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be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications (agenda items 5 to 13)which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

In Memory of Jo Cox MP

Mr Hayes commenced the meeting by asking everyone to observe with him a one-minute silence in memory of Jo Cox, the  Labour MP for Batley and Spen in West Yorkshire, who had been murdered the previous day, Thursday 16 June 2016, while she was performing constituency duties in Birstall. Those who were able to do so stood for the silence.

Miscellaneous Matters

Mr Hayes welcomed everyone to this meeting, which (as stated on the front page of the agenda) was not being held in the usual venue at Chichester District Council’s (CDC) headquarters in East Pallant House but at Chichester City Council’s (CCC) Assembly Room in the Council House North Street Chichester. This was on account of the committee rooms at East Pallant House being required for the EU referendum on Thursday 23 June 2016. 

Mr Hayes explained the CCC emergency evacuation procedure and acknowledged the presence of the CDC officers and the West Sussex County Council officer who were present at the start of this meeting. Other CDC development management officers would be present later in the meeting for specific agenda items.

The meeting was being observed by Chloe Barber, a secondary school work experience student who had been spending the week with CDC’s Member Services team.

Apologies for Absence

There were no apologies for absence and every member of the Planning Committee was present at the start of this meeting. 

Items Deferred or Withdrawn

There were no agenda items which had been deferred or withdrawn.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday 25 May 2016 will be circulated as a separate document subsequent to the despatch of this agenda.

Approved with two amendments to page [PC 25.05.16 4]:

·         In the thirteenth line of third para replace ‘disused canal’ with ‘adjacent watercourse’

·         In final para delete ‘and surface water’

The Planning Committee received the minutes of its previous meeting on Wednesday 25 May 2016.

Mr Oakley proposed the following two amendments to page [PC 25.05.16 4]:

·         In the thirteenth line of the third para replace ‘disused canal’ with ‘adjacent watercourse’

·         In the final para (recording the decision) delete the words ‘and surface water’

The Planning Committee supported making both of those amendments.

There were no other proposed changes to the minutes.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Committee approves without amendment the minutes of its meeting on Wednesday 25 May 2016.

Mr Hayes signed and dated the final page ([PC 25.05.16 8]) of the official version of the minutes.

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 15 b).

There were no urgent matters for consideration under agenda item 15 b) (Late Items).

For 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, please refer to pages 1 to 2 of this agenda.

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 are sometimes also declarations by members that they will not participate in the discussion of and decision on a particular item for various reasons eg predetermination or bias.

The obligation to make declarations of interests related to agenda items 5 to 13 inclusive.

A – Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

Disclosable pecuniary interests have been introduced by section 30 of the Localism Act 2011 and are set out in paras 3 to 7 of Part 3 of CDC’s Code of Conduct adopted on Tuesday 9 October 2012. They are interests that either the member has or is aware that his or her partner has. Where such an interest exists the member concerned must declare it. Unless the member has previously received a dispensation to do so from the Monitoring Officer, he or she may not participate in any discussion of or in any vote taken on that item of business. The member concerned must move to the public seating area for the duration of the item of business in question and from that area he or she may make representations, answer questions or give evidence relating to that item of business, provided that he or she has received a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer to do so.

There were no declarations of a disclosable pecuniary interest made at this meeting. 

B - Personal Interests

Personal interests are defined in paras 8 and 9 of Part 4 of CDC’s Code of Conduct adopted on Tuesday 9 October 2012. They include (as set out on pages 1 and 2 of the agenda for this meeting) membership of parish councils, West Sussex County Council, outside organisations or public bodies where those local authorities, organisations or bodies have been consulted in respect of a planning application or another relevant agenda item.

Miss Golding explained that the personal interests set out on pages 1 and 2 of the agenda were to be taken as having been declared by the member concerned in respect of the relevant planning applications in agenda items 5 to 13 inclusive where such consultations had taken place.

There were seven members of the Planning Committee who made the following declarations of personal interests:

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of planning application CC/15/04163/ FUL (agenda item 5) as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/15/04163 /FUL (agenda item 5), SB/16/00205/OUT (agenda item 8), WE/16/01078/COU (agenda item 11), SDNP/15/06142/FUL (agenda item 12) (also the subject of the prejudicial interest recorded below) and SDNP/15/06493/FUL (agenda item 13) as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Hayes declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications SB/16/00205/ OUT (agenda item 8) (also the subject of the prejudicial interest recorded below) and SB/16/01092/FUL (agenda item 9) as a member of Southbourne Parish Council.  

Mrs Kilby declared a personal interest in respect of planning application CC/15/04163/FUL (agenda item 5) as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mr McAra declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/15/04163/ FUL (agenda item 5), SB/16/00205/OUT (agenda item 8), WE/16/01078/COU (agenda item 11), SDNP/15/06142/FUL (agenda item 12) and SDNP/15/06493/FUL (agenda  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

A proposed fully managed student accommodation block comprising two buildings each three to four storeys with 134 student bed spaces, associated access works and landscaping.

Defer for section 106 agreement then permit with (a) officers to explore with the applicant having a full-time resident manager during term-time and (b) the issue of the discharge of the materials condition to be considered by the Planning Committee   

[Note Immediately prior to the start of this item Mr Hixson withdrew from the committee table in accordance with his earlier declaration of a prejudicial interest and he did not participate in the Planning Committee’s debate of or decision on this application]

Mr Bushell presented this planning application for a proposed fully managed student accommodation block comprising two buildings each three to four storeys with 134 student bed spaces, associated access works and landscaping. This application was supported by the University of Chichester to accommodate the recent increase in the student population. The supporting text to Policy 33 (New Residential Development) in the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 referred to a specific requirement for student housing and this site was identified for new student accommodation in the draft Chichester Site Allocation Development Plan Document. 

Mr Bushell explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) an aerial photograph (features, constraints, facilities identified); (b) photographs (various views); (c) site plan (details of proposed arrangement of two buildings, prohibition on student cars and on-site supervision); (d) floor plan (details explained); (e) elevation drawings (details explained with samples of real wood laminate circulated to members for inspection); (f) colour 3D images of how development might appear (provided by applicant); and (g) colour 3D image of original proposal for 153 students and four- to five-storeys (provided by applicant).  

Mr Bushell drew attention to the agenda update sheet which reported (a) Chichester City Council’s comments on the substitute plans and objecting to the proposal and (b) a total of 20 third party objectors to the substitute plans.

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee on this item:

(a)  Mrs J Hixson (Chairman of Dolphin Mews Residents Association) – objector

(b)  Mr L Hixson – objector

(c)  Mrs A Greenwood – objector

(d)  Mr J Snell – supporter

(e)  Mr J Gillespie (Gilltown Planning) – agent for the applicant

Mrs C M M Apel addressed the Planning Committee as one of the two CDC members for the Chichester West ward. She expressed a number of concerns about the proposal. 

The debate began with comments by the local ward member on the need for student accommodation, the design and mass of the two buildings and the use of materials.

Members expressed various views for and against the development, which included:

(a)  The principle of student accommodation on this site with a range of facilities (as set out in para 3.1 of the report) was acceptable.

(b)  The proposed accommodation was a welcome means of reducing the number of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in the city, which had in certain areas created difficulties for local residents. The contrary view, however, was that this would not necessarily avoid students wishing to live in HMOs in the city because HMOs would be nearer to the university campus and the city’s facilities and perhaps less expensive than this student accommodation. The location being so far from facilities was unacceptable.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Replacement dwelling.

Permit

Mr Whitty introduced this planning application for a replacement dwelling with reference to a series of slides shown on the screens namely (a) application site plans; (b) colour site plan (present); (c) photographs of current dwelling house; (d) colour site plan (proposed); and (d) elevation drawings (present and proposed).

The agenda update sheet supplied additional planning history for section 4 on page 21. 

No members of the public addressed the Planning Committee in respect of this item.

In reply to a member’s question Mr Whitty said that one parking space for a one-bedroom dwelling was correct.

The Planning Committee voted unanimously on a show of hands by 15 votes in favour and none against and with no abstentions to approve the application. 

Decision

Recommendation to permit agreed.

Fell to ground level one no Oak tree (T1) subject to FB/79/00053/TPO.

Refuse

Mr Whitty introduced this planning application to fell to ground level one no Oak tree (T1) subject to FB/79/00053/TPO with reference to a set of slides shown on the screens as follows: (a) aerial photograph (tree identified); (b) close-up aerial photograph; and (c) photographs of the tree and its relationship to the small extension to the bungalow on the site. He summarised the main issues set out in paras 8.1 to 8.9 of the report.

The agenda update sheet corrected the planning application reference in the first sentence of para 3.1 of the agenda report.  

No members of the public addressed the Planning Committee in respect of this item.

In reply to members’ questions Mr Whitty explained (a) why there would be the potential for a compensation claim as a result of a refusal to permit the felling of the tree and (b) that there was no record of the planning permission to build the extension in the late 1980s.

There was a clear consensus in favour of the retention of the tree.

The Planning Committee voted unanimously on a show of hands by 15 votes in favour and none against and with no abstentions to refuse the application. 

Decision

Recommendation to refuse agreed.

Outline application with all matters reserved. Erection of five no dwellings and associated works.

Defer for section 106 agreement then permit with extra condition 15 (wildlife)

[Note Immediately prior to the start of this application Mr Hayes withdrew from the committee table and moved to the public seating area in accordance with his earlier declaration of a prejudicial interest in respect of this item and Mrs Purnell took his place in order to chair the proceedings]

Mr Whitty introduced this outline planning application with all matters reserved for the erection of five no dwellings and associated works. In so doing he drew attention to a sequence of slides displayed on the screens namely (a) a map of Southbourne extracted from the recently made Southbourne neighbourhood development plan (NDP); (b) a close-up map of the site and the surrounding roads; (c) an aerial photograph (features identified); (d) a site location plan with settlement boundary shown; (e) an aerial photograph (site context); (f) an indicative colour site plan; (g) indicative elevation drawings and materials; and (h) photographs (various views). 

The agenda update sheet amended (a) condition 5 (surface water) and (b) the recommendation to one of defer for section 106 agreement then permit.  

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee on this item:

(a)  Mr R Gowlett (Southbourne Parish Council) – parish representative in objection

(b)  Mrs S Talbot – objector

(c)  Mr R Hayes – objector

(d)  Mrs K Simmons (Genesis Town Planning) – agent for the applicant

During the discussion members expressed views for and against the application and they raised various points, which included the following:

(a)  An extra condition for the protection of wildlife (in particular slow worms) was required.

(b)  The apparent mistake in the now made Southbourne NDP, which had gone unnoticed throughout the NDP process, whereby the site to the north of the railway line had inadvertently been included within the settlement boundary line and so was supported for development by Policy 1. Some members thought that whilst this was an unfortunate oversight, it could not influence the determination of this planning application, which had to be made in accordance with the relevant planning policies and principles. Other members were exercised by the dilemma to which this situation had given rise, namely whether the NDP policy text or the actual intentions in preparing the NDP to restrict development to the south of the settlement boundary should prevail.

Mr Whitty and Miss Golding advised with respect to members’ concerns in (b). Whilst Southbourne Parish Council’s (SPC) frustration over the error in the plan was understood, para 8.2 of the agenda report explained the planning policy justification in both the Southbourne NDP (including Policy 1 (Development within the Settlement Boundaries) which was read out by Mr Whitty) and the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2104-2029 for establishing the principle of development. Notwithstanding the evolution of the NDP maps, the final version of the Southbourne NDP was now part of the Development Plan and this was what now had to be interpreted and applied. It was not the Planning Committee’s function to look into the asserted mistake in the NDP,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission SB/15/02260/FUL - to allow minor amendments to the planning permission by way of a conservation rooflights to the rear elevation and use of roof space for storage and life style /home office space.

Permit

Mr Whitty introduced this outline planning application for a variation of condition 2 of planning permission SB/15/02260/FUL to allow minor amendments to the planning permission by way of a conservation rooflights to the rear elevation and use of the roof space for storage and lifestyle/home office space. He referred to a series of slides shown on the screens: (a) location plan; (b) drawings of the permitted and proposed rooflights; and (c) photographs. 

There were no items in the agenda update sheet for this item.

One member of the public addressed the Planning Committee regarding this item:

(a)  Mr D Harris – agent for the applicant

There was no discussion by the Planning Committee about this item. 

The Planning Committee voted in favour of this application on a show of hands by 13 votes with none against and no abstentions (Mrs Tassell had left the meeting during this item did not return until just after the start of the application in minute para 23 below).

Decision

Recommendation to permit agreed.

Change of use from agriculture to one no dwelling (C3 use class) and erection of pitched roof over building, alternative to part 3, class Q prior approval SI/15/03438/PA3Q.

Permit

[Note Mrs Tassell was not present for this item having left the meeting during the previous item; she did not return until the next agenda item (minute para 23)]

Miss Boddy presented this planning application for a change of use from agriculture to one no dwelling (C3 use class) and erection of pitched roof over building, alternative to part 3, class Q prior approval SI/15/03438/PA3Q. In explaining the proposal she drew attention to a set of slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan; (b) a plan of the extant building; (c) the prior approval application plan; (d) a drawing of the proposed building; and (e) photographs (various views).  Para 8.8 of the agenda report stated that permitted development rights would be removed.

The agenda update sheet reported the receipt of substitute plans.

No members of the public wished to address the Planning Committee on this item.

Miss Boddy replied to members’ questions on points of detail about the curtilage/boundary treatment (conditions 4 and 12) and removal of permitted development rights (conditions 8, 10 and 11).

The Planning Committee voted in favour of this application on a show of hands by nine votes to three against and one abstention (Mrs Tassell had left the meeting during the previous item (minute para 21) and did not return until just after the start of the application in minute para 23 below).

Decision

Recommendation to permit agreed.

Change of use of land to a private gypsy and traveller caravan site consisting of one no mobile home, one no utility building, one no touring caravan and associated works.

Defer for a site visit by members

[Note Mrs Tassell returned to the meeting shortly after the start of the case officer’s initial presentation (next para)]

Miss Boddy presented this planning application for a change of use of land to a private gypsy and traveller caravan site consisting of one no mobile home, one no utility building, one no touring caravan and associated works. She referred to a sequence of slides displayed on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan; (b) a colour site plan of the extant building; (c) elevation drawings; and (d) photographs (various views to set the context including the West Sussex County Council gypsy and traveller transit site to the south of the application site).

There were no entries in the agenda update sheet for this item.

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee on this item:

(a)  Mr R Hitchcock (Westbourne Parish Council) – parish representative in objection

(b)  Mr W Green - applicant

In the course of his opening remarks as the local ward member Mr Dunn proposed a site visit by members in order to appreciate better the amount of existing development in this area and so the likely impact of the development envisaged in this application. His proposal was seconded by Mrs Tull.

Mr Oakley requested that a site visit should be used in part to consider whether the development would constitute an efficient use of land. Officers noted the suggestion.

The Planning Committee voted on a show of hands in favour of the proposal to defer the application for a member site visit by 11 votes to nil with two abstentions (one member not participating in the voting).  

Decision

Defer for a site visit by members.

Construction of decking platform to enable disabled angling and wildlife watching.

Approve

[Note Immediately prior to the start of this application Mrs Duncton withdrew from the committee table and moved to the public seating area in accordance with her earlier declaration of a prejudicial interest in respect of this item]

Mr Saunders explained this planning application for the construction of decking platform to enable disabled angling and wildlife watching and in so doing he referred to slides on the screens namely (a) an OS location plan (features identified) and an expanded version; (b) an aerial photograph and a close-up thereof; (c) plans of the decking; and (d) photographs (various views of decking, the car parking area and highway safety issues). The response by West Sussex County Council Highways (WSCCH) to safety issues was set out in para 4.2 of the report. The reasons for the officer recommendation to approve were set out in the executive summary and section 8 of the agenda report.

The agenda update sheet reported additional comments from Sutton and Barlavington Parish Council.

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee on this item:

(a)  Mrs J Duncton (Petworth Division) – West Sussex County Council member

(b)  Mr P Mills on behalf of Mrs A Mills (his mother) - objector

Mr Saunders and Mr Whitty answered members’ questions on points of details with respect to (a) the purpose of the increased decking area, which was to facilitate angling by wheelchair users rather than for the use of anglers generally, although that might also happen and (b) the possible need for WSCCH to clear vegetation on the verge to improve visibility for drivers approaching the pedestrian crossing.  

The Planning Committee voted on a show of hands in favour of the proposal to approve the application by 12 votes to nil with one abstention (Mrs Duncton did not participate because of her prejudicial interest).  

Decision

Recommendation to approve agreed.

[Note At the end of this application Mrs Duncton returned to her seat at the committee table]

Construction of farm house.

Approve

Mr Saunders explained this planning application for the construction of a farm house with reference to a series of slides shown on the screens namely (a) a location plan; (b) a site plan; (c) an aerial photograph; (d) photographs (various views); and (e) elevation drawings with floor plans. The reasons for the officer recommendation to approve were set out in the executive summary and section 8 of the agenda report.

There were no entries in the agenda update sheet. 

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee for this item:

(a)  Mr P Hanauer – supporter

(b)  Mr P Pollard – agent for the applicant

In the short discussion several members expressed support for the development.

The Planning Committee voted on a show of hands in favour of the proposal to approve the application by 13 votes to nil with no abstentions (one member did not participate in the voting).   

Decision

Recommendation to approve agreed.

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 Planning Committee received and noted the schedule of planning appeals, court and policy matters circulated with the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

The agenda update sheet contained no entries in respect of the schedule.

A member raised one point with respect to the schedule namely Section 2 – Decisions Received SDNP/15/04270/HOUS – The Coach House Eartham Lane Eartham West Sussex PO18 0LP – page 95, querying the reason for the officers’ decision not to challenge the inspector’s decision to allow appeal after the Planning Inspectorate had acknowledged that the inspector had applied a wrong test.

The same member also enquired and was advised as to the status of the following matters not on the agenda for this meeting but which had appeared in the schedule of outstanding contraventions circulated with the agenda for the Planning Committee’s meeting on 27 April 2016:

(1) The direct action being taken by CDC in respect of Decoy Farm Aldingbourne (O/ 03/00173/CONMHC) (page 278 of the aforesaid agenda).

(2) The following eight Birdham cases:

·         BI/14/00270/CONADV – The Barnyard Birdham Road Birdham (page 268)

·         BI/15/00139/CONSH – Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road (page 268)

·         BI/15/00194/CONTRV – Plot C – Land North West of Birdham Farm Birdham Road Chichester (page 269)

·         BI/15/00194/CONTRV - Plot D - Land North West of Birdham Farm Birdham Road Chichester (page 269)

·         BI/15/00139/CONSH – Plot C – Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road Chichester (page 269)

·         BI/15/00139/CONSH – Access and Track - Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road (page 269)

·         BI/15/00139/CONSH – Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road (page 270)

·         BI/15/00139/CONSH – Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road (page 270)

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the chairman at the start of this meeting (agenda item 3) 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 for urgent consideration at this meeting.

There are no restricted items for consideration by the Planning Committee at this meeting.

The Planning Committee did not resolve to exclude the press and public.