Agenda and minutes

Members and officers must declare any pecuniary or personalinterest in any business on the agenda. They should also make declarations at any stage such an interest becomes apparent during the meeting. Consideration should be given to leaving the meeting if the nature of the interest warrants it. If in doubt, contact Democratic Services before the meeting.

1.1        The following declarations of interest were made in relation to Agenda Item 4 - Planning Application WSCC/030/21:

·        In accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct, the following members of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee declared personal interests:

-       Cllr Duncton as the County Councillor for Petworth, local Member.  Cllr Duncton elected not to speak as local Member, but to retain her seat on the Committee in order to better serve the County Council in respect of this application.  Cllr Duncton stated she has taken no part in any discussions in relation to the planning application either prior to or since its submission, and has kept an open mind until she has heard all the evidence.

-       Cllr Simon Oakley and Cllr Sarah Sharp as Chichester District Councillors, which body is a statutory consultee on the application.

·        In accordance with the County Council’s Constitution: Code of Practice on Probity and Protocol on Public Participation in Planning and Rights of Way Committees, all members of the Committee declared they had been lobbied.

1.2        The following declarations of interest were made in relation to Agenda Item 5 - Planning Applications WSCC/001/22 and WSCC/002/22:

In accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct, the following members of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee declared personal interests:

·        Cllr Gibson declared a Pecuniary Interest that does not become Prejudicial in respect of his wife’s business.

·        In accordance with the County Council’s Constitution: Code of Practice on Probity and Protocol on Public Participation in Planning and Rights of Way Committees, all members of the Committee declared they had been lobbied.

1.3        The following declarations of interest were made in relation to Agenda Item 6 - DMMO 2/16 West Hoathly (also known as DMMO/2/16 Sharpthorne):

·          Cllr Gibson declared a Personal Interest due to his membership of the British Horse Society and their support for the original application.  Cllr Gibson would take no part in any discussion on this matter.

The Committee is asked to confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2022 (cream paper).

2.1     Resolved – That the minutes of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee held on 1 March 2022 be approved and that they be signed by the Chairman.

Items not on the agenda that the Chairman of the Committee is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency by reason of special circumstances.

3.1     There were no urgent matters.

Report by Head of Planning Services.

The Committee is asked to consider and determine the following application:

WSCC/030/21 - A clay quarry and construction materials recycling facility (CMRF) for CD&E wastes including the use of an existing access from Loxwood Road, the extraction and exportation of clay, and restoration using suitable recovered materials from the CMRF to nature conservation interest including woodland, waterbodies and wetland habitats

at Pallinghurst Woods, Loxwood Road, Loxwood, West Sussex RH14 0RW

WSCC/030/21 – A clay quarry and construction materials recycling facility (CMRF) for CD&E wastes, including the use of an existing access from Loxwood Road, the extraction and exportation of clay, and restoration using suitable recovered materials from the CMRF to nature conservation interest including woodland, waterbodies and wetland habitats.  Pallinghurst Woods, Loxwood Road, Loxwood, West Sussex RH14 0RW.

4.1     The Chairman advised all present that he had been made aware of representations from members of the public who were concerned that there has not been a physical site visit for Committee members in advance of considering the Loxwood application.  National guidance and the County Council’s own Constitution make it clear that site visits are not mandatory to enable a Committee to take a decision on an application.  The County Council’s Constitution (Part 3 Section 3 - Code of Practice on Probity in Planning, para 8.1 Committee Site Visits) sets out that “A site visit may be justified where the complexity or technical aspects of the proposals or public concern at the issues raised is such that Members’ understanding would substantially benefit from a site visit.”.  In view of the rough terrain and remote location of the site it was considered preferable to have a virtual site visit as opposed to an in-person one.  This ensured that Committee members were able to remotely view the site and gain an appreciation of the issues involved.  This had not precluded individual members of the Committee from visiting the site on their own.

4.2     Michael Elkington, Head of Planning Services, advised that a letter from the applicant’s agent, dated 13 May 2022, was received by Planning Officers and Mr Tony Kershaw, Director of Law and Assurance in his capacity as Monitoring Officer.  It requested that the Committee report be withdrawn in order to correct alleged inaccuracies in information on which the Committee decision would be based.  The report has not been withdrawn.  An Agenda Update Sheet was published on 17 May 2022.  Both the letter and Agenda Update Sheet are available on the planning website.  Concerns were also stated that not all emails and requests for information have been responded to.  The Committee was reassured that Officers have engaged as appropriate with the agent, due process has been followed and all relevant information in relation to the application has been properly considered.

4.3     The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services, as amended by the Agenda Update Sheet (copies appended to the signed copy of the minutes).  The report was introduced by Chris Bartlett, Principal Planner, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the application.  In respect of the Agenda Update Sheet Mr Bartlett noted that since the publication of the Committee report the following has occurred:

·        The Council has published its Annual Monitoring Report for minerals and waste planning, affecting some details in the Committee report, as noted.

·        A final response to the planning consultation has been received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Report by Head of Planning Services.

The Committee is asked to consider and determine the following applications:

WSCC/001/22 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/078/19/WC to enable the retention of security fencing, gates and cabins for a further 24 months

WSCC/002/22 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/079/19/WC extending the permission by 24 months to enable the completion of phase 4 site retention and restoration

at Wood Barn Farm, Adversane Lane, Broadford Bridge, Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 9ED

WSCC/001/22 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/078/19/WC to enable the retention of security fencing, gates and cabins for a further 24 months

WSCC/002/22 - Amendment of condition no. 1 of planning permission WSCC/079/19/WC extending the permission by 24 months to enable the completion of phase 4 site retention and restoration

at Wood Barn Farm, Adversane Lane, Broadford Bridge, Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 9ED

5.1        The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services, as amended by the Agenda Update Sheet (copies appended to the signed copy of the minutes).  The report was introduced by James Neave, Principal Planner, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the applications.  In addition, a further third-party representation had been received on the day of the meeting; however, the content did not affect the Officer’s recommendation to the Committee.

5.2        Dr Jill Sutcliffe, an environmental scientist, representing the Keep Kirdford and Wisborough Green group spoke in objection to the applications. The applicant has previously stated four times that the site will be restored, so it is questioned how many times this can be permitted to go on.  An independent observer has made the following comment about the site: “low reservoir productivity indicates zone likely not economically viable” and the company itself has stated “flow rates…are likely sub commercial”.  This Committee report describes the site as being “of an industrial character within a rural setting”.  It is a rural part of both the country and the county, which should not be subjected to an industrial scale operation.  The infrastructure is not suitable.  Concerns have been raised about well integrity and the possibility of toxic chemicals having leaked out.  The NPPF paras. 210 h) and 211 e) state that restoration should take place at the “earliest opportunity”.  Para. 55 states that “Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations.”, hence the reason for applying a time limit on the previous planning permission.  Para. 59 states, “Effective enforcement is important to maintain public confidence in the planning system.”  There is no real evidence to support that more time is needed.  The climate emergency and the drive towards net zero carbon emissions are vitally important.  Climate policy should consider such planning applications.

5.3         Mr Matt Cartwright, Commercial Director, UK Oil & Gas PLC, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The well site, built in 2014, only undertook 7 months of exploration activity in the next 36 months whilst UKOG took ownership.  Oil to surface has been achieved. The ‘Kimmeridge’ reserve is regional, but it must be confirmed.  In 2020 the Committee was informed about planning consent at Horse Hill in Surrey, but a legal challenge has delayed progress.  It is hoped to progress later this year.  The required data from this site is still needed for analysis for the Broadford Bridge oil site.  Wider world events are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Report by the Director of Law and Assurance.

The Committee is invited to note the following report:

Recent Decision by the Secretary of State's Inspector:

DMMO 2/16 – To add a bridleway and upgrade footpath 51Esx to bridleway from Top Road to Grinstead Lane in West Hoathly.

DMMO 2/16 – To add a bridleway and upgrade footpath 51Esx to bridleway from Top Road to Grinstead Lane in West Hoathly

6.1     The Committee received and noted a report by the Director of Law and Assurance setting out the outcomes of the recent decision made by the Secretary of State (copy attached to the signed minutes).

6.2     The Committee noted that the appeal highlights the complexity of dealing with applications based on archive evidence and the need for clear documents for future generations, as well as highlighting the complexity of the appeals process.

6.3     Cllr Gibson took no part in the vote to note the report due to his declared personal interest in the item.  Otherwise, the Committee voted unanimously to note the report.

6.4     Resolved – That the Committee notes the report.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10.30 am on Tuesday, 14 June 2022.

7.1     The next scheduled meeting of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee will be on Tuesday, 14 June 2021 at 10.30 a.m.