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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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 everyone to the meeting and drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure which was displayed on the screens.  He introduced the officers present.

Apologies were received from Mr Barrett.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 7 December 2016.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2016 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

The Chairman advised that 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.

Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications

O/16/01785/FUL and CC/16/03435/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mrs Kilby declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications O/16/01785/FUL and CC/16/03435/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mr McAra declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications

O/16/01785/FUL and CC/16/03435/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications

O/16/01785/FUL and CC/16/03435/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning application

O/16/01785/FUL as a member of Tangmere Parish Council.

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications O/16/01785/FUL and CC/16/03435/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council.

The Committee considered the planning applications together with an agenda update sheet at the meeting detailing the observations and amendments that had arisen subsequent to the dispatch of the Agenda (copy of both documents attached to the official Minutes).

During the presentations by officers of the applications, members viewed photographs, plans, drawings, computerised images and artist impressions that were displayed on the screens.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Committee makes the following decisions subject to the observations and amendments below:

Removal of conditions 9 and 11 from planning permission O/11/05283/OUT which require the closure of the Oving Traffic Lights and to retain the junction as it currently functions

That the contents of the Direction from the Secretary of State, Department for Transport be noted and that in light of the Direction which directs indefinite non-approval of the planning application, defer for a period of 12 months or until there is a preferred A27 route announcement regarding the A27 by the Department of Transport, whichever is earlier.

The Committee considered this report (copy attached to the official minutes)

This item had been deferred at the previous meeting as relevant parties had not received official notification of this item appearing on the Committee agenda.

Mr Bushell introduced this report regarding the application by Oving Parish Council  to retain the traffic light controlled junction at the A27 Oving crossroads functioning as it currently does. He reminded members of their decision at the Committee meeting held on 14 September 2016 to defer the planning application, to the Secretary of State (SOS).  He informed members of the contents of the Direction received by the Council on 14 November 2016 from the SOS, Department for Transport, which directed an indefinite non-approval of the planning application and the reasons for that decision.  He explained that the Department for Transport had issued an explanatory email also dated 14 November 2016 regarding its decision that clarified the options open to the Committee, which were either to refuse or not determine the application.  The SOS’s direction meant that the Council could not approve the application.

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Mr S Schuyleman

Mrs Kilby read out a statement from Mr Barrett who was unable to attend today’s Committee meeting. 

During the discussion, members pointed out that due to the ongoing uncertainty about the A27 improvement proposals, the situation regarding the necessity to close of the Oving crossroads traffic lights may change in future.  They considered, therefore, that a decision on the application should be deferred until a preferred route was announced by Highways England.  In light of the ongoing A27 proposals it was suggested that the Committee should defer its decision for a period of 12 months.  Members considered that a deferral would give the applicant, Oving Parish Council the opportunity to carry out the technical assessment and traffic modelling work which was required as part of their planning application in order to assess the impact on the highway network. Officers understood that this had not been carried out due to the prohibitively high cost of considering all of the A27 options that were still under consideration at the present time

A proposal to defer the application for a period of 12 months or until there is a preferred route announcement by the Department of Transport, whichever is sooner was carried.

RESOLVED

That the contents of the Direction from the Secretary of State, Department for Transport be noted and that in light of the Direction which directs indefinite non-approval of the planning application, defer the application for a period of 12 months or until there is a preferred route announcement by the Department of Transport, whichever is sooner.

Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of 2 no. detached dwellings

Recommendation to Permit with condition 10 removedagreed.

Additional information reported on the agenda update sheet relating to a correction to the applicant’s name.

Mrs Duncton arrived at the meeting during the discussion of this item and therefore did not take part in the vote on the officer recommendation.

The following members of public addressed the Committee:

·       Mr R Reeves – Parish representative;

·       Mr R Howard – Objector;

·       Mr C Partridge – Objector; and

·       Mr P Hughes – Agent

Mrs Kilby read out a statement from Mr Barrett who was unable to attend today’s meeting.

Mr Whitty responded to members’ comments and questions.  He was not aware of the basis of the Environment Agency’s change to the flood risk zones from 2 and 3 to zone 1, which had happened since the refusal of a previous planning application for this site on flooding grounds.  He confirmed that the requirement to retain the hedging along the pathways to the rear gardens for both the proposed dwellings would allow adequate width for bicycles etc, although it may require any overhanging branches to be cut back.

Mr Whitty also addressed comments made by the public speakers that the proposed dwellings were not reflective of the frontages of neighbouring dwellings and advised that there were a varied range and style of frontages in the locality.

The Committee favoured the removal of proposed condition 10 that related to permitted development rights as it was not deemed necessary to restrict the erection of sheds due to the likelihood that a seaside property would require storage of paraphernalia, such as surf boards.

Recommendation to Permit with Section 106 agreement subject to the deletion of proposed condition 10 agreed.

(Mr Oakley left the meeting during an adjournment and did not return for the remainder of the meeting).

6 no. proposed business units, use class B2/B8 with ancillary trade counter use, with associated parking and servicing

Recommendation to Permit with informative 1 amended agreed.

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to a correction to the applicant’s name.

In responding to members’ questions and comments, Mr Bushell advised that

The number of parking spaces proposed was well within the maximum standards required by the Highways Authority.  It was not uncommon to find limited amounts of landscaping on an industrial site.  Condition 19 restricted trade counter space to no more than 40% of the net ground floor area.

Members favoured an amendment to informative 1 restricting signage to areas shown on the approved plans.

Recommendation to Permit with amended informative 1 agreed.

That the Waste Storage and Collection – Guidance for New Housing Developments (set out in Appendix 1 to this report) be approved as a guidance and standards document in determining planning applications for new residential and commercial development

That the Waste Storage and Collection – Guidance for New Housing Developments (set out in Appendix 1 to this report) as a guidance and standards document in determining planning applications for new residential and commercial development be approved subject to minor amendment.

The Committee considered this report (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mr Whitty introduced the report and outlined the purpose of the Waste Storage and Collection – Guidance for New Housing Developments and the outcomes to be achieved.  The guidance would provide developers with information at the early stages of a planning application, enabling them to provide adequate room for the tracking of refuse vehicle movements, toadhere to specifications for external storage areas and the collection requirements for un-adopted (private) roads.  The dimensions of refuse vehicles would be provided in the guidance to enable developers to track vehicle movements themselves.  

Mrs Kilby read out comments on behalf of Mr Barrett who was unable to attend the meeting.

Mrs Tull read out a suggestion from Mr Oakley, who had left the meeting early, to add to Section 12 a requirement for 5.5 metres minimum road widths in new housing estates.

Officers responded to members’ questions and comments as follows:

Mr Riley confirmed that the document had been produced as a guidance tool for developers to encourage them to make adequate provision for waste and storage provision.  Following talks with other local authorities in the County it was expected that they would be producing similar guidance documents in future.  With regard to garden waste, it was not obligatory for residents to compost, but it was something that the Council would like to encourage.  He advised that the Council had two small refuse vehicles to deal with narrow roads/access issues.  He advised that refuse vehicles experienced difficulty getting access in urban areas and officers were looking at purchasing slim line refuse vehicles to resolve this issue.

In response to a suggestion that parish councils should receive a copy of the Guidance, Mr Whitty advised that that the document would be placed on the Council’s website and agreed to circulate a link to the parishes.  He added that a link to the Guidance would also be circulated to planning agents. Although it was guidance rather than policy, if developers did not take it into account, then their scheme may not accord with the policies of the Development Plan and could be refused as they would be deemed as unacceptable.  With regard to Mr Oakley’s suggestion that there should be minimum road widths, such a requirement would be too prescriptive.  He confirmed that the South Downs National Park Authority would use the guidance as a tool when dealing with planning applications. 

The following amendments to the draft Guidance were agreed:

·       Amendment of the front cover title to include “…within Chichester District”.

·       Amendment of the introduction text to make it clear that the Guidance covered the whole of the Chichester District.;

·       Inclusion of text advising that the Guidance is also applied to conservation areas within the District;

The Committee endorsed the work of the Contract Management Team in preparing the Guidance, which they considered would be a very useful document.  They also commented on the excellent collection service that the refuse operatives provided.

RESOLVED

That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

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 considered and noted the schedule of planning appeals, court and policy matters (copy attached to the official minutes).

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to 6) Court and Other Matters providing an update on the court hearings that have now taken place in respect of Nell Ball Farm and 1 The Quell Cottages.

1 – New Appeals: Officers undertook to clarify outside of the meeting if ‘Plaistow’ was the correct parish in respect of SDNP/15/00361/COU – Old Hearne Farm, Jays Lane, Lurgashall.