeting in November 2016 was still not available. Council had voted by a small majority at that meeting to include the site but only if the EA had completed the necessary modelling. In determining the soundness of a DPD the evidence to support allocations needed to be prospective, not retrospective. She stated that the evidence here was thin, contradictory and largely retrospective and that the site should be removed from the DPD.
Mrs Graves also spoke in support of removal of the site from the DPD. Mr Plowman agreed that it was vital that the EA modelling work was complete before making a decision. The Inspector examining the plan would look at this at a very strategic level and if passed, parish councils may need to produce the flood risk evidence which would be very expensive.
Mr Potter, Mr Dunn, Mrs Apel, Mr Shaxson and Mrs Tull all supported the views expressed by Mrs Hardwick.
Mr Frost (Head of Planning Services) and Mr Allgrove (Planning Policy Conservation and Design Manager) both responded to members questions. The majority of the site is classed as flood zone 1 (1:1000 risk of flooding) and therefore the safest land (in terms of flood risk) in the country. The majority of this site was not prone to fluvial flooding. Whilst the site is subject to groundwater flooding, the advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority was that the development would be safe and not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Ten dwellings on this site would be low density and development would be able to be contained in the area classed as flood zone 1. The modifications which Thames Water suggested to the policy are recommended for approval in this report.
Mrs Taylor advised that if the Inspector approved the site, the developer would still need to submit a detailed planning application and to consult with statutory consultees. Conditions would be attached to any approval of the application. The surface water and foul drainage SPD would also need to be considered.
Mrs Hardwick requested an amendment to the recommendation as follows:
That the site to the rear of Sturt Avenue, Lynchmere, be removed from the DPD
She was seconded by Mr Plowman.
A recorded vote was requested by Mrs Hardwick and was supported by four councillors.
On this amendment to the recommendation being put to the vote it was declared carried.
For the motion: Mrs C Apel, Mr J Brown, Mr M Dunn, Mr J F Elliott, Mrs N Graves, Mr M Hall, Mrs P Hardwick, Mr L Hixson, Mr F Hobbs, Mr L Macey, Mr G McAra, Mr S Morley, Ms C Neville, Mr R Plowman, Mr H Potter, Mr A Shaxson, Mrs J Tassell, Mr N Thomas, Mrs T Tull and Mrs S Westacott (20)
Against the motion: Mr G Barrett, Mr P Budge, Mr J Connor, Mr M Cullen, Mr T Dempster, Mrs P Dignum, Mr A Dignum, Mrs J Duncton, Mrs E Hamilton, Mr G Hicks, Mrs J Kilby, Mrs E Lintill, Mr S Lloyd-Williams, Mr S Oakley, Ms P Plant, Mrs C Purnell, Mr J Ridd, Mrs S Taylor and Mr D Wakeham (19)
Abstained: Mr N Galloway and Mrs G Keegan (2)
Absent: Mr R Barrow, Mr I Curbishley, Mr J W Elliott, Mr R Hayes, Mr P Jarvis, Mrs D Knightley and Mr J Ransley (7)
The substantive recommendation, including the amendment agreed above, as follows:
That the
Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission,
including the retention of the excluding the
allocation to the rear of Sturt Avenue, Lynchmere and associated documents be approved for
submission to the Secretary of State for examination.
was then put to the vote and declared carried.
RESOLVED
1) That the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission, excluding the allocation to the rear of Sturt Avenue, Lynchmere and associated documents be approved for submission to the Secretary of State for examination.
2) That the Proposed Modifications to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission as set out in the schedule in appendix 1 be approved for submission to the Secretary of State; and
3) That during the examination into the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, be given delegated authority to agree minor amendments to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document.