Issue - meetings

Change of use of detached garage, store with games room over to 1 no. 3 bed dwelling.

PERMIT

Mr Mew presented the item to Members and drew Member’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet providing revised wording for Condition 14 and confirming details relating to the waste treatment plant to ensure the proposal was nitrate neutral and did not result in an increased nitrate level within the Chichester Harbours.  The Agenda Update Sheet also included a further amendment to include the word ‘not’ in reference to resulting in loss of habitat or biodiversity, and an additional clarification regarding foul sewage.

The Committee received the following Speakers:

Jane Towers – Parish Council

Andrew Kerry-Bedell – Objector

Clare Hawkins – Objector

Mr McAra left the meeting

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:

With regards to the boundary, Mr Whitty confirmed that regardless of any issues relating to boundaries, planning permission may be granted, as boundary matters were a separate legal issue.  The Council had a duty with all applications in terms of ‘best endeavours’ to ensure the ownership certificate was correctly completed, following submissions from both the applicant and third parties, officers were satisfied that the certificate had been completed correctly, for the purposes of determining the planning application.

With reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 77, Mr Mew confirmed that the scheme was not being put forward as an exception.  The principle was established through the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) Policy LP1 which referred to windfall sites, and which applied to developments of ten or less and therefore a distinction was required to be drawn between larger developments and this site for a single unit.  With regards to not meeting housing need, the proposal was for a three-bedroomed dwelling, which was not a new build and therefore had to be accommodated within the existing building.  The site was within the proposed wildlife corridor, but both the building, the hardstanding and access were in situ, and the environmental strategy unit had been consulted and did not have any objections to the proposal, and had recommended the inclusion of a condition regarding bat and bird boxes.

With regards to the length of time taken for the application, Mr Mew explained that this was related to the matters of boundary dispute, and the research and correspondence which had been undertaken as part of due diligence to ensure the correct certificate had been secured, and associated revisions of the plans.

On the matter of maintenance of the foul drainage, Mr Mew confirmed a condition had been included to secure the details of the maintenance and a separate planning application was not required for the drainage as this formed part of the proposals.  Part H of the building regulations would apply to the sewerage system and an Environment Agency permit would not be required.

With regards to the character of the area, Mr Mew reminded Members that the proposal was for an existing building and hardstanding, there was no additional built form for the current proposal.  On the matter of the Interim Position Statement (IPS), Mr Mew confirmed that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39