Scout and community facility at Scout Hall, Linden Park, Littlehampton

What was proposed

A 217-square-metre modular building would provide additional scout and community facilities, landscaping and parking alongside the existing hall.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONThis application seeks the construction of a 217sqm modular single storey flat roofed building, to provide additional facilities for the Scout group and community. SITE AREA3593 sqm TOPOGRAPHYPredominantly flat. TREESFive mature trees to be removed none of which are protected. BOUNDARY TREATMENTMetal palisade fencing. SITE CHARACTERISTICSThe site hosts a Scout hut.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

An earlier application for a scout hall extension and hard-surfaced car park was approved with conditions.

“LU/289/93Scout hall extension. Hard surfacing car parkApproveConditionally 03-12-93”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal lacked drainage evidence and did not show that flood risk would be controlled.

“The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the environmental objective of sustainable development. Paragraph 181 of the NPPF is explicit in its aim to avoid increasing flood risk. The application does not provide sufficient evidence to ensure that flood risk would not be increased on-site or elsewhere.”

“The conflict with the development plan and the NPPF, particularly in relation to flood risk, is considered significant and demonstrable. The potential for increased flood risk both on-site and off-site outweighs the benefits of the scheme. In accordance with the Planning Customer charter an opportunity to resolve the drainage matters has not been given as no pre-application scheme was submitted.”

Officer report

The main technical issue

The drainage submission lacked groundwater monitoring, infiltration testing, calculations, layout details and evidence that the SuDS hierarchy had been followed.

“ADC Drainage Engineers - Objection. - The application has failed to provide, or failed to assess the following details: winter groundwater data, infiltration testing data, apply the Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) hierarchy, provide fundamental calculations of run-off rates, used Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) rainfall data, provide a drainage layout, and provide details regarding the natural design catchments of the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Planning Team Leader presented the report and a written update from the agent representing the applicants.

Members’ debate

Members recognised the proposal’s community value but focused on missing winter groundwater data and hoped the applicants would resubmit with more information.

“Councillor Lury acknowledged the community value of the proposal but noted the absence of winter groundwater monitoring, which was essential for determining flood risk. Councillor Northeast expressed sympathy for the applicants, referencing his own experience with youth clubs and fundraising, and hoped the council could guide the applicants through the process to avoid future technical issues. He also suggested…”

“Other members echoed concerns about the missing groundwater data and expressed hope that the applicants would resubmit with the necessary information.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Lury proposed refusal and Councillor Wallsgrove seconded the proposal.

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

Minutes