Issue - meetings

DEFER

Mr Mew presented the item to Members and provided a verbal update relating to an additional objection regarding the character of the area, privacy of neighbouring properties and the request for hedge planting.  Mr Mew also drew Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet regarding a third party representation which cited the lack of clarification relating to the construction method and any associated fire risks.

Mr Plowman left the meeting and did not return.

The Committee received the following speakers:

Simone Ivatts – Objector

Richard Zipeure – Objector

Nick Sutherland – Objector (statement read)

Paul White – Agent

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:

Statement provided Mr Plowman read in his absence.

With regards to consulting Southern Water, Mrs Stevens confirmed that there was no statutory requirement to do so on schemes under ten dwellings which was also in line with the adopted position statement.  It was acceptable for the scheme to discharge to Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works subject to the mitigation for nitrates.  On the matter of the protection of boundary vegetation, the trees and shrubs had been assessed as not worthy of a Tree Preservation Order but a plan had been submitted with the ecological mitigations and enhancements proposed as part of the scheme and Mrs Stevens confirmed that Condition 26 could be amended to clarify that the vegetation along the boundaries should be retained.  In terms of the wider approach to nitrate mitigation, in line with advice from Natural England, which the Council were working with, in regards to one-off schemes and also a broader approach going-forward, there was not a requirement for authorities to look at discreet areas within specific parts of Chichester Harbour as an example, or the wider Solent which had been divided into areas, which was the reason for Natural England accepting the type of mitigation proposed.  On the matter of the use of the agricultural land to be used for the mitigation scheme, this was grade 3 or 4, had been in recent use and officers were satisfied would provide an appropriate level of mitigation.   

With regards to the affordable housing provision, Mrs Stevens confirmed that within the development plan it was not possible to require a contribution for this size of development, and should this be a concern, it would have to be addressed by planning policy.  On the matter of the materials proposed, Mrs Stevens advised that there was a mix of materials within the locality and the cedar cladding on the rear properties was considered acceptable, but the materials condition could be amended to include a requirement for materials to be negotiated as part of the discharge of conditions application.

Mrs Stevens explained that the previous appeal scheme had included two detached properties to the front of the site and a row of three link-detached properties to the rear.  The current scheme included part of the adjacent neighbouring garden with two semi-detached properties to the front of the site and two chalet bungalows to the rear of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28