Issue - meetings

19/03008/FUL - 23 Lavant Road, Chichester, PO19 5RA

Meeting: 13/05/2020 - Planning Committee (Item 67)

67 CC/19/03008/FUL - 23 Lavant Road, Chichester, PO19 5RA pdf icon PDF 455 KB

Erection of 5 no. flats and parking, landscaping and associated works.

Decision:

Refuse (Contrary to officer recommendation).

 

Minutes:

Mr Mew presented the item to members. He explained that there was an update from the Environment Officer which indicated that there is a moderate likelihood of bats roosting on site. As a result a survey has been requested prior to determination.

 

The Committee received the following speakers:

 

·         Richard Plowman – Chichester City Council

·         Keith Bartlett – Objector

·         John Halliday – Objector

·         Kerry Simmons – Agent

·         Tony Dignum – CDC Member

 

Mr Mew and Mr Whitty then responded to members comments and questions. By use of the presentation slides Mr Mew illustrated the north and south elevations and the proposed footprint. He confirmed that no solar panels had been proposed. Sustainability measures are required to be submitted regarding timber frames, electric car points and efficient lighting. He also confirmed that there had been no objection to the drainage with the direction of drainage required by Condition 11. Mr Whitty explained that although it is possible to look at the species of tree that could be grown the life expectancy of trees is unknown. Mr Mew then confirmed that the proposal is for three dwellings as detailed on the plan. Mr Whitty explained that requiring maintenance of hedgerow for highway visibility is reasonable whereas maintaining a minimum edge of hedge height is not.

 

Members voted on the officer recommendation which was not carried.

Rev Bowden proposed refusal due to overdevelopment. Mr McAra proposed refusal on the grounds of 6.1 of the report. Mr Oakley seconded the proposal.

Mr Whitty responded and commented on the proposal suggesting that from member debate the refusal would be based on overdevelopment, form, mass, bulk, intensity, erosion of character of the area all contrary to Policy 33, insufficient information and the requirement for a bat survey.

 

Mr McAra confirmed he was happy to amend his proposal in line with Mr Whitty’s comments. Mr Oakley confirmed that he still seconded. Rev Bowden withdrew his proposal.

 

In a vote members agreed the proposal.

 

Refuse (Contrary to officer recommendation).