Scaffolding yard at P and O Scaffolding Ltd, Littlehampton

What was proposed

The application sought to retain the change from agricultural land to a scaffolding yard, including hard surfacing, storage areas and portable buildings.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONRetrospective application for the change of use of agricultural land to a scaffolding yard. To enable the change of use, the land has altered from grassland to a hard surface. The land is used in relation to a scaffold/construction business which includes a large amount of scaffold bars and ancillary equipment.”

“There are three portable buildings used as an office and for staff facilities such as w/c. Buildings A & B are to the northeast boundary and Building C to the southwest. These are on a raised deck and due to the height and position of Building C, at around 3.5m in height are visible from the highway. In addition to the portable buildings there are a number of covered storage areas. These vary in height but have a maximum of 6m.”

Officer report

Earlier enforcement action

Two enforcement notices requiring changes to the site were quashed because of problems identifying the breach, planning unit and required compliance steps.

“Two enforcement notices (EN) have been issued and quashed. The first was issued on 13 September 2024 and required all development be removed and the land returned to its previous condition. The notice was quashed on the 26 August 2025 as the Inspector concluded the EN did not specify with sufficient clarity the alleged breach of planning control and the steps required for compliance.”

“A second EN was issued on 1 October 2025. This notice was quashed on 25 March 2026 as the Inspector identified the appeal site in the EN is not one planning unit and the description is incorrect. This was not an issue in the first notice and its unclear why this was a concern in the second appeal and not the first. The notice referred to the whole site which includes two separate businesses with individual accesses and it could not been considered as one planning unit.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development harmed local character, residential amenity and drainage, and its economic benefits did not outweigh those harms.

“The proposal results in a development that is out of character with its surroundings, which is cluttered in nature, with no formal layout or design, adversely harming the character and appearance of the local area. The development has not demonstrated it would not result in adverse harm upon residential amenity by way of noise from the scaffolding and general activities, conflicting with ALP policies D DM1, D SP1, QE SP1.”

“If para 11(d)(ii) were to be applied to the proposal, the use of the site for business purposes does result in moderate benefit, contributing to the economy and employing locally. The benefits of the change of use do not outweigh the significant and demonstrable negative impacts to the character of the area, residential amenity and drainage especially when seeking to secure a well-designed place.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Town Council supported the proposal, highways and archaeology raised no objection, while Environmental Health and drainage officers raised concerns.

“Environmental Health (EH) - Holding Objection. - Noise from scaffold storage sites can be intrusive as well as HGV movements. Noise concerns should be resolved prior to any consent. If this can not be achieved conditions should be included for noise sensitive development.”

“ADC Drainage - Objection. Insufficient groundwater monitoring has been provided to demonstrate infiltration is achievable. The surface water drainage strategy does not account for the flood risk on site and flood water is expected to enter the surface water drainage system via the permeable surfacing. Interception drainage has not been mentioned in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The water quality assessment is inadequate and inaccurate for the purposes of the design.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The public speakers were the agent and the applicant, and the Principal Planning Officer presented the application to members.

What members debated

Members discussed the business and employment, possible conditions for landscaping and operating hours, and whether further drainage information was needed.

“Several Members considered that matters relating to visual impact, operational hours and landscaping could be mitigated through conditions requiring additional planting, restrictions on operating hours and amendments to the storage of scaffolding materials. Concerns were also raised regarding the absence of further comments from the Council's drainage team following the submission of additional drainage information.”

Minutes

The votes

Members first voted down the officer recommendation for refusal, then voted to approve the application subject to conditions.

“The Committee then considered the officer recommendation for refusal. Following a recorded vote, the recommendation was not carried. Members subsequently indicated their support for granting planning permission subject to conditions including additional landscaping, restrictions on operating hours, limits on Saturday working, no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays, and measures to reduce the visual impact of stored scaffolding materials.”

“The Planning Lawyer advised that Members would need to clearly identify the planning reasons for departing from the officer recommendation, address each of the refusal reasons set out within the report and provide a robust planning justification capable of supporting the Committee's decision. The Committee then adjourned to allow Members to formulate their reasons for approval.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Planning permission was approved contrary to the officer recommendation because members considered landscaping and operating restrictions could mitigate the identified impacts.

“Councillor Wallsgrove outlined the reasons for departing from the officer recommendation, advising that the visual impact of the development could be mitigated through additional planting and landscaping. She further considered that potential amenity impacts could be addressed through restrictions on operating hours, including no work commencing before 8.00am, Saturday working limited to between 8.00am and 1.00pm, and no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.”

“That planning permission be APPROVED, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to conditions to be delegated to officers, for the reasons that the Committee considered the identified impacts on character and appearance, and residential amenity could be satisfactorily mitigated through planning conditions, including additional landscaping and restrictions on operating hours.”

Minutes