Agenda item

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 was acceptable. Officers confirmed that there were no formal proposals before the Council for any re-development of the University land to the west of the site. Any future plans were therefore not material in the context of the current application.

Following a request to clarify the direction of traffic flow from the site Mr Bushell confirmed that the developer for the Graylingwell Park site would be installing bus gates at the west end of Graylingwell Drive and elsewhere within that site to prevent traffic travelling west out of the site. All traffic from the development would access and exit the site via Kingsmead Avenue to the east. Mr Bushell also agreed to amend condition 3 with regard to the installation of electric vehicle charging points.

With reference to the cricket pavilion layout Mr Bushell confirmed that although there were no plans to provide changing facilities for officials the internal space could be adapted if necessary. There were no plans to provide any separate building for the storage of maintenance equipment but there would be ample space around the playing field for such a building if required in the future subject to planning permission.

Following concerns that the list of development plans included in the Committee papers and online were different Mr Frost reassured members that any variations were very minor and officers would ensure the latest versions were online.

Mrs Tassell proposed the application be deferred for further discussion between officers and the developer to redesign the site layout. Mr Plowman seconded the proposal which was not carried. A vote was taken on the officer recommendation to permit which was carried by the Chairman’s casting vote.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

The Committee took a short break.