YAPTON PARISH COUNCIL

27 May 2008 - At a Special Meeting of the Parish Council held at the Yapton & Ford Village Hall.

Present: Mr Haymes (Chairman), Mr Andrews, Mrs Barnes, Mr Bryan, Mr Caiger, Mr Faulkner, Mr Jones and Mrs Wallbridge.

Also present: 7 members of the public.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

114. Members were reminded to make any declarations of personal and/or prejudicial interest that they may have in relation to items on the agenda.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

WEEKLY LIST NO 19

115. The Council considered the planning applications on weekly list No 19 (copy attached to minute book).

116. Mr Haymes, as a member of the District Council’s Development Control Committee, declared an interest and took no part in the consideration of the two applications and subsequent voting on the resolution. Mr Andrews, Mrs Barnes and Mr Faulkner all declared personal interests in Planning Application No Y/29/08/ and took no part in the subsequent vote on the resolution.

Planning Application No Y/27/08/

[Provision of timer-controlled floodlighting for the Arena Sports Enclosure – King George V Playing Field, Main Road. Yapton ]

117. The Council decided that it was inappropriate to comment as the application had been been submitted on behalf of the Parish Council. Any member of the public who had concerns about the proposal was advised to make representations direct to the District Council.

Planning Application No Y/29/08/

[Erection of 1 no 3 bedroom detached dwelling and garage – Land at Church House, Church Lane, Yapton]

118. The Council noted that a number of applications for development on the Church House site had previously been considered including (a) a proposal for 6 houses in 2001 (b) a proposal for 2 houses in 2002 (c) a proposal for 4 houses (subsequently amended to 3 houses) in 2002 (d) a proposal for 2 houses in 2004 and (e) a proposal for 1 detached dwelling in 2007. On each occasion the Parish Council had registered its objection to the development and the District Council’s Development Control Committee had, on each occasion, refused the application.

119. In January 2003 the Planning Inspector had dismissed two appeals for 2 and 4 houses on the Church House site. In May 2005 a further appeal for 2 detached houses on the site was once more dismissed. In December 2007, however, the Planning Inspector had allowed an appeal for the last application on the grounds, amongst other things, that the appeal site did not form part of the original curtilage of Church House but was added later.

120. Mrs Knott, speaking on behalf of a number of local residents present at the meeting, re-affirmed the residents’ strong opposition to further development of the Church House site and sought the Council’s support for their views.

121. Resolved - That a strong objection to application Y/29/08/ be submitted Planning Officer at Arun District Council on the following grounds:

a) The land is not identified in the County Structure Plan or Local Plan for residential development;

b) The development would seriously and adversely impact on the character and appearance of the Yapton Conservation Area which is based around St Mary’s Church and which includes Church House, a listed building and its environs. The proposed development would destroy the “loose grouping and setting of buildings” in the area; it would neither “preserve nor enhance the character and appearance” of the locality and would be detrimental and harmful to the neighbourhood (Policy CH8);

c) The development would materially harm the character and appearance of Church House itself, a fine a widely recognised example of a Georgian Grade II Listed Building (Policy CH9). The present mature setting of Church House with its “grand drive” approach driveway to the elegant façade would be lost;

d) The proposed development of the Church House site would be a loss of amenity to existing residents of The Poplars, Church Lane, Church Road and St Mary’s Meadow; any new building on the site would destroy views to the south as well as the mature landscaping and general sense of openness and greenness which prevails in this historic part of the village;

e) The Inspector’s Report when the appeal for Y/34/04 was dismissed states “…the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area and would fail to preserve the setting of the listed building. It would therefore conflict with Structure Plan Policy B3, with Local Plan Policies GEN7, DEV10 and AREA2 as well as with the advice in PPG15”. In the opinion of the Parish Council these reasons may be similarly applied and are equally valid to Planning Application Y/29/08.

f) When the appeal for Y/29/07 was allowed, the Inspector’s Report quite clearly stated in the decision document that agreement for the single dwelling was only forthcoming because it would be set very well back within the site to its rear. As such it would be inconspicuously located and not readily visible from surrounding public vantage points including Church Road and Church Lane.

g) The Council is also concerned that if the development is approved the historic flint wall which forms the eastern boundary with Church Road would be demolished and replaced with a composite brick/flint wall. This flint wall, believed to have been constructed approximately 130 years ago within the Conservation Area, must be protected by relevant planning policies.

h) It is the Council’s opinion that compliance with the WSCC Highways and Transport Services Consultation document, which is part of the application submission, cannot be attained so far as recommended access sight lines are concerned. The suggested 2.4 by 43 metres at the point of access on to Church Road (not Church Lane as indicated in the document) cannot be achieved without affecting Crispens Cottage, the adjacent property. This was a requirement in the interests of road safety. The flint wall referred to in para 121(g) above would also require complete removal on both the north and south of the entrance even to enable partial compliance with this recommendation.

CHAIRMAN