Agenda, decisions and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday 14 November 2018 9.30 am

Venue: Committee Rooms, East Pallant House. View directions

Contact: Katherine Davis or Lisa Higenbottam  Email:  kdavis@chichester.gov.uk or  lhigenbottam@chichester.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

233.

Chairman's Announcements

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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure.

 

Apologies were received from Mr Dunn, Mr Elliott and Mr McAra.

 

234.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 17 October 2018 (copy to follow).

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2018 be approved and signed by the Chairman subject to the correction of a  typo under Minute number 222, to read Mr G Barrett.

 

235.

Urgent Items

The Chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 13 (b).

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

 

236.

Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 54 KB

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.

 

 

 

Minutes:

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in planning application EWB/18/00753/OUT as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

 

Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in planning applications CC/18/02538/FUL, EWB/18/00753/OUT, BO/17/02114/FUL, CC/18/01188/FUL, CC/18/01189/LBC, E/18/00578/FUL, E/18/02199/FUL and EWB/17/03043/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Mr Hayes declared a personal interest in planning applications CC/18/01188/FUL, CC/18/01189/LBC as an employee of West Sussex County Council.

 

Mr Hixson declared a personal interest in planning applications CC/18/02538/FUL, CC/18/01188/FUL and CC/18/01189/LBC as a member of Chichester City Council.

 

Mrs Kilby declared a personal interest in planning applications CC/18/02538/FUL, CC/18/01188/FUL and CC/18/01189/LBC as a member of Chichester City Council.

 

Mrs Kilby declared a personal interest in planning application CC/18/02538/FUL as a Chichester District Council appointed reserve member of the Chichester Business Improvement District.

 

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in planning applications CC/18/02538/FUL, CC/18/01188/FUL and CC/18/01189/LBC as a member of Chichester City Council.

 

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in planning applications CC/18/02538/FUL, CC/18/01188/FUL and CC/18/01189/LBC as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee.

 

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in planning application CC/18/02538/FUL as the event organiser of Priory Park 100.  This declaration was different from his original prejudicial interest declaration made at the previous meeting on 17 October 2018, which he had made as Chairman of the Friends of Priory Park following officer advice received.  He advised that he was no longer the Chairman or a member of the Friends of Priory Park.  With regard to the issue of predetermination, he advised that he did not believe he had done so and advised that he would approach the planning application with an open mind.

 

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in planning applications CC/18/02538/FUL, EWB/18/00753/OUT, BO/17/02114/FUL, CC/18/01188/FUL, CC/18/01189/LBC, E/18/00578/FUL, E/18/02199/FUL and EWB/17/03043/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in planning applications CC/18/02538/FUL, EWB/18/00753/OUT, BO/17/02114/FUL, CC/18/01188/FUL, CC/18/01189/LBC, E/18/00578/FUL, E/18/02199/FUL and EWB/17/03043/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Planning Applications

 

The Committee considered the planning applications together with an agenda update sheet and supplementary agenda update sheet at the meeting detailing the observations and amendments that had arisen subsequent to the dispatch 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 screens.

 

RESOLVED

 

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

237.

CC/18/02538/FUL - Priory Park, Priory Lane, Chichester, PO19 1BL pdf icon PDF 808 KB

Temporary change of use to Christmas ice rink with ancillary food and drink uses, including the installation and removal of ancillary temporary structures.

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

This application had been considered at the previous meeting held on 17 October 2018 and delegated to officers to determine subject to no objection being received from Historic England and no new significant material considerations being raised through third party representations.  However, the application had been brought back to the Committee for determination following material changes made to the proposed temporary ice rink.  These changes included the use of ballast (no detail of fixing was originally proposed and pegs into the ground had subsequently been suggested) to secure the marquee and the relocation of one of the tech zones. 

 

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to further comments from Chichester District Council Environmental Health that included conditions recommended to the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing  Sub-Committee and CDC Drainage Engineer, 8 further third party objections, applicant’s further supporting information, addendum to conditions 7 and 9, two additional conditions (noise complaint system) and (deliveries/waste collections), and that the recommendation remained to permit subject to the conditions, as amended.

 

Mr Whitty reported a further proposed condition concerning the playing of recorded music that required sound levels, other than agreed live music, not to exceed 5dB(A) above the background level noise 15 minute Leq.  

 

Mr Walling reported that the concerns of Environmental Protection were about the likelihood of an overnight 24/7 operation.  The applicant’s acoustic consultant had undertaken a desk based modelling study.  However, as the study did not involve any noise output for the chiller units or the generator, officers were keen to ensure that the levels outside were reduced by 15db to meet the World Health Organisation and BS8233:2014 standards. Therefore, he advised that there was a sound basis for the noise reduction assumptions and officers were content that the proposed attenuation measures would meet the required standards.  Officers were content that the revised layout met the necessary requirements.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

·         Mr S Ellis – Objector (Mrs Ellis spoke on his behalf)

·         Mr A Green – Objector

·         Mr B Dean – Objector

·         Mr T Bottrill – Objector

·         Mr T Lecompete – Objector

·         Mr P Robinson – Objector

·         Mr S McGee – Supporter

·         Mrs L Wilson – Supporter

·         Mr C Salmon – Supporter

·         Mr C Spink - Supporter

·         Mr A Moss – Chichester District Council member

·         Mr E White – Applicant

 

Officers responded to comments made by the public speakers:

·      Miss Golding advised that the two functions of the Council as landowner and local planning authority were totally separate. The law provided that where the Council was the applicant the Council must consider and decide their own planning applications on an objective basis.

·      Mr Frost referred to the separate statutory processes and advised that the Committee would decide the application on behalf of the Planning Authority and consider the planning issues.  A section of the report set out the other matters that were not material planning considerations.  The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee would consider the licensing of the event and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237.

238.

EWB/18/00753/OUT - South Downs Holiday Village, Bracklesham Lane, Bracklesham Bay, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 8JE pdf icon PDF 488 KB

Redevelopment of the former South Downs Holiday Park with the erection of 85 dwellings with vehicular access, Local Equipped Area for Play, public open space, landscaping, footpath links and other related infrastructure.

Decision:

Deferred for further information

Minutes:

This application was withdrawn from the agenda of the meeting held on 19 September 2018 in order to address issues relating to the proposed Clappers Lane access to the site, which had now been removed from the proposals.

 

Additional comments were reported on the agenda update sheet relating to further comment from East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council and two further objections.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

·         Mr B Reeves – Parish representative (East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council)

·         Mrs S Simpson – Parish representative (Earnley Parish Council)

·         Ms M Smith – Objector

·         Mr J Greenberg – Agent

·         Mr K Martin – Chichester District Council Member

 

Mr Bushell answered members’ questions and comments. 

·           The Local Plan was clear as to what the marketing requirements were for a site where there was an existing tourism use which would be lost as in this case.  Policy 30 referred to tourist accommodation. Where the proposal would result in the loss of that accommodation, Appendix E required a period of 12-18 months marketing to demonstrate that the site had not attracted an alternative tourism user.  It was clear to officers from the evidence that had been received, that sufficient marketing had taken place.  The site had received some initial interest from a number of holiday operators but this had not been pursued further, with the main reasons given being that the size of the site was too small and the large capital investment required to bring the site back into use to modern standards in order to meet holiday makers expectations.  Clear reference to ‘hotel use’ and ‘holiday park’ had been made in the advertising material which was spread across a number of different platforms.

·           Although the Local Plan suggested housing densities of about 35 dwellings per hectare was appropriate, higher densities could be appropriate depending on local circumstances including transport links and the range of facilities nearby.  He gave examples of other sites nearby which ranged between 17-40 dwellings per hectare and explained the reasons for these densities.  The National Planning Policy Framework was clear in encouraging as much reuse of brownfield or ‘previously developed’ land as possible, optimising the use of the site and avoiding low densities. The development was located adjacent to a settlement hub which in terms of Local Plan policy 2 was the second most sustainable level of settlement in the District.

·           WSCC Highways had no objection to the proposal in terms of the traffic impact, which would result in a net increase of 71 extra movements over the existing holiday use each day or to the indicative vehicle tracking drawing.

·           With regard to the dwellings with driveways directly onto Clappers Lane, the plans before the Committee showed an illustrative only layout.    As part of any subsequent reserved matters application the layout could be amended to show access and parking at the back of these dwellings..

·           It may be more appropriate to have a lower density along the Bracklesham Lane and Clappers Lane frontages  ...  view the full minutes text for item 238.

239.

BO/17/02114/FUL - Hove To Smugglers Lane, Bosham, PO18 8QP pdf icon PDF 579 KB

Demolition of existing dwelling, ancillary accommodation and outbuildings. Erection of a single dwelling, and ancillary accommodation with associated hard and soft landscaping.

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

This application was the subject of a member site visit held on Monday 12 November 2018.

 

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet correcting the location plan.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·         Mr A Chapman

·         Mr G Fox - Agent

 

The Committee having visited the site considered 1) that the proposed replacement dwelling and ancillary accommodation was an improvement on the existing dwelling and ancillary accommodation and 2) that the proposal was in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

240.

CC/18/01188/FUL and CC/18/01189/LBC - 25 West Street, Chichester, PO19 1QW pdf icon PDF 504 KB

Change of use from use classes B1 (offices) and A1 (retail) to a single residential dwelling.

Decision:

CC/18/01188/FUL: Permit with Section 106

 

CC/18/01189/LBC: Permit

 

 

Minutes:

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·         Mr K Niazi-Borumand - Objector

·         Mr P Cleveland - Agent

 

Mrs Stevens responded to the objector’s comments concerning the marketing of the premises for office use, advising that a number of parties had expressed an interest.  The Council’s Economic Development Service had confirmed that the offers made were not close enough to the price sought by the applicant, which they considered was a reasonable valuation.

 

During the discussion some members, although noting that the retail unit was not in a primary or secondary shopping frontage location, raised concern about the loss of a retail unit in this location.  However, the majority of members accepted that in light of adequate marketing that had taken place the proposed change of use to a residential dwelling was justified.

 

CC/18/01188/FUL

 

Recommendation to Permit with Section 106 Agreement agreed.

 

CC/18/01189/LBC

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

241.

E/18/00578/FUL - 113 Second Avenue, Almodington, Earnley, PO20 7LF pdf icon PDF 135 KB

Change of Use from Agriculture to 2no Dwellings - Amendments to Part 3, Class Q Prior Approval permission - E/17/03461/PA3Q - Changes to fenestration; insertion of rooflights; proposed canopy porches and insertion of flues.

Decision:

Defer for Section 106 then Permit

Minutes:

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet amending the location plan, advising that Earnley Parish Council had withdrawn their objection, amended paragraph 8.18 and amended condition 12.

 

Recommendation to Defer for a Section 106 Agreement then Permit with amended condition 12agreed.

242.

E/18/02199/FUL - Dragons Lair, Third Avenue, Almodington, Earnley, PO20 7LB pdf icon PDF 344 KB

Subdivision of annexe from Dragon cottage and combining with existing orangery to form new 3 bedroom dwelling.

Decision:

Refuse

Minutes:

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet regarding additional information received from the applicant, an addendum to the planning history, deletion of refusal reason no. 5 and one additional informative.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·         Mrs C Durant – Applicant

·         Mrs S Taylor – CDC member

 

Responding to the public speakers’ comments, Mrs Stevens advised that the updated National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 79) allowed the sub-division of isolated dwellings within the rural area. Recent case law had defined that for a dwelling to be isolated it had to be physically isolated from other buildings.  Consideration of isolation was not just about access to goods and services and the facilities required to support the development.  Therefore, where previously in some instances dwellings would have been defined as an isolated dwelling in the rural area, that argument would no longer hold up as case law had made the accepted approach clear.  With regard to the planning appeal decision (17/00013/REF), the Planning Inspector did not expressly state that the location was isolated but suggested it was in an unsustainable location in the countryside.  Officers had addressed this issue in the Committee report and had advised that the site was situated in the rural area where new residential development would not normally be accepted unless there was special justification for it.  There was none in this case and therefore was the reason officers considered the proposal was not acceptable in principle

 

Recommendation to Refuse agreed.

243.

EWB/17/03043/FUL - Sea Home, 20 Meadows Road, East Wittering, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 8NW pdf icon PDF 343 KB

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

Decision:

Defer for a member site visit

Minutes:

 

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to further consultee comment received from WSCC, one additional condition (first occupation) and confirmation that recommendation remains to defer for a Section 106 agreement then permit.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·         Ms L Gillett – Objector

·         Mr D Clapton – Objector

 

During the course of debate, members expressed concern about the proposed development, in particular the distance between the proposed two dwellings and in relation to the location of dwelling B on the eastern boundary to be accessed from Wessex Avenue and its distance to the highway.

 

With regard to overlooking, Mr Whitty responded that although there would be elements of first floor living, the dormers would have no windows and therefore was an exception to the separation distance guidance.  In response to a question concerning the site being located at the edge of East Wittering settlement boundary with dwelling A being hard up to the northern edge and the parking area for dwelling B being hard up to the northern edge, it was accepted that there was some opportunity for planting along the eastern boundary of dwelling B.

 

In light of these concerns it was agreed to Defer the application for a member Site Visit.

244.

Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters pdf icon PDF 127 KB

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

Minutes:

The Committee noted the schedule of planning appeals, court and policy matters that had been circulated with the agenda.

 

6.Court and Other Matters

 

River Farm: The appellant had made an application to apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  The enforcement notice still stood.

 

Breach Avenue, Southbourne: A decision on the Council’s application to apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was still awaited.