Transcript

So, good evening everybody to Worthing Borough Council Planning Meeting of Wednesday the 19th of June 2024. At the start here, it is customary to welcome committee members, this being the first meeting of the year we have several new members, we have Councillor Hilary Schaan, we have Councillor Dominic Ford, we have Councillor Henna Chowdhury. New to the committee for this evening, we also have new Councillor Josh Harris sitting in for Noel Atkins who cannot be present. From last year's committee, we have lost the talents of Adul Bozkurt, Rosey Whorlow and Russ Cochrane. We were very grateful last year for their input and wish them well with their new ventures. So, I will now read out the chairs notice. Please note that this meeting is being audio live streamed and a link to a recording of the meeting is available on the Council's website. The recording will begin at the commencement of the meeting and will conclude when I have declared the meeting closed. The recording of this meeting will be available for one year and will be deleted after that period. Please can members and registered speakers be reminded to position your microphone close to your face and speak clearly, so that the sound system can capture all the audio content. Anything said off mic will not be heard on the recording. Council has advertised all the planning applications to be considered this evening. Some people have applied to the Council to speak either in support or to object to a planning application. Objectors and supporters have three minutes to speak. Wards Councillors have five minutes to speak. If you have registered to speak, I will announce you at the right time. You must keep your comments to planning matters and speak within your time limit. Following the representations, the committee will discuss the planning applications in turn and vote on each application to reach a decision. Thank you. So I'm now going to ask Deputy Chair, assuming they have the fire notice. No. We have Mr David Jones from legal who will now read out the fine notice. Thank you. There is no fire alarm planned during this meeting. Therefore, if the fire alarm sounds, please leave by the nearest exit and go to the assembly point. Do not stop to collect belongings. The assembly point is the pavement in front of the museum. Please remain at the assembly point until advised. It is safe to return to the building. Any persons with mobility issues must head to the nearest stairwell and await further instructions. Thank you very much, Mr Jones. So we move to item number one on the agenda. Are there any substitute members? Yes, we have one substitute member, Councillor Josh Harris. Item number two, declarations of interest. Would anyone care to make a declaration of interest? Councillor Novak, then Councillor Ford. Thank you, Chair. Primarily for purposes of transparency, I would advise that in relation to the first planning application, I'm a member of the Worthing Society and in relation to the second planning application, I was quite some time ago now a governor at Northbrook College, but in relation to both applications, I'm undetermined. Thank you, Councillor and Councillor Ford. Thank you, Chair. And in relation to the second planning application, I'm Northbrook Ward Councillor Elpreet determination. Noted. Thank you very much. So we go to item three on the agenda. Public question time. I have not been informed of any. Presubmitted questions from the public. To item number four, members questions, I believe there are no pre-registered questions from members. Item number five, agreement of minutes of the meeting, 17th of April, 2024. Can we have a brief show of agreement if there is such a thing? That is agreed. Thank you. Item number six, any items raised under urgency provisions? There are none. Item number seven, planning applications. So we have two applications in front of us this evening. Both will be presented by planning officer Mr Gary Peck. And I will go straight to Gary now to present us with the first application. Yes. Thank you, chair. As anyone can see, I'm having some problems with the computer at the moment. Just turn itself off and take away my presentation. Try that. May have to miss out a couple of photographs at the start. Apologies for that. Anyway, just to update the report, firstly, Southermwater have no objection. In respect of the fire and rescue service comments from the county council, the applicant has confirmed a response to the comments of the fire and rescue service that all parts of the building will be within 45 metres of a fire appliance location, as the building benefits from two road frontages. Regarding affordable housing, the agents provided evidence dated November 23 of contacts made to Worthing Homes, Housing 21 and Southern Housing, seeking their interest in taking on four affordable homes provided on site in connection with the proposed development. It is advised that online inquiries also made to Clarion Housing, the Guinness Partnership and Hyde Housing. No positive replies were received in any case. It is advised that the applicant is still open to on site provision if a housing association can be found to take the units on. Members will notice in the 106 agreement there is provision for most various circumstances. In terms of the District Heat Network, Hemico have confirmed that there may be a good opportunity to connect the development to the Worthing District Heat Network and the applicant is willing to consider this, providing it is practically feasible and discussions are ongoing between the agents and the Hemico in that respect. On to the screen, I'm sorry we'll just have to go with the small pictures because it doesn't look like the first five ones at the minute, so I'll just carry on with these and hope they all stay. The application site I'm sure is familiar to members, it's almost opposite the pier on this corner site towards Bath Place, previously had an amusement arcade at the bottom and was a snooker club on upper floors. Then a slightly closer view again of the amusement arcade in the foreground as we come around the corner into Bath Place, that's the frontage on that side. More distant views is a building that can be seen from the prom obviously given its location near to the seafront. And then looking back from the pier, again it's just where the cursor is at that point. Then a more distant view from the southeast. Then within Bath Place itself, looking to the south again the building is just where the cursor is. Like a lot of our buildings close to the seafront as we walk in towards it, it gets a bit narrower and a bit, sometimes unusual sort of parts there, this is between the development site and numbers 1 to 3 Bath Place, a small passageway there. This is a slightly cluttered surface yard to the rear on the northern side. And then as you come up within the building itself, this looks over the flat roof of the Royal Arcade buildings, that's looking in an earthly direction. There's the existing kitchen extraction plant to be replaced and re-sited, and that shows the glass roof of the Royal Arcade. It's quite an interesting view from that point. The east side of the existing building is taken from the rooftop here, so while we have quite an attractive frontage, some of the buildings towards the back are capable of some improvement. This was the former rooftop bar, looking from the front parapet. And then looking back, that's a view northwest, what could be quite a nice spot certainly when it was used. So in terms of the site location and the block plan, it's here, just again where the cursor is, so it appears just across where the red edging is. I'll try and see if I can risk just bringing this up in greater detail. So the existing ground floor plan here with the restaurant and amusement arcade on either side. And then it shows the flexible use of the ground floor and the restaurant on the right hand side, so that's the ground floor layout. And then the upper floors in terms of the residential use. So we can see just how the building curves round here towards where that glass roof of the Royal Arcade is with a nice corner section there, the units access off this central corridor at that point. Then the second floor here and here showing some of the walls to be removed as well within. The third floor again, so similar layouts with these, with this curved part here, slight recess at the front at that point. And then the proposed fourth floor plan, showing there's no access to part of the roof there. And again also some of the parts to be removed. This then shows on the roof plan, it's a flat roof location for some PV panels. And there is also a basement with an existing proposed plan there, albeit there is little actual change. So in terms of the elevations, clearly the key points here are effectively what happens at the top. So the existing here with that sort of plant and existing buildings on the southern elevation here. And that will be replaced by the upper level accommodation to be provided. Clearly in some respects this is a view you'd probably get most easily from this out, almost out to sea as it were, because you would be set quite far back from the building for southern elevation. So these parts set back here would have less visual impact when seen from close by and indeed from the immediately adjoining roads. Then the western elevation, again you can see here the windows improvements I'll mention in a moment. But again this recess part here on top replacing this part here that's currently on top of the building. The eastern elevation, more a bit of tidying up in a way here. So we have the existing sort of obments of the buildings here, and that will be replaced by those upper storey elements at that point. And the northern elevations similarly, our key areas are here, and here where the cursor is, just at those points. That's just a detail of the curved glazing which is an important part on that corner part of the building. Then the proposed aluminium window detail, this one refers to this part here etched in red. And I think the comments from the Worthing Society are expressing the importance of the windows reflecting the existing character of the building. And then the proposed aluminium window details for some of the other units as well. Important that we have thin glazing bars there to make sure they are more of a heritage appearance. So members the recommendation is as set out in your report. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr Pegg. I'm now going to go to the committee to invite them to ask any questions of Gary, with purposes of clarification. I'll just add at this point, we do also have Mr Paul Joyce in from the applicant or agent. It's possible some of your questions might be better asked by him, but of course we won't know that until you ask them. So please feel free to ask anything of Gary for clarification purposes. Councillor Abrahams. Thank you chair, and thank you Mr Pegg for the presentation. I've got a couple of questions if I may. The first is about the repositioning of the kitchen vent from the restaurant. So I can see that no particular concerns have been raised, but I'm just wondering about the installation and maintenance of that. Maybe that's a question for the developer, and not for yourself. But anyway just further clarification about that. But also I've got a question about access to bins. So we saw the image of the narrow pathway, so is that where the bin storage would be and if so is that going to be maintained by a management agency? Or will the bins be collected by the council bin collection? Thank you. Yes, dealing with the second question first, the bin storage is subject to a condition for those details to be agreed. So we will look at that again in consultation with our refuse colleagues, because we have, as members may be aware, some issues with bin collections elsewhere in the town centre, which is important. So I think in that respect, albeit we can have details provided at this stage, but generally in construction my experience is that some of those can change. And if we tie them down at this point to details, when in practice they can't actually be implemented, I think it's better to deal with that by condition. So that bin is sort of part, as it were, I think is condition number 24. Similar in terms of the extraction, in a sense it probably is a question or certainly the second part of your question about maintenance is probably more for the agent. In installation again we can control that in accordance with the approved plans and by condition if necessary. Maintenance, not such a planning issue, but if there are any comments the agent can provide, of course that would be helpful. Thank you. Councillor Abrahams, do you wish any further questions on that subject? Councillor Theodoredi. Thank you, Chair. Just on the issue of affordable housing, I appreciate that the applicant has sought to make contact with various social housing providers that operate within Worthing, however notwithstanding the potential issue, how we get, whether it's a financial contribution or an onsite provision, how will the decision, whether it be onsite or financial contribution, be fed back to the Planning Committee? Well, Chair, that's only part of the legal agreement so in effect the decision will be made. Before that an agreement will be signed and the agreement will allow for either opportunity or either circumstance to occur. If members wish to be kept informed of that, there's no reason why we can't. I think that the situation, as far as I can see, is the local planning policy provision is to prefer onsite. That, unfortunately, is often difficult for various reasons and certainly we have seen that the applicant has been trying to do that, but of course it is reliant on provision from operators to do so or providers to do so, and that, you know, regrettably, if it were as easy as perhaps it were once upon a time, you could almost say to you, Yes, it will definitely be onsite and we don't need to talk to you further. It looks to me, given the number of people they have tried, it looks to be the right people they have tried in terms of usual housing providers in the borough, it looks to be potentially difficult. However, if we get to that point, we can certainly inform members as it goes on to say that we've reached that circumstance. I think the general point is that officers have to be satisfied that enough effort has been made to meet the first requirement of the local planning policy and if that's not made, then we move on to the second one. As I say, I wish it were easier in respect to these things because then we could set out everything for members straight away, but I am conscious that we do see this more and more often, is that applicants are making a genuine effort to find a provider, if those providers don't come along, then we have to go to option B, which is the financial contribution, which to some extent swings and roundabouts, it's easier if we can provide it onsite because of course there's an event before us. So in that respect, we can always inform members if we've got to a certain point in the legal agreement. That might well be some way down the line because the legal agreement gets completed, the provisions are within it, and at that point we'll find out from the applicant what's happened. Councillor Theodori, any follow up? No, I'll just add I'm personally very satisfied with the answer we just got from Mr Peck. Councillor Ford did have his hand up but I have noticed Councillor Shan also, so we go to Councillor Ford first, Councillor Shan, and forgive me if I've got that incorrect but we'll get there in the end. Thank you chair and thank you Mr Peck for the report. Just a question about the quality of some of the accommodation within the report to identify the issues of configuration and outlook for three of the flats within the plan. My question really is about the nature of the issues concerned about the quality accommodation for this minority of flats and are they significant or not. No, they wouldn't be so significant that we would recommend refusal of the application and I think that there has to be a judgement sometimes, it's the nature of the building and I went inside the building a couple of years back and it doesn't strike me having looked at it internally as a very easy building to configure because of the nature of the structure within it plus the curve as well, so in that respect sometimes it's a balance if it's something that's easily solvable then we look to resolve it straight away. If there is in part some concern because of the nature of the building then we have to take that into account in the overall rounds. So I think it's, I think I'll probably put it that I'm satisfied that again every attempt has been made within the constraints of the layout to achieve the best possible solution. Clearly outlook is one thing, of course optimising the development is another. So it's a balancing act and I think that as I say I think my recollection of the building is that it would certainly need some work to make it configure properly and it's quite a difficult one in that respect. Thank you Mr Peck. Follow up question at all Councillor Ford? No. Just a timely reminder, if we refer to any particular part of the report if we could perhaps give a reference to a page number that helps everybody present follow where we are in the meeting. Thank you. Councillor Shan. Thank you Chair and thank you Mr Peck for the presentation. Yeah coming back to the issue of affordable housing, I just wondered if you could give us some more information about how many providers have been approached, which providers they are, kind of how extensive the pursuit of those providers has been and also any feedback from those providers on why they would not be willing to take on the provision. Yes, sorry I spoke a bit quickly in my sort of update. So the evidence we've had is they've gone to Worthinghomes, Housing 21, Subn Housing initially as well as Clarion, the Guinness Partnership and Hyde Housing. So that was six different people and they've not had any positive replies. I guess the agent might be able to update us further. Now in terms of the evidence to some extent it's fairly simple and we have a local plan policy and so therefore the applicant will be saying right ok I need to provide these units and this is where they are and how we can provide them. And then of course it's up to the provider or a relevant housing association or provider to take that on. As far as I can see they're not getting very far which is obviously unfortunate. They have said they will keep trying and the legal agreement in effect does allow for that because what I reported was the initial inquiries had taken place in November 23. Now you know by the time perhaps we've granted permission if permission is granted the legal agreement is signed and development moves to fruition we may be in a different landscape. For better or worse it may be more or less likely the provider will do it. So I think the point is that it is probably just important that November 23 or whenever it was is not the fixed point and they said no then and we don't investigate in the future so the legal agreement will allow further investigations for that. If it doesn't come to fruition then we have the back up of the financial agreement instead. Thank you Mr Pick. Councillor Shan would you like a follow up question to that? Yes, please ask away. Thank you. My concern is that without any tangible feedback from those providers that we're kind of taking it on good faith that those conversations are taking place. That could be the extent of an email that's gone unanswered or it could be months of negotiations and so I'd like to feel more reassured of the extent of those conversations and what they look like. Also I just had a question about the contribution and my concern about that if we come to this and we have seen a lot of examples locally where developers have ended up finding ways to not provide affordable housing. And the problem with Worthing is that we know that there is such a lack of supply. That is that 20% allocated to a site within the town centre? Do we know what kind of timeline that would take? And so my concern here is that by accepting the 20% contribution that we are not finding a way to provide the mixed communities that the affordable housing provision is designed to supply. Well the financial contribution is locked in as it were because that's a legal agreement and that has to be paid if they can't provide it on site. So there is a guarantee in that respect. I think the difficulty then perhaps moves beyond somewhat the scope of this committee because then we're getting to the realms of our housing teams to say right where will it go on which sites and how can it be delivered and sometimes it can be a bit less tangible because it may be that there is an individual site that we can use this for or it gets put towards a greater part of some of the other sites that we're developing ourselves for example or in combination with others across the town. Some of which are being slowed to fruition in themselves and in that respect it may help that along. So perhaps there is something there of traceability as to what happens because in effect once we've got the money it's not the planning department who allocates it so to speak because then it will go to our colleagues in housing as to how best to provide that. Now I guess the concern with all these things all tested through the local planning process is it's very easy to see four units on the site. They've got them, they're in that location but if it's just a figure where has that figure gone? I guess perhaps if there is a lesson as these things turn out is that maybe we can inform the committee of, do you remember that x number of thousand pounds is secured in the legal agreement and that's now re-emerged on this site here. But long term the provision is still provided, perhaps locationally is a more difficult thing because sometimes they'll go across the town, not necessarily in the town centre I would say perhaps but not bang right in the town centre. And again that may be a thing to look at to say well look are we moving this right out of that particular area and just into certain places which can take it. So that is something I think probably in a sense is probably a longer term matter to keep the committee advised of because otherwise you just get ad hoc decisions as a committee you think well okay I've made six of these now, where has all that money gone and where have we actually provided it. So that's certainly something I can take back for the future. Thank you very much Mr Peck and Councillor Shat, to your question of what conversations were had with the providers I'm sure Mr Joyce can provide an answer to that when he speaks to us shortly. Councillor Novak. Thank you Chair and thank you for your presentation Mr Peck. Can you just illustrate for us or point out to us the extension of this loading bay. Can you show us exactly where that extension would be on the plan? Okay. Okay. My question is really about the impact it has on pedestrian use of the oway and the pavements and so on. Councillor Novak are you thinking it's currently to the south of the actual building as such? Okay. Thank you. My second question if I may Chair. Of course you may have a second question whether Mr Peck is still concentrating on the graphics or not or whether he's ready to pick up on another question. In this particular issue I just want to know for the very first time that there's been a narrow passageway which would be used by cyclists and I know that there's a requirement for good lighting along there, but who's responsibility would it be in terms of this development for keeping that passageway clear and unobstructed? Well I think whether it's unobstructed is probably mattered down to the future residents of the units once they come in because they're often the people who might block it. I think the point is that if we have a condition that requires that to be kept clear then we can enforce against it if it does become blocked. I think that's really the important thing is that we have a remedy because occasionally as time moves on individual actions and as we saw from the photograph that is a narrow passageway and it won't take much to block it. I think on that point, Chair, if we need to be explicit about that in conditions we can certainly do that if that's a concern of members. Thank you Mr Peck and of course any members are free to take up that offer once we enter the debate section of this particular application. Are there any further questions from Councillors to Mr Peck for clarification purposes? It looks like we've run through them. Thank you very much Mr Peck. So we would normally go to objectors but there are none. We would then go to ward or parish Councillors but none have registered to speak. So I am going to call supporters and for tonight's purposes that's Mr Paul Joyce, Agent Louis Planning. Mr Joyce, I don't know whether you've attended one of our meetings previously, you have the microphone at the front there. Once you press the green button on the front, a red light will come on and you are live. You will have three minutes to speak. Our Democratic Services Officer, Katie will do the timing on that and when you reach your three minutes I will remind you that your time is up. Thank you Chair, thank you Gary for the opportunity to speak and support the Dinosaur House proposal. Thank you also to your Planning Officer, Joe Morin and Conservation Architect, Richard Small for their positive work on the site over the past year. We have collaborated closely with officers to ensure all details are befitting of this prominent site and location. The grand attractive building is tired and in need of substantial renovation. The former uses of snooker hall and amusement parkades closed off the building to the street. The proposal opens the eyes of this landmark site. Facade repairs, replacement windows, new shopfront details and the roof level alterations will elevate the appearance of the building and south street conservation area. This application is approved today, the result will be a refurbished building in the centre of the seafront the wording can be proud of. The mix of uses, retail, restaurant and residential and active frontages support the aims of the local plan and will invigorate the town centre. The rooftop extensions are contemporary but reference the historic context of the location. The light grey metal cladding will echo the domed roof with the pavilion pier opposite. The combination of historic grandeur and contemporary subtlety is a pleasing mix that allows for the history of the building to be read. The 21 high quality flats will make a valuable contribution to local housing and ensure optimal use is made of the town centre site. The local plan directs this type of housing to this location, wording a struggle to deliver the housing it needs in recent years. This development can be delivered in good time by a local developer. The applicant continues to explore the provision of on-site affordable housing. If no housing associate can be found they could also agree to make a substantial financial contribution to the tune of £340,000. The proposal also demonstrates a high degree of sustainability, including the re-use of the existing building which is inherently sustainable. Highly insulated building fabric, air source heat pumps and solar panels will combine to maximise carbon savings. The development reinvigorates the locally important building and provides benefits to heritage, the townscape, town centre and seafront viability, local housing supply and environmental sustainability. We hope the councillors can agree with their planning officers and grant planning commission for this much needed development. Thank you very much Mr Joyce, so if you'd like to stay with City where you are, I'm just now going to invite the committee if they have any questions for clarification purposes, what we just said. So over to you members of the committee, any questions? Councillor Shan, yes please. Thank you very much Mr Joyce, thanks for being here. Yes just basically the same question that I had just asked to Mr Peck about the extent of the conversations that have taken place with those affordable housing providers and what they've looked like. So there's been initial emails, initial website, checklists that you fill in, follow up phone calls with the applicant on numerous occasions to all of these, getting very little back from them. Feedback tends to be that housing associations struggle with a small number of units in a mixed tenured building, particularly when there should be shared maintenance charges. There's also, yeah they would prefer a bigger number of units in a block that they could control rather than relying on a third party management company. There's also the fact that there's also the idea that housing associations tend not to commit to smaller schemes that don't have planning commission. At the moment none of them are really going to put their flag in the sand as it were and say we want those units if they don't know they have planning permission. But again we'll perhaps, we want to keep exploring it and with a grant of planning permission some of these housing associations might be more open to discussions. Thank you very much for that answer, Councillor Shan do you wish a follow up question? You do, go ahead. Thank you, I don't know if this will be a question for you or it might be better answered by Mr Peck but I just wondered if there are alternatives to having the housing providers in a sort of build to rent scheme, if there are alternatives to having it locked in where a private management company can own it. Councillor Shan we are now asking questions for clarification purposes, I think that's a tough one to ask the applicant for a specific development. If it does become part of the general discussion where we go to debate then feel free to bring it up at that moment. Perfect, thank you. And I apologise for closing you down on that one but we've got to stick to rules. Any other council members have questions for the applicant? Councillor Novak. Perhaps we can pick up on a question of the location of the loading bay and its impact on pedestrian units. If this is a question for the applicant by all means. My understanding is this comes from West Sussex County Council. Is it on Street View Gary? You're not, you're a picture. To the left of that car there is an existing loading bay there. About an eight metre wide pavement so they can extend that loading bay by twelve metres they propose. To allow for another delivery vehicle to get in there. And there will still be four or five metres of pavement at that point. Thanks for the answer Councillor Novak. Any further? Could I get some clarity on that Mr Joyce please? So you're referring to the far left of the picture and that bank of buildings, the way I understand it, eventually moves on to a couple of bars and stuff like that. They have a delivery bay outside. So the extension to the delivery bay is going to go north towards the buildings or is it going to go east and actually extend the length of it? East to west. Got it, okay. Thanks. And I'm comfortable with that. I didn't want anybody else to misconstrue your original answer. Thank you. Any further questions from the Councillors for clarification purposes for Mr Joyce? I'm not seeing any. Mr Joyce thank you very much. If you want to rejoin your original seat thank you for your contribution. So we've now had the application explained to us by Mr Peik. We've had a chance to ask him questions for clarification. We have had three minutes from the applicant Mr. Paul Joyce. We've asked him questions also for clarification. We now go into the debate section of this particular application. So Councillors I appreciate four of you have not sat on this committee previously but three of you have. So I'm going to look to you three to kick off the debate. Councilor Theodori. Thank you Chair. Personally I have no issue with this application. I think it's a good use of the space. We obviously need more housing and I'm pleased that the developer has made efforts to reach out to social housing providers and to actually try and provide provision on site. Because as has been mentioned we do have a lot of applications where we get to this point and it's already been decided. It's already got to the point where there isn't going to be any on site provision. I'm hopeful that that will be provided but obviously if it's not and we get a financial contribution then that's better than nothing at all. So I'd be minded towards approving this but obviously we'll have to see what everyone else says first. I would like to propose that at the start of the debate and then everyone else can contribute what they feel they need to. Thank you Councilor Theodori. This configuration of the committee is very awkward. You're all facing me but it's not actually me you have to convince. It's yourselves on the committee. When you say you wanted to propose that right at the beginning Councilor Theodori were you sort of putting your cards on the table or did you actually want to propose at this early stage? Which you can if you wish. Yes so to propose it at this stage, the recommendation. So you're proposing that we accept the recommendation at this stage. Would there be a seconder for that? There would be Councillor Novak. So very early on we have a proposal and a seconder. We still have the ability to debate that proposal. So Councillor Novak. Yes I just want to sort of endorse what's been said. I think it's bringing that building back into use is a great opportunity. I mean you've only got to look at it to see that it's a great improvement especially on the superstructure to what's already there. It's retaining the character of the existing building in terms of the windows and so on. It's providing much needed accommodation. The only thing I'm concerned about which I think we've mentioned is that passageway for the cyclist which I think we need to reinforce that somehow in terms of the conditions. Thank you very much Councillor. As you said those words I did notice one or two very gentle subtle nods which is always a lovely sign to see. Because it means that we're all kind of like of a mind which must be a - I failed to find the right word - a comfort to us all. Are there any dissenters? Does somebody wish to say something which is not in line with thoughts so far mentioned? Councillor Shan. Sorry to put a damper on the party. I think it's pretty obvious that I'm quite concerned about the affordable housing provision. I do agree however that it is pretty dilapidated and I think it's a good thing to be addressing the state of the building. I don't feel hugely reassured if I'm honest about the extent of the conversations that have taken place. And I would like to see more information about potential alternatives which was my question but I'm not quite sure how I can get an answer to that about whether there are alternatives through private management companies who are contracted to rent out the space for a certain amount of time. I think my big concern here is that when you look at comments from residents on social media, when we knock on doors, that kind of thing, people are really concerned about the town centre of Worthing becoming priced out of it and it being a centre of luxury, seafront apartments, penthouses, that kind of thing. The problem with the contribution, as Mr Peck outlined, is that we cannot be assured about where that will be contributed to and when. And so what we are very much at risk of is having a town centre that is full of luxury accommodation that's too expensive for the people of Worthing and the people of Worthing are pushed to the outskirts of the town. We're already very much lacking supply of land all over the town but the only place feasibly that is going to be allocated to is going to be out of town. And so, unfortunately, without greater reassurances about the provision of that affordable housing and the precedent that has been set on other developments for not providing that, I'm not minded to support this point. Thank you for your comments, Councillor. Councillor Abrahams. Thank you and thank you, Councillor Shan, for raising what is, as we know, a really significant issue for our residents. I just want to add a couple of things from my point of view, having sat on this committee for the previous year, is that we have heard similar accounts from applicants, from agents about the difficulty of engaging with registered providers, housing associations, for smaller numbers. So what the agent is saying does ring true from previous applications, albeit not of this small size. So that does sound like a familiar, sad, disappointing, but familiar story. In terms of how this compares, how this sits with meeting the housing need across the town, I would say quite a significant need we have is for young families who are seeking larger accommodation than maybe these apartments are suggesting. I suppose for me, having a good mix is really positive. It was also really nice to see the positive comments from the Worthing Society, who were often represented here at planning meetings. So to have their support is really positive for me. But absolutely, I hear you, Councillor, I agree about the need and this doesn't meet the need necessarily. However, it is still meeting some need. So for me, I'm probably minded to support the application. My additional minor concern is about the bins. We have got an issue with bin collection, with the development that used to be the Bill's building, even though that's a private collection. Officers here still get many complaints, even though the responsibility is with the management agent. So for me, the condition around ensuring that is dealt with is important. Thank you very much, Councillor. Good comments. I have a few observations myself, one or two, referencing last year on this committee. Yes, we had an enormous amount of applications last year for accommodation within the town centre, 250 plus units at Union Place, 230 or 240 behind Waitrose at what we call the Gasworks. Seville Gates will obviously be going through the pipeline imminently. We have the Debidhams development coming along. We have flats on top of the Montague Centre. A vast amount of accommodation will be cropping up in the town centre very shortly. I'm sure between all those five developments, the various flats and plans, the accommodation for many, many different requirements will be provided. The comments from the Worthing Society were good to read. I looked at this building and you walk past it, you don't always examine every brick of it, and I stopped and I looked at the building and I thought, 'Isn't it wonderful?' 'And isn't it just about on the cusp of falling apart?' Thank God somebody stepped in and wants to do something with it. I have no problem with this at all. I looked at it from different angles. I looked at the visualisations of the rooftop apartments, which I thought might be controversial with members of the committee that they have not proved to be so. I'm perfectly happy with them. They fit lovely into the roofscape of town, especially if you're standing to the west of the building looking east. I'm very glad something is being done with this building. This was a surprisingly pleasant first meeting gift to us. I think this is a good, valuable application. Those are my comments. We're still in debate should anybody wish to comment further. If nobody wishes to comment further, then I see no reason why not to go to a vote on Councillor Theodorides' motion to accept the recommendations of the officers, seconded by Councillor Novak. Chair, just before the vote, just one very minor amendment to condition number six then to take Councillor Novak's comments regarding the cycle storage and keeping it clear. So if we just amend that wording to keep that as specific. So if members wish to go with Councillor Theodorides' recommendation to subject to an amendment to condition six, to meet the concerns of Councillor Novak. Okay, so you heard it from Mr Pech there. So the motion is to approve the recommendations subject to condition number six, taking account of concerns of bin storage area. Councillor Theodorides and you're still happy to second Councillor Novak. Good, good smiles coming across the room. So fantastic. Let's go to a vote then. So all those in favour of the motion to accept the recommendation? Seven in favour. All those against. One against. And obviously no abstentions. So we have accepted the officer's recommendation to approve this application subject to one minor variation. Thank you very much. So I'll now invite the applicant for that first application if he wishes to leave the room, that we will not make you sit through the second one for no good reason. Okay, thank you committee. So we are now going to go to Planning Officer Mr Gary Pech to present to us the second application on our agenda this evening. Yes, thank you Chair. Item 2, no further updates to the report by way of representations, but just a couple of moments the officers have been looking at since the report was written. Firstly in respect of CO2 and energy, confirmation of the percentages for heating and renewable electricity generation via a combination of air source heat pumps and solar PV panels have been sought from the applicant and confirmed as follows. After taking account of the energy demand generated by onsite renewable sources, the building will produce 51% carbon dioxide reduction compared with building regulations requirements and at least 10% of energy demand will be met by renewable resources. This therefore demonstrates compliance with policies DM16 and DM17 of the Worthing Local Plan. Just in respect to your recommendation at the end, just to clarify the wording, because it implies that the County Council will take a monitoring fee from the legal agreement, the County Council have confirmed that 106 contributions are not required in relation to the travel plan, although the monitoring fee is not required for the travel plan as these are not required for educational establishments. So when we come to the vote at the end I'll just very slightly reword the recommendation because it implies that monitoring fees will be payable for the travel plan and that's not actually the case. So any appropriate fees will be coming just to the Borough Council, not the County Council on the planning obligation. So the subject area is circled in red here. These very low buildings somewhat out of character not only with existing college buildings alongside them but also the newer housing estate that's been constructed in recent years behind it as well. So the application site is in the foreground or at least I should say this is how it used to look as we'll see from the photographs in a moment. But again as you can see from this photograph here the sort of idea of a very shallow pitched low building is not common in the location as it's developed previously and over time. And then further aerial view from the north. So the L-shaped building referred to is in fact no longer there as we can see from this current photograph. That site has been cleared now and we can see it has fencing inside of it so you can see the other buildings that exist on site at present in a slightly wider view showing the entrance to the housing development just close by to the site. But also to demonstrate there is some screening on the eastern boundary of the site when viewed from Nightingale Avenue then coming back to look towards the car garage there so the cleared site in front of us and again the screening in the background there. So some of the remaining buildings just in the background there, the last ones to go looking in a north-easterly direction and once they're clear then the site will be ready to go. This context view is showing the other buildings in the campus so higher obviously in the pictures and so on but also a more modern building there in the background. So the last of the temporary buildings and shipping containers to be removed is shown here from Nightingale Avenue, not a particularly attractive scene visually. So the application site here is shown in red so just coming around encircling existing buildings on the site and extending quite far north to those shipping containers and temporary buildings I mentioned earlier but also remembering this building has been demolished. So in terms of existing and proposed block plans configuration is slightly different there's a bit more space on this part of the site in terms of going towards the westerly direction, extends slightly further north but off the boundary here is more of a gap. Then we can see this block at the front at this point here. And so the proposed ground floor, first floor and roof plans so we have the main block in the foreground and then the lower extension to the north coming off like that so in a sense it's an L shape albeit in a slightly different layout compared to the existing. So again these existing elevations showing the existing buildings as were somewhat out of context were their surrounds and again just showing the existing east and also the theatre elevation close by which is the tall building adjacent to it. So in respect of the proposed elevations, we can see here the new ridge height of the main part of the building at the front is comparable to those existing buildings to the south but obviously not as tall as the theatre building behind it so we have this part at the front of the site with the sloping roof and then the lower element behind it shown here western elevation and the lower screens. Then from the other side again northern elevation showing that element of pitched roof and so on and then the side elevation again showing that lower point but we can see again the context behind there are always higher buildings than the one proposed. That's a section across the site again which is showing in the background here and here are higher buildings and then the last couple of photographs just in context here showing the window opening and some of the cladding which is not dissimilar to the other buildings you saw earlier on in the background and an artistic view of showing what the materials are like at that point. And then finally there is a proposed visual that shows the modern elements of the building as viewed from the front. So therefore, Chair, the recommendation is to grant permission as printed but just to amend the wording on page 50 that the appropriate monitoring freeze go to the Borough Council only. Thank you very much Mr Peck. So we now go to the committee for any questions for clarification purposes. Councillor Shan. Thank you, Mr Peck. Just a quick one. On page 34 I note that the bus depot have got temporary consent for that use until January next year. I just wondered if you know whether the plan is for that part of the car park to come back into use by the college after that point. Thank you. I'm going to jump in on this point and say I don't think that question is relevant to this application so we need to stick to questions for this application. Can I say why I think it's relevant? There's concern raised in the report from residents about lack of car parking spaces that will go into residential places so the reassurance is relevant. Residents are able to raise all sorts of concerns but this committee has to deal with the application. We saw the outline for the site under question and that particular area doesn't fall within that. So I'm not going to say that that's a relevant question for discussion of this application. Okay, I can't understand how that is. I mean it's about parking provision for the college of which this is a major park. I'm going to go to Mr Peck. Well only for simplicity to say that I don't know the answer anyway, if that helps. I'm sorry I don't know the answer to that. I think what I would say is that because the consent carries on until January 25, if this were permitted and they came back to renew that consent then obviously this permission would have to be taken into account when we come back to that one. So there is an order of things here because things can change in the next six, seven months before that consent expires. So I think that's probably the, I don't know the answer to when it's going to come back but in any case the context would be that if it were to be renewed for the temporary permission then we'd have to take this permission into account when making that decision in the future. Thank you Mr Peck. Any further questions from the committee? Wow, I'm quite surprised. So Mr Peck I have a question and it relates to noise. I've looked at the plans for it and several of the Northern ground floor workshops are for brick works. I think they'll be obviously teaching sort of brick laying skills and stuff like that. There is an element of noise with east facing windows and in the report, it was referenced that if noise became problematic, and it looks to me like they're hinged at the top of the window with the bottom opening. There is an element of noise that those windows should be kept closed. I have concerns on hot days those windows will be opened, there will be noise and nobody will take it upon themselves to be the person that goes into that room and says I'm going to close these windows. Also, towards the more northern end you showed one photograph, I think it was of the shipping containers and yep, there seems to be some foliage to the south along that fence line but not at that particular point. I'm concerned that noise is going to bleed from that site to the flats opposite. So I went into the papers and I read the, let's give it its correct title, noise impact assessment, college workshop building. I'm going to focus on page one of that, and the section I'm referring to is quoted in our papers. I'm going to focus on page 43. But there is one part of the paragraph from where that quote is lifted that is not included. And that is an environment inside and outside the NSRs which we have learnt are noise sensitive receptors. For the reasons above, it is also considered that, and this is the bit that's missing and I've highlighted, planning permission should not be refused on noise grounds, albeit with the possible planning conditions relating to noise. And I'm going to make the assumption that if we've got the noise report author almost prompting us to add planning conditions, should we look at adding planning conditions because I don't find the phraseology of if the noise is an issue we close the windows and I find that to be satisfactory, it's unenforceable. So that's my comment, Mr Peckett, and I'm sorry I laboured that point, but it was worth making. Well, Chair, again I expect the agent to assist if necessary. My understanding is there is mechanical ventilation that can be used if the windows need to be kept shut so that has an alternative which is what we'd expect in that situation. In terms of noise condition, it is true to say that planning condition shouldn't normally be refused on those grounds when you can adequately mitigate. In respect to condition number one, approved plans, where it says the development should be basically implementing the coordinates of those plans, that also means the supporting information that's submitted with it, in other words the noise assessment we've had. If members felt that they wished to be more explicit in that, you could impose a condition requiring all measures to be undertaken in accordance with the noise and acoustics information submitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing the local planning authority, something along those lines. If you wanted to be specific about it, we can go back to condition one if necessary, but if members wish to see that as an explicit stand-alone condition that has noise at the top of it, then we're open to do that. I don't think it necessarily affects the application itself because we'll be relying on the information that's already submitted, but we can be more specific if members wish. Thank you very much, Mr Peck. I'll allow myself a follow-up on that one. Yes, during the debate section I would like to come back and with the support of the committee perhaps revisit this. I would also, at the debate section, like to consider that the foliage, the hedging that is there at the moment, will be acting as a very effective noise dampener. But I have seen on sites in the past that when construction is taking place, development companies have seen fit to create new entrances in hedge lines and of course that would take many years to replace. Many years of noise from what is effectively an industrial site, not only during its construction but by nature, being an educational establishment for teaching of construction, I feel that might have quite an impact on residents. But unless you wish to come back with a comment, Mr Peck, I wouldn't necessarily expect one. Well, Chair, only that we do have a proposed landscaping condition which is also linked to biodiversity as well, so I suspect that either objective wouldn't be particularly helped if all greenery that remains on the site is removed or at least not adequately replaced. So, again, we do have the power of that and I think it is the important part that the landscaping will assist the scheme. There are now biodiversity requirements as well, which this application is one of the first to have to take into account. So we do have that added protection that without a landscaping plan they can't just take it out and drive wedges through it without coming back to us and at least saying how it's going to be replaced. But there's no reason to suggest that would be the landscaping plan in the first place. Thank you, Mr Peck. We're going back to the committee. Councillor Ford, yes please. Thank you, Chair. I'm following on from your question and observation and a question. The screening between numbers 10 to 20 of Nightingale Avenue is intermittent and on Red Kite Way is fairly minimal. So my question, following on from the last question and discussion, is whether any plans currently to enhance the screening in that part of Nightingale Avenue and Red Kite Way? Thank you, Councillor. Mr Peck? Yes, we can't really see it that well from the plan. There are indications down here of a wavy landscaping line, if you like. So we do have that potential and if again members wish to stress the necessity of maintaining or enhancing that barrier when we come to approve the landscaping condition, that's certainly something that I think we would have been doing anyway but certainly we can look at that as it comes along. Thank you. Those are reassuring reassurances. So back to the committee. Any further questions? Councillors? Councillor Ford? A question, Chair, which follows on from Councillor Shan's question about student numbers. So there's an objection on page 39 of the report which raises concerns about the potential impact on car parking. And those concerns I think are dealt with in pages 47, 48 and 49 of the report but what would be helpful thinking it may be from Mr Peck or from the applicant is some assurance about the impact of the plan development on student and staff numbers. Thank you very much, Councillor. I don't know whether Mr Peck detected any question to answer there or whether indeed this is better for the applicant to be asked that question. Well, I'm not, I can't really comment on the numbers. I think the point is where you have a travel plan, I suggest that's really meant to improve the methods of transportation to the site so yes, we may have a problem perhaps or at least an existing pressure with car parking at present. That's recognised by a travel plan which without this wouldn't have so in that respect we have the ability to try and enhance other means of transport apart from car travel by attaching conditions of the travel plan to a permission. It is always a matter of judgements. However, in my experience you have more control when you have a permission and measures you can enforce rather than at present when we don't have so many so I think that's probably the answer I give. You have an opportunity here to investigate how transportation to the site is achieved and managed both now and in the future. Thank you, Mr Peck. Just to remind the committee we are asking questions for clarification from Planning Officer, we still have the applicants to hear from and we still have the opportunity to voice our opinions during the debate section. So, any further questions for Mr Peck from the committee please? I don't see any so thank you very much, Mr Peck. So, once again we would normally move to Objectors, there are none, we would move to Ward Councillors, there are none to speak. So I am going to invite either Mr Chris Barker or Mr John Rollings to speak to us. When you reach the microphone, you know the system, the button, the three minutes, if you could introduce yourself because then for my benefit and anybody else in the room or listening at home we would know who you are and if you could just mention which firm, company or organisation you work for. Thank you. Good evening, my name is John Rollings, I am the Chief Operating Officer for the Chichester College Group. I am going to provide some context for the application before my colleague Chris Barker talks more specifically about the project itself. The further education sector has operated in an extremely challenging financial environment for well over 10 years with significant and extended funding cuts. This has led to a period of consolidation with a number of mergers taking place to generate savings through rationalisation and management and support services. Northbrook College initially merged with City College Brighton & Hove in 2017 to create Greater Brighton Metropolitan College, GBoti. Although savings were made, GBoti found it difficult to operate on a financially sustainable basis in large part due to its number of campuses in relation to its size and number of students. In 2022 GBMEC became part of Chichester College Group, CCG. CCG operates as a group but with individual colleges maintaining their own local identity. Following the merger, the Northbrook College brand has been reintroduced. CCG has three large sites in Worthing, Northbrook's West Durrington and Broadwater campuses and Worthing College. As part of the merger process, CCG made a commitment to the Department of Education to produce an estate strategy for Worthing. This included plans for rationalisation but with a commitment to maintaining local provision as long as there was sufficient demand for this to be economically viable. The adopted estate strategy consolidates a number of major sites in Worthing from three to two. Broadwater has been selected for sale as the West Durrington site houses mostly specialist facilities which are expensive to re-provide and the Worthing College site delivers mostly A-levels. The consolidation will generate annual cost savings and importantly improve the student experience by ensuring the retained sites are lively and vibrant and have a full complement of supporting services. All of the disposal receipts are planned to be reinvested into facilities in the town. We have surplus space at West Durrington and Worthing and we will fit most of the provision relocated from Broadwater into existing buildings. However, our construction department is too big with too much specialist equipment for us to be able to accommodate this so we require this new building. The new construction trades building will be approximately 1500 square metres. The Broadwater site is just over 9000 square metres so this gives you an idea of the space rationalisation that will be achieved. The new building will be a significant improvement to the West Durrington site replacing unused temporary buildings with specialist facilities. On behalf of the College I thank you in advance for supporting what is an essential project for the future of further education in Worthing. Thank you very much Mr. Rollings and as per usual I am going to invite the Committee to ask questions for clarification purposes of Mr. Rollings. Councillors, does anybody have a question? Councillor Ford, yes please. Thank you Mr. Rollings. It's the same question really about the impact of this development on students and staff members and how that will be managed within the existing portfolio of car parking and other transport facilities. The car park that we have is extremely large and the bus depot element of it in the day is actually a very small part of the footprint. So there are substantially more bus vehicles at night and they come in and they are stored overnight but during the day it's sorted just in the corner so there's quite a sizeable amount of capacity for additional vehicles. The other thing to say is that the majority of our students in the construction facilities, a good proportion of them will be 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds who don't drive so we wouldn't necessarily be expecting them to bring significant additional vehicles either. Thank you. Any further questions from Councillors in the Committee? Councillor Shan, yes please. Thank you, thank you very much, thank you very much for being here. Just a bit of a follow on question really. It's really good to see the travel plan and obviously the plan to promote sustainable travel options to the students and it's great, you've got the access to the train station. I just wondered if there's any existing scheme for kind of discount travel for students? I'm not familiar with it so it was just a point of clarification around that because obviously, like you say, a lot of them won't be driving but also unfortunately sustainable travel options can be quite expensive. So yeah, just a question on that, thank you. We don't have specific schemes that are operated generally. There are some concessions in terms of rail areas that operate in the area but we do have a substantial range of support and bursary type funding that we can provide for students who have difficulty travelling, some of which can cover this area. So there's a range of options we can use to support students travelling to the site. Thank you and any further questions from the Committee for Mr. Rawlings? It doesn't appear so, Mr Rawlings, thank you very much. I'll now invite Mr Chris Barker. Chris, you're from ECE Planning. I don't need to explain the process to you, so three minutes, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I will introduce myself to the new members though. Chris Barker, managing director of ECE Planning, who are a local Worthing based planning practice and have worked with the college for over ten years on the various campuses. The scheme before you this evening seeks to demolish the existing and sub-standard buildings and construct a new, two and part one storey specialist construction workshop building, together with improvements to the theatre building, outdoor space and landscaping. The Construction Trade Centre is a facility designed to cater for the increasing demand for construction courses and apprenticeships. This centre will provide essential, modern accommodation to support the growth and development of the trades curriculum, which we all know is so important to the UK industry. The project has been designed to have a key emphasis on sustainability. The new building will utilise renewable technologies, such as air source heat pumps and photovoltaic panels. We are committed to achieving a 'briam' very good rating, ensuring that the new structures meet very high standards for energy efficiency, thermal performance and air tightness. The project has committed to biodiversity net gain also, and our plans, including retaining and protecting existing trees and hedgerows, with any necessary tree removal being compensated on a one for one ratio. Through these measures, we will aim to achieve over 34% increase in onsite habitat, which is fully compliant with policy and this will be secured by legal agreement, as you've heard. The functional aspects of the design have been thoughtfully considered. The layout, scale, mass, bulk and height of the new buildings have been designed to complement the existing campus and the surrounding area. High quality materials will be used to ensure the new constructions then seamlessly the local character and appearance. Our proposals align with all relevant national and local planning policies and we have followed the relevant policies of the framework, which emphasises the importance and giving great weight to expanding our existing education facilities. This development represents a significant investment in the future of our communities. It aims to provide students with higher quality facilities to ensure that the college continues to be a leading institution for education and training. We believe that these proposals will greatly benefit the students, staff and wider community, making the campus a more vibrant, efficient and sustainable place to learn and grow. As confirmed by the relevant consortees, the proposals will be acceptable in terms of neighbouring amenity, highways, parking, drainage, sustainability, contamination, etc, subject to compliance with conditions. I hope therefore you'll be able to support these fantastic proposals and uphold your officer's strong recommendation of approval. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Barker. So to the committee for questions. Councillor Novak? Can you just highlight what measures have been taken to provide full access, it's a multi-storey building for people with disabilities? Thank you, Councillor. Mr Peck, would you be able to share the floor plans so we can show in terms of the accessibility within the building? And would you be able to zoom in on the ground floor so we can show. Can you see the lift core within the building to make sure that we can get access to the first floor? Can you see it on the screen? My eyes might be better. Sorry, so the access comes in, the main access is into the core. The tail of the tapholes, we know it coming in there for students and staff and other parties and you come into the ground floor and then there is, as annotated there, we have the access to a lift to the first floor. Thank you. Councillor Novak, any follow up on that one? It's another question rather than a follow up to the first floor. Another question. Fill your boots. It appears to be a self-contained building. Thinking about students going to the refectory or to the library or other parts of the estate, how does this building facilitate that and avoid them getting soaked in wet during the winter? Thank you. It is self-contained in that regard but it is a very short walk just across the yard, so to speak. So we are moving round. So if you see the site plan, it is only a matter of yards around the corner. Back into the main facilities as you can see. Thank you very much. Any further questions? Any further questions from any member of the Councillor theatre? Yes please. Mr Peck could you go, Gary could you please go back to the visualisations of how the... Thank you. I'm just curious. I mean, it's not a... I think it's a good... The plan looks good I think generally. I'm just curious as to why black was chosen as seemingly the main colour rather than something lighter, especially given that the majority of both the buildings at Northbrook College and the houses on the other side are either lighter or red brick in colour? Thank you. I think actually the render is not actually showing the colouration of the brick. It is intended to be a blue engineering brick which is reflecting the same brick as actually on the main entrance which is on the south west corner. So actually I think we're probably losing the clarity on the image before you, so in terms of the tone obviously of the metal cladding as well, looking at something to... Thank you Gary in terms of actually what we're doing. So it is very much designed to be as reading as those bookends. You've got new entrance and then there's new building, so apologies it's looking black. But it's not. Thank you Councillor Theodoridis, absolutely it's as well we assure ourselves of any niggles at this point because that's what the moment is for. Further questions from any members of the committee for Mr Barker? No, thank you very much. So in the usual process we now enter the debate section of this application. So once again would anybody like to kick off the debate section? Councillor Abrahams then Councillor Novak? Thank you Chair. Yes I think it's a really positive plan, it's really forward thinking. Hopefully having more modern state of the art facilities in those workshops will attract more students particularly into the trades and then hopefully get placements and work locally with local businesses. That's me thinking ahead because I work in higher education. Yes so I think it's really positive. I do appreciate that there are concerns about car parking, valid concerns always. But I'm reassured that a number of the students won't be bringing a car, maybe travelling with others who might be driving of course. But for me that's not a significant enough concern to refuse so I am minded to approve the recommendation. I think it's really positive and energetic. Thank you Councillor. Now obviously we've got a bit more debate to be had but you said you are minded to. If you wish to at this stage I wouldn't stop you. We would look for a seconder but we would then carry on debating that motion. Councillor Abrahams would you like to propose the motion that we accept the recommendation? I'm not prompting you to, I'm actually asking if you would like to. I'm minded to hear others views and opinions before I commit that far. I think that's perfectly acceptable. So any other views and opinions from the committee? Councillor Ford. So did we have Councillor Novak first? Yes we did. Councillor Novak I do apologise. Thank you Chair and thank you Councillor Ford. Yeah I just wish to repeat or echo what's been said by Councillor Abrahams. I'm a great believer in the power of FE to transform young people's lives and give them purpose in life, a trade. Everyone, whatever political party persuasion you are, recognises the importance of apprenticeships and the skills side of education. It's always been the Cinderella of the education world and I think anything that makes this a more desirable, attractive, forward thinking purpose for building a college set of buildings is bound to be a benefit both to the students and to the town. Thank you Councillor absolutely this deserves our encouragement to Councillor Ford. Thank you Chair and I'd echo the comments from Councillor Abrahams and Councillor Novak. The development of the construction trade centre is a really positive development in terms of enhancing our educational facilities in the town or the socio-economic benefits that go with it. So a really positive development for me. The only issues, nickels for me, are the proximity of the centre to the houses on lighting gateway and sorry lighting alleyway and I think we can deal with those issues through enhancing screening as we discussed earlier in the conversation and also through the measures around noise mitigation. Thank you. Thank you Councillor. Councillor Theodore Eadie? Thank you Chair. Again I'd like to echo the comments of my fellow Councillors. I think this is a really really good plan and in development it will really improve the site and provide better facilities for students. I think given what we discussed around the amount of housing that we've had come before us over the last year and also tonight the development in the town centre. I think we need people to actually build those houses to actually those developments and I am aware and I'm sure many of us are that there are issues in the construction trade at the moment I believe in terms of the numbers of people actually doing the work itself. I think anything for the fact that those courses are provided here in Worthing and in a part of Worthing that perhaps is traditionally felt you know that it is a bit sort of forgotten about at times I think is really good. Yeah, I'd just like to commend the college for providing those courses and also to commend the plan and the development and I'm fully supportive of it. Thank you very much, Councillor Theodor Eadie. I'm quite sure Councillors Barrett and Ford would take you up on this particular corner of Worthing being forgotten about. It's certainly at the forefront of my interest over the last 12 months, shall we say. We're still in debate here and I would like to try and take care of the issue of noise potentially coming out of those workshops. However, an awful lot of my concentration is devoted to actually chairing the meeting as opposed to taking a sort of like five minutes off to come up with a condition. Is anybody minded to be thinking along the same lines as myself who would care to think of some sort of condition we could add to the eastern boundary in order to retain the foliage? There is an issue in my mind as to whether that foliage belongs to the college or whether it belongs to the other side of the wooden fencing which is in place. So that picture there that Gary has kindly put on the screen indicates to me that that would not actually be in the ownership of Northbrooke College. I'm going to take the exception of going across to Mr Barker and perhaps ask his opinion. [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] Thank you very much, Mr Barker. That was the information I was up to. Otherwise I would be going down the wrong route. Can we build in a condition? Can we, Councillor Theodory. Thank you, Chair. There is a condition around landscaping within the report. I think rather than inventing a whole new condition perhaps, we could amend that condition slightly to talk about enhancing the bi-diverse net gain in terms of foliage. But perhaps to extend it, the whole hedging, the whole length of the site to act as an acoustic barrier. Because I think acoustic fencing would probably be too stark and I think it would improve the site. So I wonder whether it's just worth amending. And it's for, I suppose, Mr Peck and Mr Jones to sort of give us a steer on what that wording of that would be. Absolutely, Councillor Theodory. Thank you for helping me out there. That's precisely the route my mind was taking. The additional to the benefits of the bi-diversity net gain, which incidentally on this site are very good. Let's say it's in the report, the figures are there for everybody to read, I can't quote you it straight off. But it's a good effort. But there is the added benefit of adding to sound dampening, so yes, Mr Peck, you would have heard Councillor Theodory there looking to you for a steer on how we might possibly add some wording just to make sure that the hedging foliage is designed to do two jobs. Net gain and sound proofing. Well Chair, as Councillor Theodory says, you do already have the condition and the obligation about bi-diversity net gain. So certainly in terms of the latter recent legislation will give members more assurance. That's now covered by recent legislation. I think if there is just a particular matter, we can just simply insert that in the standard landscaping condition to say that the hedge or equivalent landscaped noise barrier shall be extended to the northern part of the site. I think if we just say the hedge should be extended, that's not there at the moment so we have to give the applicant some scope. But as long as we get the point across that what we're looking at is some form of landscaped buffer barrier, whatever you want to call it, extending the forelength of the site, then that can be taken into account and discharged to landscaping conditions. So in effect it's quite easy because it would literally just be a sentence into the standard condition that we can put down as part of the resolution. Thank you very much, Mr. Peck. I won't labour the point any further. As long as we achieve what we want to achieve because obviously it will be plain for all to see if sound does become a problematic issue in the area. So I will leave that one for the moment, go back to the committee and ask the committee does anybody else have a contribution during this debate section? Councillor Shan, yes please. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to echo the positive comments of the other councillors. And one of the big things that we hear in the town a lot is provision for young people and I know that we're often losing our young people from the town post school to go to colleges outside of town. And I know people were upset to lose the Broadwater Campus but this feels like a really positive step. And also just to acknowledge Mr. Rowling's comments about the cuts to Effie and what a difficult landscape that's been to exist in recent years, I've worked in that sector so I understand. So yeah, just to add my support. Thank you very much and nodding heads of the committee as you are speaking those words, Councillor. So I'm going to go back to Councillor Abrahams. Do you wish to take an opportunity to propose a motion? Thank you for the opportunity. Yes, I would like to propose that we approve these recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. And then we can go to the second part. And Councillor Theodora got their first with seconding that motion. Okay. We're just going to add the landscaping element of that. Mr. Peck has prepared some wording for that so we better listen to that before we vote. The other point about the voluntary fee not applying to the County Council, first off it will be part of the resolution but also to amend condition 14 to include reference to hedging/screening extending along the eastern boundary of the site to provide a noise barrier. So we have our wording, we have our proposal to accept. It has been seconded. So we go to vote. All those in favour of the motion to accept the recommendation? Unanimous. Unanimous decision. Thank you very much, Committee. We look forward to your improved facilities coming along full steam. Thank you. We possibly have no more than 40, 45 minutes of the meeting to go but before we head on, would anybody like to take a ten minute break at this stage? Or would a comfort break anybody? Shall we plough through? We plough through. Okay. So I'm going to go across to Mr. Peck to speak to us about the reports at the tail end of the agenda. Thank you, Chair. This will be relatively short. Firstly, you have to appeal decisions on the agenda which we will bring to you as and when they are made. Most often these will be appealed decisions arising out of delegated decisions. The first one, related to an Airbnb, I think the only thing I need to draw to members' attention there is that Airbnbs do not always require planning permission is the first thing, it depends for how long they are used. This was an unusual one, the application came along and they said they wanted to change the whole house for an Airbnb for part of the year. Members who have read the appeal decision will see in paragraph 4 that the Appellant actually tried to rein back on that and then said oh, I'm not using it for that long during the year. But once they've applied for it, that's what the Inspector will decide. The important point for that is that while we have clearly a tourist element in bringing visitors to the town, the Inspector in this case supported our view that the retention of the housing stock was more important and we can't afford to lose housing units because as members on the committee will know and members who will sit in future months will know, we are challenged on our house building rates all of the time, we can never keep up with the Government's requirements for house building because of our nature being between sea and national park. And therefore even the loss of single units cumulatively can have an adverse impact so that was a good decision for us. The second one, really quite minor but it is the sort of thing again when we're looking at amenities of various roads, this was some cladding that we felt would be quite out of keeping with the rest of that particular area in Gaysford and again the Inspector said yes, that wouldn't be consistent with the area and the policies of our local plan so again that appeal was dismissed. When we do get appeal decisions through we will bring them to you. We do have a good record on appeals as I mentioned in the performance report but again clearly if we lose any and there are implications for members that you need to be aware of we'll also let you know that as well. Thank you very much Mr Peck and I think that's testament to the work of our planning department who are now producing, I should take the word now out, who continue to produce really valid decisions and they hold up well when taken to appeal. Thank you very much and Mr Peck I'm going to come straight back to you for the very last agenda item number 9. Yes Chair, these are planning performance figures that come out to us more or less quarterly or every 6 months which are of importance because occasionally, as stated on the second and third page of the report, if we fail to meet the government's performance targets in any respect it could be that we have some of our planning powers taken away from us potentially. So what's happened at Lewis at the moment, as stated there it says they're not adequately performing their function to determine applications of planning permission and therefore that gives an applicant the right to go straight to the planning spectrum rather than the council to determine any applications, which of course for local democracy is a bit of a disaster because it bypasses all units as members potentially as planning committee and will go straight to the government to decide. Lewis's problem is that they've refused a number of major applications and then lost on appeal and really the aspect of this from the government's point of view is firstly, in terms of what's called the quality decisions is that if we all sat here and refused every single thing that people objected to to give ourselves an easy time the government will soon find out and say you lose too many appeals so therefore we're going to take you in and sanction you and equally if we're too slow with our decision making the government will also look at that as well. And they separate those out into the major applications which are more than ten dwellings and the like and the minor applications which is basically all of the rest. So it is just something for us to be aware of. There's also a big time lag to these performance figures. They're done over eight quarters and they take nine months to come out in the first place. And so only the point that I wish to highlight members because I think possibly the cabinet member had seen it at one point is that in terms of our performance, in terms of speed decision of major plan applications we've gone down the table which put us in the bottom ten percent of planning authorities in the country. The reason that that figure is low is a remnant of the pandemic in effect because our poor performance as it were at that time in terms of speed was going back to around about three years ago now. Now that that situation has been resolved and what we have is that the oldest quarter if you like which is the one we'll lose in the next performance bit is our worst quarter so we'll lose a bad one and hopefully we'll get a good one and our performance will go up the table. So, it is something to flag up because people will see a table and say 'Oh, were things near the bottom of that one? Why is that?' and of course it's my job partly to explain the reasons for that and make sure we're not slipping down the table any further. One thing I would say though I think that some authorities do get straight to the top of speed of decision making. That is most often more easily achieved by getting an application in, looking at it and deciding it straight away and if it's refused it goes out as a refusal straight away. The council's approach to this has never really been in that respect that if an application comes in and it's let's say eighty percent of the way there to being approved we would prefer to negotiate and try and get an approval first rather than just saying right well it's not acceptable as it comes in, refuse it and come back for another one. You can do that, it's a speedy way of doing things but in general I think when we're looking at trying to regenerate the town and encourage development I think it's important for us, for developers such as those couple there, to sort of say well look yes ok we need to amend a few things and that's happened on both of these applications, we'll work with you and if we can get to an acceptable scheme then we'll grant permission. That means the speed isn't quite as quickly as we would necessarily hope compared to others but it does mean that we'll have positive decision making within the council so we tend to adopt that approach where we can, if we can negotiate an acceptable solution we'll do that at the expense of just slapping a refusal on someone because I don't think that's the right way to go when we're trying to be a positive town. So we will update members as we go along to let you know if there are any red flags coming up on those performance tables. The government have often indicated which change how they're calculated. I suspect whatever happens in July it probably will change whatever the result of the election is because they are now saying some of these performance tables are a bit out of date that is true so they'll need updating whichever party is in government after that but it's important for us to stay on the right side of it and really that's just for members' purposes because certainly my absolute priority is to make sure that none of this is taken out of members' control as at Lewis because that is a really terrible situation that local democracy gets eroded in that way. Thank you Chair. Thank you very much Mr Peck. So the committee are asked to note this report so can I take it from the committee that this report is noted. Thank you very much and just one final sentence from myself. From the position of being chair of planning. I would like to put on record I personally have total confidence in the planning department and all its officers, they are working extremely hard. They are producing good results. Worthing should be proud of them. So I believe that concludes business at the time of a quarter past eight. I call this meeting to an end. Please hold your meeting has been temporarily adjourned. Please hold your meeting has been voluntarily adjourned.