Agenda, decisions and minutes

Any apologies for absence which have been received will be noted at this stage.

The Planning Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

The Chairman welcomed everyone present to the virtual meeting.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 9 September 2020 and the Special Planning Committee on 25 September 2020 (copy to follow).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of 9 September 2020, and the minutes of 28September 2020 be approved.

The Chair will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 9 (b).

There were no urgent items.

Details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies.

Such interests are hereby disclosed by each member in respect of agenda items in the schedule of planning applications where the Council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular item or application.

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are to be made by members of the Planning Committee in respect of matters on the agenda or this meeting.

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of planning application CH/20/00412/OUT as Chichester District Council appointee of Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

Mr Oakley declared a person interest in respect of planning applications CH/20/00412/OUT and EWB/19/00431/ARG as a Member of West Sussex County Council.

Mrs Purnell declared a person interest in respect of planning applications CH/20/00412/OUT and EWB/19/00431/ARG as a Member of West Sussex County Council.

Outline Application for the construction of 35 no. affordable residential dwellings for first time buyers and those looking to rent their first home (Paragraph 71 entry-level exception site), with all matters reserved other than access.

Refuse (against officer recommendation)

Miss Taylor presented the item to Members.

The Committee received the following speakers:

Roger Gowlett – Parish Council

Stephen Johnson – Objector

Jane Towers – Objector

Andrew Kerry-Bedell – Objector

Jeremy Higgins – Agent

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions.  Miss Taylor confirmed that the site was listed in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) as suitable for development.  With regards to applying the ‘tilted balance’ assessment within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), para11 referred to the application of decisions, and section d stated ‘any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole’, and therefore the entirety of the NPPF must be considered.  Miss Taylor also confirmed that officers were satisfied that the access to the field beyond the proposed development, was sufficient.

With regards to the proportion of houses within the Nutbourne East settlement boundary which were at market level and those which were affordable if the proposed 35 houses remained affordable, Miss Bell responded that officers did not currently have those figures, but added that housing officers had confirmed a need existed within the area for affordable housing for first time buyers. 

On the matter of reasons to refuse the recommendation not to contest the appeal, Mr Whitty confirmed Members had cited reasons which were grounded in material planning considerations.  With regards to the tilted balance, the consideration was whether the lack of a five year housing land supply would outweigh any parts of the NPPF guidance.  Officers acknowledged that the site did not meet the criteria with the NPPF for an Entry Level Exception Site (ELES) as it was 0.3 of a hectare larger that the policy set out and 2.2% larger in terms of the assessment against the settlement of Nutbourne East, but Mr Whitty advised that a Planning Inspector may plot the settlement boundary against how housing functioned rather a local authority drawn settlement boundary, but this could provide a valid reason against the tilted balance.  The NPPF set the threshold to ensure communities were not overwhelmed by exception sites but it would then be necessary to identify the concern within the policy and articulate the resultant harm or implications.

With regards to the field access, Mr Whitty confirmed officers were not aware of other access and currently the proposal appeared to be via the site, but iterated officers did not have concerns related to this.

Mr Whitty confirmed that nitrates which would feed into the harbour would be dealt with by way of off-setting, by taking an area used for cereal production out of use and then plant with woodland. Whilst the proposed mitigation land would be in Hampshire and would not run-off into the same tributary of Chichester Harbour as that of Thornham Waste Water Treatment Works, it nonetheless fed into the harbour as a whole and as such officers were satisfied that the impact would be mitigated.  With regards to recreational  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

Grain store and machinery store.

Refuse

Mr Mew presented the item to Members and drew attention to the agenda update sheet.  Mr Mew also provided a verbal report explaining that further information had been received on behalf of the applicant regarding clarification on the access arrangements and swept path analysis, and a further third party comment had been received regarding the need/lack of need for the building.

The Committee received the following speakers:

Brian Reeves – Parish Council

Graeme Maycock – Objector

Dermot McCaffery – Objector

Jill Sutcliffe – Objector

Rachel Strange – Applicant

Mr Whitty responded to Members questions and comments.  Mr Whitty began by drawing Members attention to the three reasons for refusal detailed on the update, explaining the first two consisted of the legal views of officers, that this development did not constitute permitted development.  The third reason related to concerns regarding the impact on the highway.  Mr Whitty advised that if the third issue on balance was considered to be acceptable by the Committee due to its rural location the first two were legal opinion and should the application be granted would be open to legal challenge.  Miss Golding added the first reason for refusal related to a potential danger to highway users and if Members did not consider the application would result in a danger to highway users, the first reason for refusal would fall away.  However the second reason for refusal stated that if the works were within 25 metres of a metalled classified road, the application would not sit within permitted development legislation.  Miss Golding advised that if the Committee were minded to permit the application, the correct course of action would be to invite a full application.

Mr Mew explained that the building itself was not a reason for refusal, but it was the proximity of the whole development to the classified road.  The third reason for refusal cited insufficient information to demonstrate that the siting of the proposal would not result in a material intensification of use to the access and there was some doubt in relation to the plant business and the movement this may create in terms of the use of the building.  Mr Mew further responded that the application was deferred in March this year.  It had taken this time to reach the current position and officers had considered the application carefully, balancing the importance of farming and food production with what had been proposed, and taking the legal opinions into account had led to the recommendation before the Committee.  The need for the building was recognised and a planning application could be brought forward and highway improvement works undertaken to address the issues. 

Mr Mew confirmed officers did not have the details regarding the stopping distance for standing vehicle and in relation to further signage, the highway authority had reservations in terms of how effective that may be.

Mr Mew advised the need to consider the development as a whole under the current proposal, and there was doubt in terms of what the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements.

On the matter of whether appeal reference 20/00950/FUL, Field West of Beachlands Nursery, Newells Lane, West Ashling would be taken to hearing, Mr Whitty confirmed a request would be made.

The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements.

Members agreed to note this item.

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the Chair at the start of this meeting as follows:

a)    Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection

b)    Items which the Chair has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting

There were no late items.

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no part two items.