Agricultural barn retention at Rabbit Island Rear of 84 Brooks Lane, Bognor Regis

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission to retain an agricultural barn built higher than approved, with a slightly smaller footprint.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONRetention of agricultural barn permitted by FP/106/23/AG with a ridge height of 3.99m (eaves at 3m) as opposed to 2.9m (eaves at 2.4m) as permitted. The barn's footprint has changed slightly with it now being 30m by 9m (270sqm) compared to 30.4m by 9.1m (276.64sqm) as approved.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The barn stands on rural agricultural land bordered by watercourses, near homes, public footpaths, an airfield and community facilities.

“The barn's design/appearance was not previously required to be approved. It is a rectangular building with 4 No. 2.8m by 3m vehicle openings and 2 No. personnel doors on the front (west). There are also 5 No. rooflights on the western roof elevation (and the same on the eastern). There are no openings in the sides or rear. The barn is clad with metal and coloured dark green. It is used for the storage of hay and associated agricultural plant/vehicles/machinery.”

“Leisure Centre/Felpham Community College. There is another path that provides a circular route around Rabbit Island (FEL/3801/2). Neither path is affected. CHARACTER OF LOCALITYThe site is rural in character and is read visually as part of a swathe of open green land between the settlements of Bognor Regis and Felpham which runs between the A259 to the North and the University of Chichester buildings to the south.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and applications

Earlier applications included approval for a smaller barn and refusals for taller barns, while the built structure differed from the approved dimensions.

“Application FP/122/23/PL sought permission for a barn measuring 30.48m by 9.4m and to a height of 6.6m. This was to be additional to that approved by FP/106/23/AG. This was refused on grounds of flood risk, inadequate fire appliance access and harm to biodiversity. A further application (FP/201/23/PL) was then lodged for a barn to replace that approved by FP/106/23/AG. This was to be 30.4m wide by 9.1m deep with a height of 6.7m.”

“Following these refusals, the applicant decided to implement the FP/106/23/AG consent but built the barn to the wrong dimensions than as permitted. They state this was due to an error and not intentional.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the height difference was modest, the approved barn remained a fallback, and the additional height was not considered to worsen flooding or drainage.

“Whilst this application must be assessed as if it were a new structure, the applicant could without permission revert back (by altering the building) to the approved scheme which is slightly larger in footprint and only 1.09m lower in ridge height. The height difference is not particularly significant, and the height difference has no bearing on the flood related safety of the site or the site's drainage.”

“The other barn application (FP/201/23/PL) would have replaced the barn approved by the AG. It is accepted that the previous decision is relevant to the current application and that ordinarily the LPA would act in a consistent manner and determine the new proposal in the same manner as before. However, the situation is now different in that the previous refusal was made before the barn approved under the AG had been implemented.”

Officer report

Consultees and objections

The Parish Council, residents, the Environment Agency and drainage engineers raised objections, while highways and ecology consultees did not object.

“ADC DRAINAGE ENGINEERS - object in respect of insufficient information concerning matters of runoff destination, interception drainage, and extreme rainfall/flooding. The applicant has not specified how water will be drained and has not considered rainwater reuse for irrigation. They have not provided calculations for the drainage system. COMMENTS ON CONSULTATION RESPONSES: The applicant has stated in response to the EA and Drainage objections that:”

Officer report

Who spoke

The public speakers were a Parish Council councillor and two objectors.

What members debated

Members questioned the unresolved flood, drainage, aviation and fire safety issues, and whether relying on the fallback position gave sufficient weight to consultee objections.

“A number of Members expressed reservations regarding this position and questioned whether reliance on the fallback position created inconsistency in decision- making when compared with other applications where flood risk and drainage concerns had been treated as significant constraints to development. Some Members considered that the approach appeared to give insufficient weight to the consultee objections and were concerned that it could establish an undesirable precedent.”

“A Member expressed concern regarding the absence of a response from the Civil Aviation Authority and the objections raised by the Environment Agency and the Council's Drainage Engineers. Concern was also raised regarding fire safety and access arrangements. It was suggested that, had the proposal been submitted originally in its current form, additional information and planning conditions may have been required.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted against the officer recommendation, then carried a recorded vote for refusal; one councillor abstained and none voted against.

“Following the vote against the Officer recommendation, Members considered reasons for refusal.”

“Following the adjournment, the Committee reconvened to consider the reasons for refusal. Councillor Tandy outlined and proposed the reasons for refusal to be as follows:”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The application was refused because insufficient information was provided to assess flood risk and surface water drainage and their effects elsewhere.

“1) The proposal conflicts with Arun Local Plan Policy W DM2, the NPPF and associated guidance, in that the site lies in Flood Zone 3, and whilst a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted, the applicant has not provided sufficient information to adequately assess the flood risks posed by the development, especially in regard to people and climate change.”

“2) Insufficient information has been provided to determine that the proposed development is deliverable on the site in respect of surface water drainage, without leading to surface water runoff and increased flooding elsewhere. The proposal therefore conflicts with Arun Local Plan Policy W DM3, the NPPF, the associated National Planning Practice Guidance and the national standards for drainage.”

Minutes