Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

WW/18/02708/DOM - Dolphins Rookwood Lane West Wittering Chichester West Sussex PO20 8QH

Proposed steps down through garden to a 1.5 metre long tunnel beneath public footpath rising through to another set of steps to the foreshore garden.

 

Decision:

Defer.

Minutes:

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet regarding the ground level of the footpath which is lower than the ground levels of the gardens.  The Applicant had also submitted a photograph of Dolphins and its gardens dated from 1951 showing the foreshore garden as a cultivated garden. Correspondence from English Nature [now known as Natural England] had been received, dated 17 and 28 November 1997 providing the revisions to the boundary of the Solent Maritime pSAC (Possible Special Area of Conservation) and SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Area). The map showing the foreshore garden as not included in the proposed revisions for the Solent Maritime pSAC (possible Special Area of Conservation) and SSSI. 

 

The following members of the public addressed the committee:

 

·       Mrs N Pike – Parish Representative

·       Mr R Austin – Objector

·       Mr S Hill-Norton – Objector

·       Mrs H Ball – Supporter

·       Mr G Chapman – Applicant

 

During the discussion members debated the concerns raised by objectors including the ‘domestication’ of the foreshore, the proposed engineering works required to construct the tunnel, its impact on the ecology of the location, the view of the tunnel for those using the public right of way, drainage requirements, whether the tunnel was within the SPA (Special Protection Area)/SSSI area and if the engineering works could be considered as justifiable due to the short distance between the bisected gardens, the use of the path by cyclist and whether the garden was part of property’s land.

 

Officers responded to members’ questions and comments.  Mr Whitty advised that the applicant was not required to justify proposing a tunnel.  In terms of the ecological impact, a plan had been shown with the lines of the pSAC and SSSI and explained exact boundaries on plans and GIS are not always accurate but noted that such boundaries do not stop ecology.  Natural England have recognised this and requested an appropriate assessment which had been completed.  They concluded that there may be some impact from construction but raised no objection.  Regarding the history of the land, an enforcement case had previously been opened as a complaint had been received.  Having reviewed it from an enforcement viewpoint on aerial photographs, a building and managed grass could be seen in 2013 and in 2007 a boat had been stored on the land on which managed grassland could also be seen, therefore on the balance of probability it was a privately managed domestic garden.  Mr Whitty also reminded members that decisions do not set precedents, as each application is evaluated on its own merits.  Regarding engineering works, and what will be seen from the foreshore, the opening to the tunnel which will be planted, may be seen, but this will be within a domestic garden and cannot be said to harm the character of the area.  Mr Whitty also confirmed that on the issue of flooding, the drainage engineer had viewed the site and suggested it may flood in winter, and therefore the applicant would need to install a pump. 

 

Mr Whitty iterated that the structure would hardly be seen from the path with just glimpses from the foreshore and the land has a history of being used as a domestic garden. Mr Whitty confirmed that the only planning issue other than ecological considerations which had any significant weight in terms of a material planning consideration was the physical impact of the works.

 

The chairman proposed a vote was taken on the recommendation to permit which was not carried. 

 

Members continued to debate the application and Mrs Tull put forward a proposal to refuse the application which was not seconded. 

 

Mr Oakley proposed the decision be deferred in order to gather further information regarding the status of the land and impact on SSSI which was seconded by Mrs Tassell.  The decision to defer was carried.

 

The committee took a short break.

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page