Retail canopies and lobby at Highdown Garden Centre, Ferring

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing existing outdoor retail canopies, adding another canopy and building a small restaurant lobby.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONErect and replace canopies over existing external sales area and provide a small lobby for the restaurant. The garden centre comprises several distinct elements. The main sales area is formed of three interconnected buildings: a dual low- pitched, industrial-style unit; a simple rectangular industrial unit at the southern end; and, to the east, a traditional Sussex- style barn.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

An extension to the garden centre coffee shop and kitchen was approved conditionally in 2023.

“A/132/23/PLErection of extension to garden centre coffee shop and kitchen. This application is in CIL Zone 3 (zero rated) as other development. ApproveConditionally 06-07-23”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because unresolved drainage problems could increase flooding and the benefits were limited and outweighed by environmental harm.

“NPPF paragraph 8 is clear that the three objectives must be delivered in a balanced way. The proposal relies on limited and unsubstantiated economic benefits, which are outweighed by identified environmental harm, particularly in relation to flood risk, and associated social impacts. The development fails to achieve a balanced approach to sustainable development.”

“In the planning balance, the proposal would deliver limited and unsubstantiated economic benefits. These are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the environmental harm arising from unresolved flood risk, together with the associated adverse social impacts. The proposal constitutes unsustainable development and conflicts with the Development Plan, the NPPF and the NPPG. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council supported the proposal, highways raised no transport objection, and drainage engineers objected because essential flood-risk information was missing.

“ADC Drainage Engineers (8/4/2026) - Objection - The proposal introduces changes to site drainage and new drained roof areas which affect site drainage arrangements and trigger the requirement for sustainable drainage under NPPF paragraph 182. - A Drainage Statement has not been submitted and the submitted Drainage Layout drawing provides insufficient information and does not meet local standards for assessing sustainable drainage.”

“WSCC Drainage Engineers (31/3/2026) - Objection - A drainage layout has been submitted but it is not supported by a drainage strategy or technical calculations to demonstrate suitability and viability. In the absence of such assessments the flood risk implications of the development cannot be adequately assessed. - An objection is raised due to the lack of sufficient information to demonstrate satisfactory management of local flood risk.”

Officer report

Who spoke

There were no public speakers, while the application was introduced by the Senior Planning Officer.

Members’ debate

One member supported the business and thought drainage could be controlled by condition, while another questioned the lack of rainwater harvesting.

“A Member spoke in opposition to the officer recommendation, stating that they agreed with the views expressed by the Parish Council and considered the proposal to be a positive addition to a growing and successful local business, contributing to the local economy. The Member further commented that the drainage concerns had been overstated, noting that the proposal represented only a modest increase in roof coverage over an already paved area.”

“Another Member queried the approach to surface water management, expressing surprise that the proposal did not incorporate rainwater harvesting. They observed that water was frequently used on site and suggested that collecting rainfall from the new roof structures could provide a sustainable solution, potentially reducing reliance on other water sources and improving the viability of the drainage strategy.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The refusal recommendation was proposed and seconded before the committee resolved to refuse the application.

“The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Bence and seconded by Councillor Lury.”

Minutes