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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

He advised that item 5 and item 8 had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Apologies were received from Mrs Purnell and Mrs Tassell.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 15 November 2017.

Mr Oakley referred to Minute 79 (approval of minutes).  It had been agreed that following the new information that had come to light regarding the access in respect of CC/98/02043/OUT – Warrendell adjacent to Centurion Way off Plainwood Close, Chichester, the application would return to today’s Committee for further discussion. 

Mr Frost reported that officers were currently consulting with West Sussex County Council and the applicant on the new information, before the application could return to the Committee for a decision possibly in January or February 2018.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 November 2017 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 15 (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.

Mr Barrett declared a prejudicial interest in respect of planning applications CC/14/01018/OUT and BO/17/01800/FUL as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

Mrs Duncton declared a prejudicial interest in respect of planning applications SY/17/01458/DOM, KD/15/03367/FUL, EWB/17/01722/FUL, E/17/01911/FUL

CC/14/01018/OUT and BO/17/01800/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Hixson declared a prejudicial interest in respect of planning application CC/14/01018/OUT as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mrs Kilby declared a prejudicial interest in respect of planning application CC/14/01018/OUT as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mr Oakley declared a prejudicial interest in respect of planning applications SY/17/01458/DOM, KD/15/03367/FUL, EWB/17/01722/FUL, E/17/01911/FUL

CC/14/01018/OUT and BO/17/01800/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Plowman declared a prejudicial interest in respect of planning application CC/14/01018/OUT as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mr Plowman declared a prejudicial interest in respect of planning application CC/14/01018/OUT as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Area Advisory Committee.

Planning Applications

(To listen to the speakers and the full debate of the planning applications follow the link to the online recording)

The Committee considered the planning applications together with the agenda update sheet at the meeting detailing observations and amendments that had arisen subsequent to the despatch of the agenda. During the presentations by officers of the applications, members viewed photographs, plans, drawings, computerised images and artist impressions that were displayed on the screen.

RESOLVED

That the following decisions be made subject to the observations and amendments as set out below:-

Glasshouse, harvesting, packaging and cold store facilities.  Reservoirs and associated access and landscaping.

Application withdrawn from agenda

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

Proposed extension and alterations.

Defer for a member Site Visit

The following information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to the receipt of one further third party objection.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Mrs E S Wilkinson – Objector;

·       Mrs A Gaunt – Objector;

·       Mr G Mellett – Objector; and

·       Mr J W Elliott – CDC Ward Member

In response to members’ comments and questions, Mr Whitty advised that with regard to overlooking, if in the future any additional windows were added at first floor level on the side elevations, as a consequence of permitted development restrictions these would be required to have obscure glazing.  However, if the Committee wanted greater control a condition could be required to restrict this permitted development.  The external spiral staircase was not a full story height due to the ground floor of the building being set into the ground.

The legal advice received regarding the amount of demolition that had already taken place advised that the proposal amounted to an extension and not a new dwelling.  With regard to a comment made that condition 4 did not specify the double garage parking spaces as part of the parking provision for the site, this condition could be amended to require the garage to be maintained as a garage for parking purposes in the future.

Members felt unable to determine the impact of the proposed extension and alterations on the neighbouring properties and its impact on the surrounding area, including overlooking issues on the basis of the available details and accordingly they favoured a deferral of the application to enable a site visit by the Committee to take place.

Defer for a member Site Visit.

Erection of 1 no. custom/self build dwelling - Alternative to dwelling permitted by virtue of Class Q Prior Approval for Change of Use from Agriculture to Class C3 (Dwelling house) under SI/16/04026/PA3Q.

Permit with Section 106

Mrs Stevens reiterated the fall-back position in respect of this application for the erection of a dwelling, which carried significant weight in considering this application, as the principle of a residential dwelling had been established.

Mr Frost explained that the Government had radically extended permitted development rights for converting a range of buildings, including agricultural buildings to residential dwellings.  For Prior Approval cases (as previously determined for this site) the Planning Authority’s policies as set out in the Local Plan, with the exception of the assessment of certain technical matters, were not relevant.  Before the Committee was an application for a one for one replacement dwelling and members should base their decision on the policies in the Local Plan and judge, based on the strength of the fall-back position, whether as a consequence the proposal was acceptable or not.

Members favoured a condition that would remove permitted development rights contained within Part 1, Classes A – E  of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended and an informative noting that the foot print and height of the approved building shall accord with the approved plans.

RESOLVED

Recommendation to Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit with one additional condition (removal of permitted development within Part 1, Classes rights A - E) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended and one additional informative (relating to the footprint and height of the building) agreed.

Erection of 2 no. dwellings.

Application withdrawn by applicant

This application was withdrawn by the applicant.

Proposed construction of 54 residential dwellings and associated works.

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit

This application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on 11 October 2017 for further discussion with the applicant with regard to phasing.

Further information as reported on the agenda update sheet relating to the receipt of additional Parish Council comments, further supporting information received from the applicant and amended condition 3 was provided.

Mr Harris reported the outcome of a meeting held with planning officers, the applicant, Kirdford Parish Council and Mr Ransley, Wisborough Green Ward member to explore if phasing of the development for a longer period than five years was possible. Following this meeting, the applicant had withdrawn their original proposal regarding phasing and had advised the local planning authority that phasing could no longer be accommodated.  Officers were of the view that there were no planning policy, practical, or viability-related reasons or any other material considerations to justify the development not being carried out with at least some form of phasing. If no phasing was provided, this would be in conflict with a fundamental requirement of Kirdford Neighbourhood Plan Policy KS1.  Accordingly, whilst the applicant’s position was noted, the original recommendation to defer the application for the completion of a Section 106 agreement and to permit on the basis of a five-year phasing programme remained unchanged.  He referred to paragraph 8.29 of the report, concerning the Council’s five-year housing land supply, and advised that phasing over a period longer than five years was not supported by officers.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Mr T Piedade – Parish Representative;

·       Mrs L Nutting – Objector;

·       Mr P White – Agent; and

·       Mr J Ransley – CDC Ward Member

In responding to members’ questions and comments, Mr Harris explained that the scheme that officers were recommending was substantially in compliance with Neighbourhood Plan Policy KS1, and that an element of phasing was proposed as the policy required. He referred to paragraph 8.48 of the report that set out the details of the number of benefits that the development would provide.   The District Valuer had carried out a thorough evaluation and his view was that a five-year phased development would be financially viable but that phasing over a longer period was not.  The view of officers was that, providing the commencement of the development was not unduly delayed, the dwellings that resulted from a five-year phasing programme would contribute towards the Council’s current five-year housing land supply.  He referred to recent appeal decisions where planning inspectors had reached a view on what they considered to be the Council’s housing land supply, which had resulted in officers reassessing the Council’s supply and publishing an updated position statement concluding that the Council currently had a 5.3 year housing land supply.  

Mr Frost added that the Council was of the view that it had a robust five-year housing land supply.  In the event that the officer recommendation was agreed by the committee, if the applicant was not willing to sign the Section 106 agreement due to the obligations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

Change of use of a former holiday park to agricultural workers accommodation and associated works for a temporary period until 31st October 2019.

Permit

The following information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to an amendment to condition 1.

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Mr M Brown

Mr Bushell responded to members’ questions and comments.  With regard to the marketing of the site, the Local Plan requirement for the applicant to demonstrate credible marketing was only required if the proposal was for a permanent change of use. As this was an application for a temporary use, if permitted, its use would revert back to holiday accommodation at the end of the one year temporary permission.  He confirmed that the current marketing of the site for holiday accommodation would not be compromised by the temporary use.  If a future application was received for a permanent use other than for holiday accommodation, officers would consider carefully how cogent the marketing exercise had been.  He acknowledged that both horticulture and tourism were key aspects of the District’s local economy.  Any loss of the site as holiday accommodation would require significant justification.  With regard to the use of private cars, officers would establish with the applicant the restrictions that would be placed on their use more fully through the travel plan condition.  With regard to the routing of vehicles, West Sussex County Council did not require a routing plan and it was noted that there had been no restrictions in place when the site had been in use as holiday accommodation.  However, officers agreed to encourage the applicant to explore a routing agreement through the travel plan condition.

Members favoured an amendment to the first line of condition 1 to read “The use of the site shall be for the accommodation of agricultural workers and site related ancillary staff…”.

Recommendation to Permit with amended conditions 1 and 6 agreed.

(Mrs Duncton left the meeting room and did not return for the remainder of the meeting)

Erection of 1 no. custom/self build dwelling - alternative to dwelling permitted by virtue of Class Q Prior Approval for change of use from agriculture to Class C3 (dwellinghouse) under E/15/02353/PA3Q.

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Mrs L Chater – Parish Representative

In responding to members’ questions and comments, Mr Whitty advised that the proposed use was for a permanent dwelling for the applicant’s son.  There were no planning legislation controls to prevent the use of the proposed dwelling as a holiday let unless any harm it would cause could be demonstrated.  With regard to the amenity space proposed, there were no minimum amenity space standards required for this type of application.  Any encroachment of the amenity space onto adjoining land would require a planning application for a change of use.  However, a condition could be required in respect of the boundary treatments to ensure that they were robust and retained.  Mr Whitty advised an additional condition that would remove permitted development rights A-E and an informative limiting the footprint and height to ensure it accorded with the approved plans could be required.

Recommendation to Defer for a Section 106 agreement with one additional condition (removal of permitted development within Part 1, Classes A-E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended and one additional informative (relating to the footprint and height of the building) then Permit agreed.

Outline application for Graylingwell Park including Kingsmead Avenue incorporating revised masterplan layout for up to 218 dwellings. Proposals include increased overall parking provision, revised architectural styling, CCDT community buildings, revised employment floor space, a C2 care home, works to Havenstoke Park to include re-location of children's play area, and a gated car parking area for temporary event parking.

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit

(Mr Hixson and Mr McAra returned to the meeting for this item only)

The following information was reported on the agenda update sheet concerning an amended location plan and a clarification of the recommendation as the application was now for a lower number of dwellings than previously proposed.

Mr Bushell answered a number of questions and comments.  With regard to the 60%-40% east/west traffic split, condition 20 required the bus gates that would control that split to be in place within three months following the granting of planning permission.  The school land option was reserved for ten years from the date of the signing of the original Section 106 agreement i.e. until 19 August 2019 and the size of the proposed site remained the same as originally proposed.  With regard to revisions made to the proposed conditions since the application was originally considered by the Committee, there had been some changes to the text of the conditions and the ‘FUL’ components of the hybrid application had been deleted as the wooded hamlet extension and three new flats part of the development had now been carried out.  A CIL payment would be required for the 218 dwellings remaining in the balance to be built in place of the former Section 106 obligations concerning highways atters removed from the revised Section 106 agreement.  With regard to the landscaping of the eastern fringe this was as originally proposed and would be dealt with by way of condition 44.  The opportunity for cycle access points to Carse Road and Mansbergh Road would be dealt with as part of the reserved matters application.

Recommendation to Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit agreed.

(Mr Hixson and Mr McAra left the meeting room and did not return for the remainder of the meeting)

Retention and use of existing bungalow as holiday accommodation.

Permit with Section 106 agreement

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Ms J Copsey – Parish Representative; and

·       Mr M Upton-Brown – Applicant

Mr Whitty advised that this application had been considered very carefully by officers and that a decision to permit would not create a precedent for such proposals as each application had to be assessed on its own merits.

Recommendation to Permit with Section 106 agreement 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 Committee noted the schedule of planning appeals, court and policy matters circulated with the agenda.

The following information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to 6. Court and Other Matters and a challenge to the Planning Inspector’s decision letter in respect of Land at River Farm, Brookfield Lane, Tillington, and a correction under Court Hearings concerning Decoy Farm, Aldingbourne.

3. Current Appeals:

15/00202/CONAGR - Oakham Farm, Church Lane, Oving: Officers undertook to liaise with the Enforcement Manager concerning a question regarding the traffic impact from the use of the site on the narrow country lanes and update members accordingly.

6. Court and Other Matters:

Land East of Breach Avenue, Southbourne: Miss Golding reported that the Council’s letter before claim had not resulted in in the agreement of all parties to quash the planning inspector’s decision letter.  An application to the High Court had been made by the Council the previous day and the papers served on the relevant parties.  The next stage would be a permission hearing to hear the skeleton arguments.  Depending on the workload of the court it was expected that a date for the hearing would be set for the end of January 2018.

The Chairman wished the Committee and officers a merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.