Planning and Rights of Way Committee - Tuesday 19 March 2024, 10:30am - Feedback Tab

Planning and Rights of Way Committee
Tuesday, 19th March 2024 at 10:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

In order to view this webcast, please do the following:

Download Flash Player.

You can download it free at
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/ (opens in a new window)

Please note: you will probably need to restart your browser after the installation of the plugin is finished.

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Richard Burrett

1 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr Noel Atkins
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Ian Gibson
Cllr Richard Burrett

2 Minutes of the last two meetings of the Committee

Share this agenda point

Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett

3 Urgent Matters

Share this agenda point

4 Planning Application: Minerals

Share this agenda point

Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Philip Maber
Cllr Richard Burrett
Anne Stewart
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr Nigel Moore
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr Matt Cartwright
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Nigel Jupp
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Nigel Jupp
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Jaine Wild
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Brian Quinn
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Ashvin Patel
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Janet Duncton
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Jay Mercer
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Ian Gibson
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Nigel Jupp
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr James Neave
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr Mike Elkington
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr Mike Elkington
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr Mike Elkington
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Nigel Jupp
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr Mike Elkington
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Nigel Jupp
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Mr Mike Elkington
Cllr Richard Burrett

5 Registration of Land as a Town or Village Green

Share this agenda point

Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Felicity Harrington
Cllr Richard Burrett
Tracey Guinea
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Ian Gibson
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Ian Gibson
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Jay Mercer
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Jaine Wild
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Sean McDonald
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Brian Quinn
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Brian Quinn
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Nigel Jupp
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Noel Atkins
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Janet Duncton
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Ian Gibson
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Jay Mercer
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Jaine Wild
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Nigel Jupp
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Nigel Jupp
Cllr Richard Burrett
Laura Floodgate
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Ashvin Patel
Cllr Richard Burrett
Felicity Harrington

Lunch Break

Share this agenda point

Cllr Richard Burrett

6 Definitive Map Modification Order

Share this agenda point

Gemma Penfold
Cllr Richard Burrett
Richard Goring
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Chris Young
Cllr Richard Burrett
Gill Muncey
Cllr Richard Burrett
Gemma Penfold
Cllr Richard Burrett
Tanneth Melhuish
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Jaine Wild
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Tanneth Melhuish
Cllr Richard Burrett
Gemma Penfold
Cllr Richard Burrett
Tanneth Melhuish
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Janet Duncton
Cllr Richard Burrett
Gemma Penfold
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Janet Duncton
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Nigel Jupp
Cllr Richard Burrett
Tanneth Melhuish
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Nigel Jupp
Cllr Richard Burrett
Tanneth Melhuish
Cllr Richard Burrett
Tanneth Melhuish
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Ian Gibson
Cllr Richard Burrett
Tanneth Melhuish
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Ian Gibson
Cllr Richard Burrett
Tanneth Melhuish
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Jay Mercer
Cllr Richard Burrett
Cllr Simon Oakley
Cllr Richard Burrett
Tanneth Melhuish
Cllr Richard Burrett

7 Date of Next Meeting

Share this agenda point

Plng_RoW_19.03.23_Business_Planning_Report

Tracey Guinea
Cllr Richard Burrett
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

1 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:00:00

OK, thank you all very much and welcome to this meeting of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee of Tuesday, the 19th of March 2024.

I can welcome all the 10 days and those watching or listening into this meeting, the meeting is being broadcast, live on the internet, to enable the public to hear the debate, the recording will be archived for future listening and made available on the County Council's website introductions and apologies.

we have apologies from Councillor Peter month in, and when I'm not aware we have any substitutes today.

if I could introduce our officers, starting on the far left James Neave, Principal Planner, Mike Elkington Head of Planning Services, Laura floodgate, senior solicitor, and to my right Tracy Ginny from Democratic Services, who is the clerk to the meeting

the officers who are here, who will be here for.

later items will be advised when that item is due to be introduced.

after the various breaks, and so there will be some other people coming in later on item 1 declarations of interest members should declare any personal pecuniary interests and 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.

we have not had any declarations made in advance of the meeting, but if I can check, I've certainly received a lobbying material regarding both item 5 would Barn Farm, and also item 6 Colin would vote Green Town and Village Green application, can I ask, are there any members of the Committee who haven't received both correspondence on both of those items?

hey, if there's anyone who hasn't?

because if if, if there isn't one, it doesn't look like there is, then we can give a blanket declaration that all members have received lobbying material on on those two items has anyone received any lobbying material on item 7 standing rifle range?

sorry, I'm getting the number I'm I'm I'm I do apologise, I'm getting the numbers wrong, sorry, I'm I'm doing it from memory right so we've got a blanket tech question for item forward Barn Farm and item 5 Collingwood Road Green has anyone received any lobbying material for item 6 standing rifle range Councillor jobs,

I say that so Councillor Chapman has has been lobbied on Item 6.

ITEM 6 Ryan

just read the numbers, it's easy to do, yes, I know they were following my example, so can I just be clear you, you have a lobbying declaration on item 6 or not.

OK.

does anyone else have any other interest to declare Councillor Atkins?

Cllr Noel Atkins - 0:03:23

thank you Chairman, I have one personal interest to declare, as I am known to the Gordon family and the Whiston estate, thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:03:33

and that would be item 6, then yeah, OK, Councillor Gibson.

Cllr Ian Gibson - 0:03:37

thank you, Chairman, similar to the last time we discussed this, I'll have to declare an interest in respect of a business owned by a family member which they monitor officer has told me that it does not become prejudicial in respect of this application.

just to be clear that item before that's an item for

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:03:55

thank you, sir, any other declarations, if not.

2 Minutes of the last two meetings of the Committee

we can move on that limb brings us on to item 2 minutes of the last meetings of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee, and we've got a couple of these queued up because we had two meetings quite close together just before and after the Christmas period first of all the minutes of our meeting on the 5th of December 2023 which are in your pack on the cream papers from page 5 to page 14 is everyone happy to agree those as an accurate record?

grade, then we also have the minutes of our meeting on the 9th of January 2024.

which are also on cream paper from pages 15 to 19 now there have been two requests for amendments to these minutes.

which, hopefully and which have been tabled, and hopefully all Members have seen these one is from Hillary Pierce, the applicant of DMO two-stroke, 19 and Woodman cousin Henfield, who had asked for a number of changes to be made to the

the paragraph relating to her speech to the Committee, which is paragraph 31.5

and also.

Mrs. Alison Short, a supporter of the applicant asked for some minor changes to minute 31.7, which refers to the comments made by Councillor Sarah Payne, who was speaking as the local member now those have been circulated to all members, I I'd rather not have to read them out if people who've read them, so is everyone happy with those who are great Councillor Oakley,

Cllr Simon Oakley - 0:05:45

so in relation to where the second amendment referring to the speech made by Councillor Payne, has it been confirmed with Councillor Payne that

she is happy without.

and whether they actually factual the men's from the recording ed is

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:06:08

factual, it is factual, so it is a clarification on that point, okay, so as everyone happy to agree those

3 Urgent Matters

agreed OK item 3 urgent matters, there are no urgent matters, so that brings us on to the first substantive item.

4 Planning Application: Minerals

item 4 planning applications were two planning applications relating to Wood Barn Farm advert sign Lane Broadford Bridge Billingshurst West Sussex R H 14 9, A D, namely double USC stroke 0 4 6 stroke 23, the siting and development of a temporary borehole, well site compound and access road, including all ancillary infrastructure and equipment variation of condition 1 of planning permission W USC Stuart 0 0 2 stroke, 22, extending the permission by 24 months to enable the completion of phase 4 site retention and restoration

and alongside it double USC stroke 0 4 4 7 stroke 23

temporary installation of a security fence gates and cabins variation of condition 1 of planning permission W USC Stoke 0 0 1 0 22 to enable the retention of security fencing gates and cabins for a further 24 months you have a report in front of you in your agenda pack from pages 21 to 63 if I can just remind everyone present that this is a meeting held in public with defined protocols for the number of speakers permitted to speak, it is not an open public meeting with unrestricted rights to speak.

so we now move on to consider the two planning applications that I've just referenced, and if I could ask James Neave Principal Planner to make his presentation to the committee, thank you.

Mr James Neave - 0:08:08

thank you Chairman, good morning Councillors next slide, pews, Tracey.

today we will be considering two application, which, in summary, seek to retain for an extended period of two years a dormant hydrocarbon exploration, well site and associated fencing gates and cabins at Woodburn, Farm Brooker, Bridge, nibbling test next slide place.

the application site outlined in red here.

is located in the countryside, in the parish of West Chiltington in Horsham district is approx approximately 3 kilometres to the south of Billingshurst next slide, please.

so here's the plan showing the application site, which is some 2.1 hectares in area.

the main area of the site, which includes the well plaid and gravel area, is set back some 430 metres to the south-west of epicene lane, which is the B 2 1 3 3 and is accessed via a purpose-built, compacted aggregate track next to my place.

the site is surrounded by woodland and arable fields typically enclosed with hedgerows, the most significant areas of woodland consists of Peacocks Wood to the north-west and Princess would approximately 150 metres to the east, the latter being designated as ancient woodland.

the wider area is generally characterised by farmland, with scattered farmsteads and residential properties closest to the main site, poultry houses at Homefield Farm.

some 300 metres to the east, beyond which is brought for British farmhouse and the hamlet of Broadford Bridge itself to the north-west, is Wood Bond Farm.

which is some 270 metres from the access track, there are two notable public footpaths in the locality.

shown here with the two purple lines,

however, neither afford clear views of the site next side Pace.

so this is an area aerial image of the site in its current dormant state, currently, the only visible elements on site are the stonewalled pad itself with a metal container protecting the well-hidden borehole, the access track and the surrounding fencing and gates all drilling equipment, storage tanks, pumps separates and other plant required for the exploration and testing phases were removed in 2018 next slide, please,

planning permission was first granted in February 2013 for the exploration, testing and evaluation of hydrocarbons this was to be undertaken in four main phases with the projected timeframes, as shown in this table.

so the development subs sorry excuse me, to be clear, the original permission was granted on a temporary basis, requiring restoration of the site upon completion and exploration and evaluation of the target reserve, it did not provide for any hydrocarbon production facility at the site next light place,

so this slide sets a timeline of activities at the application site. Please also refer to section 3 of the report, which is on pages 25 and 26. As we said, the site originally received planning permission for exploration, testing and evaluation of hydrocarbons. In February 2013 this was granted on a temporary basis, with restoration required by September 2017 construction of the site began in September 2014. However, following a changing operator, there was a long period of inactivity with drilling, not commencing, until July 2017. Following these delays, permission was sought and granted in September 2017 for an extension of time of one year to complete the testing and restoration phases. This provided for restoration by September 2018. The testing phase of the development was completed in March 2018, where, after all, equipment was removed from the site and it was placed in its retention mode and which has been retained as such, since

since completing of the testing phase in March 2018, further temporary planning permissions to extend the period to complete the restoration have been sought and granted to enable further analysis of data, including from other sites, which could inform the viability of the hydrocarbon resource and the future of the site.

specifically, extensions in time were granted in September 18 for additional 18 months, to March 2020, in July 2010 20, for an additional two years for restoration by March 22 and, most recently, in May 22, allowing an additional two years per restoration by March 2024 in summary planning, permission is now sought to extend the permissions for both the well site and the fencing cabins for a further two years retaining the site in its current dormant state and delaying the completion of restoration until the 31st of March 2026 for the next place.

the applicant states that the potential viability of the site will be informed by data retrieved from other hydrocarbon sites that that they are targeting with linked geological formations in the wider world basin, the applicant considers data from these sites is critical to the future planning and viability of the application site and do not wish to prematurely restore site where future hydrocarbon appraisal may be required and or extraction viable.

this slide shows the locality of the site within the weird wider wheel basin that being the geological formation with potential for hydrocarbons, with reference to paragraphs 9.7 to 9 10 of your reports on page 38, it also shows the application site relative to the petroleum exploration and development lice area or pedal licence error in which it sits and the two sites at Lockley and Hull sorry Loxley also known as Dunsfold and Haus Hill which the applicant states future data from which will inform the viability and future of the application site.

ICSI base

if the applications are approved, the sites would be held in its retention mode, as there has been the case since March 2000 and 2018, essentially maintaining the site in its current dormant state and for the avoidance of doubt, no further drilling or active testing phases are sought by the current applications. All plant machinery used during previous testing has been removed, leaving the wellhead secure with the steel container over the top of it and the and some on-site security accommodation and prefabricated containers with regards to the firewater tank and securities. Heinous to say you see those here

this, these are not currently on site.

albeit they may well be required again at the restoration stage, so when are the final plugging and restoration takes place next slide, please,

so this plan shows the existing fencing around the site, which is finished in a dark green colour and 4 metres in height, including the wire top, and also the gate adjacent adjacent to at the same road, which is two and a half metres in high, both of these would be retained until final restoration to ensure the security of the site next life place.

if further review of data from other sites indicates that the site would not be viable for further hydrocarbon activities, the well would be permanently plugged and abandoned and all structures, security, fencing, cabins, plant foundations and hardstanding would be removed, the site surface would then be re-profiled using stores and restored to its former agricultural condition in line with the approved restoration plan and landscaping plan as shown in this slide.

if data confirms the site is viable, a new planning application would be prepared to retain the site for the further appraisal or production the material merits of any such additional prizes would be a matter for a future application if made next light place.

so this is a fight, a photo of the site access point and gates on epicene Lane looking south.

next next slide, please.

this is midway along the access track to the site, looking back looking north back towards the access onto appetite lane.

next slide place.

this is largely in the same point again midway along the access track, but this time looking south west to more towards the main well pad site, which is beyond that tree line you can see.

in the distance next slide place.

and finally, this is on the access track, approaching the entrance to the and gates to the wellhead side, so you can see the

the security fencing around the site and the soil store within the site boundary here.

next flat place.

and this is on the north, the southern boundary of the site, looking north across the site, so here you can see that the well site is largely empty, with the exception of the metal container over the wellhead itself next light place.

so in terms of consultation representations.

Horsham District Council, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive raised no objections to the applications and internal WCCC consults consultees, including the County ecologist Arboricultural list, the Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority have raised no objection to the proposals West Chiltington Parish Council object to the proposals considering the site should be restored immediately, they also note that if a further extension is allowed, a bond should be secured to ensure restoration is delivered.

for the application for the retention of the whale site zone 46 23 103 representations have been received 102 of which of which object to the development, and one which expresses support for the retention of fencing and gates for 7 23, one representation has been received in objection to the development,

representatives representations include those made by keep curve for them, Wisborough Green.

the campaign for the Protection of Rural England, a summary of the matters raised by all consultees and third parties, can be found in sections 7 and 8 of the report, so those are on pages 34 and 2 37.

by way of an update on Friday last week I received an additional representation from protect Dunsfold, which is a group that was linked to the Loxley site urging WCCC to refuse the application this representation highlights that a bond should be sought for restoration.

the bond restoration matter is addressed at 9.00.2 point 9.2 6 of the reports on page 41 officers have considered the representation and are satisfied there would not make any change to a recommendation next Lively's.

so tending to the key planning issues in terms of the need for the development, the proposals form part of the appraisal phase of hydrocarbon development, the need for which is attributed great weight by national and local policy, the applicant seeks an extension in time to restore the site to allow for the further appraisal target geology and explanation for exploitation of hydrocarbons. This would be informed by the collection and analysis of data from other sites that share geological commonality with the application site and will inform the viability of the application site for future recovery or further appraisal of hydrocarbons. Progress with which has been significantly debate by legal challenge on the size. Overall, the need for and benefits of hydrocarbon appraisal is supported by national and local policy and attracts great positive weight in the planning balance. Furthermore, it is considered that there is a justified need for the proposed extensions in times to undertake prepared

to undertake appraisal.

in terms of impact on landscape character. The proposals would result in the continued rotation of retention of a site not wholly in keeping with this countryside location for a further two years, extending the period over which any impacts on landscape character and the locality would be experienced. However, the site is not within a protected landscape and the temporary nature of the proposals and secluded location of the site within a heavily wooded and well screened area is such that the impact on the character of the area is largely limited. The requirement to restore the site to its original agricultural condition would remain, which would ensure that proposals would not result in any permanent impact on the area following completion of restoration overall is considered the proposals accord with the Joint Minerals Local Plan and the potential adverse impacts on landscape character attract little little negative weight in the planning balance

turning to the restoration of the site, both the National Planning Policy Framework and the Joint Minerals Local Plan seek to ensure the restoration of mineral sites at the earliest opportunity, however, they also recognised that there is a need for flexibility to allow for justified changes in circumstances to be considered on a site-by-site basis in discussion with operators in this case the restoration scheme for the site has already been agreed and the current applications would not result in any change to that scheme rather a delay as to when it would be carried out.

although this is the fifth extension in time sought by the applicant, there have been mitigating factors, including a change in ownership and legal challenges over the past four to five years, to the development of other related sites, which would provide valuable information about the identified resource including whether it could be economically exploited overall given the identified need for appraisal and the limited impact on the character of area is considered a delay to restoration of the site for a further two years attracts little negative weight in the planning balance.

in terms of other material matters relevant to the proposals, these include climate change considerations, impact on the amenity of local residents, flood risk impacts on the water, environment, ecology and highways, such matters are addressed in your reports at 9.00.2 8 to 9.5 0 and all of which have been considered of neutral weight, independent balance.

next slide place.

so in conclusion, it is considered the proposed development accords with the statutory development plan when read as a whole. Furthermore, there are no material considerations in this case that indicate a decision other than in line with the statutory development plan, in favour of the proposal. The need for the development carries great weight against the scheme and the potential for adverse impacts on landscape character and a further delay to restoration carry little weight. Therefore, on balance, it is considered the benefits of the proposal outweigh the disbenefits and that the development constitutes sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Next slide, please,

it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted for planning application W S C C 0 4 6 23, that's the well site subject to the conditions and informative set out at Appendix 1.

and that planning permission be granted for planning application reference W SCC 0 4 7 23 that's the security fencing and cabins subject to the conditions and informative set out at Appendix 2 of your report, and which are at pages 49 to 53 of the reports.

thank you very much, Chairman.

OK.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:24:17

thank you very much, Mr. Neve.

we have two speakers in objection to the application, plus a written statement to be read out.

and then there were two speakers in support.

and then, after that, Councillor, Charlotte Kenyon, the local member, will speak on the on the application and Councillor Kenyon, as far as you can see, is attending on teams.

first of all, we have.

Mr. Phillips, neighbour and interested party, speaking in objection to the application, now all public speakers have a maximum of five minutes each, but the local Member has unlimited time, so each of the speakers in objection and one in support in the Chamber will have five minutes to speak, so if I can call Mr may but first of all to speak in objection you have five minutes starting from now.

Philip Maber - 0:25:22

combining West Sussex County Council does your decision today rest on why UKOG are asking for this, the fourth or fifth time extension several councillors voiced concerns when the third extension was before you, the outcome today maturely insist that the site is reinstated and made safe as per the conditions stipulated place.

we know that the drilled oil wells suffered several serious integrity issues and didn't find commercial oil, we also know that assets were used in the drilling and testing phase at best the iron work, if all well casings, as a short life.

the question, then, is whether UKOG is simply trying to avoid the expense of reinstating the site to a proper and safe condition.

whilst also keeping the site on their books to shore up support from their investors.

what other party can be expected to pay if you can cannot afford the costs of reinstatement?

what is the substance of the ECO claims that they want to experiment with geothermal heat for growing tea plants and a suggestion of awaiting the geological potential for commercial oil, it Luxleaks and hosts Host Hill?

I do not know that the outcome, if the wholesale Supreme Court case of last June is still awaited and has global implications, inspiring similar legal challenges in Finland, successful Australia and other countries so.

I would like to address the unlikely prospect of UKOOG future drilling at Broadford Bridge.

I think we can agree, read the sewage issues in etc that the Environment Agency is not fit for purpose in its primary role to protect our environment, the bottom line here is that the IEA now issue permits replicated across the UK for the onshore oil and gas industry.

permits without limit, in other words, they are permits to pollute.

furthermore, these permits rely upon self-regulation and reporting, this is a new, this is new regarding the permits issued in late 2021 to my neighbour, the 6 well Star energy site hidden away in Singleton Forest.

we only found the detail of those permits last year through freedom of information Act requests.

literally the columns within the pyramids have the words No limit return.

we have since confirmed similar limitless pyramids or, in date, now, widespread across the country.

I hope I can confirm that your decision today will be based upon the West Sussex climate motion of 2019 and the strategy and commitment glossy publication of 2021.

net-zero by 2030, which is impossible with further new fossil fuel exploration.

I had an e-mail this morning from Jill Sutcliffe, who a friend Nicola is reading in a minute the UKOG 2 3 4 with you this is a subsidiary of the main New Cook company, you cut to three for it.

appropriate,

is?

footbridge, Broadford Bridge is the their accounts of now show restoration asset was disappeared.

there have been 105 objections, none I'm sure there have been many more come in since thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:30:03

OK, thank you very much, Mr. Maybot, we now have Ms and Stuart on behalf of the weird action group also speaking in objections to the applications, Ms Stewart, you have five minutes to make your presentation beginning now, thank you.

Anne Stewart - 0:30:16

Good morning and speaking on behalf of the weird action group, we support and work with local groups campaigning against oil and gas development and we are currently awaiting a judgment from the supreme court against Surrey County Council we realised that planning authorities have a difficult job in negotiating complex policies when making decisions, sometimes these policies conflict with each other. For instance, the National Planning Policy Framework of 2023 has three overarching objectives that should be mutually supportive, they should all carry equal weight.

one of these is environmental and it includes the needs to mitigate climate change.

in 2021, the International energy Agency nevertheless stated categorically that to combat climate change, there should be no new oil and gas developments, so it would seem to be clear.

mitigating climate change must include a ban on new oil and gas wells, and for this reason alone this well should be plugged now and the site should be restored.

however, the planning officer's report states that there are policies that say something different, this seems to conflict with the climate change mitigation.

they include the energy white paper and the energy security strategy, this plan is planning officers' report gives great weight to these documents, in fact we would argue much greater weight than the NPP IFS need for mitigation.

this report states that these papers highlight the significant role of fossil fuels to the UK's energy supply and the importance of indigenous oil and gas to UK energy security, and this seems to be the planning officer's main reason for supporting this extension.

we suggest that this is a false conclusion, these documents are mostly concerned with offshore oil, that is oil and gas from the North Sea, they barely mentioned onshore resources, and this is not surprising because they are not significant.

last year, onshore oil amounted to just under 2% of all UK oil production.

Over three quarters came from one site which Farm, endorse at the other sites produce much smaller amounts.

last year the West Sussex well at Singleton produced 2.9% of onshore oil, this amounts to 0.06% of all UK oil, so it's not surprising that onshore resources are hardly mentioned, even if the amounts were greater they would not increase energy security just because the oil is indigenous.

since the white paper was written, it has become abundantly clear that the all of the UK producers does not necessarily stay in this country. It is sold on the open market every 10 days, the oil from which farm is sent to Hamble in Hook in Hampshire, where it fills up a tanker for export. That's the main reason given for supporting this application is inaccurate and so it should be refused. We have another important point, the one that Broadford Bridge has never produced commercial levels of oil. That is why the company stopped the work there in 2018, so they should have fulfilled their planning conditions and plugged the well and restored the site.

but this is an expensive business and it is our belief, the company will find it hard to afford to do this work, we believe that the repeated applications for a time extension are in part a manoeuvre to avoid the costs of restoration.

its share. The company has made a loss for several years, its share price has fallen by 99.5% in the last five years. Recently, a project in Turkey failed last year, they farmed out the work of their once feted horse hillside for 4.4 million pounds. They also raised a 3 million pound loan, and yet last month they had to reorganise their shares explicitly so that they could raise yet more funds. It meant that 29 billion shares morphed into a mere 2.9 billion shares, and they were still then only worth one 700th of a penny each.

we believe the company may not have the funds for restoration and that the county could eventually become responsible, we think its financial risk should have been considered and the application rejected.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:35:27

thank you, Mr Stewart now the third statement in objection is a written statement from Dr Gill Sutcliffe, chair of Keep Caerfyrddin Wisborough, Green, and also trustee of the campaign for Rural England, Dr Sutcliffe isn't here I wasn't able to be here today so her statement is instead going to be read out by Ms Nicola Peel so once again, Ms Pearl, you have five minutes to read the statement from now.

thank you.

there we go, thank you, and to put it into context, I actually live a couple of miles from the Broadford Bridge site.

so I read this on behalf of Dr Sutcliffe, who is an environmental scientist, the context from the IPCC report it is now and never if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible. Limiting warming to around 1.5 degrees C requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest and be reduced by 43% by 2030.

the UK government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 0by 2050, so these climate change commitments need to be reflected in the Government's M P P F, how far is the planning system working with the government's legal obligations in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation?

this question was the focus of a recent report, the current planning system is not delivering on this potential with the necessary speed and ambition to align with the Government's wider climate change objectives, Mind the Gap.

there is a major gap between spatial planning as a public policy response to climate change and its actual performance on the ground, the cause of this dysfunction lies not in the intrinsic capability of spatial planning but in a series of defined legal policy skills and resource issues which surround the current operation of the system, many of these issues stem from a lack of clarity in national policy as to the priority to be placed on climate change in decision making and the absence of detailed policy.

planning legislation.

there is an important duty in section 19 of the 2004 Planning Act, which creates a general obligation to ensure that plan policy contributes to the mitigation of and adaptation to, climate change, this clearly signals the priority to be given to climate change in plan making.

however, the requirement is framed in general terms only refers to the climate change Act in a footnote and does not apply to decision taking West Sussex County Council's planning committee meeting on September 2018.

if the company came back for a further extension, West Sussex County Council Planning Council Chair, Councillor Janet Duncton said that the Committee would be quite tough Councillor Simon Oakley asked at this point, should we say you've had long enough, and here you are poised to take the decision again.

geothermal alternative, Broadford Bridge, first, received planning permission for oil and gas exploration in 2013, the well drilled in 2017 had cement bond problems, and UKOOG announced in 2018 that sections of the well and surrounding formation could have been damaged.

and this could mean that the toxic liquids released could get into our drinking water via the very fractured nature of the underlying rocks, such damage to the drill also means that it would not be suitable for geothermal use.

restoration bond, it is clear from the N P, P F and ministerial statements that it is the responsibility of the M P, A to take security for restoration if considered necessary, but only in exceptional circumstances, while these are exceptional circumstances given the perilous nature of UKOG and of the climate crisis, so it is vital that West Sussex County Council insist that the site is restored now or if it is to be retained, then you can must put all the required funds for restoration until the prospects of the company improves. Thank you,

OK, thank you very much, Ms P could ask you just to turn the microphone on, please, thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:41:09

we now move on to speakers in support of the application we have to speakers in support, firstly, Mr Nigel Moor Planning Manager for Zetland Group limited, who is the agent for the applicant, Mr Moore, you have five minutes to make your presentation beginning now. Thank

Mr Nigel Moore - 0:41:29

you Chair, Vice Chair and members of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee my name is Nigel Mo I am responsible for planning compliance with the Broadford Bridge dual site.

this is an application to extend the life of a planning consent the additional 24 months will allow time for review, followed by site restoration.

there would be no new drilling, no new impacts, and the consent requires the land to return to agriculture.

put simply, the proposal seeks a deferral to enable a review of data from sites similar to Broadford Bridge.

this is because the recovery of data from one kilometre below the ground is a complex business.

it makes economic and environmental sense to ensure that all the available data is interrogated before restoration.

because abandoning Broadford Bridge prematurely could send a link to a viable source of island gas that we will need if we are to restore and maintain our future energy independence.

the three dominant planning considerations are listed at report paragraph 9 the first is the need for an extension.

reviewing data from similar sites to Broadford Bridge will enable UK's geologists to identify similarities in the mix and are in the mix of oil and gas, the pressures of player flows and the flow rates of both.

UKOG are exploring new methods of recovery hostel in Surrey.

and they plan to continue this approach at luxury, just 16 kilometres to the north of Broadford Bridge.

you Cook's understanding of well behaviour within the common geology is improving all the time and armed with this information, any future recovery from Broadford Bridge could be made more efficient, with shortage, drilling durations and less environmental impact. Having considered this information officers find the need for an extension to be justified. The second consideration is landscape impact, given no new works are planned and the only action left is to restore the site. No material effects are predicted when coupled with the remoteness of the site and the screening of woodland officers find the impacts to be acceptable.

the third consideration is site restoration.

this would be the fifth extension of time, this is not what you could want or desire, the proper functioning of the planning process has been frustrated by legal challenges.

which have prevented the recovery of data needed to complete the picture abroad from Bridge, but in January of this year the courts dismissed the challenge Loxley which marks the beginning of the end. There is now a real prospect of data recovery that could unlock the potential of Broadford Bridge for the benefit of our energy resilience, our energy security and our energy supply set in this context officers find the proposal attracts little negative weight in the planning balance.

between paragraphs 9.28 and 9.50 officers address the matters raised by objectors, they find the claim of a long enough.

is countered by the extraordinary dragged of the legal challenges have had, in this case, events which are beyond the control of the applicant and could not have been reasonably foreseen.

they find no evidence to support the claim of a pollution risk from a well site that has been sealed, using tried and tested oilfield practices in compliance with an active Environment Agency permit, and they find no novel, unusual or exceptional risk that would justify a bond accordingly, the same standard planning conditions that previous approvals have relied upon can be used again to ensure the compound remains secure, sealed and out of sight, the most up to date thinking of the UK government is contained in the energy security strategy.

it advocates a power supply that is made in Britain and makes better use of the oil and gas in our own backyard, it signals that our energy policy is not solely about the achievement of net 0 in 2050, but it must also secure our energy independence in 2024.

in summary, this proposal is modest and it relates to a site which is well hidden and inactive, but we respectfully ask that the porch light be kept on for a site that could contribute to our national need for energy independence, this is a material consideration which we are significantly in approval of this proposal.

I respectfully request that you adopt the recommendation of your officers and endorse their opinion that planning consent be permitted, thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:46:14

OK, thank you, Mr Moore, we now have our second speaker in support Mr

Mr Matt Cartwright - 0:46:19

Matt Cartwright, Commercial Director of UK Oil and Gas plc, at the applicants, again, Mr. Cartwright, you have five minutes to make your presentation beginning now, thank you, Chair, Vice Chair Members of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee.

haven't received planning permission in 2013, the Broadbridge Well site was built in 2014, I discovered oil was made in 2018, furthermore, we've got the first indication that oil below brow of a bridge could extend across the whole of the south-east, but we needed further data to confirm this. In 2020 we were granted planning consent to drill further production wells at Horse Hill in Surrey.

but activity has been delayed by a legal challenge to this decision, we are awaiting the ruling of the supreme court.

similarly, in 2020 we were granted planning, consent to drill at Loxley and Surrey activity was again delayed by legal challenge, this challenge was finally dismissed in January this year.

our search for data can begin, but Locksley planning conditions have yet to be discharged and the well site needs to be built before we can start a nine-month programme of data recovery, we therefore face a wait of up to 24 months before we have meaningful data, but the unblocking of the Loxley legal challenge means we can now go ahead.

you may ask, why do we need to all the gas anymore, and why do we need to persevere with board for bridge?

in response, the government and the Committee on climate change both say we do need oil and gas, both now and in 2050, but the old ways of using it are over, we need to be more efficient, responsible and independent.

this means not outsourcing our energy supplies to other countries with poorer environmental standards, it means avoiding the senseless carbon emissions of international transport.

and avoiding impotent dependency, because recent events beyond our control.

have shown that the world can be a dangerous place and we have to take it as we find it, not how we wish it to be the first such event was COVID, we know that the isolation of lockdown, the job losses and subsequent cost of living crisis are not sustainable.

reasserting our energy independence will make it a crisis less likely next time that a pandemic comes around, Covid was followed by the war in Ukraine, and the race for green energy has made us somewhat any security blind.

the energy crisis resulting from the Ukraine war has provided a harsh reminder of how important energy security really is abroad energy mix, including oil and gas, will allow the UK to isolate the likes of Russia in the future without destroying our economy.

in addition to managing energy shocks, we also have to help save the planet, the transition to net-zero is not as fast as we would like it, this is because the supply chains needed for large scale, electrification and decarbonisation are not yet in place.

this is shown in our offshore wind sector, where no bids were received by the government in its 2023 auction of offshore acreage, because when firms want the energy subsidies in perpetuity by the UK taxpayer, the green energy transition is unpredictable and costs are high.

promoting domestic energy as part of the transition is not about propping up demand for oil and gas, it's about ensuring our energy independence.

in 2024, so we can deliver net 0 in 2050. Broadford Bridge does have significant potential in energy terms, which is why you can't remain committed to the primary objective of unlocking its potential as a domestic source of oil and gas. We also have a back-up objective. It's feasible if the world's become a geothermal heat source that would enhance fruit and vegetable growth or introduce new sectors such as food production. Farmers would be able to grow crops in cold seasons, resulting in extended harvest periods and increased yields. Heat supply is there and we're working with the geothermal developer that has identified viable end users and investors would need to repurpose the current planning consent in order to proceed. so again, this will take time in summary site has real energy potential, bid oil and gas or potentially geothermal.

the UK will need indigenous oil and gas production for decades to come, the legal challenge at Locks has been resolved with wholesale close to a final decision, meaning that the prospects of resolution in the next 24 months are more realistic than they've been before.

for these reasons, I respectfully request that you accept the recommendation of your officers and approve a temporary extension, thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:50:36

thank you, Mr compromise, and we now move on to the local member Councillor, Charlotte Kenyon, who is a member for the Pulborough division who is attending on teams and, as, as mentioned previously, I understand that the connection Councillor Kenyon is using is is not going to be that loud so could I please ask that we keep any background noise to a minimum so that we can all hear what she has to say.

Councillor Kenyon, you have unlimited time to address the Committee beginning now.

thank you very much, Chairman, can I check with you first whether people can actually hear me yes, yes.

thank you Chairman, I'll try and speak very clearly.

I'd like to start by saying that I'm not someone who is implacably opposed in principle to the continued judicious use of fossil fuels, I think they will continue to be needed for some time as we wean ourselves off and develop viable alternatives.

I thank Mr. Cartwright speaks eloquently on the point of national energy security, and I recall him doing so two years ago, I am also in favour of energy security in a volatile world, however, I have to say.

but my feeling is that continued licensing of this borehole at this site, with this justification feels weak to me, it's starting to feel increasingly speculative and open-ended, and it is against the wishes and concerns of the local community that I represent and obviously whose views I am here to convey to the committee.

I offered some objections in 2022 and I find when I refer to my notes, from my last meeting, that they remain very similar, indeed, it feels a bit like retread there were repeated references in that application to the justification and need for extension,

it talked about the fact that policies provide for the justified extension in time to time limited mineral operations, and the report said that it was considered there was a justified need for the proposed extension in time sought, but to me the justification felt quite self-referential and circular and I find I'm feeling the same here as well I'll come to specifics in the report in the moment in a moment.

the original planning permission granted in 2013 then was for a temporary borehole, and I put in my notes two years ago.

what is the definition of something temporary if it is not something lasting, only a limited period of time, but I suppose it depends what time reference you're using if you're talking geological time that can take a very long time, so it seems as if this is very open-ended.

I asked, then how long do you intend to go looking inevitably?

what's the end game here, I noticed that approval to previous applications seemed to have been given, on the basis that the impact of the locality has not been increased, that it's not a protected landscape that feels to me like quite a low bar.

so I note that in 2022 the Parish Council objected at that time and I note that they have repeated those objections, so not much seems to have changed, which causes me concern, please let me know if anyone's struggling to hear me Chairman.

so let me turn to the report again. It talks about repeatedly about a justified extension are justified, need mitigating factors, including a change in ownership and legal challenges. In essence, UKOG wants to extend Broadford Bridge because it hasn't been able to do anything with it. Yet data from Horsell and Locksley may be able to unlock Broadford Bridge, but progress at both sites has been stalled since 2021 as we've had this, and the change of ownership is offered as mitigation for delays, but is that sophisticated doesn't justification for this community committed to continually extend the site.

how long are we to continue delaying restoration for a scheme that doesn't appear to have made tangible progress and is beset by obstacles?

I'd like to thank Mr Neave for his presentation, but I would like to draw on some specific points in the report that I wanted to pick up on.

I am grateful for the report and the detail presented in it.

but I feel on its reading that it brushes aside existing concerns regarding these repeated extensions.

it feels that it views the application positively by default and plays down the implications of possible future development, focusing instead on, and I quote, off-site appraisal with the site remaining in its current dormant state, which sounds harmless enough, and while this is the focus of the application for extension,

and a further application to upgrade the site would be needed if deposits were found, let us not forget the overall aim and raise on debtor of this site, this application is, in fact, another holding pattern.

we're not just talking about mothballing, so let's let's not be, let's not misunderstand that, to raise some specific points in the report.

this is, as has been said, the fifth requested request for an extension, repeatedly extending time limits, I believe, undermines confidence in the planning system, this point is raised in bullet point 4 of section 8 on reservations, which states West Sussex County Council must enforce the restoration requirements to maintain public confidence in the planning system which acknowledges these at that point.

paragraph 4.1

quotes condition 1 of the planning permission.

this permission shall be, for a limited period, only expiring on the 31st of March 2024, by which date the operations hereby permitted shall have ceased all buildings, plant or machinery shall have been reviewed, etc etc. Again, I ask, what is our definition of temporary if not something limited in time unless we are talking about geological time?

paragraph 6.5 states such extensions may be acceptable, provided there is a need for the activity and they do not result in unacceptable impacts on the environment and communities, I think that's too woolly I think, that should read sufficient and compelling need, I don't think that case is fully made.

I sympathise with the objections raised in Section 8 and I don't feel they've all been fully fully answered, particularly bullets 2 and 3 concerning time periods and the inevitable need for further extensions.

which makes the point time period sought and not long enough, and further extensions of time will be sought, Planning Committee have previously made comments that suggest further extensions in time will be given through consideration, and that patients is wearing thin.

this action on the need for development raises concerns reference paragraph 9.4 I'm not convinced that quote, granting permission for these applications would not create any presumption in favour of consent for subsequent phases, including for further appraisal or production, I think our experience to date would indicate the opposite.

paragraph 9.6 the appraisal phase can take several forms, including additional seismic work, longer-term flow tests or the drilling of further wells, this may involve additional drilling at another site away from the exploration site or additional wells at the original exploration site, so we understand the intended purpose of the site and further development is not ruled out, so let us be clear about that.

in paragraph 9.7, the applicant says they do not wish to prematurely restore a site where future hydrocarbon extraction may still be viable and a further appraisal could inform the viability of the target geology for exploitation of hydrocarbons, and I believe Mr Neave actually raised this, as did Mr. Moore,

you might have to point out was extremely helpful when I spoke to him and I thank him for for the information that he shared with me.

to me this comes to the heart of the matter, UKOG has made a significant investment in drilling, this borehole and wants to see a return on its investment, and I don't blame them, but that does that justify continued extension from the point of view of West Sussex County Council.

paragraph 98, to which paragraph 9.12, is also relevant, the applicant is waiting for outcome of further appraisal of the wholesale well site in Surrey, where it is suggested initial findings indicate the potential for linked continuous oil deposits in the Kimmeridge limestone and Portland geological horizons. Nothing has happened at Loxley yet, and Horsell continues to be locked by legal challenges. From my discussion with Mr. Moore, it seems this could run and run so is resolutely unlikely.

the impact on landscape character is justified on the grounds that the site does not fall within a protected landscape, this was justification given two years ago and I feel again that's a very low bar, it also talks about the temporary nature of the proposals again continued extension, I think means it's misleading to describe it as temporary.

with regard to restoration of the site, paragraph 9.2 2 refers to restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity, the mitigating factors offered for delay in restoration may be the reason for that delay as far as the applicant is concerned, but do not provide reassurance to the residents concerned about restoration.

comments have been made about the huge, expensive site restoration and the concerns that residents have about the seriousness about addressing this question.

paragraph 9.2 3 states. This would be the fifth extension in time sought by the applicant. However, in granting previous extensions in time at the site, the County Council has considered the justification need for extensions in time against any impacts and has to date deemed them acceptable. I'll return to this point, but I begin to wonder if the same reasons remain acceptable every time they're presented when and under what circumstances does that change? Paragraph 9.2 5 acknowledges there is likely to be the minute. This is likely to be the minimum period required. This is in accordance with policy requirements to restore at the earliest opportunity

how is what appears to be an inevitable request for further extension, implied here, compatible with restoration at the earliest opportunity paragraph 9.2 6

the objections to a bond seem weak to me quests and I quote, it's not considered appropriate to secure a bond in relation to the present application, I don't understand the justification to this and I've had communication from a Mrs. Smith who's offered some possible wording for a bond.

the suggestion in section 1.1 and 4.5 point 1.2 of the Planning Statement 30th of November 2023 that, and I quote, the borehole sunk, has the potential to be reopened for the recovery of Juma geothermal heat sounded to me, I'm afraid a bit desperate and a bit like clutching at straws, it wasn't really substantiated and I think it rather weakens the argument.

section 4.6 of the planning statement reads hydrocarbon exploration is active within the Weald Basin but has yet to yield the data needed to establish geological connectivity.

this data will determine if the Broadford Bridge site has the potential to play a major role in the future. Recovery of the fuel feedstocks and energy supplies essential to the UK economy. So again, we're not just talking about mothballing a dormant site, so let's just be clear about that. However, we feel about it. This is not just a halt, this is not just a holding pattern. If hydrocarbons are found, they will need to be extracted, and this can only be done by road, because there's no prospect of building any pipe works overall above ground. This would lead to increased HTV traffic on the B 2 1 1 3 at the same lane with implications for road safety. This is of concern to my colleague and neighbour Councillor Amanda Jupp, who represents Billingshurst division, and who shares my concerns and objections. I spoke to her about this yesterday and said that I would mention her name

that point is mentioned in paragraph 8.3 bullet 13 by the way.

if planning approval is given again under the stated justification.

it seems to me that there will be no reason not to extend again indefinitely, inevitably, by the report's own logic, we will be sitting here in two years' time having the same conversation.

if granting permission once on the grounds given means that extension, after extension, will inevitably be granted in future on those same grounds, it feels there is little point to this discussion.

if that's the case, then we might as well vote on the proposals once and for all and allow the applicant to keep the borehole open until they find something or decide they don't want it anymore.

it feels as if we're in an endless loop.

the same assurances about restoration in two years' time were given two years ago and are repeated here I would like to know, when and under what circumstances the County Council will decide that the site should close and be restored.

I am not very convinced by the lack of objections from various public bodies that perceived no negative impact, I'm not quite sure on what basis Southern Water or nausea transition authority as an example would object to something going on in West Chiltington parish, it feels like Groundhog Day,

for me, if we were going to draft a further extension of permission, we would at least need some new information to come forward with a stronger justification than for me and for the people of West Chiltington and the Pulborough division is presented here, thank you very much, Chairman, OK, thank you very much, Councillor Kenyon, now can I ask if the planning officers would like to provide any factual clarification on any matters raised by any of the speakers?

Mr James Neave - 1:06:01

no factual clarifications, Chairman, thank you.

thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:06:05

right we then move on to debate the report, if I can ask members to raise their hands if they wish to speak, and planning and legal officers will be invited to respond to any queries or to provoke or provide any clarification, so the first person I saw was Councillor Jump.

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 1:06:30

thank you Chairman, and I thank the officers, and also I'll speakers, for their contributions to this morning's discussions, I wondered whether or not I could just start in saying that Councillor Kenyon mentioned the neighbouring County Councillor Amanda Jupp, who actually, as many of you knows and my wife and I didn't know whether I have to declare that,

but I can assure you we are both of independent mind.

can I just take you a little bit further.

one of the constant points made was the question of a bond for any restoration work, and whether or not there were there were comments made about the financial viability of the applicant, and I wonder whether a couple of points here, I wonder whether the officers could a confirm what their understanding is of the likely restoration works as I see that the extent of them has been agreed.

so there's a likely cost, and secondly, there is comment here about the question of the licensee's final financial ability and capacity, and nine points to 6 on page 41, is it the case that when a company who is undertaking such works, if they should,

assign their interest that whatever government bodies are involved, checks out the financial viability of those companies before they are allowed to take on that.

position.

at the other point was there was some comment made by the speakers about the potential costs or the potential, shall we say.

failures in the construction of the existing borehole there was coming there, I'd wondered whether or not officers could provide any comment on that forest.

OK, Mr me.

could I just ask you to?

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:08:34

Mr James Neave - 1:08:35

thank you in terms of the financial guarantee.

this is addressed in your report, as you say at 9.00.2 6, so the planning practice guidance on whether a financial guarantee or bond is required for for such sites. The guidance says this may only be justified in exceptional circumstances, as was raised by other parties, and this states that in such cases would include very long term new projects where progressive reclamation is not practical, such as an extremely large limestone quarry where a novel approach or technique is being used. But the minerals planning authority considers it justifiable grant permission and where there is reliable evidence of the likelihood of either financial or technical failure. But these concerns are not such to justify the refusal of permission. That's that's the, if you like, the the guidance that we're looking at when determining whether a bond is necessary, it is not a long term project, in our view, such as an extremely large long limestone quarry that may last 50 60 years. These aren't novel approaches. This is a typical hydrocarbon. Well, that's gonna be restored and plugged, and we were not overview that there's any reliable evidence of a financial failure or technical failure, such as to warrant upon a bond hasn't been required for previous applications at this site and other similar sites around the country and recent decisions don't have bonds, albeit that they have been used in some circumstances.

your other question was around the the bore, how itself and whether there is any damage in that borehole the borehole is regulated by the Health and Safety Safety Executive and the bottle design, and the environmental permit in terms of any emissions from that, so if you like the suspended well and the design of that well has been verified or viewed by the Health and Safety Executive so that's not necessarily a matter for the planning authority Councillor Chapman wanted to come back yeah thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:10:31

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 1:10:32

thank you, Minister, did you fail to respond to my question about the likely cost of these works, because you, the report says those restoration works have been agreed and therefore the magnitude of the cost is quite relevant to the point about a bond and also the financial status of the applicant which I heard this morning may not be as strong as some might like.

but I do know that this particular company, with its Horace Hill application, known as the Gatwick, gusher, I believe in the media, has attracted a great deal of comment.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:11:11

Mr James Neave - 1:11:12

yeah, in terms of financial.

ability of the applicant, I think you know, in these terms the restoration of state, as required by condition, ultimately, if they could not meet that condition, it would openly fall back to the landowner.

but there is the other part in terms of the North Sea, transitional authority do review the financial capabilities of an applicant when granting a licence, so that should offer us some comfort, the final financial

competency of the applicant has been in terms of a cost. I, I wouldn't want to put a cost on it, because I would be somewhat guessing the only the only comparable I may be able to give you as a sighting Nottingham Nottinghamshire that I'm aware of known as missing, which again without reviewing in detail, exactly how the difference that the sites are in terms of the restoration which I think a bond was secured in the order of 650,000. I'd probably need to double-check that, but that is my understanding now I would. I would guess the majority of that is linked with the abandoned and plugged in the wild, rather than the restoration of the site. In this case, which is seemingly a relative in minerals terms, a relatively simple removal of stone and aggregate and structures and then replacing the soil on the site have been absent.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:12:29

OK, thank you before I come to other speakers, Mr Neave, could I just ask you to clarify something, because you, you said in your response to Councillor Jupp, that that, in the event of a financial problem that meant the applicant, couldn't,

couldn't carry out the restoration it would wi, it would revert to the landowner to do that, and I just wanted to clarify that because a lot of the correspondence or a lot of the comments we've received in correspondence are suggesting that the cost would fall on the County Council, so could you just clarify that the the there is no way it would fall on the County Council? It would be, it would be the landowner

Mr James Neave - 1:13:08

yeah, well, we we've referenced a Planning practice, Guidance sites, paragraph 0 3 6, of the minerals, basically responsible ration, responsibility for the restoration and aftercare of mineral sites, including financial loss, where it lies with the minerals operator and then in the case of default, with the landowner, anything that's similar with any planning, permission and conditions. Ultimately, the permission runs with the land and any enforcement. You would openly go for the landowner, OK, thank you. I think that's that's very

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:13:36

important, because we have been a number of the representations that we've been sent have suggested that it would be the county council's responsibility. Could I also ask, following on from that, because again the there's there's been this

several references have been made to a Bond, are you aware of any other hydrocarbon applications within West Sussex where we have required a bond in the past year, to my knowledge, none of the

Mr James Neave - 1:14:04

hydrocarbon sites in West Sussex have ever required a bond for restoration.

thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:14:11

the next person I saw was Councillor Wilde.

and thank you Chairman.

Cllr Jaine Wild - 1:14:19

this is one of my first meetings that I've had to do with the bore holes, and a lot of the other Councillors have sat in on those, and I just I'm I'm I'm unbelievably can't think why we're sitting here again. I do not believe that a fifth extension to this site should should be allowed. I mean it is like laughable, I agree with everything that Councillor Kenyon has said, I mean she spoke so well on everything she covered all the points that there were.

and she is also not in favour of repeated extension again, I don't want to be sitting here in 2 years' time discussing this same matter, I can't believe what is happening here.

West Sussex County Council have also said themselves in their report that.

proposals would result in the continued retention of a site, not wholly in keeping with countryside location for a further two years, there have been four extensions at this site, I do believe, as one of the speakers said, that the intention of repeated extensions is to save this company, the money of having to plug the borehole and to reinstate our wildlife and trees of that area.

I just say that I hope that West Sussex councillors will not allow this extension to happen again and I repeat again possibly and not to have the wool pulled over their eyes, thank you.

OK, thank you, was that any response?

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:15:57

like Councillor Oakley.

Mr James Neave - 1:15:59

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:16:01

Cllr Simon Oakley - 1:16:03

thank you, Mr. Chairman, I note one of the speakers referred to previous comments on this site that have made in we'd previously come to a planning committee, I'd just like to make clear that I've approached this application in its own context in the information that is,

available and how things have progressed in terms of policy statements in P, P F, et cetera, so it's in the context of this application that I approach this my views.

just picking up on the that comment about costs of

restoration who look forward to ultimately if enforcement action was to be taken through its full process.

it could be up something for the discretion of the County Council as to whether it went in and actually undertook the restoration itself and then subsequently sought the cost recovery for that, so ultimately the county council could get involved the cost of restoration if it went that far.

the fundamental question for me is whether there is an essential need for this site to

remain assets.

the justification it appears to me is that it is being held in stasis for want of a better word of it, dependent on what is happening with other sites now with Haus Hill, I might correct an understanding that that has now got to.

an application for production, but there hasn't been executed yet because of the continuing legal processes with that, in other words, horse, this site is not dependent on further exploration or testing or evaluation of the wholesale site.

with Loxley.

that that site, as I understand it, is.

I got to the stage of applications or permissions for exploration, testing and evaluation.

now the question for me here is is, is the retention of this site, Pulford Bridge, required for further exploration testing evaluation on each site.

always it basically as being held, depending on what's happening elsewhere.

now, if that is the case, that it is basically how is dormant there is no further intention reasonably.

expectation that under this application, further exploration testing evaluation is going to take place on this site.

essential that it is retained, given we've not got a further application for production on it.

and I think it's worth noting.

the Council has kept the Joint Minerals Local Plan is that it where it refers to restoration at the earliest opportunity, and I think that is within policy them 24.

now with wholesome district council's local plan policy 26 strategic policy countryside protection.

its opening paragraph includes any proposal must be essential to its countryside location and, additionally, one of the following criteria, those four criteria supporting the use of agricultural and forestry no

provide for quiet informal recreational use, no enable the extraction of minerals or disposal of waste, well, it's not here to enable the extraction of minerals, this is not what this application is for.

and the fourth one is enable sustainable development.

in rural areas now there is much debate on what is sustainable, but the clear direction of travel from government policy statements is that in the long term, on a gas is not a sustainable option, it may be very, it is a

a justifiable argument to say that it is needed for transitioning.

and I just make a 0 what a comment yes, we do need indigenous oil and gas production because of the tax take we get out of it, that's very much the

and a need for that one, but given that onshore individual onshore sites provide only a very negligible contribution.

to that again, it raises the question of whether the continuance of this site under this application can be considered essential.

the on a minor point, given time, has gone on.

is the site now required to provide for biodiversity net gain in its?

restoration, given the impact it's had and does restoration a landscape plan requiring new replacement planting and, if so can, with the latest version of our standard condition, apply, those are minor ones.

peripheral to the to the main point, so from what I've heard so far.

this application fails on the fact that it is no longer an essential requirement.

thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:22:26

OK, thank you, Mr Neave, did you want to answering those points, thank

Mr James Neave - 1:22:31

you so that the first point was on Host Hill and being that a permission for a production site we would have no further exploration or appraisal taking place there, yes, the the permission or wholesale, which is awaiting the final outcome of legal challenge, it does involve production wells and reuse of the existing wells,

but my understanding is that it is not just purely an exploration well, that will tell you how productive a geological formation all will be as you're doing production, you will find out more about the target geology you will find out more about his productivity, productivity, how it flows and other things so there's you know there is data between gains and more information on the target formation which the applicant,

as this is linked to the Brooklyn Bridge site, the next question I think was is the is the site just held, yes, the site is just held, so this is, if you like, and it's covered in your reports, hopefully under the needs section.

but the site is house, so this is an element of appraisal, as it's linked with the PBJ appraisal can include looking at information from other sites as well, which is what the African today, so yes, it is held in stasis and no further exploration would be permitted by this development should it be approved they would need to come in for a fresh application.

and that we would consider all the material matters are that at that time, but no, this is about appraisal, so considering the data you already have and data from other sites as to the future viability of this site, so it's held in are in stasis, if you like like you've said and this is just one element of appraisal.

you referred to the the Horsham District Local Plan or Washington planning framework after a mummy which, when it is it is in your reports as well, but in terms of what types of dwellings are justified in a countryside location and as you rightly pointed out,

proposal is essential for minerals extraction are included in that, so it is, in essence, the policy does provide for minerals proposals. Now appraisal is a precursor to extraction and or appeal decisions. You're sorry, you also mentioned the small contribution to the overall in terms of oil in UK, appraisal is repeatedly by inspectors given significant weight and great way in terms of it being a precursor in terms of need to linking to oil. The other points briefly were biodiversity net gain? The the application was submitted before the 12th of February, so it's not subject to the mandatory ban biodiversity, net gain and in any case, this is a Section 73 application for a variation of a permission that was already granted prior to that site, and I wouldn't be required to do that in terms of planting. Yes, the planting plan that we had up on the screen earlier. The restoration proposals are essentially there's, there's not significantly policy or turning the site back to agriculture in that corner of the field, so it's going back to being a grassed field, so to speak. The only other parts from the planting Plan are including of gapping up of hedgerows. One of the ones you saw on the track, those on site will see that that was actually carried out some time ago and is being largely successful, albeit it remains a requirement and would be part of aftercare and some tidying up at the access point onto the same lane and say that in terms of planting hopefully that helps

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:25:58

OK, thank you, you want to come back Councillor.

Cllr Simon Oakley - 1:26:02

thank you, Mr. Chairman, and from it leaves out response, the the point I would make is that.

Wolf come what may or may not happen further on this side.

is separate, in my view, from what may or may not happen at horse Hill.

and regarding to Planning Inspectorate decisions on other applications for Appraisals' proposal sites.

it would be helpful to understand whether they were for new a place or sites or continuation of sites that are basically dormant.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:26:48

Mr James Neave - 1:26:50

yeah, so the the the are the pure decisions I'm referring to one being Bauckham and other recent decisions at Loxley itself, yet they are for new exploration or further exploration, whilst they're not specifically held and retention but is in in policy terms is linked to that same part of exploration and appraisal and whether you afford the weight to exploration and appraisal.

OK.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:27:16

thank you, I've got Councillor Quinn next.

Cllr Brian Quinn - 1:27:22

thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and lots being said already, and eventually one of my questions is the ownership of this land. Unfortunately I'd been out of the country for a couple of weeks and I didn't conduct a site visit and I've been honest committed for many years. This application is repetitive as we've already had every two years now over 11 years another committee meeting March 26 now I said about 103 objections from the residents. Surely it's about time that we get this lovely village back to divisions. Thank you

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:27:56

OK.

Councillor Patel,

thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Ashvin Patel - 1:28:02

falling from Councillor Buckley's comments and the Ward Councillors, basically the site has been dormant for six years, plus 2 years will make it eight years how long the descendants have to put up with this and live their lives in limbo until the applicant finds other two sites to be suitable how long is a piece of string so I won't be supporting this thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:28:30

did you want to come back on that?

I think there are any points of clarification, for that was a

Mr James Neave - 1:28:38

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:28:40

statement that got Councillor Duncton next.

Cllr Janet Duncton - 1:28:44

yes, thank you, Chairman, I'm not against us looking in this country for oil that would help us with what we need to carry forward, but I think this site is just getting a bit of a joke, and last time chairman we made it very clear that we would have to find an end to this ongoing situation.

and I approach this thinking my goodness, you know, I don't want to put a stop on on something that might be good for the future of the country, I guess.

and I looked at it further and I've listened to everything that's been said.

to be perfectly honest, I've sort of come to a conclusion that if the company that owns, it actually thought there was going to be a good supply of oil or whatever there else they're looking for here, they'd have jolly well got on with it a long time before now and I think Chairman it is unfair that we continue with the

not knowing what's going to happen there for the people that live residential or live in the area, or at least those of us that live in a little bit further afield, and I also have come to the conclusion that enough is enough.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:30:02

OK.

thank you, I've got Councillor Mercer next.

thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Jay Mercer - 1:30:11

how do you apply weight?

to the timely related equivalent of incremental planning bright

I understand that officers assess this assess this many of the the judgements about this application at the first time it came in and every time since, but how do you assess the effect on amenity of not knowing whether significant development will happen at this site or not because that's what we've had, how do you assess the stress on individual members of the community about that over what is now more than 10 years how do you assess the impact on property values or the lack of ability to plan in the long term for your family?

this feels like an incremental growth of the weight that should be attached to the negative impact on the amenity of residents, and I don't see that being taken account of in the report we've had arguments today, rich range between the significance of the possibility of further development for hydrocarbon extraction in order to be part of the UK energy independence push and of course that was challenged by Ms Stewart.

and the insignificance of the effect of the site currently on the landscape and on residents, and these are two contradictory arguments because they are no, no, they are apples and pears, not apples, and apples as it is the site makes no contribution to the UK energy independence as it might be is dependent entirely on further planning applications which might be raised by the data that we have been.

informed about that might come from sites elsewhere, we're told in planning training, but we should look at what's in front of us yes in context, but what's in front of us and and what's in front of us is a repeated application for temporary use of this site where we have very little evidence.

of what Councillor Oakley has pointed out, the necessity of this site for mineral extraction, I am not at this point able to support the officer's recommendation.

OK, thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:32:50

Mr Neave.

Mr James Neave - 1:32:54

thank you, yeah, just to just to clarify on one point about what might come forward in the future and whether the site provides any hydrocarbons as it stands, I mean we can't determine any future applications, but this this application is for appraisal.

similarly, any application for explorer for exploration at that point you can't be guaranteed of a future hydrocarbon production is the benefits given to that exploration and appraisal element, as a precursor to the benefits of a Hodge comes in the future, but your points are noted that that was just the only clarifying point from my point of view.

and K.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:33:31

thank you, Councillor Gibson.

Cllr Ian Gibson - 1:33:38

thank you, Chairman, I, too, sat here two years ago and then went through this.

I had some questions about really differences.

I saw between the case that we were presented with two years ago, particularly in the range of informatics, but I think I'm not going to go to them, I think I've heard and you know sort of the debate from the committee and the rest of it and I share the opinion that I do I have been familiar with some long term projects and I think that this has been managed badly in terms of the expectation of how long it might take.

but being asked for a fifth time for an extension, I think, is unreasonable.

particularly as it would have been possible to and anticipated, I feel the the influences which have affected the timing and to have asked for a longer generation, and then come back with a, if you like, an earlier conclusion.

so I too feel that we've reached the point where I think a further

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:34:47

extension would be unreasonable, thank you, OK, thank you.

I haven't seen any other than any other members who wish to speak.

at this stage.

Councillor jobs.

thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 1:35:01

councillor Mercer at referred to the stress

that neighboring residents may feel the impact that the application on the threat of it would have upon the value of their houses, is there any way that we should give to that when coming to our deliberations?

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:35:20

Mr James Neave - 1:35:22

no, the barrier houses, not material consideration.

OK, thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:35:26

any other.

any other comments or questions from members.

if not, then we have to move.

onto the recommendations now, firstly, cannot be, can we, I just make it clear that we are talking about two separate planning applications here, so we will, whatever happens, we will need to take two separate votes and two separate decisions on those, although they are there, they are clearly intrinsically linked, but we do have to make two two decisions.

so if I can advise, just for the sake of clarity and for those those watching the recommendations for both applications are shown on page 24 of your pack, the proposed conditions and informative for double USC stroke 0 4 6 stroke 23, if it were to be permitted, are shown on pages 49 to 52 the proposed conditions and informative for double USC Stoke 0 4 7 stroke 23 were it to be committed, as shown on page 53, the relevant plans are shown on pages 55 57 59 and the site photos are shown on pages 61 to 63

I will read out the substantive recommendation before we before I ask if anyone wishes to propose that, but I think Mrs floodgate wants to

Laura Floodgate - 1:37:07

come in first or apologise, yes, I I didn't realise you were obviously seeking a proposer obviously hearing what Members have said it may be that there needs to be some form of alternative proposal put if that's not the substantive is not proposed.

either way, the reason I I sorry I'll I'll correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding was that we have to vote on the substantive recommendation first, and if that falls, then we look at an alternative, is that correct, yes, we will then to tell them.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:37:31

Laura Floodgate - 1:37:32

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:37:33

sorry, thank you OK, so we'll we'll take.

will take the the first application first, which is for the so so, just to be clear, this is.

application W S C C Stoke 0 4 6, stroke 23, which is for the retention of the well site and the recommendation for that.

is that planning permission be granted for planning application, reference W USC, stroke 0 4 6 0 23, subject to the conditions and informative set out at Appendix 1 now is there anyone who wishes to propose that?

we do need to move to a vote either way Councillor Jupp has proposed is there a seconder, Councillor McDonald, OK, so this is this is for the

the recommendation on the the the the application with a well site, can I ask for a show of hands for those in favour of that recommendation.

that's for.

those against.

that 7.

so that recommendation falls, can I.

can I just ask for some clarification from officers about the order we need to do this in now, I would suggest we probably should vote on the substantive recommendation for the other application first, and then come back to alternative recommendations is that?

Laura Floodgate - 1:39:16

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:39:17

Laura Floodgate - 1:39:18

yes, I would agree, Chairman, OK right we then have.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:39:21

the recommendation for application double USC stroke 0 4 7, stroke 23, which is for the retention of the fencing, security cabins and gates the recommendation there is that planning permission be granted for planning application, reference W S C C Stoke 0 4 7 stroke 23, subject to the conditions and informative set out in Appendix 2,

is there a proposal for that?

Councillor jobs and a seconder, Councillor McDonald, OK, so I'll ask for those in favour of that recommendation.

again that's for and those against.

at 7.00, so again, that recommendation falls now I will need to seek advice.

while I think from both planning and legal officers on alternatives, because if, if the applications are to be refused, obviously we have to have reasons for refusal.

Laura Floodgate - 1:40:26

Mrs. Thank you, Chairman yeah, absolutely that's what Mike was just whispering right here, obviously the substantive has fallen, and so we therefore need an alternative proposal, but obviously you need to be aware that you need to come up with some reasons I'm sure officers can probably help with some form of wording based on what we've had.

I May handed over to you and then if we need to help you with precise

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:40:50

wording, then we can OK, I think Councillor Oakley might be about to suggest something, so I'll go to him first and then I'll come to

Cllr Simon Oakley - 1:40:57

officers thank you Mr. Chairman Show to set the ball rolling on an alternative proposal is that the at both applications be refused on the basis of

Joint Minerals Plan Policy M 23, where it states that you need it, it fails to demonstrate the need for the development.

Joint Minerals Plan Policy M 24, which cites the need to be restored earliest opportunity.

and Horsham District Council Planning Framework Policy 26.

countryside protection, whereas it's failed to show that it's it must have been essential to its countryside location and doesn't meet any of the following four criteria.

OK.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:42:02

I asked Mr Neave if you have some comments on that.

Mr James Neave - 1:42:13

I think we can come up with a form was that it would be useful for any discussion of the Committee around the need apart if there is any further discussion or points should raise around the need element as to what is not needed is that more to do with the

uncertainty around other sites given making this site a.

potential future future of our ability, I did just want to understand a bit more around the need element before.

some words together.

OK, Councillor Oakley.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:42:46

Cllr Simon Oakley - 1:42:49

yesterday, to expand on that is, in my view, that.

there is no further need for this site, given that it has not been shown that there was a need for further.

exploration, testing and evaluation on this site, the case for where it is only is completely dependent on what happens on other sites, so this site is not needed anymore.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:43:22

Mr Mike Elkington - 1:43:24

okay, Mr Elkington, did you yeah, thank you, Chairman, yes, I think that thing that's helpful, so you basically.

yeah, so there's so just to say, there is no link between the site and the other site, the sites in Surrey the site could be restored.

then, presumably, if there was a well, if the data in Surrey suggested that there was something here, that means another application coming forward, but that that would be the preferred approach, so basically enough is enough, this site can be restored if something transpires in the future that an application that they brought a British site is required in the future that will be treated on its merits at that time is that correct?

chairman sorry, just just to think, is sort of in terms of any of the wording for a reason for refusal, I think if that could be delegated to me just to just to confirm with you just so that we can make sure that we dot the i's and cross the t's once we've got the reasons find that that'd be helpful.

so I think that's about the need.

I think you referred to Policy 24 about the need for early restoration, so I think that's a fairly straightforward one, that there are that there that the need for further delay just hasn't been demonstrated.

and then in terms of the policy.

26 from the Horsham dominant framework about the criteria were just looking at the

wording on that.

protected areas, so I think you were saying it's not essential to it's just to have a countryside location.

in terms of the following criteria.

so criteria 2 refers to enable the extraction of minerals, I think again in terms of the committee report.

paragraph 9.4 I think it is talks about obviously appraisal being a precursor to production, so I was just wondering how you decided to square that circle, as it were.

Councillor Oakley,

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:45:28

Cllr Simon Oakley - 1:45:30

yeah, so enabling the extraction of minerals will, given that there is a previous reasons that Beatty said there was no need for this site, therefore it is not enabling anything.

in itself.

and on the criteria for enabling sustainable development of rural areas.

then that brings in the various cited national.

statements and or a policy framework on what is the long term sustainability of oil and gas.

therefore, is why should this be viewed as a sustainable form of development?

if we are trying to transition away from oil and gas to.

other means.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:46:30

Mr Mike Elkington - 1:46:31

Mr Elkington. Secondly, sorry, thank you. I would suggest that you that there's no reference to 2 to 4, I think, because it in terms of the criteria it talks about agriculture, forestry, minerals, disposal of waste, recreation or sustainable development. So I was talking about the different sorts of things that that would be acceptable in a countryside location or essential to a countryside location, so I would suggest that at any recent provision didn't get into about whether this is sustainable development in. I think you just need to stick to criteria 2 if you're convinced that it would not enable the extraction of minerals. OK, I've got Councillor, he wants to come back

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:47:10

Cllr Simon Oakley - 1:47:11

and then Councillor jobs yeah but note that the for the first paragraph he says any proposal matter essential must be essential to its countryside, location and, in addition, meet one of the following criteria. So if it meets one of the following criteria, it weakens our case and therefore that's why I included

item 4.

the question is sustainable development one because if you say that this is sustainable development, your weakening in the case of what the central thrust of the opening paragraph is after.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:47:48

sorry, Chairman.

Mr Mike Elkington - 1:47:56

I think we just need to take this away OK, so I think we understand that the points you're making missing of is just saying there's the following those four criteria their surname says, in addition, the proposals must be of a scale appropriate to the countryside, character and location.

and protects and preserves. I can't read that and enhances key features and characteristics, so I think we just yeah, I think we just need to make sure that that any recent refusal for refusal is because it's watertight, but if you can say I think we do not understand where you're coming from, we can obviously listen back to the the debate and make sure that we make sure it's tied down and okay quick and then I I want to bring Councillor jump in now yeah I would just say reasonably

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:48:40

Cllr Simon Oakley - 1:48:40

arguable, not watertight

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:48:45

OK, Councillor jobs.

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 1:48:48

yes, thank you, and can I just ask for the officers help here we're talking about reasons for refusal, including a reference to HTC's Horsham District Council's planning framework, when I look at paragraph 7.1 on page 34 says Horsham District Council has no objection.

are we in danger of falling foul of that particular point in any appeal should it be forthcoming from the applicant?

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:49:23

Mr Mike Elkington - 1:49:24

it's a.

sorry, sorry, it is yes, absolutely determining authority to take account of all material considerations, which will include anything that's in the statutory development plan, which includes any adopted plans at the time so that includes the Horsham Development Framework, so it's up to this Authority to refer to any relevant policies in that that would support its case. Sorry, I don't think it's an issue that Horsham District Council doesn't object is solely a matter for the County Council to make a judgement based upon what it considers material and how much weight it wants to give to that.

OK, Councillor jobs.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:50:06

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 1:50:08

chairman, I'm fearful that this decision of his council may go to appeal, and I'm conscious about costs that are involved in appeals on time, would it the the, the reasons for the appeal need to be for refusal need to be carefully considered and agreed by the Committee and I wonder whether or not there is any precedent.

for officers to draw something in it, come back at a meeting in the future so that everybody is agreed, exactly how it's being refused.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:50:40

Laura Floodgate - 1:50:43

yes, everything, I think we have done it previously and it it could be the case that you make the decision to defer, and so that officers can co go away, write a report in terms of a hearing, the debate that you've had today to come up with reasons for refusal,

on this application, if you so wished,

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:51:02

Laura Floodgate - 1:51:05

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:51:07

I think I think what it comes down to is whether we feel that officers can outline those reasons whether officers cannot articulate those reasons today, in a way that would be sufficient for members to make a decision on whether or not to vote to support them but to actually delegate the exact wording to officers which is is clearly drafting that most of us as lay people would not be able to do so it's whether members feel comfortable with,

the the general thrust being outlined by officers today or whether they feel they need to see it in writing. Personally, I would have thought not normally normally in instances where a committee refuses an application against

officer recommendation, it's normally decided at the meeting what the reasons are going to be, rather than coming back and delaying it for

Laura Floodgate - 1:51:53

another month or so, but I would agree to him and I think that is the preferred way forward.

here I think we probably can come up with some wording, but I'm wondering if we have a short adjournment so that we can just confirm between ourselves, how bad would that would that work, so we have one minute to just discuss so that we can then come back with a proposed proposal that would ever we've been able to have a chat and yeah it can encompass everything so if we can adjourn for five minutes for

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:52:18

that thank you.

4 Planning Application: Minerals

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:52:51

OK, thank you very much, and thank you for your patients if I can now hand over to Mr Elkington.

to give us the suggested form of words. Thank you, Chairman, is to set

Mr Mike Elkington - 1:53:01

up the final form of wording can be delegated, and the reason for refusal for both applications would need to be tweaked to obviously one to refer to the site, retaining the site, one to refer to retaining the security, fencing gates and cabins. But, following on from the suggestion from Mr. Oakley, we've got three reasons. Sorry, the first one would be. There is no demonstrable need to retain the site or the other elements for the appraisal of hydrocarbons. That's the first one. The second one is the significant period of time that has elapsed since active exploration and testing on the site and a lack of justification for a further extension of time. And then the third one is. The retention of the site is not essential to its countryside, location and the application does not enable the extraction of minerals

okay and sorry Chairman, and then as necessary, we would say the proposals are therefore contrary to policies m 23 and 24 of the Joint Minerals Local Plan paragraph 2 1 7 of the NPP F, and Policy 26 of the Horn of District Framework

OK right now.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:54:22

we need to move to a vote on on each of those if we do double USC stroke out for six stroke, 23, the retention of the well site, first of all, is someone happy to propose what's just been said?

I'm assuming Councillor Oakley probably will.

and that's seconded by Councillor Patel, so just to be clear, so everybody's watching that is a or a refusal of the well site application on the three grounds that Mr Elkington has just outlined.

all those in favour of that please show.

that 7 and those against.

that's for.

I said that application is refused.

and then we move to application W USC, stroke 0, for 7 stroke 23, which is the retention of the the security cabin gates and fencing again.

is someone prepared to move refusal on the grounds of the three reasons that Mr Elkington has just outlined, Councillor Oakley, again, seconded by Councillor Duncton this time?

those in favour, please show.

that's seven and those against.

that's four, so again that application has been refused, so just to be clear to those watching on the website, both applications have been refused for the reasons which Mr Elkington outlined a few moments ago, but the exact wording will be delegated to officers to determine in terms of the reference to policies et cetera.

we are going to take a very short break now for for speakers to leave and to bring the speakers for the next item in one song, but if I could ask everybody to remain in their seats if at all possible and will just pause the webcast,

4 Planning Application: Minerals

5 Registration of Land as a Town or Village Green

thank you very much and welcome back to the meeting we now move on to

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:56:40

Item 5 TVG, 30 stroke 53 application under section 15 of the Commons Act, 2006 for the registration of land claimed to have become a Town or Village Green Land, known as Collingwood Road Green Horshoe now you have a report in your pack on pages 65 to 118.

can I once again remind everyone present that this is a meeting held in public, with defined protocols for the number of speakers permitted to speak, it is not an open public meeting with unrestricted rights to speak.

can I also refer members to the the supplementary agenda agenda update sheet on page 7.

where there is a

an additional reference to comments from the the Hallström, I think it's the Horsham Civic Society on this item, I need to move that in front of me right if I can now introduce law floodgate senior solicitor who will make her presentation on the the item in question.

thank you, Chairman agenda item 5 concerns an application made under

Laura Floodgate - 1:58:07

the provisions of section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 to register land known as Collingwood Road, Green awesome as a town or village green. The application is very well supported by 31 evidence forms and one statement from local inhabitants of a neighborhood within a locality referred to as Collingwood Road. The application land is an area of open grassland, forming a highway verge at the end of Collingwood Road cul-de-sac with the size of approximately 0.1 9 acres or 0.0 8 hectares, as shown on Appendix 1 A and 1 B within your application pack. The signatures on the relevant application plans map, A and the OS plan have been redacted for data protection purposes. Members' attention has already been drawn to the agenda update sheet, which highlights the full support for registration of the land as town or village green by the Horton Society, and members should also be aware that a letter from Jeremy Quin MP in support has also been received this morning, which has been tabled and is on Members' desks.

the legal test to satisfy for registration as a Town or Village Green is that a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality or any neighbourhood within a locality have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes for a period of at least 20 years and they continue to do so at the time of the application, the 31 evidence forms submitted by 31 addresses demonstrate the application is well supported with 12 users having regularly used the application land throughout the whole 20 year period.

use is clearly by inhabitants of the neighbourhood, within a locality of Collingwood Road.

the 20 year period of use runs from September 2002 to September 2022, with evidence carried out covering varying periods from 1975 to 2022, and therefore covers the period of use the evidence submitted demonstrates that the users were still using the application land at the time of the application.

the land is privately owned and the landowner objects to registration, though no evidence has been provided to rebut the evidence from the applicant and other users of legal relevance to the application, what is of relevance to the legal tests is that the application land is adopted highway which brings into question whether use by residents has been as of right for lawful sports and pastimes or whether it has been in the exercise of a pre-existing right so by right next slide please.

so the application land carries highway status and is maintained by West Sussex County Council, as Highway verge that isn't in dispute Council's advice has been provided on the legal consequences of the application land being adopted highway now, qualifying user for the purposes of register that town or village green has to be as of right rather than by virtue of an existing right which the public already have to use the land so by right.

as with highway,

now the case of DPP in Jones from 1999 is House of Lords, authorities of the highest order that the extent of activities that may be lawfully carried out on the public highway is far greater than simply using the highway to pass and repair, as you would normally assume for a highway effectively, anything reasonable can be done provided it does not obstruct the rite of passage or cause a nuisance. The issue in the DPP and Jones case was not actually to do with the registration of Tunnel Village Green, but whether the public were trespassing on highway land by holding a peaceful, non obstructive assembly and it was held that they were not. The public highway is a public place and that the public might enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided that the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by unreasonably impeding the public's primary right to pass and re pass applying this then to the wider ambit of lawful sports and pastimes. Which are required to do for town or village. Greens and a limb of the test

means that a vast number of the activities that are normally carried out on a Town or Village Green may be lawfully be carried out on highway land and thus not capable of founding the acquisition of a prescriptive right by user, as of right effectively, the public are not trespassing on the highway verge when they carry out these sorts of activities.

turning to the activities which have been asserted by the applicant, a safe air accident association to have been carried out on Cunningham, Road Green, there is no dispute by the landowner that the green has been very well used and the landowner has provided no evidence to rebut the evidence views provided but we need to consider in considering what is reasonable activity on a highway which does not interfere.

with the primary right.

that does not, I'll start again.

sorry, could you just pull something that is still not being cleared for some?

is that OK?

so in considering what is a reasonable activity on a highway which does not interfere with the primary right to pass an RE pass, it's necessary to consider the nature of the highway land, so what is reasonable on a motorway verge is obviously different to what is reasonable on a private footpath or on an open grassy amenity area in a quiet cul-de-sac. Many of the activities carried out such as golf putting practice kite flying football and rounders would be inappropriate on a motorway verge.

however, on a piece of grass, within a cul-de-sac not used as a route from A to B, such activities would not and did not cause obstruct anyone or cause a nuisance, and so were lawful uses of the highway, the only activity which might have caused an obstruction is the large street parties Jew jubilee party has been referenced all the carol-singing we've had to in evidence.

that street parties and carol-singing in the context of Collingwood Road are considered lawful uses of the highway. Therefore, the conclusion is that the considerable majority of the user evidence would be categorised as use by right and not as of right. All of the activities undertaken could reasonably be said to fall within the phrase lawful sports and pastimes. However, in view of the conclusion that the use of the application land was a lawful use of the highway in the exercise of a pre-existing right, the use of the land cannot qualify as useful, lawful sports and pastimes. Users were not trespasses, even if some activities were not lawful users of the highway, they would amount to an obstruction or nuisance and not when would not qualify as lawful sports and pastimes or indeed would be too trivial or sporadic as to amount to the assertion of a Town and Village Green right and these two elements the as of right a lawful sports and pastimes of their legal tests for registration are considered to not have been met next slide please.

it is open to the County Council to to West Sussex County Council as Registration Authority, to hold a non-statutory inquiry to test these findings fully, though West Sussex as a Registration Authority can determine the matter without one acting reasonably.

as I say, Council was instructed to act as independent inspector to hold an inquiry to include a preliminary phase to assess the evidence to determine if the application land being highway was a knockout blow to the application, in which case it would not be necessary to proceed with one as no purpose would be served by it.

counsel's opinion was that the application is bound to fail on account of there being no use of the application land which can qualify as lawful sports and pastimes because the majority of activities which local residents have carried out on the land have been lawful uses of the highway. Even if some were not lawful uses, they would be an obstruction or a nuisance, or would be too trivial or sporadic. As to amount to a prescriptive right. As already mentioned, the fact that the entirety of the application land is adopted highway is sufficient to reject the application and, as these conclusions do not turn on any element of fact capable of dispute, there is no useful purpose to be served by holding an inquiry to test oral evidence

the conclusion of the barrister, acting as independent inspector, was shared with the interested parties to enable written representations on the points before determination by Planning and Rights of Way. Committee. The landowner was in agreement with the conclusion and the general thrust of the applicant's comments, which were to impending six of your papers were that the matter is of great local interest and there should be a non-statutory inquiry. The applicant's comedic comments were forwarded to counsel who addressed them in a supplementary note, which is at Appendix 7 Council, considered, with an open mind, the most appropriate disposal of the application and recommended that West Sussex County Council, as Registration Authority, reject the application on the papers. This is a matter of judgement for West Sussex County Council, acting as Registration Authority acting reasonably, given the conclusion that she made that the application fails on the basis that the land is highway, no useful purpose would be served in holding an inquiry to hear all the evidence or oral evidence views. The application is bound to fail on account of the whole application land being highway, and that constitutes a knock-out blow to the application, and no purpose would be served in holding a public inquiry. The recommendation, therefore, is that the land that known as Collingwood Road Green Hallström and has shown cross hatched black on the application plan attached be not registered as a Town or Village Green.

OK, thank you very much.

Mrs. Floodgate.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:08:29

if I can now move on to the speakers, there are no speakers registered in or to speak in objection.

there is one speaker in support and a written statement which will be read out by Mrs. Ginny, the clerk to the committee speeches and statements from members of the public are for a maximum of five minutes each the local member Councillor Nigel Dennis Member for Horseheath division has submitted a written statement which I will read out.

we write so, as there were no speakers in objection, we move to speakers in support of the application.

and we have Ms Ms Felicity, Harrington, the applicant, and you have five minutes to make your presentation beginning now.

well, I'm 50 housing and I am the person who put in the application for village green status.

Felicity Harrington - 2:09:31

I was just going to read out the statement we've got the that you had, but given that it's gonna cover some of the ground you've already covered that, I'm afraid I'm going to go off piece a little here.

we have had this hanging over us for two years now, we had no idea that that land was privately owned, we found it out entirely by accident we put together with trustees, we tried to buy it, it was sent to auction, it went to auction several several times, it is now in the hands of a developer who has threatened to put fences round the green we cannot put fences around our property because it's in our covenant, but because the land was designated on the development as being amenity land she can do she can put fences so we could have six foot fences at the bottom of our garden with no nothing that we can do about it.

our children have played on that green. We would like children always to be able to play on their green because the housing roundabout that is primarily family housing. There is a park nearby, but it is just 10 minutes' walk away for a small child and it's across a busy road. We really really need open spaces where children can play. If you do not give us village green status, then she will apply. I am a certain to have the Highways status blocked up, in which case she can develop it and there will be nowhere for the children to play. All the families who have had contact across the Green, who have come together for community events will not be able to continue doing that.

we have our questions as to how Orbis conducted their inquiries in that they have to go to the barrister twice to get opinions, because of that we are not certain, we weren't certain that enough information was given and we are bemused still as to why our application,

had Council sought for it, whereas two other applications which went through did not have that who are in virtually identical circumstances to us, and initially we were told that that this this situation had not occurred before, but it obviously had, and it was signed off by one of your legal officers so possibly and when we've asked about why we went to Council on arguing and not others, we didn't get an answer because apparently records have been lost in a flood, but you do have legal people who signed it off who are still with you who presumably might be able to answer that question. So if there's went through in identical circumstances, why does asked not go through? You have the ability to give us natural justice on this

it is a slight legal technicality that says why we can't have village green status, but you look at the position in there and imagine yourselves with a development in the middle of it.

we fully support houses where they need to be built, but housing development should not be to the detriment of the existing housing stock and of the amenities which people have enjoyed by right or as of right for the last 60 years, it was always intended that that Green should be a green, it was never intended that it should be built on.

the only way that we can secure that is, if you give it village green status,

that would be natural justice, it may not work on a legal technicality, but it would be in the original, it would be going with the spirit that was.

of the original development and for all the families who have lived in there for the last 60 years and all those families who will live there and whose children need the place to play when we are gone.

it's really important that there are green, open spaces.

I, I feel that it would be absolute natural justice if that were the case.

I'm sorry anything else was that you've already seen on the documents sentenced, so I'm not going to repeat what you've already had the opportunity to read, but that is what we feel strongly about all the local councillors, the MPs, you say there's not sufficient interest, but there was going to be a feature about this on the local radio tomorrow morning there was a lot of public interest in this. There was a lot of public anxiety about the

the disappearance of open spaces and the impact that has on lives of our own lives and all the future lives of people who will live in those houses, we are not just looking out for ourselves, we are looking at for future generations, thank you.

OK, thank you.

we now have a written statement.

submitted by Rhoda Hatton, on behalf of Horsham, to Forgan

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:14:24

neighborhood council, which will be read out by Mrs. Ginny in the clouds for Committee. Thank you, Chairman. So, as the Chairman has said, that is a statement written by Rhoda Hudson who hits the clock

Tracey Guinea - 2:14:37

to horseshoe in Trafalgar neighborhood council. The statement says the members of the Horsham Trafalgar Neighbourhood Council writes in support of the Collingwood Road residents who are looking to preserve the green space of Collingwood Wood Road Green. The Green has in the past been used as an open space, or recreational community and community activities valued by the immediate residents and those local to our ward. We very much want to see this opportunity extended to future generations rather than risk, seeing it lost and developed by subs by a subsequent landowner the valuable space has been recognised in the Horsham Neighbourhood Plan, which lists the areas an asset of community value and we hope that your Committee will choose to support the plea to grant a town, stroke village green status, thank you OK.

thank you very much. The local Member Councillor Dr, Nigel Dennis

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:15:34

County Councillor for the Horseheath division has also submitted a statement which I've been asked to read out. Councillor Dennis says I'm the County Councillor for the Horseheath division and have represented the Collingwood Road area on the County Council for over 30 years since 1993, the area known as the Collingwood Road Green House throughout that time been valued and used by residents as an open green space for recreation and community activities and to provide a pleasant vista for the houses which are arranged on four sides around it. In recognition of this, the Horsham Neighbourhood Plan lists it as an asset of community value. There is hence considerable local interest and concern over this issue. The evidence presented by residents documenting its use as a public open space ever since these houses were built is very similar to that which was successful in obtaining townsfolk village green status for the Coote screen, which is also my area, and also had highway rights over it. I therefore suggest that it would be inconsistent, not to grant similar status to the Collin Wood Road Green.

I hope, therefore, that the Committee will consider this a decision in which they have some discretion and will choose to support the residents of our county and preserve this green space, as it was intended to be for future generations rather than at risk, rather than risk it being stopped up and developed by a current or future land.

right if I can now ask Mrs. Floodgates if she needs to provide any factual clarification on any of the matters raised by the this speakers, either in person or by statement.

thank you Chairman, I would just I think I need to clarify, because there was reference to fencing, this is obviously highway land and say

Laura Floodgate - 2:17:19

the landowner has been notified that they cannot fence highway land.

secondly, it was raised by Councillor Dennis and by the applicant's speaker about the suggestion of a inconsistency of decision making, which may very well come up in debate. So I think I probably need to address it here. It is dealt within the report at paragraph 5.2 West Sussex County Council as Registration Authority must consider the application here strictly in accordance with the relevant legal tests which have already explained Town and Village Green determinations are an application of that statutory test in section 15 of the of the Commons Act to the facts of a particular case, this is not a situation akin to the determination of planning applications where a decision maker is expected to act consistently, unless there is good reasons not to in, for example, the interpretation and application of policy, so that the public know what they can expect and in terms of the two

greens that have have been referred to, which we we, I was not aware of before, because we you don't when you're determining a de Teillet, Hannah Village, Green application go to every single one that's gone before, but Birch Green was decided in September 2006 and Coote screen in May 2008, so both of those are now over 15 years ago and the officers who dealt with them.

you are no longer with West Sussex County Council, it is also the case that the the impact, because I'm not the investigating officer, I'm I'm the legal officer, but the investigating officer has looked at the papers as much as she is able to recruit screen and of course the reports but the Birch Drive ones were in Durban House and so are unavailable to look at because of the flooding.

but during that 15 year period and that, since the determination of those as was recognised by the barrister, in her opinion, that the common law has moved on with regard to the definition of as of right, especially in light of a House of Lords decision in Barça's, but effectively the the difference as I can deduce it between the current application and the previous ones that have been registered is that the incompatibility between use by right and use as of right has been questioned and acted upon in the current case, whereas it wasn't in the others, but I and I can only deduce that that was done in error. It cannot be the case that, because an error may have been made on those previous decisions that those decisions should be followed now, committee is required to apply the statutory tests and apply them to the facts of this case, which is what we, as officers, have sought to do as well.

OK, thank you.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:20:07

we now move on to the debate and decision, but cannot before I bring other Members in, could I just ask you a couple of questions, one is in her statement, Ms Harrington referred to.

a potential application to stop up the highway and then to develop the land. Could I just ask what is what would be the process if somebody wants to do that

how would they go about it and what would be the likelihood of success on that sort of land? I cannot speak to the likelihood of success. I'm afraid it would be an application, I think, to the Highway department

Laura Floodgate - 2:20:39

and but unfortunately, that that's not a relevant consideration. You obviously have to consider the the legal tests and that isn't relevant to your consideration here. At the moment, the application is highway land. I cannot speak for the any success or otherwise or whether an application would be put in to stop up the land. I can't I can't tell you now, no sorry, but what I'm really trying to get on is the process. It would be an application to to the County Council as Highway. Yes, it would

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:21:06

the other thing I wanted to ask on the on the report itself.

Laura Floodgate - 2:21:12

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:21:14

page 66 paragraph 2.1 there is.

a reference to

applications not being able to come forward where a trigger event has occurred.

and that continues to be the case until a terminating event occurs, I wonder if you could explain what those, but what the those definitions actually are, and following on from that, 2.2 refers to the fact that Horsham District Council stated on 20th December 2022 that a trigger event and a corresponding terminating events had both occurred and I wonder what that would relate to.

thank you Chairman. The trigger and terminating events are set out in

Laura Floodgate - 2:22:10

the growth and infrastructure Act and, for example, one trigger event might be an application for planning permission in relation to the land which would be determined under section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

that would be a trigger event, which would mean that you couldn't have an application for registration of British green, but a corresponding terminating event could be that the application is withdrawn or a decision to decline to turn the application is made, so that's one example of a trigger and terminating event. There are lots of them and I don't propose to quote all of them here. The point is here. I don't actually know what the trigger event was, that there was the corresponding terminating event, but the fact is there was a trigger event and then there was a corresponding terminating event, and so therefore this application is a valid application that can be determined by the County Council as Registration Authority.

OK, thank you very much, right now, I will open it up to other Members, Councillor Gibson.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:23:08

yeah, I'll come to you and yes, I think I'd just like to have some clarification over the the comment about it being an asset of

Cllr Ian Gibson - 2:23:15

community value, which I think was also made by the applicant.

asset of community value would employ that is registered by Horsham District Council in a register and is renewed on a five-year basis with a case presented, it would also enable they mean that there is a moratorium period in any sale in which the the the organisation which has registered it would have the first attempt to purchase it and therefore I just wonder,

is it has it been registered, or is this just a freehand comment?

I understand it is registered as an asset of convenience value, but having the status of assets of community value, albeit I acknowledge

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:24:00

Laura Floodgate - 2:24:01

what you're saying about sale is not relevant to the legal tests.

for determination of this matter, but yes, I understand that it is registered as an asset of community value.

by Councillor Gibson

just if I could come back on that, the impression of having that there

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:24:18

was no six-month period given in the sale that it was just a surprise,

Cllr Ian Gibson - 2:24:21

although if we have any information on that.

I'm afraid I do not.

OK, thank you.

well.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:24:32

Laura Floodgate - 2:24:34

can I?

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:24:36

can I clarify because I I don't think I can allow members of the public to speak further, is that right?

I'm I'm sorry, I can't I, that's what the rules say, I do apologise, but.

got Councillor Mercer next.

sorry Chairman, and on what Councillor Gibson, and there are so many questions around their son Dom you know, the the applicant has raised

Cllr Jay Mercer - 2:25:05

the issue of natural justice and I appreciate our colleague the legal officer.

needs to set this to us in terms of the very strict.

roadway have as the decision maker and a legal process, but we also need to understand the context and the context, the historic context is that we have an area of Greenland which has been used as a would mean a community space small letters for a very long time ever since the development has been made, we're hearing it, it is a registered asset of community value, so therefore we're all thinking all in that case when it was sold

surely there should have been a 6 an opportunity for the community to have been involved in that, and we don't know whether that happened

I am also struggling with what I've come across before, which is the idea of title to the land belonging to an individual, but the land itself being part of the highway, which I understand probably is behind your question chairman, because if title of the land belongs to an individual there and then if an individual wished to develop a land they would presumably make a planning application to Horsham District Council.

in which they would refer to the County Council as the highways authority and the County Council would give advice as to whether they thought that was appropriate or not, as they do in many other cases, but again I'd like to want to understand that.

then the third element for me is, it was mentioned that this this land is mentioned in the whole Corsham Neighbourhood Plan.

my understanding of a Neighbourhood Plan is that you can designate green spaces in the labelled plan, which then gives them some protection against future development, because they become part of the Local Plan and again.

I can't see from this whether that has happened now. I appreciate all of that in terms of our legal decision-making responsibility of context, but I think it's important context

Mrs. Flood.

garage.

and

the point is this is an application for registration of grit as green

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:27:34

Laura Floodgate - 2:27:35

one and you need to be able to determine that today or.

and you need to apply the legal tests to it, so you apply the statutory test in the Commons Act to the facts of the case here, and that needs to restrict a significant number of the inhabitants of the locality, et cetera, as I've tried to explain so, matters relating to whether or not a planning application might be submitted by the landowner o unfortunately are not relevant to what you've got to determine today.

and also in terms of designating green spaces as well.

village green status obviously carries a certain status, and that is the application before you, so unfortunately you have, you are constrained by those those legal legal tests.

and obviously the other consideration is that I've I've obviously explained that he's open to the County Council to.

have an inquiry should you think it's necessary to have a recommendation in front of you on this application, but the barrister's opinion, the Council's opinion is that, because there is no dispute of fact on the use of the land here, that there'd be no purpose served by having oral evidence at an inquiry so therefore,

you are being asked to determine whether or not this application land should be registered as Village Green and the recommendation before you is to do not register because the tests are met.

OK, I've got Councillor Wilde, mixed.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:29:12

thank you Chairman. I am totally confused in all this, because one minute we're saying it's highways, the next minute we're saying It's

Cllr Jaine Wild - 2:29:18

private, now apparently the new owner, Mrs. Singh, she spoke the land as what I can gather for 20,000 pound now. She's then found out that she can't put up her fences or whatever, because it might belong to Highways, will surely her question her problem lies with the auction house who sold her the land. The other thing I want to clarify is to do with the people that live locally. If is, can the residents be excluded under the civil torta trespass when they go on that land or is informal access allowed given the highway status, and then if exclusion is allowed, then it cannot have highway status and there is a case for a village green, but if it cannot be, then the residents have no concerns anyway, so I'm totally confused on them, OK, can I just clarify when you said about the ownership, yes?

it is owned by the owner, Mrs. C. Yes, it's it doesn't belong to Highways, but it is highway land, I think that's the point, it's high, it's it's highway, it has highway status, but it is owned by a private individual.

that's absolute right. This is not uncommon. Land can be privately owned but also have highway access rights over it. It is public

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:30:37

Laura Floodgate - 2:30:38

highway and so therefore informal access is effectively allowed and, as I've tried to explain in my presentation that the nature of the use that's occurred here is allowed because they allowed to do it because it's highway, it's allowed by right, and so there's no. There's no question at the moment because the land is highway land, that they're allowed to go on it and do exactly what they've been doing on it, but it's not unusual to have

land that is privately owned, but also has highway rights over it.

that is highway land right, I've got Councillor emptiness before I bring you in, I saw a number of hands will go up at the same time, so

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:31:16

Laura Floodgate - 2:31:17

can I just ask those who want to speak just to put their hand up the

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:31:18

sign I know OK I've got Councillor Oakley next,

thank you, Mr. Chairman, yeah, shall we we have this application before us on the information that accompanies it, and that's the framework in which we should be looking at this.

Cllr Simon Oakley - 2:31:31

so I'm afraid that the other instances that have been cited are separate matters, this is in the context of what we got in front of us is what we should be deciding on as to whether.

the land is that was being registered as an asset of community value, not relevant.

it is separate from this process.

whether it could be designated as local green space, that is a separate process for either.

Worcester District Council's Low emerging Local Plan or in a Neighbourhood Plan as a separate process.

the stopping up matter

I think ultimately that goes to the secretary of state.

for determination, so that's a separate,

process and quite convoluted one in itself, the the thing that.

I think could be of examination here, I know it's covered by the Council's opinion on page 98 and 99 of the papers regarding whether this was actually formally adopted highway in the first place, now we seem to be relying on Surrey Council relied upon the fact that in actuality the Highway Authority has been maintaining it.

but I would suggest that going to saying that we should have a non-statutory public inquiry on this could end up having significant examination of whether that space and indeed the road, the cul-de-sac, was actually ever formally adopted.

so that could open up quite a many interesting Kenneth can of worms want a better word of it.

but it is a the question I would have here is.

what degree of white can we give to what has actually happened since the 19 60s? I?

the local hard the Highway Authority has been maintaining it and therefore it is Highway in the absence of a document that says the Highway Authority has adopted the rudder and the amenity.

space.

thank you, Chairman, I can hopefully can assist in relation to your point about in the opinion where.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:34:11

Laura Floodgate - 2:34:12

the barrister said she hadn't actually seen any evidence of actual that actual adoption took place. This was dealt with in the supplementary note which is at Appendix 7, paragraph 2, when she said in relation to the evidence of adoption which was raised by the applicants in their responses to her opinion. The adoption agreement set out the agreement between the developer and the Council to construct the highway to the requisite standard so that the Council could adopt the relevant area of land, amongst other areas, as highway to be maintainable thereafter at the public expense. The agreement is not the actual evidence of adoption. This would take the form of a minute or other record. However, together with the fact that the land has since been maintained at public expense, the agreement represents clear evidence that the adoption did take place. So there is no dispute that the the land is is highway land

thank you, Councillor Oakley.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:35:12

yes, I think that what has actually happened does confer that highway

Cllr Simon Oakley - 2:35:15

safety, in my view, but one question I think Les would advise is that quite often between what is agreed to in a then or a document oral agreement prior to construction may not actually reflect what was actually constructed, in other words was the form of this amenity area the same at what was actually envisaged in the agreement it a point I would just raise as a potential area of concern.

right I've got Councillor McDonald, mixed.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:35:53

yeah, thank you, Chairman.

this is a very emotive subject and

Cllr Sean McDonald - 2:36:01

what could be a little bit careful about what I say here, but I'll get it as clearly as possible, but I think that we have to do here is solely stick to facts and whether we believe in natural justice or we've got to stick to the legal side of this and stick to facts, it is very, very different now.

the papers that we have in front of us and and what we have from the barrister as well, says that the the village to have this status as a Village Green doesn't reach the criteria that it wants it. It should and if I was to vote against this application today, it's not because I wouldn't want to see it as a Village Green, I'd be, I'd be breaching what everybody has said within this document, and I think he's I think if you if they did build on that it would be absolutely appalling where I live in and we're representing Worthing we've got a huge area that they're trying to build on at the moment is an open green space and I think we're gonna lose it eventually, but I really hope we keep because he is a beautiful gritted built on. It'd be awful and this is exactly the same, but what we're being asked to do here today is to look at this to make it a village green status, but we've gotten, we've got legal arguments here, saying it doesn't reach that criteria, so

I don't think I'll be able to support this, but that isn't because I don't support what you're doing, it's just that we can't do this, because at some point, if we all decide here that we are going to make this a village green status, I believe that this will go straight to appeal and then they'll overturn it because we have gone against what they said in here now this this is slightly different to being a criminal case where there would be the

probability, possibly et cetera,

however, I just think that we would be very narrowly focused here that we have to decide whether this should be a Village Green, we should, we should give this village green status or not, and we've been told it doesn't reach the criteria. Personally, I'd love to make it a village green status, but I'll have to vote against it because of the legal side of it, and I think that means that people who are Jenkins take it away and try again with something, but at the moment I can't see that we can vote for it and I think that if we do it, will we've lost an appeal almost immediately. I hope that makes it clear what I'm trying to site either

yeah yeah, I mean, I mean, I've got a foot in each camp brilliant, sadly this happens, sometimes it happens in criminal cases where you know somebody does something and clearly that what they eat everyone thinks it is a good idea to have done what they've done, but actually the law says something else and the person will be dealt with that way, and I think this is where I am with this hope. I'm by myself clear thank you

OK, thank you, thank you, yes, I and I understand I just needed to clarify that and with Palin village greens there is no formal route of

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:39:12

Laura Floodgate - 2:39:14

appeal to the dour decision of the registration authority. The only route, therefore, is to make a judicial review challenge on a point of law and because effectively you are acting as a quasi-judicial body here, so, but there is no formal route of appeal, the only challenge would be to the High Court on a on a point of law.

okay, Councillor Quinn, next, thank you, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of public comments.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:39:45

how many Greens in West Sussex are private and similar to this one have we got many in the county?

Cllr Brian Quinn - 2:39:48

no, I don't know how many Greens we have registered in the county or

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:39:58

Laura Floodgate - 2:40:00

whether the then, most probably mostly all of them are privately owned, some of them could be owned by parish councils, district councils, but I'm afraid I don't have that information to hand.

and also is quite a large area for Green, who, coached the grass on

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:40:17

the screen, is what you know that it's maintained by the County

Cllr Brian Quinn - 2:40:18

Council as Highway.

because it is classed as highway verge.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:40:25

Laura Floodgate - 2:40:26

I do not pay any money.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:40:30

it wouldn't you wouldn't do for worry where you have public highway, it's maintained as public highway, and so therefore I understand that

Laura Floodgate - 2:40:40

it's maintained by the County Council in that way, Councillor jobs?

thank you Chairman, yes, I agree with my colleagues, this can be a

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:40:52

very emotive subject and I noticed as referenced.

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 2:40:55

been made to a previous case or a previous application for a Village Green, which was successful, it could screen and as somebody used to play football on that, I was interested to read that.

we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea here, I think everybody, I assume, will have great sympathy with the applicant's, however, we do have legal advice, quite strong legal advice on this point.

the also Councillor Quinn's view or question, I believe that there are any number of similar situations now or lands going through the auction rooms.

this particular case has really become come to us because when that group of houses that small development was put together, local planning authorities at that stage were not contracts that the outcome of not being specific about a use of a land or transferring it to, shall we say, a management group of the of the residents these things will happen and you go to the auction room now that they're always being thing and I've got them in my own and my ward.

I have great sympathy with the residents there, I know the road being a Horsham boy.

however, I think we have to be guided by the legal advice that we have received at the moment and therefore I will not be supporting the application OK, thank you.

excuse me, Councillor Atkins.

thank determine.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:42:25

I've got great sympathy with the applicant

Cllr Noel Atkins - 2:42:30

but we are told that the application does not succeed on the basis that the application land is highway and therefore cannot succeed, and therefore I propose that we adopt the officers recommendation, thank you.

OK, thank you, I'll come back to that, we've got, I've got Councillor Duncton next, yes, Chairman, I agree with the comments that you've

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:42:57

heard so far, but the one thing I I sort of have to keep in my mind is

Cllr Janet Duncton - 2:43:02

I cannot make my decision on speculation of why what might happen. I have no evidence at all that there's an application going in, so I'm judging it on what I have before me and I think in my opinion,

the legal case is overwhelming chairman, so I will be supporting the recommendation.

OK, thank you well.

bring Councillor Gibson back.

thank you Chairman, I didn't actually mentioned earlier that I did actually take the opportunity to visit the site as I'm not a horseshoe

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:43:32

Cllr Ian Gibson - 2:43:35

and boy home behind, do quite understand the position that the residents have taken on this, Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to move a motion that despite the the the legal opinion that an inquiry is held,

in order to explore further the issues that we have here, I am very reluctant to recognise that really there is no alternative way of voting on this motion and I am just sort of seeking a way forward that colleagues might perhaps support while I bruises factor empathy, I mean the issue personally I would have with that is that we would, we would be setting up an inquiry and we know what the outcome of that

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:44:17

inquiry would be, but Mrs floodgate will be able to. Thank you, yes, I don't want to put words in your mouth at all and yeah, my advice to you is that unfortunately, the barristers looked at this that I've looked at this

Laura Floodgate - 2:44:29

the the legal tests just aren't met and an inquiry. The purpose of an inquiry would be to hear and test oral evidence. Now the oral evidence of use is not disputed. This is well used and residents and local people are using it, but unfortunately, because it's highway, they have a right to do that anyway, it's not. It doesn't meet the test as as of right so that having an inquiry, unfortunately, is not going to

because the inquiry would simply be by an independent inspector, they would then write a report with a remit recommendation, the the decision would rest with you as registration Authority, and I the recommendation will not change the recommendation will still be a few months down the line if you set up an inquiry to not register that the land is British Green.

OK.

thank you, I mean if I can just speak, as as an individual Member like Councillor Gibson, I also went and had a look at this site, walked all

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:45:27

rounded and walk round the road to see to see it from different angles, and I I have a huge amount of sympathy with the residents there, because I can see what what value that that that piece of land would provide to people living around there. For all the reasons that are outlined in the report and all the the statements that we've we've seen, and I think it would be an absolute travesty if it were to be developed or or to cease being highway land at some point in the future. But, as Councillor Duncan said, there are no proposals for that at the moment and the applicant or outside the the landowner has been told very clearly that the land cannot be fenced and it must be left open

and actually the situation we're in is that because it is quite way land residents are still entitled to do all the things on that land that they have done for for many, many years and cannot be prevented from doing that now. Whilst I have, as I say, I have every sympathy with them and I hope that nothing ever happens to prevent them continuing to use the land in the way that they're doing,

it is very clear to me from the report from the legal tests in the report that

the tests for Town and Village Green are simply not met because of the highway status, and if we were to take a decision to register it, we would immediately be opening ourselves up to judicial review for doing something which clearly we don't have the legal power to do, which would be to register highway land as a Town and Village Green and the the legislation doesn't allow us to do that. So on that basis, I have to very reluctantly support the recommendation, not because I don't want to see it registered and not because I don't want to see it protected, but because I can see no other way round it, but also with the caveat that the fact that it is highway land means that that the rights that residents have are by right and and will continue to exist, hopefully in perpetuity. I've got two more people wanting to come back now. Councillor Mercer, just briefly Chair, since we are the planning committee for the County Council

Cllr Jay Mercer - 2:47:36

are we not able to make a statement about how we would wish to see this highway land used in the future, or at least what we'd wish to see it protected from what I doubt identically we we can do that because, firstly, that would be prejudging any future application.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:47:54

and Cech, or any future planning application, secondly, any future application planning application would be a massive proportion of District Council novel, not for this Council.

and I'll I'll I'll be advised on that, yes, I I don't think it would be advisable to do so, because obviously you're due to you what you

Laura Floodgate - 2:48:12

need to constrain yourselves to the this Village Green, I that that's not the remit of this committee to do that with this application.

OK, Councillor Wilde, thank you, Chairman, I just wanted to say.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:48:27

to me like it is a mess because its highways, land and someone's

Cllr Jaine Wild - 2:48:30

bought it on an auction, and this, and that can it be noted somewhere that the planning services look at any other bits of land that they might have in West Sussex that actually HMO, we might come up with the same problem in a year or a couple of years down the line because we need to sort this out, you see the highways land or it's available to be bought by someone privately, so they'll be when it comes, it can be, but the point is it can be both and there's nothing we could do to prevent it from being both

yes, sorry, I was just trying to come back to something that you, you

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:49:08

mentioned, chairman, that you said that because it's highway it cannot

Laura Floodgate - 2:49:12

be registered. It is dealt within the opinion at paragraph 26 and her points. A B and C through to e. There is nothing per se which precludes highway land from being registered as a Town or Village Green. There's no nothing in the legislation that that precludes it, but there must be, or indeed there must be in existence, a number of pieces of land which are highway, land, which are registered in particular, there are a number of footpaths which cross town or village greens, for example. However,

the issue is that qualifying user has to be as of right and so that's what you're you're having to look at, so I didn't I didn't want you to go away with the impression that you can't ever have highway land that is registered but the qualifying user for the purposes of the test has to be as of right so I just I just wanted to alert you that that is dealt within the in the opinion I probably miss no representatives, thank you. Councillor jobs,

thank you, Chairman, forgive me or or an afterthought came to me after

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:50:13

I spoke previously, we are responsible, West Sussex maintains the

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 2:50:15

land, which was briefly described as mowing the grass if in fact the owner of the land chose to do something on it which didn't make it suitable for play of parties, street parties knocking a football around or as the case may be,

what restrictions are there on that landowner?

to continue with its current condition.

well, this is highway land, so therefore it has to be, it has to be

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:50:50

retained as highway it's maintained at public expense as highway land,

Laura Floodgate - 2:50:52

and so therefore she is constrained by the fact that it has to be open and available for public use for the public to possibly pass and obviously this is an amenity area and so in the context of that so it has to be open and available for use as highway.

Councillor Jonathan forgive me, I mean it's a tortuous legal point, but it doesn't mean to say that it's grassed.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:51:17

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 2:51:18

you could take the grass off it, you could make it for want of a better phrase, you now become a mudbath.

but we have to deal with what we have in front of us now, and the application is that the application land is an open, grassed area in a

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:51:33

Laura Floodgate - 2:51:34

cul-de-sac, it is highway land, I'm afraid I can't answer that for you.

but you have to deal with what is in front of you apply the statutory legal tests in the Commons Act, 2006 to the facts of the case,

the user evidence, which is, it is very, it's not disputed and they have used it, but by dint of it being highway they have the ability to do that anyway, they have the ability to use it because they've been using it by right and not as of right, so therefore it fails. So I think I think it's already been said already by all of you in your debate, I can't I can't add to that any more, but you have to constrain ourselves to the legal tests here and unfortunately my advice to you is that it doesn't meet those limbs as of right for lawful sports and pastimes, and so therefore the recommendation is to not register

OK, Councillor Oakley.

okay and any further comments, Councillor and Councillor Patel sigh.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:52:32

I was just going to say it was going to propose the recognition on page 66, while Councillor Atkinson has done that, but I'll second.

OK.

Cllr Ashvin Patel - 2:52:41

if there is no further comment.

when?

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:52:52

I will then read out the substantive recommendation on page.

S 66, which is that the land known as Collingwood Road Green Horshoe, and has shown cross hatched black on the application plan attached, be not registered as a Town or Village Green.

I also need to advise that

the county council's plans, as shown at page 83 and page 85 and other appendices on pages 87 and 1 1 8, which obviously are pertinent to what we're voting on, that's been requests that's been proposed by Councillor Atkins and seconded by Councillor Battle.

and that therefore, I would ask those in favour of that recommendation to please show, and I have to say this is very, very reluctant, but we have

we have no choice, I feel.

yeah and those against.

and abstentions.

1 to

OK, so that recommendation is approved and the land not be registered as Town or Village Green.

I shouldn't turn this on, I'm just mean thank you for your very careful consideration and I hope we may meet again in future because if she takes, if she applies for stopping up and the the highway

Felicity Harrington - 2:54:20

status is maintained, we will be back the next day with another application and I hope you will be able to meet it.

I hope your head and your heart will be able to be together on that point, thank you for your consideration, thank you.

right.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:54:39

we are now going to break for lunch and perhaps if we can reconvene at.

as short as possible, so if you can make a

OK, if we could say where we convenient five pars to.

Lunch Break

6 Definitive Map Modification Order

OK, thank you very much and welcome all attendees and those watching

Cllr Richard Burrett - 2:55:18

or listening in to this afternoon's session of the meeting of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee of 19th March 2024, just to remind everyone the meeting is being broadcast live on the internet to enable the public to hear the debate the recording will be archived for future listening and made available on the County Council's website.

with regard to declarations of interest, can I just remind Members that they can still make any declarations of interest if they have not already done so, so if anything occurs, then please please say.

we have apologies for the afternoon session from Peter Martin and Brian Quinn.

there are no substitutes, so if I can introduce officers starting to the right Gemma, Penfold, legal assistant.

tennis mellowing, chartered legal, executive and Tracey Guinea from Democratic Services host the clock to the meeting.

we now come on to item 6 on the agenda D MMOU for stroke 21, a definitive Map modification order, application for the addition of a footpath from mouse lane to footpath 2 7 1 5, with an extension to provide away 2 7 1 4 and extension to the historic rifle range targets in the parish of Stenning.

to the definitive map for Chanctonbury, you have a

reporting your pack from pages 119 to 142.

can I remind all Members present that this is a meeting held in public, with defined protocols for the number of speakers permitted to speak, it is not an open public meeting with unrestricted rights to speak, if I can then ask Gemma Penfold, legal assistant who was the investigating officer to present her report to the Committee.

thank you, thank you, Chairman agenda item 6 concerns an application which seeks to modify the definitive Map and Statement for Chanctonbury by adding a footpath to mouth from mass lane to footpath

Gemma Penfold - 2:57:24

2 7 1 5, with 1 extension of a footpath leading to the enough to bride away 2 7 1 4 and another extension of a footpath leading off to the west to a point known as the historic rifle range targets in the part of Stenning as shown by the dotted line on Plan 18 3 0 which is annexed to the report.

the application is based on user evidence only the requirements for the statutory dedication, as set out in section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, which requires use of the claimed route by the public as of right and without interruption for a period of 20 years prior to its status being brought into question and if so whether there is evidence that any landowner demonstrated a lack of intention during this period to dedicate a public right of way.

alternatively, we can consider if the evidence is such as to establish dedication at common law, which requires dedication by the landowner and acceptance by the public of that right of way, whilst there is no defined minimum period of continuous use to establish a rights of way or common-law, the use must be shown to have been as of right and must be long enough to justify an inference that there was an intention by the landowner to dedicate.

if, in addition, we would need to consider if there is any evidence which demonstrates that the landowner has no intention to dedicate the land, the Committee has to decide whether the user evidence provided by the applicant, together with all other relevant evidence available, shows that on the balance of probability I rights of way exist or that it is reasonable to allege the existence of a public right of way.

the application is supported by 30 public way, user evidence forms attesting to the use from 1960 to 2021, ranging, in frequency from 1 to 504 times a year, the landowner's evidence, in fact, that the route has been by permission only, and there have been signs on the land informing members of the public that access to the land is permission only since 2007, therefore the relevant period must be taken retrospectively prior to 2007.

in addition, the evidence indicates that the landowner has used as an active rifle range until the last shooting, on the 30th of December 1990 the use of the land suggested the claim route would not have been accessible to the public until after the last cheating on the 30th December 1990

as such, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the claim route has been used continuously for a 20 year period, therefore it cannot satisfy the statutory requirements and a section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 however we can consider if there is sufficient evidence to establish dedication at common law for the period of 1991 to 2007.

it was noted that 25 users claimed to have used the path A throughout the entire period of 1991 to 2007, with use ranging from 3 to 504 times a year, 24 users claimed to abuse extension 1, an extension to throughout the entire period with uses ranging from one to 504 times a year.

that he uses attested to use of the claimed route, however, four of the users did not choose the route as of right, therefore there are 26 users who have claimed to use the routes, including path A extension and extension to as a during the relevant period.

it can be concluded that used during this period has not been in secrecy or by force. That is some evidence of an intention not to dedicate the route before 1990, as the land was used as an active rifle range. In addition, the evidence indicates the claimed route was by permission since 2007. However, during the period 1991 to 2007, there is no other evidence to suggest no intention to dedicate. It is concluded that the reasonable user would have believed they were using the route as a right during the period 1991 to 2007. There is sufficient amounts of credible evidence to demonstrate an inference of dedication by clear use of the clink route during the period 1991 to 2007. Furthermore, the use is shown to be as of right and without interruption during this period. It is therefore considered that the legal test has been met on the balance of probability and recommended that an order should be made to add the claimed route to the definitive map

OK, thank you very much, Ms Penfold.

we now move on to.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:02:29

the public speakers.

yes, one speaker in objection and two speakers in support all speeches from members of the public of a maximum of five minutes each and Councillor Paul Linehan, the local County Council, has provided a written statement which I will read out in due course. So first of all we have a speaker in in objection to the application Mr Richard Harry Goring landowner from the Western Estate. So Mr Goring, you have five minutes to make your presentation from now. Thank you, Chairman, just

as a question it's Richard John Graham Richard Harry was my father, so which isn't easy to mistake had Oliver given his name, so that's

Richard Goring - 3:03:17

unassailable, but I'm Richard Richard Gordon, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak today the Wiston Estate has a long term strategy around public rights of way which is set out in our whole estate plan approved by the South Downs National Park in 2017 and it's available online.

there are currently over 52 kilometers of public rights of way across the estate and a number of other routes where we've granted permissive access, and we recently worked closely with the West Sussex County Council on enabling a permissive bridleway to connect standing with Washington. This then connects with another committed by the way down towards Bindon. We are fully supportive of the public's access across the estate where this is on agreed routes and does not come into conflict with nature habitat or livestock management. What is important to us is that we are able to balance this access with our equal focus on nature, restoration and farming enterprises, the routes and the stunning rifle range that the same parish council have put forward to become public rights of way are open area of chalk grassland, which is highly important habitat and requires grazing to be kept in good condition. We have lost 80% of this rare habitat since the Second World War, together with the charity that staying down one scheme who managed this part of the estate, we therefore oppose these routes becoming permanent rights of way, as this may well cause conflict in the future, for our ability or to stand down. The scheme is the current ability to graze or manage the land for rare species were required at times. This requires us to change the access route, and this is not possible if they have become permanent public rights of way. From a legal perspective, we do not think there is a case for these routes to be dedicated as public rights of way for the following reasons, firstly, as outlined by by Gemma Pinfold and and expressed as

by the officer in 9.6 there is insufficient evidence to establish that the claimed route has been used continuously for 20 years, therefore it cannot satisfy the requirement under section 31 of the Highways Act 1980.

secondly, on the point of common law, the report states in 10.1 the onus of proof is on the claimant to show that the landowner we must have the capacity to dedicate intended to do so, and that the public have accepted such dedication through the actual use of the claimed route. Whilst there is no defined minimum period of continuous use to establish a right away at common law, to use must be shown to have been as of right and must be long enough to justify an inference that there was an intention by the landowner to dedicate this land has always been occupied by occupied by tenants of the Western Estate. Tenants do not have the right to dedicate part of property Rights of Way. Our understanding with a commercial approach, as has been put forward in this instance, is that the courts have been reluctant to draw an inference of dedication where the landholder was not legally capable of dedicating the way as public, and this is certainly the case here, where the Western Estate have not been managing this land in hand directly, it was managed by the local writers, Rifle Association Group, until 1990, then under one ha farming tenancy, until 2007, when they're standing down, the scheme took over management, none of whom had capacity to dedicate this route. The landowner has not intended to dedicate the route as permanent, probably right away, and this was shown by the submission in 2013 of a public right of way, statement and map, which went to the Council and was approved, which did not include these routes as public rights of way. The farm tenant, who rented the land from 1,087 onwards, was under obligation within his signed HA agreement to do his best to prevent trespass on any part of the holding, and I quote, and not allow any footpaths to be created. From 2007 onwards, the local residents of standing have been invited to partake in activities on the land, by permission and clear indication was made that, as part of a new enterprise, they're sending down a scheme. They could. Access the site by permission, and finally, in 2009, there was a formal, permissive route and formal permissive access off of the site granted by the Rural payments Agency to the landlord for the period up period up until 2019

in recent years, we have been happy to allow the standing down the scheme to allow permissive access to the site, as this is part of the charity's core purpose of engaging standing locals in the surrounding environment. However, this must remain on a by permission basis rather than by right for the charity to fulfil its other obligations of looking after nature. We hope that the Council is able to see the importance of this and why we ask that the routes are not dedicated in perpetuity in its current form. The permissive route can enable an ongoing collaborative partnership going forward between the standing down the scheme, the residents of setting and the Western Estate

OK, thank you very much, Mr. Golding, we now move on to speakers in support of the application, the first of whom is Councillor, Chris Young, from Steyning Parish Council, which is the applicant.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:08:12

Councillor Young yeah, again you have five minutes, thank you, Chair, I am speaking as a resident of standing for 39 years and also as a current standing parish councillor since 2018, the initial submission

Cllr Chris Young - 3:08:25

for this DMO was made in 2021 and a recent updated resolution of the Council's support for this application was unanimously agreed by the Community Committee on the 5th of September 2023 and recorded in the minutes of that meeting. I have to supply the relevant extract to Tracey Guinea

the rifle range has always been a very important area of natural countryside for the local community, as demonstrated by the use of forms in support of this application for the years between 1989 and 2009.

I well remember taking my young son in the 1990 s to the rifle range, to introduce him to the pleasures of wildlife and walking in nature, and also when it snowed to enjoy sledging down the hill in the company of many other children, the rifle range continues to be well used by many people who walkers today and this was especially evidenced in 2020 during lockdown when many people and families could be seen walking there each day.

the rifle range is easily accessible, both from the Memorial Plainfield in the centre of stunning and from Marceline via the Nightingale named Path, which also gives flat access to the rifle range in caters for those with limited mobility.

the standing down and scheme charity has established a community orchard for people to enjoy at the far end of Nightingale Lane where it meets the first field, this highlights the importance of ensuring future unrestricted access to this area for local residents, many of whom have worked to help establish this orchard, indeed, the stated aims of the South, the standing downland scheme charity include to enable and encourage conservation of the natural resources and habitats for the benefit of the public and to educate and encourage the public and young people in particular to understand the natural environment.

the target area itself is of special historical interest and especially to archaeologists, historians and those interested in military history, it is one of the best preserved target practice areas in Sussex, established in the mid 18 80 s and used continuously, including both will more years.

various artifacts of interest related to weaponry have been found there, and work is currently underway to further improve the target area for visitors.

the application includes two links to already established public rights of way F P 2 7 1 5 and the beaches bridleway 2 7 1 4, which are on opposite sides of the rifle range area.

these two link paths are shown to have been well trodden over the rifle range during the relevant years via the aerial views of Google Maps establishing these links as public rights of way will improve the access to other footpaths across the wider South Downs area.

so, to sum up, Standing Parish Council recognises the importance of ensuring access in perpetuity to the natural countryside of the rifle range, for the residents of standing to enjoy and gain access to the wider South Downs Area, we hope that the evidence provided and the use of forms and the area of views strongly support the fact that the rifle range appears to have been used as of right from 1989 and in many cases before this.

not only has this enabled the local community to enjoy being within a natural habitat and observing nature,

but the benefits of this to reduce stress and maintain good physical and mental health is well documented.

this, together with the historical interest of the maintained target area and the opportunity to link up with two other public right of way parts, we hope the committee will feel that we have demonstrated the importance to the community of this area during the relevant years and the permanent access is in the public interest to be granted, thank you.

thank you very much, Councillor Young.

other speaker in support is misjudgment see a local resident, Ms Muncie, you have five minutes again from now.

0sorry, could I just ask Councillor Young to switch a microphone off and then then that one will come on? Thank you good afternoon, my name is gentleman, say and my husband and I have lived in standing since 1990, I was a standing parish councillor from 2013 to 2019 and since

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:13:23

Gill Muncey - 3:13:25

then have been co opted on to its Rights of Way. Working party I was also a committee member of the standing down and scheme in 2015 to 2017. In recent years of Standing, rifle range has been run by a very worthwhile charity is standing down and scheme of which Mr. Richard going as a trustee and those of you who have visited the site will have found it well-organised, with a number of large information boards, explaining what is there and the history of the site

however, it is important to understand that the use of its land as of right is based on the period 1989 to 2009, when the area was quite different, the Downland scheme's own website says the Göring family has an understanding down the scheme area from 17 43 until quite recently the land has been grazed for centuries.

and during the 1980 s it became increasingly difficult to graze the ancient grass chalk or chalk grassland sward due to changing agricultural practices and fabulism, raising became sporadic and then stopped altogether, the land fell into disuse, with rubbish and burnt-out cars, pong became overgrown, and the chalk grassland was colonised by scrub.

in the 1990 s, even the appearance of the path leading from Mouth's Lane up to the range was very different as the hot years by the nautical training court since 1,009 59 was gradually falling into despair disrepair.

and becoming very overgrown before being destroyed by fire

in the late 19 80s, uses an active rifle range, became more and more sporadic, and the land was available for public use for the vast majority of the time.

having had a dog when we first moved to standing in 1990, I recall quickly discovering the rifle range is a place for walking and can recall no notices or signs there on surrounding parts or, worse, mould, firing warning, warning flags on poles, but I cannot recall everything the flags flying or hearing any firing taking place at all. Even if the flags were raised during the VER the discovered very final one of use on 30th of December 1990, it would probably not have covered a 24 hour period. Therefore, walkers would most likely have used the paths on that day before and after the gun club booking. They would published reminiscences about ongoing public use of the rifle range in the book called reflections by Mark Emery who was born in the early 19 70s, his father told him of collecting new shows there which had been dropped by Canadian soldiers in World War II. Mark's personal memory of the range is mainly if it's used for sledging in the winters of his childhood, and indeed, I can remember clearly my children now, both in their 40s being taken there with sledges when they were still young,

this must have been in the early 1990 s,

the rifle range slopes form part of the memories of many local families, as it has been and remains the place to go for sledging, and there's even a light scattering of snow, the Google Earth images of 2001 and 2009 submitted as evidence clearly shown worn and defined paths following with lane route again contributing to the evidence of sustained and long-term use of these paths.

these pieces of evidence should be added to the 30 completed evidence statements where none of those 30 individuals can recall any signs being in place on the paths in question during the period 1989 to 2009, which I feel is pretty conclusive evidence that there were no signs in place at that time. The very popularity of the paths in question dating back to 1989 and earlier when the range was not in use, means the landowners must have been aware of public use of this land for walking and tech. Yet took no action to restrict this. I racked my brains to try and recall a community event held on the land in 2007, but cannot the public meeting to gauge interest in the formation of the standing down and scheme. In March 2007 was held in St Mary's Church Wisden

there was, however, a Live Lounge music event held in the rifle range on 31st May 2008, which I attended with photos I took there, of which I have with me today, demonstrate what a modestly attended event it was. Although I attended this event, I have no recollection of receiving any literature or maps there. This event did not prevent walkers from access to the paths claimed, as the event was free to enter. As far as I can recall, and there are, of course, several entrances to the range, I cannot see how handing out leaflets at an event can be considered sufficient action by the landowner to publicise and wish to prevent access as of right. These would only have been seen by a very small number of people. One would have expected permanent signage to be erected on the land, which was not in place until 2016

OK, thank you very much, Mrs Muncie.

now we come on to the views of the local member.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:18:24

and we've received a statement from Councillor Paul Linehan County Councillor for the Bamburgh Castle division, which I will read out on his behalf.

and Councillor Linehan says, dear Chairman, I had not intended to attend your meeting on 19th March 2024 as I was not aware of any opposition to the DMMO application at item 6 of your agenda now, having been made aware of clear objections from the landowner and the standing down and scheme, I'm watching as owner unable to make arrangements to be able to attend at this late stage.

having reviewed the DMO application report in detail, I consider the application does not meet the necessary legal criteria for approval under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I therefore right against this application at 4.00.1 on page 1 2 1, it is stated that Councillor Linehan stated he was happy to support the application in its current form. At the time of being asked to support this application, I did not have access to the results of the consultation. Had I done so, I would not have supported it. I was surprised to learn from the landowner that no discussion had taken place between Stenning Parish, Council and the Wisden Estate regarding their intention to bring this application forward at paragraph 4.1 and 4 point to the report conclusion refers to the period between 1991 and 2007 but ignores the past 17 years. Why not use a period, for example, from 18 39 to 18 59? I'm not legally trained but have spent several hours researching, given the report's overall conclusion and recommendation, as any decision is likely to be based on the legalities relied upon in only addressing the period from 1991 to 2007, I believe the report overlooks legal and practical developments impacting the application, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires evidence of use of away as of right and without interruption for a period of 20 years. However, it is important to understand that this 20 year period must be considered up to the date the application is made or the date of a relevant event, such as the deposit of a landowner statement under section 31 6 of the Highways Act 1980, which alters the consideration. The report contemplates section 31 at paragraph 9.6

Case law highlights the necessity of considering the entire period up to the present work to a relevant legal event in R on the application of Trail riders Fellowship versus Dorset County Council 2015 e w c A C iv 1 7 5 and then,

he quotes the the web reference. My reading of this case was that the court of appeal emphasised the importance of considering all relevant evidence up to the date of the application or the relevant event. This position was upheld by the Supreme Court. This means that, while the initial application might be based on historical evidence, councils are required to consider any additional contemporary evidence that becomes available during the processing of the application. Such an approach ensures that decisions are made on the most complete information base possible, reflecting both historical use and current circumstances. I do not see that this has been done in the case of this application.

by focusing solely on the period from 1991 to 2007 and not considering the subsequent 17 years, there was a danger of making a determination based on an incomplete understanding of the land status and use significant actions taken by the landowner as detailed in his evidence and that of the standing down scheme, such as the granting of permissive use and a high level stewardship agreement or the posting of signs indicating permission, only access appears to have impacts of the legal consideration the actions described in Richards going statements have served to interrupt the continuity of public use, has applied and clearly communicated its lack of intention to dedicate the wood as a public right of way. The Highways Act 1980, particularly Section 31 6, provides a mechanism for landowners to deposit a statement, a map acknowledging any existing public rights of way over their land and stating that no additional ways have been dedicated

I believe this can be seen as a clear intention from the landowner that no further rights of way have been dedicated effectively resetting the 20 o'clock from the date of deposit the relevance of actions within the last 17 years include especially those indicating a lack of intention to dedicate should have been considered in the DMO application process Mr drawing submission in April 2013 which does not recognise the claimed route appears to me to be an exercise of the rights afforded under section 31 6,

by doing so, he effectively indicated his intention that no additional public rights of way had been dedicated across its land beyond those already recorded, this actually is significant because it introduces a formal challenge to the presumption of dedication based on use, as applied for the 20 year period leading up to the deposit of the statement.

if the Committee accepts that this application should have considered the past 17 years, then all of the evidence provided by Mr Goring is entirely relevant and the application should be denied, however, if the Committee rely solely on the period of 1991 to 2007, then there were several other considerations, one assumption of continuous use,

the report assumes that use the evidence from 1991 to 2007 demonstrates continuous, uninterrupted use as of right, without critically examining the nature of this use. This overlooks the possibility of interruptions or variations in the usage pattern that could affect the legal requirement for continuous use over a 20 year period to quality and interpretation of user evidence. The report relies heavily on use of evidence forms but does not critically assess the credibility, consistency or objectivity of these forms. It is important to scrutinise whether these forms provide a clear and biased representation of use as of right, especially since some users admitted to receiving permission, which directly contradicts the notion of as of right use.

three overlooking permissions granted, the period in question includes times when the landowner had given permission for access, which is important permissions even if not formally documented or continuously enforced as far as I can work out can disrupt the presumption of use as a right the report does not sufficiently address in my opinion how these permissions might invalidate the continuous and unchallenged use required for common law education,

for evidence of landowner's intent, the report insufficiently considers actions by the landowners and indicates a lack of intent to dedicate the park from public use signs indicating permission only access and the formation of the standing down and scheme are significant indicators of the landowner's intentions, which are not adequately weighed against the use of evidence. 5, lack of context for use claims. The report's analysis does not deeply engage with any legal implications of the user's claims of access as of right. Specifically, it does not critically evaluate how these claims stand up to scrutiny when considering the requirements for establishing a right of way at common law, particularly in the need for the land owners at questions to such use being understood as an intention to dedicate

6 misinterpretation of the as of right concept.

is there a potential misinterpretation or oversimplification of what constitutes use as of light, the presence of any permissions granted by the landowner directly, communicated or implied challenges, the premise that the use was as of right and without the landowner's consent, the report does not seem to fully address this.

the Western Estate currently has over 52 kilometers of public rights of way, including their enabling of a recent permissive bridleway a project they work closely, with double USC, on connecting standing with Washington, they work hard with the local community and councils to maximise the benefits of the estate for the public good, but in a way which balances its access with their equal focus on nature, restoration and farming enterprises. This application covers an area of chalk grassland, which is highly important habitat and requires grazing to be kept in good condition. There is only 3% of this habitat left in the world. It can also interfere with their ability or the standing down and scheme's ability. As the current land stewards to graze or manage the land for rare species were required, the implication of allowing this application to proceed carries the wider risk of the Western Estate. Were moving its permission across many other parts of his estate, based on the evidence provided. The application should be denied. Councillor Paul Lineham

can I then ask the legal officers if they have any factual clarifications they would like to make on any of the

the contributions from public speakers or on Councillor Linehan's statement.

thank you, Chairman, I am just a responsible in relation to Councillor Linehan statement at paragraph 9 of the report the 20 year period with

Gemma Penfold - 3:27:38

in the statutory test was considered in paragraph 9.3 it was noted that the landowner's evidence infers that the route has been used by permission only since 2007, therefore, when considering the relevant period it must be taken back retrospectively prior to 2007 this is considered to be the relevant legal event that brought the public's use of the path into question.

in addition, it was noted that prior to 1991 the land was used as an active rifle range, which suggests that the claimed route would not have been accessible to the public until after the last shooting on the 30th of December 1990 as such, the period before and after the relevant period had been considered within the report.

OK, thank you, Chairman, I just also want to make it clear that any concerns of nature restoration suitability of are relevant to the

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:28:30

Tanneth Melhuish - 3:28:32

legal tests just to remind the members right, thank you very much for that, no, can I ask opened this up for debate, can I ask members to indicate their intention to speak?

Councillor Wilde.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:28:44

thank you, Chairman.

well, I can't imagine that Councillor Paul Lynam is not on planning actually, because I've never had so much right in from someone who

Cllr Jaine Wild - 3:28:58

admits at the very beginning in his paragraph, that he doesn't know much about planning, so that actually makes me really concerned.

I just want to say that I visited this part, this footpath I walked up it, I think the standing down and scheme are doing a fantastic job. They've got a wooden hut there with education, age information, they've also got ponds there. I saw the orchard that was available for the public. We must keep these footpaths open for the future because a landowner could decide to close them at any time and I would fully support that. These two footpaths are added and to tell you the truth, I'm so confused with the

this letter from Councillor Paul line, one after he's actually agreed to support the issue that he suddenly now decides that he's not going to support it, so and brings out all this legalities that I haven't had time to understand because I haven't seen the his letter, so there we go.

have you got any points to make now, OK, Councillor Oakley?

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:30:15

thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think it is.

notably the limited grounds on which the

Cllr Simon Oakley - 3:30:27

application has been assessed, it's limited to the common law ground and I think a lot of what we've had goes out side of that particular set of criteria and examination.

I think the comments about whether the actual

I assume that the freehold of that off of the land.

it was in a position to monitor what was going on with attendance, compliance or not, or with the tenancy agreement.

the freeholder is the freeholder, they should be monitoring what the tenants is doing, so I don't think that's irrelevant.

point that it is still the freeholder.

and we certainly from what I see of the Church Commissioners, they take a very close interest in what their tenants are up to.

in the

the relevant period 1991 2007

I've had a number of assertions about there was permissions.

were given

his credibility of views or statements.

and reference to owner odour actions during that relevant period might be helpful to understand whether there has been submitted evidence of the landowner or any other party actually proactive Gibb, giving permission or taking actions there would have interrupted that period.

I've heard assertions that there were, but I'll is have, or have any evidence of actions being submitted to support those assertions.

on a

on a practical matter, I could understand the line of parfait at safe move or a through route.

the ACA was a circular route, an extinction one which takes you up to an existing public right of way, but extinction too, to what degree do the user statements specifically refer using that particular alignment of extinction to I can well believe, but people wandered up and down the base of the

the valley up to the the bats, but have they actually shown in these statements that they use that particular line?

on a consistent basis, or was it a more diffuse general access to that area?

I can understand that the particular alignments of parfait an extinction one, but as one of our clarification of extinction to

OK.

so to come to your first point, I wasn't sure if it was a question or

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:33:34

just a point about some of the statements being made in the

Tanneth Melhuish - 3:33:38

some of the comments have been made in the statements about the tests being outside of what, actually we are considering, and that being a common law, relevant period and right, we have considered the 20 years statutory dedication period,

but we've also considered the common law relevant period.

the comment about whether the freeholder is in a position to to dedicate when there is a tenancy or a lease in play, we will not given any evidence of that tenancy agreement for that period, 1991 to 2007 we we were not aware of it.

I have looked at case law with regard to whether land when land is let at least and whether there is still a capacity for the freehold to be able to dedicate, which is obviously a requirement for common law dedication and the case law is conflicting actually, but I think the general gist of it is it depends on what's in that lease and I would say the same it depends on what specifically is in that tenancy agreement but our position is that the freeholder would still have the capacity to dedicate.

the next point was about whether some of the comments made during the relevant period, currently, if I'm wrong.

the relevant period of 1991 to 2007, or about having been given permission whether there was any evidence of that during that period,

no, there is no evidence of actual

so with regards to permission, during the period there were two uses that claim to have permission in 1980 and 1990 s, so that is during

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:35:22

Gemma Penfold - 3:35:24

the period from a Mr May, which was an occupies, that's two of the users, and then there was one user that claimed to have been given permission by Richard Goring, however, I sought clarification on the date of when that permission was given and they I had no response.

OK, thank you, Councillor Duncton mixed, but really chairman, I'm trying to, I think I've missed a plot somewhere extinction 2 is that

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:35:51

currently a permissive.

footpath

Tanneth Melhuish - 3:35:54

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:35:56

Cllr Janet Duncton - 3:35:57

so I have just realised that I missed the point on Councillor O'Keeffe Oak case with regard to extension to so use with roof extension to is

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:36:09

Gemma Penfold - 3:36:11

set out in paragraph 11 of the report at 11.00.6 11 users claimed to have used extension to over 100 times a year, 10 users claimed to have used it between 15 and 100 times a year and 8 users claim to use it 15 times a year and only one user claimed not to have use extension at all and it is also noted at 11.00.7 of the report.

that 24 users claimed to have used an extension to throughout the entire period so that the evidence does suggest that pop is well used.

in relation to Councillor Duncan's point, I am, I might have to fact-check this, but I believe when I looked at the map of the standing attitude, it was within the open space, so it is not the permissive part, but it is an open space opened by permission, so it's not such as a path outwards but the in Thailand

of that area is opened by permission

yes.

thank you, Chairman.

no, it just puts a different country, I'm very much in favour of some permissive footpaths, but this isn't what we're discussing now, so I

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:37:23

Cllr Janet Duncton - 3:37:25

just wondered whether it was permitted for it's a new application altogether to make it a permanent footpath.

Chairman, I can see the sense of a lot of the extension one, but my I'd like to hear what others have got to say, I still have a bit of confusion over the extension to I have to admit, unfortunately it's all in the same application but anyway I listened to what others have got to say to him. Thank you, yeah,

thank you, I mean, I would have to say, having having been to to look at the site or part of it at the weekend, I think it is it, it

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:37:59

probably benefits, if you go and have a look at the problem was I I wasn't able to walk all of it because some of it was just too muddy and too slippery to to get through but so I saw some of it but not but not not extension to for that reason.

but I've got Councillor Jupp next, I have got a question, but I'll come back to that later, Councillor John.

thank you, Chairman, can I take you on to paragraph 6.2 standing downward and scheme?

where they provide evidence that there has not been and uninterrupted

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 3:38:31

use for a right for pool for 20 years, am I right in thinking that standing down and scheme stewards for part of the site and therefore for want of a better phrase licensees of Whiston estate, if you look at their website you'll see that their officers are actually in the Winston estate office.

and they were all they came into being in 2009, and I was therefore interested to know why they were able or what weight we should give their evidence if they have not been in existence a full 20 years they talk about.

said the Stephen Donald scheme, as I understand it, have promoted this area of land for nature conservation and have promoted the existence

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:39:23

Tanneth Melhuish - 3:39:24

of, or created the existence of, permissive paths on this land and they burst, it is our assertion, I festered that in 2007,

when they gosh.

the day, so there was a consultation, was it not, yes, it was a comfortable and informal consultation in 2007, so that is when it was first considered a challenge for users to use his right as of right in 2007.

sorry, my point being if they didn't come into existence to 2009, if you look at their website, why are we taking evidence from them for 2007 and for the full 20 years 2004?

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:40:07

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 3:40:08

the reason being because in 2007 it was first brought to the public's attention that the paths were not as of right before that point there, this session is that they believed that they were using the past as of

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:40:20

Tanneth Melhuish - 3:40:21

right without permission if in 2007 the landowner said you know we're going to to create these as permissive rights of way it does bring a challenge so that's where the relevant period must start and then go back retrospectively.

OK.

I mean, I have to say I'm I'm in some difficulty over this because I can see both sides of both sides of the argument, and I suppose the

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:40:48

issue I have on it probably comes back to the common law presumption, so please correct me if I'm more is that we we are always told when dealing with Rights of Way matters and we had an instance.

this morning, with or without a Village Green application, we're always told that we have to go on the strict legal tests and we cannot do anything that goes outside of those and I've always been used to working on the legal test that talks about a 20 year period.

and we don't have a 20 year period here, because if you take it ordinarily, it would be 2007 when the use was first called into question you go back 20 years, takes you to 1987, but that includes a period when they the paths were closed due to the use of the rifle range so actually what you end up with is a 16 year period which is not long enough so that seems to be how we've got ourselves into the situation of the common law or a common law presumption so,

can I just ask for clarification when, when you're dealing with with dedication at common law, as opposed to the

the normal DMO process are we saying that you don't have to have a 20 year period for that, yes, the the the the 20 year period is set out under section 31 of the Highways Act for common law dedication, the the period can be much can be less it, we are looking at more the

Tanneth Melhuish - 3:42:06

quality and quantity of the user evidence and whether there has been an inference of dedication.

by the by the landowner who has the capacity to dedicate and that influence can be express or it can be implied, and that implication of its dedication can be be through actions or the absence of actions, the use, the key so to go on the use could needs to be of a status of the quality and quantity that to the reasonable mind of a landowner it is as as of right.

right.

Councillor Gibson,

I, too, am having a bit of trouble with this term and I think I have now set aside the 16 year period and am now trying to understand the

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:42:56

common law position in terms of the paragraphs in section 11.

Cllr Ian Gibson - 3:43:01

are we saying that if we look at 16 years claims, for instance, we take any one of those paragraphs, let's take 11.4 16 uses claimed to have used pathway over 100 times a year, 11 over 150 is that the same year or is the could it be in any year in?

sort of lost on that it made, it feels like it's a lot of use if there are all those people went in one year in the same year, but if it could have been over an extended period, then.

not sure that I feel as confident about the common law position.

I can't say if we if we take paragraph 4 as an example, it says 16 uses came to just half a over a hundred times a year say, and that is

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:43:54

Tanneth Melhuish - 3:43:55

during the relevant period of 1991 to 2007, and then 11 users have claimed to have used between 15 and a

100 times a year, and during that that relevant period and 3 uses, and 15 times of year during that relevant period.

does that make sense?

while I understand that, but also that we will now move it on to a common law position, which was that the happiness of the usage and

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:44:26

Cllr Ian Gibson - 3:44:27

then I'm not quite sure how that relates to a period, if, if you follow what I mean, I would have expected it to have been the usage within ACE, you know sort of a clearer one year or something.

I think that you said it, I think it's the way it set out in the report.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:44:52

and obviously we've got that relevant period 1991 to 2007, so I think

Tanneth Melhuish - 3:44:55

what the officers tried to do is to break it down and have path A. And they set out how many witnesses have used it for that period and how many times over or over the course of a year, I don't think it means per day per year if that if that was what you were getting out, I mean that I think I think it's

I think it could be read, you know confusingly as bears.

Councillor Mercer.

so I am going to try and sum up what I understood is one minute.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:45:33

we've disregarded any 20 year period because it's not relevant we're

Cllr Jay Mercer - 3:45:39

looking at a particular 16 year period, the usage, as shown by the consultation, is deemed by our officers to be of sufficient.

volume and continuity that it demonstrates there has been significant free use of the path during that period.

the landowner there is very limited evidence, such as the two people you spoke about, that the landowner had at any point, sought to demonstrate that people needed to have permission to be on that path, and therefore it is to be assumed that the landowner did not,

I expect people to have permission to use that path, and that is the common law case for this part to now be registered as a footpath, have I got that right?

thank you.

right.

anyone else, Councillor Oakley.

reference be made to.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:46:45

google, Masham, Google or from our photography, and looking through

Cllr Simon Oakley - 3:46:52

the aerial photography that's available through.

County Council laptop there seems to be an inconsistency over the relevant period as to what the alignment of any path desire line actually was, for example, in the connection.

on the southern side of the site.

to pass 2 7 1 5 at the eastern individual, those indications that the desire line on the corner of the field, so how much weight do we give to the

the overall thrust of the user statements that they went across this land.

as of right.

as opposed to actually the have any physical or any evidence of exactly what line they actually took throughout that relevant period, because does the doesn't do any seasonal fluctuations?

in the actual alignment of the desire line.

undermine the case for.

this application.

so each witness will have filled out a witness evidence, form and attached that witness evidence form is the plan so.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:48:17

on that plan that will have marked exactly where they claim to have

Tanneth Melhuish - 3:48:20

been walking, which then supports the application overall, the desire lines on on Google Maps, they're just part of the of the evidence in the background, if you like, they support, but I understand if there is any sort of seasonal fluctuations that the when a photograph is taken that it could not show exactly where the witnesses claimed to have walked but that doesn't undermine their evidence completely.

the evidence would need to be tested, you know at a public forum like a public inquiry as to whether they are at their lot, the line on their witness evidence form is exactly right, and whether that you know the weight can be taken on that by an inspector but I'm on the Facebook the evidence that we've seen Derek the the the plan attached to their evidence form is key.

Mowat, although any other speakers at this stage.

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:49:22

if not, we have to make a decision on its, and we have a substantive growth recommendation, which is shown on page 1 1 9 of the committee papers, which I'll just read out.

and that is.

that a definitive Map modification order under section 53 to, in consequence of an event specified in subsection 53 3 C Roman 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add a footpath from mouse lane to footpath 2 7 1 5 with an extension to, by the way, 2 7 1 4,

an extension to the historic rifle range targets in the parish of Steny should be made now what I need to ask is is that anybody who wishes to propose that?

OK, so that's proposed, I'm gonna, take that, as proposed by Councillor Mercer, because I saw you marginally fast and seconded by Councillor Wilde.

so I will take a vote, then those in favour of that proposal please show.

that is one, too, could you put your hand back up, Councillor gets wanting free?

that is out in favour those against.

one abstentions, one right, so that is then carried.

and I've just to be clear.

to everyone watching on the webcast, that's is, the DMO should be made and now will obviously be submitted or an order will be made and the process taken forward, so thank you all for your attendance on that.

second

7 Date of Next Meeting

that then takes us on to item 7, the date of the next meeting, the eagle-eyed amongst you will have spotted that there is a typo on the agenda sheet, the next meeting of the Planning and Rights of Way Committee will not be on Wednesday, 17th April it will be on Wednesday 24th of April at 10.30 a.m.

at County Hall, if I can refer you to the supplementary agenda which was circulated and the committee report entitled yeah current planning applications current definitive Map, modification orders, DMOs, Town and Village Green applications TB, geese and public path orders PPOs under investigation which is supplementary agenda pages 3 to 6 and that's on the Green Papers but Mrs Ginny would like to to address us on this, thank you Chairman just to point out,

that planning officers have advised me, as they came in this morning, that the table in relation to planning applications.

Tracey Guinea - 3:52:27

let me just check through, yes, actually all tables in relation to planning applications is actually incomplete, so the information that was provided to me wasn't falling correct, I do have a copy of that and I will scan it in and search and circulate it to you so you've got the complete list so apologies for that.

not quite sure what went wrong there, but I'll ensure that you get the right list within the next day or so OK.

can I also invite officers to advise what agenda items are likely to be upcoming for our April meeting, we do understand that the planning application W USC stroke 0 4 5 0 23 Crawley goods yard is likely to

Cllr Richard Burrett - 3:53:09

come to us next time, or are we expecting anything else at this stage?

rights of way, matters now, and yes, as Mrs Ginny says, the the list will be re circulated, so with that, unless anyone's got any questions or comments, can I thank everybody for your attendance and for your perseverance at what's been a very long meeting and confirm the meeting has now ended and if we can please stop the webcast,

Cllr Noel Atkins

Durrington & Salvington

Conservative

Cllr Richard Burrett

Pound Hill

Conservative

Mr Matt Cartwright

Commercial Director, UK Oil & Gas PLC - the applicant

Cllr Janet Duncton

Petworth

Conservative

Mr Mike Elkington

Head of Planning Services

Laura Floodgate

Senior Solicitor

Cllr Ian Gibson

Imberdown

Green and Independent Alliance

Richard Goring

Public Speaker

Tracey Guinea

Democratic Services Officer

Felicity Harrington

Public Speaker

Cllr Nigel Jupp

Southwater & Nuthurst

Conservative

Philip Maber

Public Speaker

Cllr Sean McDonald

Northbrook

Conservative

Tanneth Melhuish

Chartered Legal Executive

Cllr Jay Mercer

Horsham East

Liberal Democrats

Mr Nigel Moore

Planning Manager, Zetland Group Ltd - agent for the applicant

Gill Muncey

Public Speaker

Mr James Neave

Principal Planner

Cllr Simon Oakley

Chichester East

Conservative

Cllr Ashvin Patel

Bognor Regis West & Aldwick

Conservative

Gemma Penfold

Legal Assistant

Cllr Brian Quinn

Broadfield

Labour

Anne Stewart

Public Speaker

Cllr Jaine Wild

Felpham

Green and Independent Alliance

Cllr Chris Young

Steyning Parish Council

Planning and Rights of Way Committee - Tuesday 19 March 2024, 10:30am - Feedback Tab - West Sussex webcasts

Planning and Rights of Way CommitteeTuesday, 19th March 2024 at 10:30am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

1 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:00:00

Cllr Noel Atkins - 0:03:23

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:03:33

Cllr Ian Gibson - 0:03:37

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:03:55

2 Minutes of the last two meetings of the Committee

Cllr Simon Oakley - 0:05:45

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:06:08

3 Urgent Matters

4 Planning Application: Minerals

Mr James Neave - 0:08:08

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:24:17

Philip Maber - 0:25:22

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:30:03

Anne Stewart - 0:30:16

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:35:27

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:41:09

Mr Nigel Moore - 0:41:29

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:46:14

Mr Matt Cartwright - 0:46:19

Cllr Richard Burrett - 0:50:36

Mr James Neave - 1:06:01

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:06:05

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 1:06:30

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:08:34

Mr James Neave - 1:08:35

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:10:31

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 1:10:32

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:11:11

Mr James Neave - 1:11:12

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:12:29

Mr James Neave - 1:13:08

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:13:36

Mr James Neave - 1:14:04

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:14:11

Cllr Jaine Wild - 1:14:19

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:15:57

Mr James Neave - 1:15:59

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:16:01

Cllr Simon Oakley - 1:16:03

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:22:26

Mr James Neave - 1:22:31

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:25:58

Cllr Simon Oakley - 1:26:02

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:26:48

Mr James Neave - 1:26:50

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:27:16

Cllr Brian Quinn - 1:27:22

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:27:56

Cllr Ashvin Patel - 1:28:02

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:28:30

Mr James Neave - 1:28:38

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:28:40

Cllr Janet Duncton - 1:28:44

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:30:02

Cllr Jay Mercer - 1:30:11

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:32:50

Mr James Neave - 1:32:54

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:33:31

Cllr Ian Gibson - 1:33:38

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:34:47

Cllr Nigel Jupp - 1:35:01

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:35:20

Mr James Neave - 1:35:22

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:35:26

Laura Floodgate - 1:37:07

Cllr Richard Burrett - 1:37:31

Planning and Rights of Way Committee
Tuesday, 19th March 2024 at 10:30am