Issue - meetings

(See report at agenda item 5 (pages 15 to 22) of the Cabinet agenda of 1 November 2016, pages 1 to 68 in the supplement to the agenda, pages 1 to 432 in the (online only) supplement to the agenda and pages 1 to 2 in a further supplement to the agenda)

RECOMMENDED BY THE CABINET

1)     That the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission (as set out in appendix 1 to the report) and amended by (a) the revised update sheet and (b) at the meeting, be approved for an eight-week consultation from 1 December 2016 to 26 January 2107, following which it shall be sent to the Secretary of State for examination;

2)     The proposed responses to representations received (as set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report) be approved; and

3)     Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning Services, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to enable minor amendments to be made to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission prior to and following public consultation.

4)     That the retention of the site to the rear of Stuart Avenue, Camelsdale be approved within the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission for examination, subject to confirmation from the Environment Agency that there is no objection once the flood zone modelling has been completed.

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services), seconded by Mr Dignum, moved these recommendations to the Council. Mrs Taylor introduced the report, encouraging those who had concerns or objections to submit their comments as part of the consultation between 1 December 2016 and 26 January 2017, following which the DPD and any minor changes would be submitted for independent Examination by the Secretary of State through the Planning Inspectorate.

There was concern regarding the re-allocation of the site at 41 Terminus Road, Chichester to employment as a result of the restrictive covenant regarding residential development and at the loss of student accommodation and the education facility. West Sussex County Council had put the site forward as it was no longer required for educational purposes.

A number of members had concerns about the proposed allocation site Land to the rear of Sturt Avenue, Lynchmere, relating to environmental constraints, flooding, drainage, traffic and access.

Mrs Hardwick had visited the site and met with residents of Camelsdale, represented by Mr Rait (who had posed the question earlier in this meeting), and she was concerned that there were too many unresolved issues that inclusion of the site would make the Development Plan Document (DPD) unsound. Mrs Graves added that the site had been discounted in the past as the proposed access route was narrow. Both Mrs Graves and Mrs Hardwick had raised objections about previous planning applications due to highways issues and these had been turned down.

Mr Oakley continued that the statutory consultees - West Sussex County Council, Thames Water and Natural England - had not responded to the consultation and suggested a need to consider other local community evidence that questioned the suitability of this site.

Mr Shaxson had visited the site 15 years ago when it had been judged unsuitable for development due to flooding issues. The development nearby in Waverley district may limit the ability for water soakaway. A figure of 10 dwellings had been allocated to Lynchmere. If the Environment Agency (EA) reviewed their modelling and this site was removed from the DPD then an alternative site would need to be found.

Mr Dignum advised that the Local Plan covered a 17 year period and included provision for nearly 8000 houses. No objections had been received from WSCC, Surrey County Council, Thames Water and Natural England. Mrs Hardwick and Mrs Graves had provided anecdotal evidence regarding planning applications received in the past on this site. Although part of the site was shown to be in a flood zone the remainder of the site would be adequate to site 10 houses. As a result of concerns at the Development and Infrastructure Panel and at Cabinet a fourth recommendation had been added that the retention of the site be approved subject to approval from the Environment Agency following flood zone modelling works that there was no objection to this site in the DPD.

He advised further that even if the site remained in the DPD individual planning applications  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its two appendices (the second of which is available online only) and to make the following recommendations to the Council:

That the Cabinet recommends to the Council that:

(1)  The Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission (as set out in appendix 1 to the report) be approved for an eight-week consultation from 1 December 2016 to 26 January 2107, following which the Submission will be sent to the Secretary of State for examination;

(2)  The proposed responses to representations received as set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report be approved; and

(3)  Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to enable minor amendments to be made to the document prior to and following public consultation.

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

That the Council:

(1)  Approves the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission (as set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report and amended by (a) the revised update sheet and (b) at the meeting) for an eight-week consultation from 1 December 2016 to 26 January 2017 following which it shall be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination.

(2)  Approves the proposed responses to the representations received (as set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report).

(3)  Delegates authority to the Head of Planning Services after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services to enable minor amendments to be made to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission prior to and following public consultation.

(4)  Approves the retention of the site to the rear of Sturt Avenue Camelsdale within the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission for examination subject to confirmation from the Environment Agency that there is no objection once the flood zone modelling has been completed.

The Cabinet considered the following material which had been circulated either with or subsequent to the agenda and which was available as paper copies at this meeting (copies attached to the official minutes): (a) the agenda report; (b) the separate appendix bundle containing appendix 1 to the report (appendix 2 was published as an online version only due to its size); and (c) a revised update sheet (replacing the original version issued).

The aforementioned revised update sheet amended (i) the text of the first and third recommendations in section 3.1 of the report; (ii) para 6.26 of the report; (iii) various paras, policy references and tables in the draft Site Allocation: Proposed Submission Development Plan Document (SAPS DPD) in appendix 1; (iv) clarified the final column in table 1.1 in the draft SAPS DPD in appendix; and (v) reported a late representation.

The report was presented by Mrs Taylor.

Ms Flitcroft, Mr Allgrove and Mr Frost were in attendance for this item.

Mrs Taylor (a) referred to the introduction section on pages 2 to 16 in the appendix bundle to explain the nature and purpose of the draft SAPS DPD; (b) summarised the chronology of the main stages in the preparation of the SAPS DPD (section 4 of the report); (c) alluded to the consultation responses and officer replies thereto (appendix 2), in particular the response by the Environment Agency with respect to the site at land to the rear of Sturt Avenue Lynchmere (paras 6.3 to 6.8 of the report); (d) the next consultation stage in December 2016 and January  2017 (on the issue of soundness) prior to submission for examination and eventual adoption in late 2017; (e) the amendments proposed by the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) at its meeting on 20 October 2016. She concluded by pointing out that the development of a site included in the SAPS DPD would be subject to consideration during the planning application process against inter alia all the relevant planning policies in the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP) such as Policy 42 (Flood Risk and Water Management).

At the end of Mrs Taylor’s remarks Mr Dignum read out the text of the extra fourth recommendation.

Ms Flitcroft drew attention to para 8) on page 1 of the revised update sheet and advised that the proposed amendment in bold to the second sentence in para 1.42 should be disregarded and that para 1.42 (page 10 of the appendix bundle) would consist solely of the first sentence.

During the debate Mrs Hardwick said that whilst she supported the inclusion of the fourth recommendation given the disquiet being felt by residents in that area, she had a residual concern regarding the Environment Agency’s (EA) comments in para 6.7 of the report that there were (which she contested) suitable alternative locations on the site for houses to be constructed. She contended for the new fourth recommendation being amended so that it contained an express statement that CDC would review the inclusion of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 277