Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

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

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This application was withdrawn from the agenda of the meeting held on 19 September 2018 in order to address issues relating to the proposed Clappers Lane access to the site, which had now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 to ease the transition and to focus the higher densities towards the remaining part of the site.

·           The proposed flats artificially made the density higher.  The housing mix had been agreed by the Council’s Housing Officer.

·           With regard to prematurity, the Council currently had a five-year housing land supply and given that it was a brownfield site it was appropriate to deal with the application at this point in time.

·           The Parish was currently preparing the Bracklesham and East Wittering Neighbourhood Plan.  If planning permission was granted the Neighbourhood Plan would be required to provide 85 less dwellings.

 

Mr Frost responded to concern raised about mitigation in respect of education and highway works.  The Council’s Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) prioritised the Chichester Local Plan wide infrastructure needs, allocating Community Infrastructure Levy funds for each year.  The IBP contained a five-year plan and within that document set out the key projects, which included the Selsey Tram junction improvements and a reference to education and school places along the east/west corridor and the Manhood peninsula. The Committee should have confidence that the work was happening, albeit slowly and he advised that the infrastructure needs for the development would be met.  He confirmed that WSCC Highways had looked at the impacts on junctions and with the exception of Selsey canal junction they had no concerns about their capacity to accommodate traffic from this development.  Highways England had no substantive objection in terms of infrastructure and had requested a contribution towards the current Local Plan A27 mitigation scheme, which the applicant had agreed to. 

 

With regard to comments made by some members that the Parish had met its housing allocation of 180 in the current Local Plan, Mr Frost explained that this number was not a ceiling and where schemes came forward each application should be judged on its own merits and if found to be acceptable in planning terms planning permission should be granted.

 

Mr Whitty provided further information with regard to members concerns about the proposed density of 85 dwellings.  It was not possible for the Council to impose a condition changing the amount to ‘up to 85’.  He referred to the difficulty in setting an accurate numerical value for densities of housing developments, as it depended on the size of the dwellings proposed on a site.  The Committee’s options were to ask officers to investigate if the applicant could provide other illustrative layouts that might demonstrate a density of 85 dwellings or seek to secure a lower density.

 

At the conclusion of the debate members supported a proposal to defer the application for officers to undertake negotiations with the applicant for the following reasons:

·           To seek a modification of the description of the proposal so that it was for a development of ‘up to 85’ dwellings rather than a development of 85 dwellings.

·           To negotiate repositioning the access and parking for those dwellings shown illustratively fronting Clappers Lane to the rear of those dwellings so that they do not directly access Clappers Lane.   

·           To negotiate a reduction in the scale of the dwellings located in the south-west corner of the site to 2 storeys to lessen the bulk of development at this prominent part of the site.

·           To negotiate setting the dwellings on the west site boundary further back from the Bracklesham Lane frontage.

 

 (The Committee took a lunch break)

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page