Sidlesham Parish Council.

Church Hall 7:00pm

Present: Mr Field (Chairman), Mrs C Ranjbar, Mrs E Smart, Mrs T Tull, Mr A Harland and Mr C Bond.
Clerk (Mr J Paul).  53 members of the public (for item 5.1 only) including Mr D Briggs attending in a professional capacity as the architect and representative of the applicants, also Ms K Simmonds as Agent for the conversion developers of Easton Lane Barns. Mr B Norris attended as the chairman of Earnley PC and Mr R Tilbury as chairman of Birdham PC 
       
1 Apology for absence. Mrs D Pound and Mr A Malir
  
2. Minutes of the planning meeting held 19 August 2009.  Mr Harland proposed, Mrs Tull
seconded and all agreed that the minutes should be signed as a true record.

3. Matters arising from the above minutes. None

4. Declarations by Councillors of personal interests.  None.
 
5. New Applications for discussion.

5.1 SI/09/02737/FUL.  Easton Farm, Easton Lane.  Glasshouse, office building and associated works. O.S. Grid Ref. 483161/96941
All of the application papers including plans were displayed on tables for everyone to examine before the meeting.
Mr Field informed the attendees of the procedures for a planning meeting, that the public could observe such a meeting and if invited by the Council could speak to items. Many attendees indicated they wished to be invited to speak to item 5.1.
Each of the Parish Councillors then spoke of their considerations of the proposals. Mrs Pound (although absent and therefore without a vote) had written to the Chairman with her views on 5.1, Mr Field read these to the meeting. Members of the public then addressed the Council.  Mr Briggs also addressed the Council and expanded some of the items previously raised. Ms Simmons followed with her address.
Mr Field then asked the Parish Councillors to speak again and give their individual conclusion of whether they objected or not to the proposed glasshouse development; to be followed by a vote count. Mrs Tull declared that as District Councillor she had to abstain from the Parish Council vote. The subsequent vote recorded four objecting and a further abstention.
Therefore the conclusion of the Parish Council was to object to the application. This result was received with acclaim by the majority of the public present.
Reasons for objecting were: -
• It is a very large scale industrial development in a remote rural area. The development would be damaging to the appearance of the open landscape of this rural area.
• The land is outside a designated Horticultural Development Area and should not be permitted as detailed in Policy RE11B.
• All traffic to the development would have to use the narrow country lanes of the area. There is no short access route to the main arterial road network (the immediate access lane is only 16 feet wide). The articulated HGVs and other vehicle traffic movements associated with such a development would be detrimental to the area and cause a safety hazard.
• The farm land of the area is important for the production of essential food crops e.g. cereals, potatoes and oil-seeds.
• This central part of the Manhood Peninsula is important socially and environmentally as one of the few remaining rural areas within the increasing urbanisation of the South Coast and coastal plain; this site falls within the important undeveloped buffer zone between Selsey and the Witterings.
• The District Council’s stated position is that no large scale development will be allowed south of the A27 unless major improvements are made to the coastal trunk road.

In addition to the objection the Parish Councillors concluded that: -
Should planning be granted the following minimum conditions would be intrinsic to any permission given
to lessen the impact of the development on the local environment and its community.
1. No growing lights should be permitted as this would create light pollution and severely affect neighbouring property and this area renowned for its unique dark sky.
2. Access and egress for the development should be only via Sidlesham Lane and the A286.
3. A maximum permitted level of traffic movements should be set.
4. There should be a comprehensive travel plan submitted which incorporates a company mini-bus system to bring in workers.
5. A bond to be set up to insure finance is available for the removal of the glasshouses and buildings in the case of a business failure, age redundancy or natural disaster dereliction (fire, wind or flood destruction etc)  and the restoration of the site to agricultural land.

All members of the public then left the room.

 5.2  SI/09/03211/COU  Lockgate Nurseries, 72 Lockgate Road. Change of use from horticultural packing shed to Bio Diesel production. O.S. Grid Ref. 484483/99650
Council conclusion: – Object due to insufficient information in the application.  Information was considered lacking on environmental protection (bunds etc); the scale of the operation; the industrial processes; also the likely increase in volumes of materials and traffic

5.3 SI/09/03235/TCA  Shotford Manor House, Mill Lane. Notification of intention to remove the lowest north-westerly branch and create a 2m between the tree’s canopy and the two adjacent properties clearance. O.S. Grid Ref. 485755/973
Council conclusion: – No Objection.

5.4 SI/09/02804/FUL Longacre Highleigh Road. Single dwelling house to replace existing.
O.S grid Ref 484483/9800
Council conclusion: – No Objection.
 
6. CDC Decisions since last PC planning meeting.

6.1  SI/09/02324/LBC Highleigh Pound Highleigh Road.
To alter an existing boiler room into an art room, to fit an automatic air vent/boiler on north facing wall  and installation of single window.  Removal of existing flue. PERMIT

6.2 SI/09/02889/DOM.  Hope Cottage, Highleigh Road
Front entrance porch, rear kitchen extension, rear dormer.  Replace existing Velux rooflights with conservation rooflight, rationalising number and location.  PERMIT

6.3 SI/09/02605/DOM. 37 Chalk Lane
Alterations and extensions to existing dwelling. PERMIT

7 Planning Correspondence None

8 AOB  None
 

Meeting closed 8:30 pm