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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

Apologies were received from Mr Barrett and Mrs Tassell.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 24 May 2017 (copy to follow).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 May 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 12 (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.

Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in applications SB/16/03803/FUL, SY/17/00447/FUL and CH/16/04132/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Hayes declared a personal interest in application SB/16/03803/FUL as a member of Southbourne Parish Council.

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in applications SB/16/03803/FUL, SY/17/00447/FUL and CH/16/04132/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in applications SB/16/03803/FUL, SY/17/00447/FUL and CH/16/04132/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council.

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

Planning Applications

The Committee considered the planning applications together with an agenda

update sheet at the meeting detailing 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 screen.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Committee makes the following decisions subject to the

observations and amendments below:

Variation of Condition 4 of planning permission WR/14/00748/OUT - to seek an alternative mix of accommodation to that previously sought.

Defer for a Section 106 Agreement then Permit and if the Section 106 agreement is not completed by 21 August 2017 Refuse.

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to the amendment of the application’s suffix from ‘FUL’ to ‘OUT’.

Miss Bell explained that the application to vary condition 4 for existing planning permission WR/14/00686/FUL sought an alternative mix of accommodation to that previously sought.  The mix of dwellings granted was for 5 x 4 bedroom units and this application now sought permission for 5 x 4+ bedroom units.

Miss Golding provided advice concerning the amendment of condition 4 and said that in effect a new outline permission would be issued if approved.  The law did not provide for a change of time limits for submitting the reserved matters or the time when development should be begun from the date of original outline planning permission.  Members were referred to page 11 of the report, which set out the details of condition 1, which dealt with the submission of reserved matters.  Paragraph (ii) of the condition required reserved matters to be submitted before the expiration of two years from 17 March 2015.  The deadline for the submission of reserved matters by 17 March 2017 had already expired and, therefore, could never be implemented. Miss Golding went on to explain that there was an outstanding reserved matters on the original outline planning permission but this existing reserved matters application could not be applied against a new outline application.  There had been correspondence with the applicant’s agent who had decided not to address the Committee today but had advised he still wanted the application to be considered to understand if the Committee found the amendment to be acceptable.  She advised that the recommendation should be amended as follows “Recommendation – Defer for a Section 106 Agreement then Permit and if the Section 106 agreement is not completed by 31 August 2017 Refuse”.

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Mr A Jackson – Parish representative

Members requested an amendment to condition 4 to read 1 x 4 bedroom units and 4 x 5 bedroom units, which would give some degree of certainty of the sizes of the dwellings to be built. 

Recommendation to Defer for a Section 106 Agreement then Permit with amended condition 4 agreed and if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 31 August 2017 Refuse.

Retrospective planningapplication to extend an existing stable block to include an additional stable and a rest area with shower room.

Permit

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to the amendment of condition 2 and condition 4.

The Chairman subsequently advised the Committee of amendments to the agenda update sheet.  With regard to condition 2, the hours should be amended to read “between the hours of 06:00 to 20:00 hours”.  The agenda update sheet should refer to condition 3 and not condition 4.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Mr R Briscoe – Parish representative;

·       Mr M Wood – Objector; and

·       Mr D Bowerman - Agent

Members favoured an additional condition to prevent the stables from being used for commercial purposes.

Recommendation to Permit subject to amended conditions 2 and 3 and one additional condition (private use only) agreed.

The construction of 55 no housing units with associated parking, landscaping and access on the Land.

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit.

The following additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to further representation from Southern Water, amendments to proposed conditions 5, 8 and 11.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Mr S Chandler – Objector;

·       Ms D McNaugher – Objector;

·       Ms L Marchment – Objector;

·       Mr R Seabrook – Supporter;

·       Mr E Van der Wee – Applicant; and

·       Mr J Brown – CDC member

Miss Bell responded to members’ questions and comments.  With regard to the objectors’ concerns that a service road south of the site was no longer proposed, she understood that this proposal had initially been included in the preparation of the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan.  The proposal would have provided a buffer between the rear gardens of adjoining properties and provided parking for the residents of 1-4 Elm Grove to deal with the lack of parking currently available.  However, for a number of reasons it had not been possible to provide a service road and additional parking at that location due to issues that had arisen concerning the sewer and third party ownership of land.  The parking for 1-4 Elm Grove had therefore been provided adjacent to the site access.  The proposed open space surrounding the development would protect the site from further development as the housing element of the scheme was required to sit within the black line boundary as required by the Neighbourhood Plan following the extension of the settlement area boundary.

Mr Henly responded to concerns raised by members regarding the discharge of surface water into the surrounding drainage network and how much confidence there was that the proposed arrangements would maintain the initial design capability and not result in increased discharge. Mr Henly provided details of how the proposed scheme would be designed to stop this happening. He confirmed that with regard to the finished floor levels of the proposed dwellings, they were proposed to be 300mm above ground level which was best practice. 

Members favoured a number of additional conditions as follows: 1) Officers to check the open space access points and if appropriate include a condition to secure them, 2) The non-retention of excavated spoil, 3) Bin storage details, 4) The provision of electric charging points, and 5) Provision of broadband infrastructure.  Members also favoured the amendment of condition 21 concerning surface water drainage to secure a 40% allowance, instead of 30%, for climate change and maintenance, which would take into account current legislation, and also to require full maintenance details of the proposed drainage system. 

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit with amended conditions 5, 8, 11 and 21, and five additional conditions (open space access points, non-retention of excavated spoil, bin storage details, electric charging points and broadband infrastructure) agreed.

Change of use of existing agricultural workers accommodation to 10 no. residential dwellings and associated works.

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit.

This application had been deferred at the Planning Committee held on 26 April 2017 for a site visit, which was held on 20 June 2017 to investigate with the applicant the re-location of the bin store away from the immediate neighbouring property to the north, the provision of amenity space for proposed occupants, the number of units, improving access for pedestrians/cyclists, and evidence of need for agricultural workers accommodation.

The following information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to an update to the information in paragraphs 6.5 and 8.28, amended condition 5 and two additional conditions (adequate and satisfactory provision for refuse storage, and communal open space boundary treatment).

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

·       Mr C Alden – Parish representative; and

·       Mr A Hughes – Agent

Miss Bell provided details of the steps that the applicant had taken to address a number of the Committee’s concerns,which included the extension of the red line boundary area to include communal open space, the provision of a marked safe route for pedestrians, the previously proposed bin and cycle store would now be a bin and general store, and the proposed new bin store location was already in situ.  No changes were proposed to the vehicular access on to Chichester Road from the site.

The Committee favoured one further additional condition to ensure that the necessary infrastructure was in place for the provision of broadband and an amendment to condition 13 to include a requirement for a safe route to the proposed bin store.

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit with amended conditions 5 and 13, and three additional conditions (satisfactory disabled access, communal open space boundary treatment, broadband infrastructure) agreed.

(Mr Hixson left the meeting at this point and did not return)

Reuse of previously developed land for residential development of 10 no. dwellings and associated works.

Withdrawn from the Agenda.

This application was withdrawn from the agenda in order to give full consideration to a legal opinion submitted by the applicant.

The Planning Committee are requested to adopt the Local Validation List as a document in validating planning applications from 1 July 2017 as set out in appendix 1 to this report.

The Committee considered the revised Local List (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mr Whitty outlined the report and advised of the requirements in the National Planning Policy Framework that local planning authorities should publish a Local List that gave details of the information required to support a valid planning application.  He advised that the current Local List was out of date.  The revised Local List had been split into two parts.  Part 1 set out the National requirements and Part 2 set out the Local requirements.  The Local List was a useful document for the Validation Team and planning officers as it would ensure that the correct information was submitted with planning applications. 

In response to members’ questions and comments, Mr Whitty advised that the purpose of the Local List was to request information concerning the key issues and should not be so extensive that it was unworkable.  Additional information required for a particular planning application could be requested later if appropriate.  The various statutory and non-statutory consultees had been consulted on the document.  With regard to the quality of the plans received he confirmed that there was no requirement for plans to be submitted in colour, although for larger developments to be considered by the Planning Committee officers would request additional plans.

Officers undertook to provide a few examples of good practice in the Local List regarding the submission of plans.

RESOLVED

That the Local List (set out in appendix 1 to the report) be adopted as a document in validating planning applications from 1 July 2017.

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 received and noted this report (copy attached to the official minutes).