►
Description
For more information, please visit:
Facebook: http://fb.me/AdurandWorthingCouncils
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/adurandworthing
Website: https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk
A
A
A
The
recording
of
this
meeting
will
be
available
to
view
for
one
year
and
will
be
deleted
after
that
period.
The
council
has
advertised
this
planning
application
to
be
considered
this
evening.
Some
people
have
applied
to
the
council
to
speak
either
in
support
or
to
object
to
this
application.
Objectors
and
supporters
have
three
minutes.
Each
district,
councilors
or
Parish
councilors
also
have
three
minutes
to
speak.
A
If
you
have
registered
to
speak
this
evening,
I
will
announce
you
at
the
right
time.
You
must
keep
your
comments
to
planning
matters
and
speak
within
your
time
limit
following
the
representation.
The
committee
will
discuss
the
planning
application
this
evening.
In
turn
and
vote
on
this
application
to
reach
a
decision
tonight,
so
I'd
like
to
hand
you
over
now
to
Caroline
who
will
just
read
the
safety
announcement.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
please
familiarize
yourself
with
the
fire
exits
from
this
room.
There
are
marked
Refuge
points
at
the
top
of
all
the
staircases
for
Mobility
vehicle
users.
There
is
no
fire
alarm
plan
during
this
meeting.
Therefore,
if
the
alarm
does
sound,
please
leave
via
the
fire
exits
to
the
assembly
point,
which
is
the
far
side
of
the
car
park
by
the
Flint
wall.
Should
you
become
aware
of
a
fast
situation,
the
call
points
to
sound.
A
D
Good
evening,
everyone,
my
question
tonight
relates
to
parking
provision
in
the
immediate
area:
around
New,
Road,
Surrey,
Street
ham,
Road,
tarmount,
Lane
and
Brighton
Road
I
have
some
statistics.
Oh
I
knew
I
couldn't
say
that
I
have
some
statistics
providing
background
to
the
questions,
so
please
bear
with
me
for
a
maximum
of
two
minutes:
the
total
shortfall,
a
parking
provision
is
approximately
270
spaces
for
already
approved
developments
in
this
immediate
area.
A
solution
on
the
over
spill
of
60
vehicles
from
focus
is
awaited.
D
If
Frost
in
focus
is
included
in
the
total,
the
shortfall
will
increase
to
around
400
spaces.
If
half
of
the
new
residents
do
not
own
cars,
there
will
still
be
a
large
shortfall
which
the
local
area
cannot
accommodate.
This
will
leave
to
driver
stress
traffic,
churn,
increase
pollution
and,
quoting
from
the
police
disharmony.
D
A
parking
survey
was
done
this
this
morning
at
four
o'clock.
At
the
above
mentioned
roads,
there
were
70
available
spaces
50
in
the
tar,
Mount
Lane
Car,
Park
15
in
parking
bays
and
others
on
single,
yellow
lines
where
restrictions
start
at
8
am
a
survey
done
at
3
P.M
indicated
there
were
seven
free
spaces.
This
is
not
many
free
spaces.
West
Sussex
County
Council
guidance
on
parking
at
new
developments
states
that
in
4.2
that
parking
should
be
sufficient
to
accommodate
parking
demand
while
exploiting
the
potential
for
sustainable
travel
and
avoiding
increased
on-street
parking
demand.
D
That
hasn't
happened.
So
our
first
question
is:
has
a
cumulative
effect
of
the
shortfalls
in
parking
spaces
been
considered
when
these
developments
were
approved?
And
the
second
question
is:
what
is
the
council's
plan
for
alleviating
the
parking
shortfall
caused
by
the
approval
of
so
many
developments
with
levels
of
parking
provision
well
below
the
standard
set
in
the
West
Sussex
parking
calculator?
D
E
E
A
lot
of
the
discussions
around
the
developments
coming
forward
are
in
relation
to
what
parking
standard
and
provision
has
been
provided
on
adjoining
sites
and
part
of
the
analysis
of
the
developments
in
particularly
sustainable
locations
follows
government
guidance,
so
the
priority
should
be
given
to
looking
at
sustainable
transport,
pedestrian
and
cycle
movements,
rather
than
making
provision
for
the
car.
So
in
terms
of
the
analysis,
that's
on
the
individual
applications,
it
looks
at
the
shortfall
of
the
individual
applications,
but
also
has
regard
to
parking
provision.
Vision
of
developments
approved.
E
Certainly
the
developments
in
Shoreham
town
center
and
on
the
western
Harbor
arm
have
been
very
much
supported
on
the
basis
of
emphasis
on
sustainable
transport
as
being
the
alternative
and
reducing
car
provision
to
encourage
sustainable
transport
which,
as
I
say,
is
fully
in
line
with
government
policy.
The
issue
is
that
there
may
be
a
significant
shortfall
if
you
look
at
if
every
resident
had
a
car,
but
if
we
had
that
situation
we'd
be
only
adding
to
the
congestion
and
air
quality
problems
of
the
area.
So
clearly,
that's
not
the
answer.
E
It
has
to
be
to
encourage
more
sustainable
modes
of
transport
and
particularly
in
very
highly
accessible
locations
close
to
buses,
the
railway
station
and
with
the
provision
of
a
cycle
provision.
So
it
is
part
of
the
county
council's
overall
strategy
to
reduce
level
of
parking.
Vision
encourage
sustainable
transport,
it
is
below
the
county
standards
and
individual
applications
have
to
assess
whether
that
level
of
provision
is
appropriate,
and
that
is
one
of
the
considerations
for
planning
committee
on
individual
applications.
E
That
was
adopted
in
2019
did
look
at
reducing
parking
provision,
particularly
in
sustainable
locations,
and
we're
also
need
to
look
at
the
latest
Census
Data,
because
that
might
also
give
us
an
indication
of
actual
car
parking
provision
for
existing
residents
in
town
center
locations,
but
happy
to
follow
up
with
a
more
detailed
response,
but
they're
just
some
initial
thoughts
and
I'm.
No
doubt
we'll
have
discussion
about
car
parking
with
the
items
on
tonight.
Thank.
E
Yes,
so
I
I
just
confirmed
that
the
County
Council,
when
looking
at
car
parking
provision
on
an
individual
development,
would
also
have
regards
to
car
parking
provision
on
sites
that
already
got
had
received.
Planning
permission
in
in
the
locality
and
part
of
that
is
the
transport
assessment.
Looks
at
parking.
Provision
would
look
at
a
whole
range
of
data
to
determine
what's
appropriate
for
an
individual
site,
but
we
would
look
at
the
community
of
impact.
A
E
E
Sorry,
okay,
I
mean
I,
think
the
thing
the
plan
is
to
to
reduce
the
the
demand
for
parking
coming
forward,
new
developments,
so
that
that's
the
the
the
issue
in
terms
of
whether
the
County
Council
look
at
a
wider
issue
with
the
The
District
Council
in
terms
of
parking
pressures
on
on
roads
within
the
Town
Center.
That
will
be
looked
at
as
well
in
terms
of
other
potential
Solutions,
but
that
would
be
for
the
County
Council
to
look
at
as
far
as
these
developments
and
individual
applications.
E
It's
an
assessment
of
whether
the
level
of
provision
is
appropriate,
given
other
travel
plan
initiatives
with
the
application
and
whether
the
parking
provision
is
appropriate.
Given
the
travel
plan,
measures
that
are
Incorporated,
The
Wider
parking
issues
which
are
already
in
existence
would
be
something
that
would
need
to
discuss
further
with
the
County
Council
in
terms
of
a
wider
plan
for
Shoreham
Town
Center
we'd.
A
A
You
Council,
shin
and
I've
had
a
word
with
Council
nucleus
he's
happy
to
do
that
if
everybody,
if
the
councilors
are
happy
for
that,
then
we'll
agree
that,
yes,
that's
fine.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
So
now
we
will
go
to
the
planning
application
this
evening,
which
is
awdm147321
just
before
I
hand.
Over
to
James,
Appleton
I
know
there
have
been
some
problems:
lots
of
people,
lots
of
residents
have
been
emailing.
The
committee
emailing
myself
and
hopefully
I
have
replied
to
everybody.
That's
actually
emailed
in
I
hope,
I
haven't
missed
anybody
off.
A
There
was
a
problem
whether
the
wording
was
slightly
different
or
what
I'm,
not
quite
certain,
but
certainly
a
lot
of
confusion
took
place.
It
is
that
members
of
the
committee
decide
either
to
agree
with
the
recommendation
to
approve
defer
or
refuse
elected.
Counselors
are
always
going
to
be
the
ones
making
the
decision.
A
E
We
did
look
at
the
wording
to
see
if
there
was
any
way
that
we
could
change
it
round
to
avoid
the
the
the
the
perception
that
the
decision
isn't
made
by
committee
and
you'll
see
in
the
addendum
a
slightly
different
wording
that
still
says
to
delegate,
but
it
comes
after
the
recommendation
for
the
committee
is
to
approve.
You
either
agree
with
that
recommendation.
You
either,
as
the
Chairman's
indicator
chairs,
indicated,
either
refuse
or
defer.
That's
up
to
the
committee.
E
The
committee
is
the
decision
maker,
but
if
you
do
decide
to
approve
the
development,
then
it
would
need
to
be
delegated
to
officers
to
secure
the
section.
106
agreement
resolve
any
outstanding
matters,
and
this
did
crop
up
at
a
recent
planning
committee
and
we're
very
clear
to
sort
of
Say
in
any
delegation.
If
there
is
a
further
consultee
response
required
that
the
delegation
is
to
seek
the
satisfactory
comments
of
the
consultee
as
the
amended
recommendation
sets
out
and
if
we
don't
get
satisfactory
comments
from
the
consulate
you
have
to
come
back
to
planning
committee.
E
So
the
delegation
is
framed
as
the
report
is
set
out
to
you.
So
you
know
exactly
what
matters
still
need
to
be
resolved
before
a
decision
notice
can
be
issued
so
on
other
planning
applications.
It
would
be
a
straightforward,
approve,
refuse
order
and
you
wouldn't
have
any
delegation.
But
in
this
case,
and
with
every
other
case
involving
a
legal
agreement,
they
are
always
delegated
to
officers.
Hope
that's
clear
chairman.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
E
E
Yes,
so
we
have
the
application
before
us
tonight.
It's
a
long,
detailed
report,
I
hope
members
have
had
a
chance
to
to
read
the
report
and
can
I
just
check
that
everyone's
seen
the
addendum
report.
Thank
you.
So
we
have
another
site
coming
forward
as
part
of
the
western
Harbor
arm.
This
is
an
application
for
183
dwellings
on
the
Frost
showroom
site.
More
than
showroom
and
workshops
that
that's
the
red
edging
of
the
site.
E
You
can
see
the
site
just
to
the
east
of
Riverside,
Business,
Center
and
then
sorry
yeah
to
the
East
and
then
further
to
the
other
side
of
the
site.
Is
the
free,
Wharf
development,
that's
underway
with
the
first
phase
of
the
free
Wharf
development,
the
affordable
housing
currently
under
construction.
E
But
the
four
or
five
story,
development
that
is
at
the
end
of
Humphreys
gap,
which
is
just
at
that
point
access
through
to
the
river
another
view
looking
across
over
the
empty
Civic
Center
site
developments
referred
to
in
the
committee
report,
are
the
Manning's
Civic
Center
and
free
Wharf
sites,
and
we
have
some
images
of
those
and
just
some
photographs
of
the
site.
The
site
will
be
quite
familiar
to
members.
E
This
is
the
the
frontage
fairly
low
showroom
buildings
along
Frontage,
former
petrol
filling
station
and
the
the
workshop
and
Riverside
business
units
to
the
south
of
the
road
Frontage
there,
the
blank
Gable
there
of
the
the
flatted
scheme.
That's
recently
been
built
at
the
end
of
Humphrey's,
a
gap
that
I
mentioned
earlier
deliberately
kept
clear,
obviously
with
the
expectation
of
Development
coming
forward
on
the
frost
site,
some
of
the
views
of
the
frontage
and
the
car
parking
on
the
existing
site.
E
Some
of
these
images
are
from
the
townscape
and
visual
impact
assessment
undertaken
by
the
applicants
assessing
The,
Wider
views,
impact
on
Heritage
assets
and
the
relationship
of
the
development
to
other
approved
developments,
particularly
picking
up
on
the
the
community
of
impact
of
The
Proposal,
with
schemes
that
have
planning
permission
in
the
vicinity
of
the
site.
So
now
sickly
clear.
But
yes,
it
does
come
out
clearer
on
the
screen
behind.
So
this
is
the
approved
free,
Wharf
development.
E
You
can
see
the
passive
Force
development,
Saint
Mary,
simo's
church
is
just
out
of
view
here,
but
you
can
see
the
parcel
Force
development
there
and
this
image
that
shows
the
proposed
development
in
the
green.
The
Civic
Center
site
development
proposal
pops
up
there,
but
that
was
based
on
the
previous
scheme
and
it
was
before
it
went
to
committee
amended
to
reduce
the
the
number
of
stories
of
that
development
by
two
and
then
looking
at
River
Frontage.
E
This
is
again
the
outline
of
the
free
Wharf
development,
which
is
underway
on
site,
certainly
the
first
phase
of
that
on
the
road
Frontage.
This
is
the
a
previous
plans
for
the
Civic
Center,
so
that
reduced
in
height
and
then
the
proposed
development
here
with
again
Riverside
business
units
here
and
parcel
Force.
There
and
you'll
see
some
of
these
images
in
the
committee
report
and
the
assessment
of
views
and
impacts.
As
the
addendum
indicates.
E
Your
officers
are
are
of
the
view
that,
given
the
approved
schemes
around
the
site
and
the
relationship
and
distance
away
from
Heritage
assets,
whether
it's
a
grade
one
listed
church
or
the
scheduled
ancient
Monument,
that
is
the
Shore
and
Fort
that
the
level
of
harm
is
low
and
less
than
substantial
in
mppf
terms
and
has
to
be
weighed
against
public
benefits.
As
set
out
in
the
report.
E
Well,
this
isn't
the
scheme
itself.
This
is
actually
March,
2020
and
and
I've
included
this
image
just
to
to
show
that
the
officers
with
the
applicants
have
been
negotiating
for
some
time.
This
was
a
a
an
early
scheme
which
was
very
much
looking
at
surface
car
parking,
one
complete
block
along
the
Brighton
Road
Frontage,
and
this
early
iteration.
E
Just
looking
at
the
application
that
the
layout
plan
here
in
terms
of
floor
plans,
opportunities
for
commercial
floor
space,
fronting
onto
the
a259
opportunities
for
and
just
to
see
here,
the
cores,
the
commercial
floor
space
and,
as
you
can
see,
also
just
some
of
the
the
planting
and
public
realm
areas
created.
There
is
vehicular
access
into
the
site,
but
that's
primarily
for
refuse
and
for
far
and
rescue
generally.
This
is
a
a
pedestrian
zone.
E
Right
through
to
the
Riverside
psychopath
proposed
along
the
western
Harbor
arm
development
sites,
and
just
in
terms
of
some
of
the
updates
in
the
addendum
report
and
mentioned
in
the
committee
report,
part
of
the
discussion
has
been
around
the
scope
for
a
future
lay-by
once
the
psychopath
is
provided
along
the
frontage
of
the
site.
So
the
scheme
has
been
designed
to
have
a
lay-by
and
a
disabled
parking
space.
The
County
Council
have
confirmed
today
that
they
are
happy
with
the
details
for
this
and
also
future
proofing.
E
The
scheme
that,
when
the
psychopath
goes
in,
there
is
still
the
ability
to
retain
a
lay-by
and
the
cycle
path
would
go
in
towards
the
buildings
to
maintain
a
free
psychopath
along
the
frontage
of
the
site
without
being
affected
by
use
of
a
lay-by.
There
is
a
requirement
for
this
latest
layby
plan
to
to
be
checked
through
a
road
safety
audit
and
therefore
the
amended
recommendation
Remains
the
Same.
We
still
do
need
the
satisfactory
comments
from
the
highway
Authority
once
at
road
safety.
E
Quite
a
a
lengthy
process
of
negotiation
in
relation
to
the
design
of
the
blocks,
the
articulation
the
setback,
the
the
the
bays
and
balconies
have
been
introduced
to
create
a
greater
articulation
and,
in
particular,
the
approach
of
the
arcade
approach
to
ground
floor
commercial
which
comes
forward
on
the
the
elevations,
but
also
in
the
computer,
generated
image.
I'll
show
in
a
moment
the
the
frontage
block.
E
This
is
the
the
Western
block
which
is
lower
in
scale
as
it
gets
towards
the
lower
scale,
existing
buildings,
but
also
the
town
center
and
then
steps
up
for
the
central
block
and
also
for
the
Eastern
block
which-
and
this
is
the
Riverside
block,
showing
the
setbacks
as
it
steps
away
from
the
river
up
to
the
middle
of
the
site,
which
is
the
the
highest
point
just
on
the
blocks.
Two
of
the
blocks
will
have
housing
for
the
air
source
heat
pumps,
which
are
planned.
E
The
the
asshole's
heat
pumps
are
shown
here,
but
not
on
the
westernmost
lower
block,
which
you
just
saw
on
the
images.
That's
the
basement.
Car
parking
I've
already
mentioned
car
parking,
but,
as
you
can
see
from
the
report,
quite
an
analysis
of
car
parking
and
it
is
below
County
standards
and
very
much
like
other
developments.
There's
been
a
long
discussion
with
the
County
Council
around
travel
plan
measures
and
whether
the
provision
of
the
81
space
is
proposed
for
this
development
is
appropriate.
E
The
parking
ratio
for
this
development
would
be
0.44
and
has
been
Justified
as
set
out
in
the
report
by
reference
to
car
ownership
levels
within
Shoreham
from
now
quite
old,
2011
State
census,
but
certainly
gives
an
indication
of
car
parking
ownership
in
town
center
locations
and
has
also
been
looked
at
in
relation
to
a
number
of
measures
and
travel
plan
measures.
I
think
the
key
issue
that
a
number
of
developers
are
talking
together
around
is
the
provision
of
car
cup
spaces.
E
E
Car
park.
Car
ownership-
and
this
is
you-
know,
one
of
the
most
effective
ways
of
doing
that
and
has
the
support
of
the
County
Council
in
terms
of
the
site,
a
lot
of
work
about
how
to
deal
with
flood
defense
and
how
to
deal
with
appropriate
mitigation,
but
also
to
get
cars
hidden
to
allow
and
maximize
opportunities
for
landscaping
within
the
site.
And
this
shows
the
sort
of
raising
of
levels
to
ensure
that
there
is
scope
to
have
residential,
partly
on
ground
floor.
E
The
over-the-top
wall
basically
is
to
avoid
the
problem
that,
if
you
have
surface
water
drainage
discharging
into
the
river
that's
below
tide
level,
then
you
can't
discharge
and
you
have
to
have
expensive
storage
within
this
site.
So
in
many
respects
the
solution
is
a
more
cost
effective
solution
for
the
developer
and
is
something
that
future
guidance
by
the
lead
flood
Authority
will
be
coming
out.
E
Citing
this
as
a
good
practice
example-
and
we
are
talking
to
other
developers
along
the
western
Harbor
to
incorporate
similar
provision
in
terms
of
some
of
the
images
of
the
development,
I
I
said
that
we've
got
some
computer
generated
images
of
the
the
scheme.
Looking
at
the
hard
and
soft
landscaped
areas
over
the
basement
park,
car
park,
leading
down
to
the
river
Frontage
and
particularly
I,
think
this
is
a
very
good
image
to
to
illustrate
the
the
setback.
E
E
This
is
the
the
river
Frontage
showing
the
free,
Wharf
ghosted
out
as
it
were
here
and
then
the
proposed
development
and
then
some
other
views
of
the
proposed
development
in
relation
to
some
of
the
frontage
developments
and
blocks
being
built
as
part
of
the
free
Wharf
development.
This
is
the
Riverside
block
proposed
and
then
just
some
images
of
some
of
the
other
developments
approved
in
the
vicinity
of
the
site.
E
And
then
just
some
final
images
of
the
scheme,
you
can
just
see
the
cylindrical
plant
rooms
for
the
air
source,
heat
pumps
on
that
final
drawing
so
as
I
say
chairman,
we
do
have
a
slightly
revised
recommendation
and
just
to
make
it
clear.
I
might
perhaps
read
it
out
to
Chairman
to
to
assist,
to
approve
the
development
with
the
decision
to
issue
the
planning
permission
to
be
delegated
to
the
head
of
Planning
and
Development.
Subject
to
three
matters,
one
being
the
satellite
comments
from
highways.
E
The
HSC
are
required
to
comment
from
a
tool
building
and
fast
safety
aspect
and
the
further
comments
of
environment
Health
on
the
revised
noise
strategy.
Secondly,
the
completion
of
the
106
agreement
and
critically
I
think
is
important
to
stress
the
106
agreement
would
require
the
policy
compliant
requirement
of
30,
affordable
housing.
We
have
had
a
number
of
discussions
with
Vivid
the
nominated
registered
provider.
E
They
are
willing
to
provide
policy
compliance
75
of
the
units
to
be
either
social
rent
or
at
local
housing
allowance
level,
which
would
mean
that
local
residents
on
the
waiting
list
would
be
nominated
as
part
of
the
normal
nominations
agreement
and
then
25
would
be
intermediate
shared
ownership.
So
we
have
a
policy
compliance
scheme
in
terms
of
affordable
housing
now,
with
the
registered
provider
looking
to
deliver
the
units
and
to
meet
our
requirements
and
enter
into
the
normal
nominations.
E
Agreements
with
the
council,
which
would
be
secured
in
the
106
agreement
and
the
planning
conditions
set
out
in
the
agenda,
and
we
have
three
additional
conditions
in
the
addendum
report.
The
contributions
are
all
in
line
with
the
various
infrastructure
providers
requirements
as
education
transport.
E
I
I,
don't
think
I
have
anything
else
to
add.
Apologies
for
for
going
on
a
bit
there
chairman,
but
there
was
quite
a
quite
a
bit
of
additional
information
and
I'm,
particularly
conscious
that
obviously
concerns
about
car
parking
provision
and
such
matters
and
you'll
see
see
the
addendum
that
there
were
also
further
comments.
We
had
three
further
objections
that
are
set
out
in
the
the
addendum.
Thank
you,
chairman,
happy
to
take
any
questions
on
the
presentation.
A
G
E
Now
there
is
some
flexibility
around
schemes
that
might
come
forward.
Some
of
the
mitigation
measures
need
further
analysis
and
a
number
of
the
sustainability
measures
that
were
Incorporated
in
the
supporting
transport
study
would
need
further
analysis.
One
of
them,
for
instance,
was
the
bridge
over
the
railway
line.
The
little
development
requires
further
feasibility
to
see
where
that'd
be
delivered.
Now,
if,
for
any
reason
that
can't
be
delivered,
then
there
is
funding
for
other
transport
mitigation
measures
to
mitigate
the
impact
of
the
Shoreham
Harbor
development.
E
A
lot
of
the
contribution
is
earmarked
for
the
259
psychopath
provision,
so
that
that
is
the
the
biggest
single
intervention
as
it
were
along
the
western
Harbor
arm
and
adjacent
to
the
a259
and
obviously,
as
you've,
seen
with
various
developments
coming
forward,
lands
being
provided
by
developers,
as
well
as
the
contribution
to
deliver
that
a259
segregated
psychopath,
but
that
there
is
some
flexibility.
But
it
is
the
list
of
schemes
that
were
incorporated
as
part
of
the
original
mitigation.
E
They
may
change
as
further
analysis
is
done,
and
one
of
the
key
things
that
were
discussed
next
Monday
will
be
obviously
the
the
review
of
those
mitigation
measures.
In
light
of
you
know,
the
the
level
of
Development
coming
forward
and
whether
the
feasibility
on
some
of
those
like
the
bridge
over
the
railway
line
doesn't
come
forward,
but
there
might
be
other
mitigation
measures
that
might
might
come
forward
in
place
of
that.
G
Yes,
I
did
I
mean
thank
you
for
that.
It's
a
shame.
It
would
be
great
if
we
could
get
more
information
and
like
a
list
of
priorities
from
the
County
Council,
because
a
lot
of
people
are
quite
cynical
about
where,
particularly
where
County
Council
money
goes,
you
know
it
it
kind
of
dis.
It
disappears
up
to
the
County
Council
and
people
aren't
always
aware
of
what
happens
to
it.
G
E
So
I
was
just
clarifying
in
my
own
mind
as
well.
To
make
sure
I
was
correcting
response.
It
is
the
the
air
quality
assessment.
That's
been
re-uh,
reworked
that
we're
requiring
further
details
on
from
our
environmental
health
officers.
The
the
noise
mitigation
measures,
environmental
health
are
happy
can
be
dealt
with
by
condition,
so
it
is
the
the
air
quality
assessment
and
how
it's
undertaken.
The
the
we're
waiting
for
some
further
comments.
G
G
E
So
the
the
reassessment's
been
done
to
clarify
that
there
is
already
our
Quality
Management
Area,
because
particulates
already
exceed
the
guidelines
and
that's
why
it's
air
quality
management
area?
The
assessment
is
to
assess
the
extent
of
impacts,
and
this
does
go
back
to
the
travel
plan,
reduce
car
parking
provision
and
what
can
be
done
to
drive
down,
particularly
through
EV
charging
and
encouraging
sort
of
car
clubs
and
electric
vehicles
and
the
county.
E
The
sorry,
the
environmental
health
officers
will
assess
the
impact
of
the
development
in
monetary
terms
to
then
include
a
requirement
within
the
106
of
either
the
additional
mitigation
measures
or
a
financial
contribution,
but
that
that
reassessment's
being
done.
We
had
hope
we
might
get
that
for
tonight.
But
that's
not
been.
We
haven't
had
the
further
environment,
Health
comments.
G
G
E
So
the
addendum
report
basically
says
that,
even
with
the
more
stringent
regulations
that
came
out
in
June,
June
they're
exceeding
those
by
a
further
10
so
effectively
it's
complying
with
the
local
plan
policy
and
criteria
in
the
sort
of.
But
it's
also
above
the
requirements
of
the
latest
building
regulations
so
really
from
a
sustainability.
We're
pleased
with
the
the
Energy
Solution
here
and
the
the
carbon
saving
of
this
development.
A
Thank
you,
councilor
Gardner
and
I
would
just
like
to
follow
up
on
something
called
councilor
Gardner
has
mentioned
James,
I,
I'm
sure
all
the
committee,
and
probably
most
of
the
members
here
today
would
like
to
have
something
coming
forward
more
from
County
about
the
s106
money
and
where
it's
going
to
be
put
and
as
something
substantial
that
we
could
actually
look
and
see.
Do
you
think
that's
something
we
could
actually
push
for,
because
it's
all
quite
Airy,
fairy
and
and
I
think
would
be
good
for
us
to
know
what?
E
Yes,
chairman
I
was
I
was
going
to
come
back
on
that
because
I
I
think.
Certainly
we
can
include
that
information,
because
there
is
a
prioritization
list
in
the
adopted
Gap
and
transport
study
of
schemes.
The
County
Council
use
that
to
work
out
the
extent
of
the
contributions
so
certainly
I
can
I
can
circulate
that
separately.
E
E
The
earlier
in
the
year,
there
was
a
consultation
on
the
259s,
segregated
psychopath
and
there's
further
consultation
planned
on
that,
as
well
as
some
of
the
other
mitigation
measures.
But
yes,
I'm
happy
to
circulate
that
list
and
in
perhaps
when
we
get
comments
from
the
County
Council.
Just
because
it'd
be
easier
for
members,
if
they
Incorporated
that
list
of
measures
and
within
their
response,
it
would
just
be
easier
without
referring
back
to
the
the
original
transport
study.
Okay,.
A
F
Now
this
is
an
important
issue
and
it
it
comes
up
and
I
see
it
regularly
on
reports
to
this
committee
and
it's
important
because
it
impacts
on
What's
called
the
Tilted
balance.
It's
where
we
have
a
pressure
on
us
as
an
authority
to
agree
more
housing
and
meet
the
targets
that
are
imposed
on
us
nationally
and
there's
some
figures
here
that
say
in
2017
2020
we're
running
at
40
against
our
Target
sorry
48,
when
we
should
be
nearer
85
percent.
E
I'd
love
to
and
and
it
is
really
difficult
because
whatever
we
do,
we
seem
to
fail.
A
government
Target
somewhere
and
part
of
the
problem
with
government
targets
are
that
we
we
have
to
look
forward
five
years,
so
we
have
to
look
at
projections
against
the
delivery
of
our
housing
numbers,
but
we
also
are
assessed
under
the
housing
delivery
test
about
what
we've
delivered
in
the
previous
three
years.
E
So
we're
looking
forward
to
always
provide
a
five-year
supply
of
Housing,
and
if
we
don't,
the
Tilted
balance
comes
forward
in
the
mppf
and
even
if
we
meet
that,
we're
then
assessed
on
completions
in
the
previous
three
years.
So
we're
looking
forward
and
backwards
all
the
time
and
of
course,
just
approving
development
isn't
a
lot
of
good
if
it
doesn't
get
built.
So
it
doesn't
help
us
on
the
housing
delivery
test
unless
those
developments
get
implemented.
So
yes,
we're
approving
development,
but
we've
also
had
against
the
local
plan
some
significant
delays.
E
We've
had
significant
delays
on
new
monks.
Farm
we've
had
significant
delays
on
where
something,
and
so,
whilst
we
might
be
doing
well
at
the
Western
Harbor
arm
we're
not
doing
well
on
other
strategic
sites
that
were
expected
to
be
delivering
more.
So
we're
we're
close
to
meeting
our
five-year
Supply,
but
we're
failing
in
terms
of
completions,
because
the
developments
are
not
coming
forward
fast
enough
to
meet
the
housing
delivery
test.
E
And
then,
if
you
meet
Miss,
the
housing
delivery
test
you're
on
the
naughty
step,
and
you
potentially
then
have
developers
arguing
well,
despite
the
fact
that
there
may
be
some
harm
to
the
development.
The
Tilted
balance
means
that
you're
failing
to
meet
the
housing
delivery
test
and
you
should
be
doing
more
to
deliver
more
housing.
So
it
is
difficult.
We're
looking
forward
then
backwards.
I,
hopefully
that's
clear,
but
it
it
is
also.
I
should
say
that
the
housing
numbers
are
increasing.
E
So
what
we
considered
are
requirements
in
2017
with
the
adopted
local
plan
have
now
increased
as
a
result
of
the
the
new
housing
methodology.
So
our
local
plan
review
will
be
also,
then
reviewing
a
greater
housing
Target
which
will
again
play
into
the
assessment
of
the
five-year
Supply
and
the
three-year
delivery
test.
E
E
Determine
I
mean
the
housing
delivery
test
is
based
on
annual
returns
of
completions
and
a
government
published
statistics.
So
the
statistics
are
the
statistics
in
the
report
and
that
leads
us
to
say
that
we've
failed
the
housing
delivery
test
and
the
Tilted
balancers
at
play.
The
issue
is
that
it's
based
on
delivery,
not
just
approved
schemes,
so
we
might
have
approved
lots
of
developments,
but
if
they're
not
coming
forward,
then
they're
not
counted
as
part
of
the
housing
delivery
test.
E
So
looking
forward
in
terms
of
five-year
Supply,
we
need
to
make
out
of
provision,
but
we're
always
monitoring
every
year
and
the
government
will
and
probably
I'm
quite
happy
to
take
a
separate
report
because
it
is
very
complicated
and,
as
I
say,
if
we,
if
we
we
get
by
on
one
assessment
on
the
five-year
Supply
and
then
fail
on
another,
we
still
caught
with
the
Tilted
balance.
So
it's
loaded
against
us
in
many
respects.
F
E
Chairman,
we
do
produce
an
annual
monitoring
report
every
year
that
sets
out
what
we've
delivered
the
number
of
completions
in
the
year.
It
usually
comes
out
towards
the
end
of
the
year,
but
it
is
always
you
know,
takes
some
while
to
count
what
the
completions
have
been
for
this
financial
year,
but
certainly
I'm
quite
happy
chairman
to
take
a
report
back
on
this
subject,
because
it
is
important
in
terms
of
having
said
that,
of
course,
we're
talking
about
Brownfield
site
where
we
would
be
looking
at.
I
At
the
beginning,
Tim
Waller
I'm,
the
planning
consultant
for
the
applicant
I'm
clarifying
this.
It
doesn't
necessarily
help
me
but
I'm
clarifying
it
on
the
basis
that
I
want
to
make
sure
that
you've
got
the
right
information
and
you
can.
You
know
there
are
no
accusations
that
the
wrong
information
in
front
of
you
you're
correct.
It's
a
very
perceptive
question,
you're
correct
to
question
the
2020
date.
I
There
is
actually
a
2021
figure,
that's
been
published,
which
is
75
of
housing
delivery,
not
48,
which
doesn't
imply
the
Tilted
balance
is
engaged,
but
the
Tilted
bounce
is
also
engaged
by
the
short
form
of
the
housing
land
Supply.
So
the
Tilted
balance
still
applies.
It
doesn't
make
any
practical
difference,
but
you're
quite
correct
that
the
2020
figure
is
out
of
date.
F
In
this
particular
paragraph
talks
about
the
density
of
this
particular
development
and
other
developments,
local
to
this
development-
and
it
has
a
phrase
at
the
end
about
this-
shows
a
particularly
efficient
use
of
this
site
in
the
supply
of
new
homes,
because
it's
actually
68
hectares
and
sorry
100,
269
dwellings
per
hectare
which
well
exceeds
the
minimum
Target
of
100
per
hectare
in
polity,
ca7
of
the
Jab,
so
I
went
I
like
the
plans.
They're
very
helpful
I
went
to
have
a
look
again
at
policy.
F
Ca7
of
my
reading
of
that
policy
is
not
that
the
hundred
dwellings
per
hectare
is
a
target
to
be
that
we
must
aspire
to
go
far
beyond
within
the
spirit
of
it
seems
to
be
about
balanced
development.
And
yes,
there
is
a
minimum
of
100
dwellings
per
hectare.
But
would
you
agree
with
me
and
James
I'll
show
you
Mr
afternoon,
I'm
sure
you
know
the
chat
well
that
actually,
the
spirit
of
of
that
particular
policy
is
about
balance
development.
It's
not
setting
a
Target
that
we
must
do
our
best
to
far
Outreach.
F
E
Yes,
I
mean
it
was
certainly
a
discussion
at
the
local
plan
examination
and
with
the
the
examination
about
sort
of
densities
and,
of
course,
when
you're
preparing
a
local
plan
you're,
not
necessarily
aware
of
the
the
type
and
form
of
development,
and
you
put
an
indicative
density.
We've
got
an
indicative
density
across
the
District
of
I.
Think
it's
35
dwellings
per
hectare,
but
actually
we've
been
able
to
exceed
that
I.
I
think
the
justification
would
be.
E
If
you
go
below
that
on
individual
developments
that
go
above
it,
it
is
a
minimum
of
100.
Then
you
have
to
assess
whether
those
densities
above
that
are
acceptable
or
not,
and
you
know
that's
a
planning
judgment.
I-
think
the
local
plan
inspector
was
very
keen
to
add,
because
I
think
at
one
stage
in
the
local
plan
we
had
up
to
figures
for
sites
and
the
inspector
didn't
like
that
at
all
and
said.
Actually,
you
should
be
looking
because
of
the
fact
that
we
had
a
housing
shortfall
across
the
district
that
we
should.
E
He
would
then
put
minimum
for
all
the
Strategic
allocations,
so
we
have
a
minimum
of
600
at
newmark's,
farm
and
other
locations,
and
we
have
to
justify
going
by.
He
was
expecting
more
to
try
and
meet
our
housing
shortfall
because
we're
not
meeting
our
objectively
assessed
housing
needs
and
that's
part
of
the
problem,
because
we've
got
a
lack
of
land
so
I
suppose
it
depends
how
you
look
at
it.
Making
the
effective
use
of
Urban
Land
is
a
clear
requirement
of
the
mppf.
E
E
Yes,
indeed,
and
we've
got
high
density
flat
schemes,
the
the
indication
of
potentially
mixed
use,
developments
and
and
lower
densities.
We
had
one
last
week
at
Howard
came
which
Incorporated,
townhouses
and
density
was
lower,
so
it
depends
on
the
form
of
development
and
certainly
we've
found
with
you
know,
on
Greenfield
developments.
You
know,
houses
will
come
out
at
lower
densities
than
blocks
of
flats
than
naturally
higher
densities.
F
F
F
F
E
I'll,
try
and
be
quick,
I
mean
I,
I.
Think
the
the
first
thing-
and
it's
important
to
say
is
that
when
statutory
utility
companies
are
looking
at
developments,
they
look
at
the
impact,
the
additional
impact
of
the
government,
and
they
can't
expect
new
development
to
solve
existing
infrastructure
problems.
So
we
have
an
existing
infrastructure
problem
and
primarily
the
problem
is
that
we've
got
combined
sewers
with
a
lot
of
surface
water
and
in
extreme
flood
events.
E
It's
a
pressure
cooker
and
that
valve's
got
to
be
let
somewhere
and
it's
LED
out
to
see
in
rivers
and
we've
had
all
the
headlines.
I
think
the
key
thing
from
Southern
Waters
comments
here
is
that
there's
betterment
because
at
the
moment,
the
site
drains
into
a
combined
surface
water
and
foul
drainage
system.
The
solution
here
is
to
take
surface
water
directly
out
to
the
river
and
then
only
to
put
foul
into
the
sewers
and
therefore
a
southern
water
as
words
there's
betterment
here.
So
it's
actually
providing
greater
capacity.
E
F
E
We
do
that,
but
that's
part
of
the
local
plan
process
and
Southern
Walker
water
look
at
housing
likely
to
come
forward
in
a
development,
a
sense
across
a
any
given
planning,
Authority
area
so
as
part
of
the
local
plan
review,
we're
currently
engaging
with
Southern
water
and
asking
exactly
those
questions.
So,
if
we're
going
to
be
getting
more
development
than
the
2017
plan
expected
or
we're
planning
more
development,
is
the
infrastructure
sufficient
to
go
for
a
cope
with
it?
What
further
improvements
have
to
be
made?
A
B
J
The
fact
that
we've
got
four
major
developments
coming
up
and
they'll
all
be
being
constructed
and
coming
and
and
inhabited
in
the
course
of
two
three
years
and
I
was
wondering
we
always
judge
each
development
on
its
individual
capacities
and
it
was
it
was
to
do
with
Southern,
water
and
other
utilities,
and
the
kind
of
increased
need
for
Healthcare
schools.
Etc.
J
A
E
It
engaged
with
all
of
the
providers,
health,
education,
Southern,
water,
EA
and
others,
and
it
assessed
the
impact
of
the
development
that
was
planned,
the
three
and
a
half
thousand
dwellings
in
the
Ada
local
plan.
So
it
assessed
what
the
infrastructure
needs
would
be
for
that
Development
coming
forward
and
therefore
the
answer
is
yes:
those
providers
have
assessed
a
level
of
Development
coming
forward
now,
next
Monday
you'll
be
considering
the
local
plan
review
and
particularly
the
Western
Harbor
review
in
terms
of
well.
E
F
E
As
I
say,
we've
got
an
issue
with
the
five-year
Supply
and
going
backwards,
so
we're
still
failing
on
the
2021
figures.
I,
don't
think
we've
had
the
22
yet
and
perhaps
when
we
get
the
22
figures,
we
can
come
back
with
a
report
to
the
committee,
but
either
way
the
Tilted
balance
is
is
active
if
you're
not
delivering
a
five-year
supply
of
houses
or
you're
failing
the
housing
delivery
test.
So
the
planning
agent
just
indicated
on
the
21
figure
it's
improved,
but
we're
still
failing
to
meet
and
we're
still
failing
the
housing
delivery
test.
A
A
K
K
So,
firstly
I'd
like
to
say
that
everybody's
looking
South
to
the
flood
danger,
but
that
there
will
also
be
flooding
coming
from
the
north.
If
you
look
at
the
first
diagram
with
the
flood
defenses,
they
are
probably
adequate
for
this
development
but
you're,
forgetting
that
the
Sussex
Yacht
Club
section
has
not
been
built.
There's
a
disagreement
over
where
so.
Those
Gap
is,
for
example,
in
the
percolation
test,
so
water
will
creep
in
there.
K
K
K
You
will
see
that
groundwater
is
often
less
than
one
meter
below
ground.
There
must
be
careful
investigation
of
groundwater,
surface
runoff
and
flood
risk.
For
example,
the
old
Civic
site
across
the
road
has
a
holding
objection
related
to
groundwater
in
floodress
3A,
which
this
area
is
only
commercial
units,
are
permitted
at
ground
level.
Units
in
Mariners
Point
remain
empty
after
three
years
and
what
are
the
chance
that
the
new
ones
will
remain
empty
and
boarded
up,
which
will
be
a
fine
Gateway
into
Shoreham
and
now
my
specialist
subject.
K
If
you
look
at
the
last
one,
Southern
water
emits
its
sewage
record,
is
putting
its
own
business
at
risk.
I
quote
from
their
annual
report
in
light
of
increased
capacity,
demand,
extreme
weather
events,
and
you
can
see
storm
units
from
last
year
and
challenging
regulatory
targets
and
a
national
debate
on
water
companies.
Impact
on
the
environment,
in
particular.
The
use
of
combined
sewer
overflows
counselors,
must
take
responsibility
and
impose
the
following
holding
objections
to
see
that
it
defenses
should
be
completed
at
Sussex
Yacht
Club.
A
A
L
L
There
are
many
elements
still
unresolved
for
this
application.
County
highways
have
concerns
about
overspill
parking
in
the
already
overburdened
area,
they're
still
unhappy
with
access
to
the
a259
for
the
site.
The
developer
states
that
rises
in
pollution
levels
are
below
National.
Air
quality
standards.
L
Ada's
environment
officer
contradicts
that
stating
their
pollution
level
should
be
considered
significant
adverse,
yet
further
increased
risk
for
Public
Health,
we're
told
this
site
will
be
adopting
the
over
the
harbor
wall
strategy
to
improve
sustainability
for
drainage,
but
there's
absolutely
no
evidence
or
plans
for
this
committee
to
look
at
this
can
be
all
dealt
with
post-approval
by
officers,
we're
told
now.
Surely
our
elected
members
of
planning
should
have
a
say
in
this
vital
bit
of
infrastructure.
Southern
water
could
not
connect
the
whole
of
the
Civic
Center
site
opposite
this.
L
This
application,
without
phased
plans
for
sewer
reinforcement,
yet
with
no
reinforcement.
They
fully
approve
connection
into
the
same
sewer
line
for
this
development,
with
its
1283
homes
and
businesses
and
with
such
inconsistencies.
Can
we
really
trust
this
stakeholder
with
their
record
of
contamination
of
rivers
and
coastlines?
L
These
nine-story
blocks
totally
fail
to
respect
the
conservation
area
and
views
of
Saint
Mary
dehora.
This
development,
most
certainly
will
dominate
views
into
the
old
town
from
across
Shoreham
Beach
and
restrict
views
of
the
South
Downs
and
transport
in
2014
Parsons
Brinkerhoff
study
costing
tens
of
thousands
concluded.
The
a259
was
over
capacity,
they
recommended
improvements,
none
have
been
actioned
and
we're
now
looking
at
yet
another
75
vehicle
movements
a
day
into
this
gridlock
road
which
the
environment
officer
challenges
has
underestimated.
Why
do
we
have
to
accept
these
massive
buildings?
L
The
original
numbers
for
these
sites
were
Civic
Center
75
homes,
now
159
free
Wharf,
250,
now
500,
plus
Kingston
wolf,
140,
now
approved
at
2.
55
and
this
Frost
development,
100
dwellings,
now
183,
clearly
unsustainable,
over
development,
already
that
Mama,
free,
wolf
building
totally
dominates
and
overshadows
the
area.
Frost
development
will
do
the
same
to
the
High
Street.
There's
a
review
of
the
and
local
Plan
before
you
on
the
3rd
of
October.
Until
that
review
is
complete,
no
further
applications
should
be
considered,
including
this
one
or
better
still.
L
A
L
A
M
M
Many
of
these
residents
didn't
buy
or
rent
their
houses,
knowing
an
enormous
block
of
flats
with
upwards
of
200
cars
with
no
parking
spaces
was
about
to
be
built
right
next
to
their
otherwise
quiet
roads.
I
think
we've
got
a
duty
to
these
existing
residents
and
this
development
is
likely
to
be
a
very
bad
neighbor.
M
Could
we
amend
this
to
make
the
development
a
nicer
place
to
live?
It
could
be
less
dense,
it
could
be
lower
with
more
parking
I
mean.
Actually,
there
is
ample
space
at
ground
floor
level
to
provide
parking
spaces,
albeit
at
the
expense
of
the
commercial
space.
Recently,
the
commercials
based
on
these
Harbor
arm
developments,
has
been
difficult
to
fill.
I
realized
that
the
employment
loss
from
car
from
the
car
showroom
should
be
replaced,
but
the
site's
mainly
occupied
by
cars,
not
employees,
so
it's
actually
be
easily
achievable.
M
What?
If
the
developer
applies
to
convert
the
commercial
area
to
more
Flats
when
it
fails
to
let
adding
further
to
the
problem
the
scheme
is
about
to
create.
We
could
sort
this
out
now
I'm
worried
about
southern
water
as
well.
I
and
I.
Think
southern
Waters
worried
about
it.
The
their
comments
actually
repeated
twice
in
the
papers.
They
are
worried
about
water
mixing
with
the
sewage
something
they're
euphemistically
term,
as
surcharging
really
given
what
we
know
following
the
discharges
of
surge
into
our
River
and
the
Sea.
M
We
need
a
solution
to
this
before
we
Grant
planning
permission.
Inevitably,
the
surface
water
and
the
sewage
will
be
discharged
into
the
river
and
our
river
is
already
struggling
with
the
existing
discharges,
the
developments
meters
away
from
the
Ada
Estuary
special
site
of
scientific
interest
and
the
rspp
Nature
Reserve,
which
is
supposed
to
afford
it
increased
protection.
Natural
England
have
already
declared
that
the
site
is
75
percent
depleted
and
one
of
the
reasons
is
sewerage
and
runoff
discharge.
M
A
A
I
I
I
I
The
air
quality
consultant
who
produced
it
was
a
little
bit
miffed
when
he
got
the
comment
back
because
he
said
well,
anyone
who
understands
air
quality
surely
would
realize
that
that's
an
error.
It
was
a
typographical
error.
It's
been
corrected,
we
haven't
heard
back
from
the
environmental
health
officer
hasn't
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it
yet,
but
it
was
just
that
there
is
nothing
untoward
there.
I
Thank
you
good
evening,
and
the
application
before
you
this
evening
represents
an
important
step
in
the
delivery
of
the
local
plan's
Vision.
It
would
link
the
development
in
the
western
Harbor
arm
to
the
town
center
via
a
new
foot
and
cycle
paths
which
would
link
seamlessly
with
the
adjacent-free
wharf
development,
when
it's
built,
and
also
with
any
future
development
on
the
Riverside
Business
Park.
I
The
application
proposals
have
been
very
carefully
designed
over
the
course
of
two
and
a
half
years
of
Engagement
with
the
council.
Three
meetings
with
an
independent
design
review
panel
and
four
public
consultation
events,
public
routes
and
spaces
within
the
site
would
have
a
variety
of
characters,
supported
supporting
different
uses
by
different
people.
They'd
be
enhanced
with
new
landscape
planting
of
a
high
quality
and
hard
Landscaping
that
could
draw
on
the
area's
industrial
history
to
create
interesting
and
useful
spaces.
I
The
building
would
have
an
attracting
attractive
appearance,
complementing
the
character
of
developments
of
free,
wolf
and
other
Civic
Center
site,
as
well
as
referencing
local
buildings
and
traditions.
That
Accord
with
the
council's
policies
and
guidance.
The
townscape
and
visual
impact
assessment
has
demonstrated
the
scale
of
massing.
Would
be
a
suitable
fit
for
the
site
in
the
context
of
the
other
nearby
developments
and
that
set
out
in
the
officer
report?
A
I
No
harm
will
be
caused
in
Heritage
terms,
including
no
effect
on
Direct
views
of
Saint
Mary
dehora
Church.
The
development
would
provide
one
of
the
teeth
in
the
smile
of
the
Town's
new
flood
defenses.
Without
this
site,
those
defenses
are
going
to
remain
ineffective,
no
matter
what
happens
on
the
other
sites
and
residents
within
the
site
will
also
be
safe
from
flood
events
and
the
applications
supported
by
the
environment
agency
and
the
lead
local
flood
authorities.
I
I
The
development
would
make
a
very
valuable
contribution
towards
making
up
the
deficit
in
the
supply
of
new
homes,
and
these
homes
would
be
delivered
quickly
in
order
to
benefit
from
the
homes
England
funding
for
the
affordable
housing.
It's
actually
intended
to
start
on
site
before
Christmas.
If
planning
permission
is
granted,
so
this
will
make
a
difference
to
The
Five-Year
housing,
land
Supply.
I
The
application
also
proposes
a
policy
compliant
30,
affordable
homes.
According
to
meeting
the
council's
preferred
tenure
split,
and
this
would
meet
a
very
pressing
need
and
it
will
be
delivered
by
Vivid,
Housing
Association
to
be
named
and,
in
addition,
all
section
106
contributions
that
have
been
requested
will
be
paid
in
full.
I
I
I
Last
two
last
two
lines,
and
this
means
the
application
should
only
be
refused
if
there
will
be
adverse
effects
which
would
significantly
and
demonstrably
outweigh
the
benefits
it
would
bring.
Those
benefits
are
very
substantial
and
there
wouldn't
be
any
add.
Such
adverse
effects
and
I
respectfully
request
the
application
be
approved.
A
G
I
Well,
we
did
have
a
problem
and
the
officer
report
talks
about
the
viability
assessment
that
was
put
in
with
the
application
which
was
tested
by
the
council's
consultants
and
showed
that
the
development
wasn't
viable
even
without
any
affordable
housing.
What
has
changed
and
it's
it's
a
very
reasonable
question.
What
has
changed
is
that
the
Housing
Association
Vivid
have
become
involved.
I
They
are
a
homes
England
partner,
so
they
automatically
get
access
to
homes,
England
grant
funding,
so
they
know
that
they
will
have
it
for
this
development
also
because
they
are
effectively
going
to
take
on
the
so.
The
site
will
be
built
and
handed
over
to
them,
because
they're
going
to
buy
the
site
and
because
they've
got
guaranteed
funding
and
that
funding
is
based
on
the
fact
that
you'll
have
affordable
homes.
Tenants
who've
got
a
guaranteed
income
from
from
the
allowances
they're
they're
given
by
the
government
and
also
the
homes
England
funding.
I
I
A
E
Chair
I'm,
conscious
that
the
committee
report
does
refer
to
the
2020
figures,
just
going
back
to
the
discussion
on
the
housing
delivery
test
and
I
apologize,
we
haven't
got
the
2021.
I
did
just
want
to
double
check
the
housing
delivery
figures
for
2021
and
it
was
actually
77
percent.
I
knew
it
was
around
75
and,
as
a
report
indicates,
the
the
review
of
Supply
is
is
is
is
is
underway
in
terms
of
the
The
Five-Year
Supply.
E
We
did
lose
one
Appeal
on
the
five-year
Supply,
and
that
was
the
block
of
flats
in
Lansing,
where
the
developer
particularly
referred
to
under
delivery
on
strategic
sites.
So
that
was
one
site
that
did
come
forward,
but
I'm,
just
conscious
that
that
77
percent,
if
you
are
below
85
percent,
you
have
to
produce
an
action
plan
and
the
council's
produced
an
action
plan
based
on
the
2021
figures.
E
H
E
E
A
F
F
A
Transition,
that's
quite
a
normal
process
to
take
I,
don't
know
that
we
would
need
to
make
that
known.
I
was
aware,
you
weren't
there
I
I'm
sure,
but
I,
don't
know
that
we
need
to
make
that
known
and
there
was
nothing
untowards.
Everything
was
in
the
public
domain
that
was
discussed
but
I'll.
Let
James
just
answer
that.
E
Thank
you,
chair,
yes,
I
mean
I
I.
Think
we
particularly
make
note
of
all
members
that
are
attending.
It
was
very
clear
to
members
that
they
came
along
with
an
open
minder,
that
any
information
provided
would
be
in
the
public
domain
in
terms
of
the
drawings
that
are
presented
on
the
the
public
website
and
the
the
list
of
counselors
attending
were
aware
that
it
was,
they
would
come
tonight
with
an
open
mind
and
we
we
will
be,
and
we.
A
Thank
you,
James
and
I.
Think
that
is
the
importance.
Actually,
when
members
have
such
a
huge
scheme,
that's
come
forward
this
evening.
It's
an
awful
lot
to
take
in
for
members,
even
though
we've
had
all
the
papers
and
everything,
so
these
pre-meetings
are
really
really
useful.
It
is
unfortunate
when
certain
members
can't
make
it
they
can
always
speak
to
James
to
to
have
it
itemized
to
them,
but
these
are.
That
is
quite
normal.
As
I
say,
it's
quite
a
lot
for
the
committee
to
take
in
on
one
night.
C
C
81
car
parking,
242,
Circle
racks,
then
we've
got.
Then
we
come
just
already
been
stated
about.
The
street
parking
is
all
very
well.
It's
already
been
said
about
Aaron,
but
the
thing
is
really
this
site:
I,
wouldn't
call
it
a
town
center,
actual
site,
I'll
call
it
the
Fringe
send
aside
not
in
I
think
this
is
my
feeling
on
it,
and
the
other
problems
I
do
see
is
when
we
get
the
highways,
the
new
road,
sorry
Street,
a259
Junction,
that
is
a
horrible
Junction
there
and
I
think
to
be
putting
more
vehicles
on
there.
C
I
think
it's
going
to
cause
this
problem
because,
quite
honestly,
turning
left
there
is
a
problem.
I
refuse
to
go.
That
way.
Now
then
becomes
a
gallon
has
been
raised
again
about
the
southern
water.
Fully
agree
with.
What's
been
said
about
that,
and
the
last
thing
when
it
comes
with
the
infrastructure.
C
G
I
know,
larger
ones
have
been
agreed,
but
building
Heights
of
up
to
five
stories
are
acceptable.
Here
we've
got
eight
I
know
at
the
top
they're
set
back
a
little
and
it's
the
point
is
has
been
made
that
well,
if
you're
standing
on
the
pavement,
you
won't
see
the
top
two
stories,
but
if
you're
coming
east
or
coming
West,
you
do
see
those
stories.
These
are
large
buildings,
and
so
I
am
I
oppose
this
because
I
think
it's
an
overdevelopment
of
the
site.
G
If
these
blocks
were
built-
and
you
were
in
them-
and
you
wanted
to
take
your
toddler
to
a
to
to
to
a
child's
minding
group.
Actually
there
is
one
within
walking
distance.
The
other
you'd
have
to
get
on
the
number
two
bus
to
get
to
and
the
others
ensure
them.
There's
no
direct
public
transport
link.
The
700
is
great
if
you
work
in
central
Brighton
or
are
going
to
do
your
shopping
the
same
as
the
train
great.
G
If
you
want
to
go
to
Central
Central
Brighton,
but
if
you
or
London,
but
if
you
work
elsewhere,
the
public
transport
is
just
not
good
enough
here
and
on
I
would
also
like
clarification
on
the
the
pollution
issue,
because
I
I
am
concerned
about
the
notion
that
we
can.
We
will
find
mitigation
for
these
increased
particulates
in
the
canyon
effect
between
this
building
and
the
former
Civic
Center
AIDS,
because
I
am
concerned
that
how
do
we
find
mitigation
and
I?
Think
a
financial
settlement
isn't
right?
G
G
A
N
N
Where
are
the
children
that
live
there
gonna
go
to
school,
there's
a
a
Park
which
is
fairly
small,
I,
really,
don't
think,
there's
enough
provision,
that's
been
made
and
I'm
not
I'm,
not
talking
about
this
development,
just
it
by
itself,
I'm
talking
about
just
generally
overall,
where,
where
are
they
going
to
play?
Where
are
they
going
to
go
to
school?
Where
are
they
going
to
go
to
Nursery?
As
councilor
Gardner
said?
Where
are
the
GP
surgeries
going
to
be
installed?
N
F
Yes,
I
just
really
want
to
endorse
comments
made,
certainly
by
councilor,
funnel
councilor,
Gardner
and
Council
of
flower
I.
Think
it's
very
important.
The
point
that
was
made
about
that
just
seems
to
be
a
horse
before
the
cart
issue
going
on
here
we
have
a
really
sensible
review,
taking
place.
I'm
really
pleased
and
applaud
Council
in
the
Oculus
for
instigating
that,
but
we're
in
danger
of
shutting
the
gate
after
the
horse
is
bolted.
F
As
councilor
Gardner
said,
the
reason
I'm
going
to
be
voting
against
this
and
to
refuse
this
application
is
basically
based
around
and
you
know
I
like
my
numbers,
it's
ca700
and
it's
policy
number
eight,
it's
basically
the
policy
in
that
talks
about
the
height
of
development
on
the
western
Harbor
arm.
It
says
it
should
be
five
stories
high.
F
F
One
argument
has
been
put
forward
that
those
buildings
are
all
now
there.
There
are
big
buildings
here,
so
we're
only
putting
in
one
more
big
building.
My
mum
always
taught
me
is
just
because
somebody
does
something
wrong.
Two
wrongs
don't
make
a
right
if
you're
on
the
beach
and
somebody
leaves
their
left
litter
there,
it
doesn't
give
you
license
to
leave
your
litter.
F
There
I
think
we
ignore
the
fact
that
there
are
buildings
there
that
are
already
too
dense
and
too
big
we're
looking
at
this
individual
application,
it's
in
contravention
of
not
only
those
words,
but
if
you
read
ca7
it
talks
about
balanced,
sensitive
development
along
the
western
Harbor
arm.
That's
why
we
need
a
review.
That's
why
we
need
to
refuse
this
application.
E
Just
just
a
couple
of
points
really
for
for
members
and
I
I
understand
the
issue
in
terms
of
local
plan
review
and,
of
course,
because
it's
coming
towards
the
end
of
the
the
it's
life
in
terms
of
the
way
government
regards
it.
It
is
getting
out
of
date
in
relation
to
National
planning
policy
guidance.
So
the
difficulty
we
have
is
yes
we're
going
to
start
a
review,
but
planning
policy
guidance
in
the
mppf
is
very
clear
and
I
read
the
relevant
section.
E
Refusal
of
planning
permission
of
grounds
of
prematurity
will
seldom
be
justified
where
a
draft
plan
is
yet
to
be
submitted
for
examination.
Now,
that's
at
a
later
stage,
when
we
get
to
examination
so
I
would
just
urge
Extreme
Caution
for
members
around
prematurity
on
a
review
we
have
a
adopted,
it
is
a
Brownfield
site.
We
have
to
assess
whether
the
development
is
acceptable
or
not,
but
I
would
urge
any
caution
around
prematurity
I
think
the
the
issues
have
been
raised,
though,
in
relation
to
other
matters.
E
I
I
will
just
comment
on
infrastructure
and
whether
there
has
been
a
new
doctor's
surgery
or
not.
This
is
a
scheme
that
is
providing
the
full
contribution
required
by
ccg.
Now.
The
difficulty
with
this
is
that
those
providers
haven't
then
used
that
funding,
but
obviously
the
funding
is
a
commutative
effect
of
funding
from
a
number
of
developments
to
be
able
for
the
ccg
to
build
a
new
health
facility.
So
the
difficulty
of
refusing
it
on
lack
of
infrastructure
is
the
developer,
can
only
meet
the
infrastructure
providers.
E
Requirements
in
terms
of
contributions
and
members
will
be
aware.
I've
said
that
before
schools,
again,
the
full
education
contribution
is
being
met
and
as
far
as
the
county
council's
position
is
concerned,
there's
actually
such
a
a
significant
reduction
in
pupils
coming
forward
that
we've
actually
got
spare
places
and
number
of
primary
schools,
but
that
again
would
be
a
review
in
terms
of
any
additional
development
on
whether
there
is
a
need
for
a
new
school
site
or
not
I.
E
So
I
would
just
again
a
note
of
caution
in
relation
to
then
being
clear
about
where
the
harm
of
the
development
is
being
caused.
But
clearly
lack
of
open
space
height
I've
been
to
the
particular
reasons
that
have
been
referred
to,
but
I'm
conscious.
We
haven't
finished
the
debate,
but
I
just
wanted
to
come
in
at
the
point
on
particularly
the
prematurity
point.
A
F
Sorry,
just
to
respond
to
those
points,
I
fully
agree
with
the
prematurity
I
understand
that
can't
be
a
basis
for
refusal
just
on
the
basis
about
going
above.
The
five
story
limits
jab's
very
clear:
it's
number
nine
of
ca7
that
only
at
the
Western
portion
of
the
science
wh3
wh4
wh5
are
the
ones
where
higher
stories
can
be
considered.
This
doesn't
fall
in
any
of
those.
So
I,
don't
think
I
appreciate
your
comments
that
some
allowances
made
for
additional
height,
but
not
in
these
particular
areas.
E
I'm,
no,
it's
fine,
I
mean
I
I
think
there
is
obviously
reference
within
that
in
other
paragraphs
about
where
there
might
be
opportunities
for
height
within
particularly
on
The
Wider
sites,
within
the
middle
of
the
development.
Stepping
away,
but
again,
I
accept
the
point
about
the
general
reference
to
five-story,
Road,
Frontage
and
then
stepping
into
from
the
site.
I.
F
E
River
Frontage
and
River
Frontage
and
obviously
part
of
the
determining
factor
of
the
revised
designs
that
have
come
through
this.
Quite
lengthy
process
has
been
to
to
ensure
the
five-story
stepping
back,
but
obviously
it
does
exceed
five-story
and
it's
just
a
question
of.
Are
the
setbacks
sufficient
to
mitigate
the
the
extra
stories
as
you
go
back
from
the.
H
A
E
A
A
H
O
Yeah,
it's
just
basically
what
my
thinkings
are
is
the
application
as
a
whole
is,
as
mentioned
by
a
council
of
flowers.
It
was
a
pleasant
design
and
and
I
think
to
just
throw
it
out
straight
away.
After
all,
the
work
that's
been
put
in
it
would
give
the
applicant
a
chance
to
come
back
with
a
slightly
revised
plan.
E
I'm,
obviously
conscious
of
the
discussion
about
you
know,
concerns
about
viability
and
but
nevertheless,
the
the
issue
is
whether
there
is
any
the
applicants
prepared
to
reduce
the
height
of
the
development
to
deal
with
some
of
the
over
development
height
issues
have
been
raised,
that
that
would
give
the
opportunity
to
the
applicant
to
consider
that
the
applicant
may
want
to
comment.
I
see
the
applicants
put
the
his
hand
up
to
comment,
but
in
terms
of
that
is
something
that
members
could
consider
a
deferral
one.
E
O
Thank
you,
chair
yeah.
One
of
my
main
concerns
was
the
amount
of
work
and
effort.
That's
gone
into
this
application
so
far
to
basically
throw
it
out
now
it
basically,
they
could
come
back
with
another
application
or
take
it
to
appeal
someone
from
there,
but
by
giving
it
a
deferral,
it
will
give
them
a
chance
to
potentially
overcome
some
of
the
concerns
and
issues
with
the
pollution.
Southern
water,
the
overall
height
Etc.
A
A
A
F
A
A
G
Think
that's
I
think
the
wording
greater
story
Heights
may
be
acceptable
within
deeper
sites.
It
is
pretty
clear:
it's
not
talking
about
the
building
that
is
actually
facing
Brighton
Road,
it's
saying:
if
there's
a
building
behind
that
one
deeper
into
the
site,
it
maybe
may
be
taller,
but
it
it's
just
not
talking
about
the
ones
that
are
are
facing.
Brighton
Road,
no.
A
E
Chairman
I
I
think
that
the
the
general
tenor
of
the
meeting
is
that
members
are
concerned
about
a
number
of
matters
relating
to
over
development.
I
think
height
is
one
of
the
issues.
I
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
wider
sites
and
certainly
the
Eastern
sites
were
the
narrower
sites
and
specifically
referred
to
Heritage
assets
and
other
reasons
why
height
was
an
issue.
B
Just
to
remind
councilors
again,
I
know
you're
all
aware
of
it
of
paragraph
11d
that
where
there
are
no
relevant
development
plan
policies
or
the
policies
are
out
of
date,
you
have
to
Grant
permission
unless
any
adverse
impacts
of
doing
so
significantly
into
monsterably
outweigh
the
benefits.
When
assessed
against
opposing
this.
In
this
framework,
taken
as
a
whole.
F
I
can't
find
it
at
the
moment,
but
another
consideration
that,
if
it
could
be
considered
there
is
in
sec
in
ca7
of
there
is
talk
about
the
air
quality
issues
of
canyoning,
so
basically
that
there
are
concerns
that
if
we
create
a
canyon
along
the
western
Harbor
arm
that
will
exacerbate
issues
of
air
quality.
I,
think
that
is
one
of
the
other
considerations
and
why
Building
height,
why
Provisions
were
made
about
that
the
height
of
buildings.
There
thank.
A
A
E
Thank
you
chair,
yes,
I've
just
really
picked
up
on
the
discussions
at
the
meeting
and
based
on
councilor
Shin's
comments.
I
would
suggest
the
proposed
development,
by
virtue
of
its
overall
density,
height,
scale,
bulk
and
massing,
would
result
in
an
over
development
of
the
site,
resulting
in
an
under
provision
of
parking
and
open
space
to
detrim
and
to
the
character
and
Vigilantes
of
the
locality.
Contrary
to
policy
ca7
of
the
joint
air
reaction
plan
and.
E
A
A
I
A
A
It
is
an
emotional;
no,
it
is
emotional
and
I'm.
Sorry
we
had
that.
So
we
go
to
item
six
on
planning
appeals.
There
are
none
to
report
in
that
case,
I
close
this
meeting
at
let's
get
the
correct
time
if
I
could
get
it
2106..
Thank
you
very
much
everybody
for
attending
this
evening
and
thank
you
committee.
It
was.