Agenda item

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register by phone, email or in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on Thursday 13^th September 2018, in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on Monday 17^th September 2018. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

The Committee noted the rules on public participation.

Two questions had been submitted in advance of the meeting and had been circulated as part of the agenda pack.

Questions:

Submitted by Dr Claydon, were in relation to application 17/10079/FUL: Nightwood Farm, Lucewood Lane, West Grimstead, SP5 3RN, considered by Committee on 10 January 2018:

Question 1.

With reference to The Town and Country Planning (Development

Procedure) England Order 2015 Section 39 paragraph 2 subsection (b):

There was no evidence submitted as was required to verify the

information included in the application because the information cannot

be verified. The whole basis of the application was that the land upon

which the bunds were sited was in effect within the permitted

development boundary and not outside the acknowledged and defined

boundary according to the Planning Officers’ own Report. The

application could not therefore be legally validated according to the

rules. Why, in view of the undisputed facts, was planning

application 18/05195/CLE validated by the Planning Department?

Response:

That the Council cannot refuse to validate or accept an application simply because a site or development may be contentious. We are duty bound to consider all applications submitted to the authority. Validation of an application does not however mean that we have accepted or agreed the contents of the application, simply that it meets validation requirements.

Permitted developments rights pursuant to Class A, Part 2, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (means of enclosure) are not restricted to being within the curtilage of a planning unit even if the bund did fall outside of the authorised site.

Question 2.

What progress has been made in regard to pursuing enforcement action

at Nightwood Farm, following the SAPC decision in January 2018.

Response 2.

The Council initially waited for the Environment Agency’s (EA) response given that the disposal of asbestos would primarily fall within their remit and they subsequently decided that they would take no further action. An application for a certificate of lawfulness was then submitted to us (18/05195/CLE) and is currently under consideration and we will therefore await determination of this application before taking any further action.

Dr Claydon was then invited to ask a supplementary question. He then addressed the Committee with the following:

On the 10^th January 2018, the Southern Area Planning Committee made a unanimous decision to reject application17/10079/FUL: Nightwood Farm.

The answer provided in response is totally incorrect. I have been in touch with Karen Rosser at the Environment Agency (EA), who has confirmed that they were informed on January 11th and said that it was fine. The Local Authority (LA) do not need the EA support. That was back in January. The certificate of lawfulness was submitted in June. There is a gap between the two dates. There should have been enforcement on 12^th January.

With regards to the validation of a certificate of lawfulness, one requirement of the Town & Country Planning Act, is that evidence must be provided. However, they cannot do this, as even the Planning Officer stated it was outside of the planning boundary area. The site is in ancient woodland. I am concerned over the total disregard of the ancient woodland.

Why has it taken since June 21^st, not to respond. You can reject it.

Ancient woodland has had an earth bund containing asbestos disposed of on it. This is a serious offence. 

The Chairman thanked Dr Claydon for his comments, and noted that he had a great deal of sympathy in what had been said. This Committee was clear in its decision in January. He agreed to find out whether the certificate of lawfulness had been decided on yet.

Cllr Britton, division Member for the area, added that he had been on this case since January. There had been a delay in progress because the Council had sought counsel’s opinion in the decision. An opinion from an appropriate barrister was being sought.

Cllr Devine noted that the Committee had heard an allegation of illegal practice here, he asked the Legal Officer in attendance to feed back to the appropriate Officers prior to the decision on the certificate was made.

The Legal Officer confirmed that the matter had been noted and would be fed back. It was confirmed that a meeting to discuss the matter had been scheduled for the following week. The Committee would be informed of the outcome at a future meeting.