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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

He explained Agenda Item 14 had been withdrawn from the Agenda to allow for further investigation and consideration of drainage matters.

Apologies were received from Cllr’s Bates, Burton & Sharp

The minutes relate to the meetings of the Planning Committee on 7 February 2024, 6 March 2024 and 27 March 2024.

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 7 February 2024 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

In reference to minute item 186, Cllr Cross had raised the issue of outstanding appeals with the SDNP and circulated the response to members of the Planning Committee.

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 6 March 2024 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting helf on Wednesday 27 March 2024 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

The Chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 18 (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.

There were no declarations of interest.

14 no. dwellings (4 x affordable 10 x market), replacement commercial (class E) building, new and altered access and associated works.

Defer for S106 then permit

Mr Cranmer introduced the item. He drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet and explained there was an error and the updates listed for Item 6 were actually for item 5, they included additional responses from the CDC Tree Officer and WSCC Local Highway Authority.

Mrs Rollings, Economic Development Officer was also in attendance.

Mr Cranmer outlined the site location and informed the Committee it was an established brownfield site. He highlighted the site’s proximity to the Chichester AONB.

Mr Cranmer showed the proposed layout of the site which included 14 new dwellings and one replacement commercial building with 26 parking spaces. It was anticipated the new commercial unit would provide 7FTE’s which was the same as currently provided through its current use.

Mr Cranmer detailed the proposed housing mix which would include, four affordable housing units and two bungalows.

Mr Cranmer explained the current drainage channel which ran along the side of the site would be culverted in order to provide a footpath from the site to the bus stop. He highlighted the existing footpath which ran from the site to Pipers Mead.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Susan Taylor – Birdham Parish Council

Mr Paul White – Agent

Cllr Elizabeth Hamilton – CDC Councillor

Cllr Iain Ballantyne – CDC Councillor

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Cranmer clarified the sites proximity to the settlement boundary, which was approximately 60 – 80m away.

Responding to concerns regarding the proposed culverting of the existing ditch; Mr Cranmer confirmed West Sussex County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority had been consulted. They had specifically been asked to consider whether the culverted ditch would be able to accommodate the same levels as the open ditch, in response they had confirmed they were satisfied with the proposal and were content that it was a positive drainage solution. In addition, the application the amount of current hard standing and it was located outside the tidal flood risk zone.

On the matter of the road safety audit; Mr Cranmer explained it was standard practice that the secondary road safety audit would not be completed until after permission had been granted for a development. It would be secured as part of the legal agreement.

Regarding the validity of the Viability Report; Mr Cranmer confirmed the report had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application. He acknowledged that there was a conflict of interest, however, the report had been reviewed by the Economic Development team. Mrs Rollings confirmed that following the review officers agreed that what was stated in the report tallied with the research undertaken by the Economic Development team.

Mrs Rollings informed the Committee, that if a suitable alternative was not agreed for the site, there was concern that it would become a derelict location. 

Responding to comments over sustainability of the site; Ms Bell reminded the Committee that the issue of sustainability on the Manhood was one which had been argued at appeal a lot. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 211.

1 no. fascia sign (non-illuminated) and internal free standing display (non-illuminated).

Permit

Mr Mew introduced the item. He outlined the site location, which was within the Chichester Settlement boundary.

Mr Mew showed the proposed advertising display and informed the Committee it had been amended during the application process to remove the projected sign and illumination.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of what was displayed on the sign; Mr Mew reminded the Committee that they could only consider amenity and public safety, not what was to be displayed.

Mr Mew confirmed the Chichester District Shop Front Guidance had been considered as part of the application and was detailed in the report.

Mr Mew explained the balustrade had been considered as part of a separate application which had been approved through delegation.

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

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

Stationing of caravans for residential purposes, hardstanding and utility/dayrooms ancillary to 3 no. pitches.

Defer for S106 permit.

Mr Thomas introduced the item. Before presenting the individual item, Mr Thomas presented an overview of the site and identified where each of the individual applications were located within the site.

A site visit by the Committee had been undertaken on 15 April 2024.

Mr Thomas outlined the overall site, which was an established Gypsy and Traveller Site located within designated countryside. He highlighted its proximity to West Ashling, Southbourne and Chidham and Hambrook; and neighbouring Gypsy and Traveller sites.

Mr Thomas highlighted the high pressure gas pipe which ran under the site and confirmed officers had consulted with HSE on the applications and no objections had been raised.

Mr Thomas showed the overall layout of applications which in total would provide 12 caravans in 11 new pitches.

Mr Thomas explained agenda items 7, 8, 9 and 10 had been considered at appeal in 2023. The Planning Inspector had found in favour of on the grounds of planning balance, however, they did consider the development would lead to significant harm to the Chichester AONB from nitrates, therefore the appeal was dismissed. The issue of nitrate mitigation has now been resolved.

Mr Thomas showed the proposed layout and elevations of FU/23/01845/FUL. He informed the Committee that the proposed materials were to condition which would need to be signed off before development could commence.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Jane Mottershead – Funtington Parish Council

Dr Angus Murdoch – Agent

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding unauthorised development on the site; Mr Thomas confirmed this was currently being investigated by the Planning Enforcement team.

Responding to concerns regarding the future delivery and compliance of what was being proposed; Mr Thomas explained Condition 1 had been amended to address this potential issue, in accordance with the condition the permitted development must have commenced within six months from the date of permission granted, this was instead of the standard three years.

Mr Thomas confirmed the applicants were local.

Responding to objections that West Ashling was a service village; Mr Thomas acknowledged the comments made; however, he informed the Committee this question had been considered in great detail by the Planning Inspectorate at the 2021 appeal on a neighbouring site. The Planning Inspector found the site was sustainable but recognise there were only moderate amenities at the site.

Responding to concerns of surface water drainage; Mr Thomas informed the Committee the Drainage Engineer had been consulted and raised no objection subject to conditions being applied.

Regarding harm to the landscape and character of the area; Mr Thomas informed the Committee this had been tested at appeal and dismissed. Any harm caused through this development could be mitigated through landscaping.

On the matter of dominance; Mr Thomas explained the definition and assured the Committee that officers had given much consideration to the issue of dominance, however, it had been tested at appeal and dismissed.

On the matter of protecting established hedgerows; Mr Thomas explained the hedgerow along the road was not within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 213.

Change of use of land for the stationing of 4 no. static caravans and 4 no. touring caravans for residential purposes, together with the formation of hardstanding and associated landscaping.

Defer for S106 permit.

Mr Thomas introduced the item. He drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included a revised proposed site plan.

Mr Thomas outlined the site location and highlighted the proposed turning circle to allow large vehicles (fire appliances) to safely access the site.

Mr Thomas showed the proposed elevations and layout of the dayroom and detailed the access arrangements.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Jane Mottershead – Funtington Parish Council

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to what the difference was between this site and the site at Wisbourgh Green referenced by the Parish Council in their response; Mr Thomas informed the Committee officers had looked at the appeal decision (p.144, paragraph 8.19) and explained, the material difference between the sites was the application being considered was on an established site, whereas the Wisborough Green site would have been a new site.

Responding to concerns of community tension and the council appointment of a Gypsy & Traveller Community Liaison Officer; Mrs Stevens acknowledged comments made, but explained the decision to employ a Liaison Officer was not a result of the applications being considered by the Committee. Sussex Police had made no comment regarding community tensions in the area; therefore, it was not a material consideration.

Mrs Stevens reminded the Committee that the application being considered had failed at appeal, but only on the grounds on not providing nitrate mitigation. The issue of nitrate mitigation had now been resolved, therefore it would be hard for officers to defend refusal on the site, when reasons such as harm to the surrounding area and the sustainability of the location had already been tested and dismissed at appeal.

Responding to whether Condition 1 could be further shortened from 6 months to 3 months; Mr Thomas advised 6 months was the most reasonable time frame, as a number of conditions required details to be submitted and signed off by officers.

Responding to concerns of who would occupy the site; Mr Thomas confirmed occupation was restricted by through Condition 3 (p.155) in line with Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. He explained that it would not be reasonable to apply a condition that required an occupant to provide evidence before they occupied the site. If reports were made that occupants were not Gypsy and Travellers then Planning Enforcement could investigate and the onus would be on the occupant to prove they are.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for S106 permit.

Resolved; defer for S106 permit, subject to the conditions and informatives detailed in the report.

Use of land for the stationing of 1 no. caravan/mobile home for residential purposes, together with the formation of hardstanding.

Defer for S106 permit.

Mr Thomas introduced the item. He outlined the site location, layout, and elevations.

Mr Thomas highlighted the proposed buffer site for the high-pressure gas pipe.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Jane Mottershead – Funtington Parish Council

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Thomas informed the Committee that a vehicle turning circle was not required on the site as the access was less than 20m from the road.

On the matter of vacant pitches; Mr Thomas acknowledged the comments made. He explained the subject of vacant pitches had been considered by the Monks Hill appeal, however, the Planning Inspector did not give the issue much weight as the considered the pitches were not realistically available.

On the matter of boundary fencing; Mr Thomas explained it would be unreasonable to be too descriptive, the application had conditions attached which would require the applicant to submit details regarding the proposed boundary arrangements and elevations.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for S106 permit.

Resolved; defer for S106 permit, subject to the conditions and informatives detailed in the report.

Change of use of land for the stationing of 1 no. static caravan and 1 no. touring caravan for residential purposes, 1.no day room, formation of hardstanding and associated landscaping.

Defer for S106 permit.

Mr Thomas introduced the item.

He outlined the site location, proposed layout, and elevations.

There were no representations.

The Committee had no questions or comments.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for S106 permit.

Resolved; defer for S106 permit, subject to the conditions and informatives detailed in the report.

Use of land for the stationing of 2 caravans for residential purposes, together with the formation of hardstanding.

Defer for S106 permit.

Mr Thomas introduced the item.

He outlined the site location and proposed layout.

There were no representations.

The Committee had no questions or comments.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for S106 permit.

Resolved; defer for S106 permit, subject to the conditions and informatives detailed in the report.

Use of land for the stationing of a caravan for residential purposes, together with the formation of hardstanding.

Defer for S106 permit

Mr Thomas introduced the item.

He outlined the pitch location within the site and showed the proposed layout, elevations, and access arrangements.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the difference in density on the proposed site; Mr Thomas acknowledged comments made, however, he reminded the Committee that the future use of the site was not a material consideration.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for S106 permit.

Resolved; defer for S106 permit, subject to the conditions and informatives detailed in the report.

Construction of 1 no. shared utility building as an alternative to permission 18/00402/FUL.

Permit

Mr Thomas introduced the item. He explained the difference between the approved permission on the pitch and the proposed application.

He outlined the pitch location and the proposed layout of the dayroom.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to the layout of the site and whether pitches could be better identified, for example 1, Field West of Beachlands; Miss Smith explained it was the responsibility of the landowners as to how the pitch was registered and not something within the control of the Planning Authority.

Regarding the overall site capacity; Miss Smith informed the Committee there was no prescribed number within Planning Policy which would determine when a site might reach capacity. She explained many factors were considered when an application was submitted, with each application considered on a case-by-case basis. She acknowledged the Parish Council’s frustration but could not offer them a final figure regarding the capacity of the site.

Responding to the request that Condition 1 be amended from 3 years to 6 months; Mr Thomas explained it would not be reasonable to apply such a condition, the application was being made on a lawful site and there was no justification to request completion within a shorter time period.

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

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

Change of use of land for the sitting of 1 no. showman's mobile home with storage of associated vehicles and equipment.

Item withdrawn

As announced by the Chairman and detailed on the Agenda Update Sheet the item was withdrawn from the Agenda to allow for further investigation and consideration of drainage matters.

The Committee is requested to consider the report and its appendix and make the resolution as set out in section 2.1 of the report.

The Planning Committee consider and agree the attached responses to the consultations questions for submissions in response to the government ‘An accelerated planning system’.

Mrs Stevens introduced the report and explained the purpose of the consultation.

The proposed responses were detailed in Appendix 1 of the report.

Mrs Stevens drew the Committees attention to the Agenda Update sheet which set out an amended response to question 5a.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mrs Stevens agreed to incorporate the suggestion that responses from statutory consultees should be mandatory, and the period of response should begin once all statutory consultees have responded.

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

Resolved; The Planning Committee consider and agree the attached responses to the consultations questions for submissions in response to the government ‘An accelerated planning system’.

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 item.

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 drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included the appeal decision for SDNP/22/03527/FUL.

The Committee agreed to note the item.

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 2 items.