Issue - meetings

CC/21/03391/FUL - St James Industrial Estate Westhampnett Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 7JU

Meeting: 05/01/2022 - Planning Committee (Item 167)

167 CC/21/03391/FUL - St James Industrial Estate Westhampnett Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 7JU pdf icon PDF 232 KB

Redevelopment of the existing industrial estate, including demolition of the existing buildings. The scheme provides approximately 4448m2 (47877ft) of lettable industrial space, use classes E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii) (formally known as use classes B1(b), B1(c)) and use class B8 with 5 no. replacement buildings. Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission CC/20/01914/FUL - changes to Block 1 from one single large unit into 10 smaller units and associated works and to regularise the conditions of permission CC/21/01391/FUL to reflect conditions contained in permission CC/20/01914/FUL

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Ms Thatcher presented the report to the Committee. She drew their attention to the Agenda Update which included additional comments from the CDC Environmental Protection Officer and two further representations received following the publication of the Committee report.

 

In addition, by way of a verbal update, Ms Thatcher informed the Committee that there was an error on condition 2 and explained that there should only be one proposed site plan which should be 1010 revision 11 plan, she confirmed that this would be corrected.

 

Ms Thatcher highlighted the application site and confirmed that demolition on site has already begun. She explained that the purpose of the proposal was to regularise the varied conditions of attached to the 2021 permission, so that they reflect the conditions attached to the 2020 permission.

 

To highlight the difference between the conditions attached to the two permissions, Ms Thatcher displayed a table to the Committee which set out the differing conditions and the key conditions changes which were being proposed within the application.

 

There were no representations.

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

With regards to the previous application and whether it could be deleted; Ms Thatcher explained that the previous application would remain extant. The applicant would have the choice of which application they choose to develop; however, it is expected that they would choose to implement the current permission. In addition, Mr Whitty explained that whilst an application can be revoked there are no compelling circumstances to do so. 

 

With regards to condition 8; Ms Thatcher explained that this condition was included to ensure greater control over the final boundary treatments at the site. If significant changes were proposed they would be dealt with through a separate application. 

 

In a vote the Committee agreed to the report recommendation to permit.

 

Recommendation; permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.