Agenda, decisions and minutes

Any apologies for absence which have been received will be noted at this stage.

The Planning Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

The Chairman welcomed all present to the meeting and read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

Apologies were received from Cllr’s Brookes-Harmer, D Johnson and Sharp.

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 10(b).

There were no urgent items.

Details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies.

Such interests are hereby disclosed by each member in respect of agenda items in the schedule of planning applications where the Council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular item or application.

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are to be made by members of the Planning Committee in respect of matters on the agenda or this meeting.

Cllr S Johnson declared a predetermination in Agenda Item 4 – SB/21/01910/OUT as he had already voted on the application when Chidham & Hambrook Parish Council had considered it.

Cllr Quail declared a personal interest in;

Agenda Item 7 – CC/23/01322/ADV – as a member of Chichester City Council

Outline planning permission with all matters reserved (except for access) for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures on site and the erection of 63 no. dwellings including 3 no. custom/self-build plots, parking, landscaping and associated works.

Defer for further information

Having declared a predetermination in this item Cllr S Johnson withdrew from the table and moved to the Public Gallery.

Miss Thatcher introduced the report and drew attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included two additional representations. Miss Thatcher informed the Committee that Cllr Brown had also circulated some information regarding the modified Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan (copies of which had been uploaded on the planning portal).

Miss Thatcher reminded the Committee that the application had been in the system for two years and deferred twice by the Committee. The second deferral was for a site visit which was undertaken by the committee on Monday 2 October.

Miss Thatcher went over the objection raised by the West Sussex County Council Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and how the applicant had addressed their concerns. The LLFA had since reviewed the proposed mitigations and were satisfied that these would address their concerns, as such they had withdrawn objection.

Miss Thatcher informed the Committee that the bold paragraphs in the report represented updates that had been received since it first came to Committee.

Miss Thatcher outlined the site location and highlighted the proximity of other sites which had recently been allowed at appeal.

Miss Thatcher highlighted the chalk stream and the proposed area of land which would be used for nitrate mitigation. Miss Thatcher informed the Committee that Natural England did not agree with the negative HRA produced by the council and were satisfied that adequate mitigation could be secured through conditions.

Miss Thatcher detailed the proposed access arrangements and confirmed that WSCC highways had raised no objections.

Miss Thatcher reminded the Committee that Nutbourne and Hambrook were Service Villages hub as identified in both the Local Plan and emerging Local Plan. Recent appeal decisions showed the Planning Inspectorate did consider the area to be a sustainable location.

The site was identified in the HEELA and as the council did not have a 5YHLS the tilted balance was engaged in favour of allowing the development.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Amanda Tait – Southbourne Parish Council

Cllr Jane Towers – Chidham & Hambrook Parish Council

Mr Andy Sargent – Objector

Mr Stephen Johnson – Objector (upon completing his statement Mr S Johnson withdrew from the room)

Mrs Penelope Gibson – Objector

Faye Goodson – Applicant

Cllr Oona Hickson – CDC Member

Cllr Jonathan Brown – CDC Member

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the emerging Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan; Mrs Stevens informed the Committee that there was no definite date as to when the examiners report for the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan would be received, in addition, there was information to suggest how the examiner would judge the plan. She reminded the Committee that the application being consider had been with the council for two years, the applicant had agreed an extension of time which expired on 13 October 2023, after which they would likely appeal on the grounds of non-determination.

With regards to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Construction of 7 no. dwellings with access from South Lane together with associated parking and landscaping.

Defer for S106 then permit  

Mr Thomas introduced the item and drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an amendment to Condition 1.

Mr Thomas outlined the site application which was located within Southbourne Parish. Whilst the site was not within the settlement boundary it was contiguous with the boundary and would sit between existing residential properties to both the north and south.

Mr Thomas showed the Committee the proposed layout, elevations and streetscene. He highlighted the proposed ecological zone, including a 5m buffer around the north, east and south boundary along with an orchard located in the north of the site.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Amanda Tait – Southbourne Parish Council

Cllr Jonathan Brown – CDC Member

Cllr Oona Hickson – CDC Member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the Planning Inspectors decision on the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan; Mrs Stevens advised the Committee that there was no extension of time granted and it would be more satisfactory to make a decision.

In response to the Southbourne Green Ring; Mr Thomas informed the Committee, that the northern end of the development would lie within the proposed green ring. However, officers were satisfied that the proposed orchard and ecological buffer were an acceptable contribution.

With regards to the width of the Southbourne Green Ring; Mr Thomas explained the only plan of the Green Ring was in the made Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan. The plan did indicate the broad location, but it did not provide specific dimensions. In addition, Mrs Stephens clarified the difference between SP3 and SP13 as proposed within the new Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan.

Cllr Todhunter as Chairman used his discretion to allow Cllr Brown to comment on the Southbourne Green Ring. Cllr Brown informed the Committee that the Green Ring would vary in size but should remain wide enough to allow a two-lane road, foot and cycle space, and green space.

Mrs Stevens reminded the Committee that all relevant policies had been considered in the report. If the Committee chose to refuse the application on the grounds of demolition of the Green Ring, Mrs Stevens queried how would this be evidenced, pointing out that there was no neighbourhood plan policy in place which stated planning could not take place on the site. The proposed development did provide green space and had been amended during course of the application to remove development from the northern tip of the site.

Cllr S Johnson proposed the application be deferred on grounds of prematurity in relation to the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal received no seconder.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for Section 106 then permit.

Resolved; defer for Section 106 then permit; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, including the amendment to Condition 1 as set out in the Agenda Update Sheet.

*Cllr S Johnson re-joined the meeting at the start of this item,

External change of roof and external wall materials. New rear balcony, side dormer doors, front and side pergolas, internal alterations, proposed entrance vestibule and garden pavilion. Conversation of garage to gym, part conversation to shed to sauna. (Retrospective).

Permit  

Mr Mew introduced the item and drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; an amendment to paragraph 8.16 of the report and amendment to the decided plans. He also gave a verbal update to condition 5 and explained that the condition should be amended to refer to a single privacy screen, and that reference to the word ‘southeast’ should be deleted from the condition as this is not proposed and is not relevant.

Mr Mew outlined the site location and access to the property, which he explained was shared.

Mr Mew detailed the proposed changes as part of the application, some of which were retrospective. He acknowledged concerns which had been raised regarding over development of the site but explained and showed the Committee that much of the proposed development was contained within current buildings already on the site.

The following representations were received;

Mr Gavin Jones – objector

Mr Andrew Heathorn (statement read by Alex McDevitt)

Cllr Tim Johnson – CDC member (statement read by Cllr Steve Boulcott)

Cllr Steve Boulcott – CDC member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Mew reminded the Committee that the retrospective nature of the application was not a reason for refusal.

Regarding the proposed colour of the building; Mr Mew informed the Committee that there were no specific materials or colour palette for the area. In officer opinion the proposed cladding was acceptable and in keeping with the surrounding area.

Mr Mew clarified what permitted development rights were.

Responding to concerns regarding the over development of the area; Mr Mew reminded the Committee that much of the proposed development was taking place within buildings on site. the amount of new development was minimal and in keeping with the surrounding area.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to permit.

Resolved; permit, subject to the conditions and informatives included in the report.

Application for Display of Advertisements. 1 no. Fascia sign 6750mm x 730mm x 25mm and 1 no. Fascia sign 5300mm x 730mm x 25mm.

Permit  

Mr Mew presented the report.

He outlined the site location, which was within the Chichester Settlement Boundary and the Chichester Conservation Area. The building was a modern building and not listed.

Mr Mew showed the Committee the proposed sign and how it would appear on the building.

Representations were received from;

Mrs Anna Whitty – Chichester City Council

Mr Bob Beckett – Applicant

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

With regards to the proposed material; Mr Mew confirmed that the signage would be a ‘tongue and groove’ effect aluminium fascia with would be powder coated. He had an example of the proposed material which he showed to the Committee.

Regarding the street number; Mr Mew informed the Committee that an informative to include the street number was included, however, if the Committee were minded this could be included as a Condition.

Responding to concerns about the slogan and design of the sign; Mrs Stephens advised the Committee that they did not have the authority to alter the design, they must determine the application that was in front of them.

Regarding the Shop Front Guidance; Mrs Stevens confirmed that the guidance was a material consideration, which officers had considered, alongside where the building was and what other signs where in the vicinity. The building is a modern building within a conservation area and the proposed sign would be smaller than what is currently in situ.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to permit, including the additional condition to include the street number on the sign.

Resolved; permit, subject to the conditions and informatives included in the report and the additional condition to include the street number on the sign. 

The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements.

Mrs Stevens highlighted to the Committee the challenges CDC were facing in defending new housing at appeal.

The Committee agreed to note the update.

The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements.

The Committee agreed to note the update.

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the Chairman at the start of this meeting as follows:

a)    Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection

b)    Items which the chairman has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting

There were no late items.

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no part two items.