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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 13 December 2017 (copy to follow).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 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 10 (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 respect of applications CC/17/02571/REM, SY/17/01458/DOM and WW/17/02592/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in respect of application SDNP/17/01998/FUL as a West Sussex County Council appointed member of the South Downs National Park Authority. 

Mr Hall declared a personal interest in respect of application CC/17/02571/REM as a former member of Graylingwell Cricket Club.

Mr Hixson declared a personal interest in respect of application CC/17/02571/REM as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mrs Kilby declared a personal interest in respect of application CC/17/02571/REM as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of applications CC/17/02571/REM, SY/17/01458/DOM and WW/17/02592/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in respect of application CC/17/02571/REM as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of applications CC/17/02571/REM, SY/17/01458/DOM and WW/17/02592/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mrs Purnell also declared a personal interest in respect of application SY/17/01458/DOM as a member of Selsey Town Council.

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 and 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:-

Application for the approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning permission CC/15/00743/OUT for the development of 160 new homes and associated works at the Lower Graylingwell site.

Permit.

Information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to additional third party objections from the University of Chichester and the residents of Penny Acre, further comments from West Sussex County Council (WSCC) Highways and amended condition 2 regarding foundation details.

The Chairman explained that on this occasion the applicant and the agent would share three minutes.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

•        Mr P Evans – Chichester City Council Parish Representative

•        Mr K Morgan – University of Chichester – Objector

•        Mr P Harris - Objector

•        Mr S Toplis – Agent

•        Mr N Parkinson – Applicant

Mr Bushell presented the item and in response to members’ comments and questions explained that with regard to concerns about overlooking of neighbouring properties on Graylingwell Park from the three flat blocks adjacent to Graylingwell Drive the developer had amended the site plans and moved the balconies to lessen this possibility. In terms of scale the three blocks had been deliberately positioned adjacent to the recently constructed three-storey blocks on the nearby Graylingwell development. The ridge heights of blocks 2, 3 and 4 had also been significantly reduced. Mr Bushell clarified that the minimum distance between the site and neighbouring properties at Penny Acre stood at 30 metres and in the case of blocks 2 and 4 significantly more than this across a tree-lined public highway which exceeded the Council’s requirements. Officers were satisfied that the relationship would not be unneighbourly. With regard to the total number of flats, Mr Bushell clarified that if the number of flats were reduced and there was a proportionate increase in the number of 2 storey houses instead, this would result in the loss of some open space which would be to the detriment of the scheme as a whole. Mr Bushell confirmed that the affordable homes allocation remained at a policy compliant 30% and that the pepper-potting of these dwellings in three distinct groups across the site was acceptable. The previously anticipated 50% provision of starter homes on the site was not now planned to go ahead given the absence of government starter home legislation in this regard.

With reference to concerns about the appearance of the development, Mr Bushell reminded members that planning design is a subjective matter and that the use of a good quality stock brick in three different shades of red would provide a sufficient and acceptable level of variation. With regard to concerns over the darker boarding proposed on the flat blocks, officers agreed to add a further condition requiring a lighter shade of boarding to complement the surrounding landscape. Mr Bushell clarified that the screening buffer on the west site boundary with the University land would consist mainly of deciduous trees planted within the boundary of each garden. These gardens were at between 10 and 13 metres in length both meeting and exceeding the Council’s minimum requirements. Within the context of an urban setting tree planting and fencing on the west site boundary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

Proposed extension and alterations.

To delegate to officers to determine upon receipt of amended plans showing the deletion of the outside spiral staircase and associated balcony and the provision of a 1.8 metre high obscure glass screen on the eastern side of the eastern balcony.

(In the event that such amended plans are not received the application will be referred back for a Committee determination).

This application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting held on 13 December 2017 for a site visit, which was held on 15 January 2017 in order to consider the impact of the proposed extension and alterations on the neighbouring properties and its impact on the surrounding area, including overlooking.

Information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to the deletion of condition 1 and amended condition 3.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

•        Mr C Alden – Selsey Town Council Parish Representative

•        Mrs A Gaunt – Objector

•        Ms E S Wikinson – Objector

•        Mr G Mellett – Objector

•        Mr John W Elliott – Chichester District Council member for Selsey South Ward

In response to members’ comments and questions, Mr Whitty advised that officers had no concerns relating to the design of the building as the street scene was varied. With reference to a request to clarify the outside access he explained that there was no outside access from the Juliette balcony and the only access to the balcony terrace was from the living room. The outside staircase leading to the garden could be used as an outside access door however there was a front door located off the main parking area to the north side of the site. With reference to further development Mr Whitty explained that condition 7 could be amended to remove permitted development rights which would include preventing the conversion of the flat roof to a balcony. With regard to overlooking it would be possible to add a condition to require a level of obscure glazing to be maintained on the terrace balcony. Mr Whitty explained that if members chose to request the removal of the spiral staircase access to the garden would be limited to bedroom one or bedroom three. With regard to the use of the garage Mr Whitty agreed to amend condition 6 to restrict the use to parking. With reference to concerns that the property would be used regularly for bed and breakfast Mr Whitty clarified that letting should not be considered a planning concern unless an applicant seeks to subdivide a property.

Some members maintained concerns regarding overlooking with reference to the revised upside down nature of the property and considered the removal of the outside spiral staircase, associated balcony and screening of the terrace balcony necessary.

Mrs Kilby proposed the deletion of the outside spiral staircase and associated balcony and the provision of a 1.8 metre high obscure glass screen on the eastern side of the eastern balcony. Mrs Purnell seconded the proposal. Mr Frost explained that if satisfactory amended plans were received, the application could be delegated to officers to determine. Members agreed to vote on each matter separately.

A vote was taken for the deletion of the outside spiral staircase and associated balcony which was carried.

A vote was then taken for the provision of a 1.8 metre high obscure glass screen on the eastern side of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

Demolition of existing bungalow and garage and the erection of 2 no. replacement dwellings.

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit.

Information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to further supporting information from the agent and two additional conditions.

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

•        Miss H Mccrudden – Agent

In response to members questions Mrs Stevens clarified that the site would l use foul mains drainage and the surface water drainage would be managed by soakaways to be agreed with Building Control. With regard to the parking allocation it was confirmed that the garage was included in the overall provision. Mrs Stevens agreed to amend condition 9 to read ‘garages’ rather than ‘garage’ and ‘properties’ rather than ‘property’.

Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit agreed.

The Committee took a short break.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling with associated landscape design.

That the appeal lodged against non-determination of the application should not be contested by the Council.

Information was reported on the agenda update sheet following receipt of additional Parish Council comments on the second revision of the application.

In response to members’ comments and questions Mr Price explained that the building materials would consist mainly of stone with ironstone galetting, sandstone walling and a clay tiled roof. There would be at least one functioning chimney at the gable end of the building.

Mr Whitty explained that superseded plans had been included in the report due to a formatting error as a result of the nature of the recommendation not to contest the appeal. He would ensure the plans were either removed or clarified by an informative.

With regard to the applicant’s decision to appeal, Mr Frost clarified that the applicant’s amended plans had been submitted in November 2017 but they had since lodged an appeal on the grounds of non-determination of the application by the council. He explained that the appeal precluded the council from being able to permit or refuse the application and therefore the Committee could only indicate whether the application would have been permitted. Mr Frost confirmed that the resolution made by the Committee would be referred to the Planning Inspectorate.

RESOLVED

That the appeal lodged against non-determination of the application should not be contested by the council.

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

Mr Whitty drew attention to the agenda update sheet which detailed a number of amendments to the schedule of appeals.

The Committee noted the schedule of planning appeals, court and policy matters.

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the Chairman at the start of this meeting 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.