Chichester District Council
Agenda, decisions and minutes

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Virtual

Contact: Fiona Baker on 01243 534609  Email:  fbaker@chichester.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

43.

Chair's Announcements

 

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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed everyone present to the virtual meeting.

 

Apologies were received from Mr David Rogers.

44.

Approval of Minutes

 

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 21 April 2021 (copy to follow).

Minutes:

The minutes of from the 21 April 2021 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

45.

Urgent Items

 

The Chair will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 13 (b).

Minutes:

The Chairman announced that the following item would be considered at agenda item 13b;

 

·       The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) consultation on change to permitted development rights for electronic communications infrastructure: technical consultation.

 

The Chairman informed the Committee that they had agreed to consider the item as an urgent item, having taken in to account the deadline for the consultation and the uncertainty of when the June meeting would be held.

46.

Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 269 KB

 

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.

 

 

 

Minutes:

Rev. Bowden declared a personal interest in respect of CC/19/03191/REM as the Chichester District Council external representative on the Goodwood Airfield Consultative Committee.

 

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of;

·       TG/20/02726/FUL as a member of Tangmere Parish Council and as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       LM/20/03360/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/20/03166/REM as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/19/03191/REM as a member of West Sussex County Council

 

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in respect of;

·       CC/20/03166/REM  as a member of Chichester City Council

·       CC/19/03191/REM as a member of Chichester City Council, as the Chichester District Council external representative to the Goodwood Motor Circuit Consultative Committee, and the Chichester City Council external representative to the Goodwood Airfield Consultative Committee.

 

 

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of;

·       TG/20/02726/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       LM/20/03360/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/20/03166/REM as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/19/03191/REM as a member of West Sussex County Council

 

47.

TG/20/02726/FUL The Co-operative Food, Malcolm Road, Tangmere, Chichester (9.35 approximate start time) pdf icon PDF 475 KB

 

Relocate existing entrance to store, new external coldrooms, new window to side of property, new mechanical plant, new canopies and covered walkway and re-lay out existing car park including additional bollards. Reconfigure timber fenced areas, (resubmisson of previously withdrawn application ref no. 19/02707/FUL).

 

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Ms Stevens presented the item to the Committee and drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which set out the following addendums to the report;

 

·       Revised wording to informative 1. The first line of the informative should read as follows: Provision shall be made within the Noise Management Plan for the incorporation of the following measures:

 

·       Representations:  West Sussex Highways Clarification (04.05.21)

 

I can confirm that the Local Highways Authority does not consider that the proposal would have and an unacceptable impact on highway safety or result in ‘severe’ cumulative impacts on the operation of the highway network, therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 109), and that there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal.

 

The Committee received the following Speakers;

 

Mr Paul Martin – Objector

 

Officers responded to Member’s questions and comments as follows;

 

In response to concerns regarding noise generated from the site, Mr Thomson confirmed that his team had been consulted as part of the application process and that a site visit was undertaken to fully understand the layout of the site and identify the nearest noise sensitive properties.

 

Mr Thomson informed the Committee that two noise sensitive assessments had been undertaken by Noise Solutions ltd, and these had been submitted alongside the planning application. Of the assessment one focused on the noise generated by plant (AC unit, refrigerator’s etc) and the second focused on noise generated by delivery transport. The assessments had been evaluated and Mr Thomson confirmed that he was satisfied with the survey methodology, assessment criteria and subsequent results. In addition Noise Solutions Ltd had undertaken a background noise survey and applied the following background levels; 39db during the daytime and 30db during the night. Mr Thomson informed the Committee that these levels were representative of the area and were in accordance with British Standard; BS4142, and were acceptable in planning terms.

 

Mr Thomson informed the Committee that the proposed condition be applied; ‘that the plant which has been assessed and is proposed is put in, and if there is any variation from the plant which has been proposed and assessed then the local Planning Authority are made aware and another noise assessment is undertaken before installation’.

 

With regards to noise generated by delivery, Mr Thomson acknowledged that there would always be an element of noise associated with delivery.  However, the Noise Management plan that had been submitted would keep noise levels to a minimum and would be an improvement on current noise levels. He highlighted that there would be a restriction on the number of lorries and the time of deliveries. Mr Thomson emphasised that the noise management plan was very robust with a wide range of proposed measures included to minimise noise levels, such as; padding on tailgates and an acoustically graded walkway.

 

With regards to planting on the northern side of the site Ms Stevens agreed to amend the recommendation to include a requirement that any gaps in planting along the northern  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

48.

SB/21/00221/PLD Green Acre, Inlands Road, Nutbourne (10.20 approximate start time) pdf icon PDF 390 KB

 

Proposed lawful development certificate for the use of land for agricultural purposes.

 

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Mr Mew presented the item to the Committee. Mr Mew informed Member’s that this was a Certificate for Lawful Development and not an application seeking planning permission. He explained that a Certificate for Lawful Development is a mechanism by which the applicant can ask the planning authority whether planning permission is required or not. There are some distinct differences between a Certificate for Lawful Development and a planning application, the most significant being that Planning Policies and planning merits are not considerations that can be taken into account when assessing whether a certificate is lawful or not. Mr Mew referred to section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act which set out what was classified as development and what was not classified as development.

 

The Chairman invited Ms Golding to address the Committee, and provide clarification over what a Certificate of Lawful Development is and how it differs from a planning application. Ms Golding reiterated what Mr Mew had said, and reminded the Committee that Planning Policies and planning merits could not be considered in the determination. In addition what the land had previously been used for or what it had had permission for was not relevant.

 

Ms Golding informed the Committee that in its simplest form a Certificate of Lawful Development was an interpretation of law, and members, in their determination had to decide whether the request was legal or not.

 

The Committee received the following speakers;

Mrs Amanda Tait – Parish Representative

Mrs Ceri Stunt – Supporter

Miss Eleanor White – Agent

Mr Jonathan Brown – CDC Member

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

Mr Whitty acknowledged the concerns highlighted by both members’ and speakers, but stressed that this was not a planning application and as such planning policies were not relevant in the determination of the application. He explained that agricultural use is not development and therefore requires no planning permission.

 

Mr Whitty confirmed that there were no gypsy and travellers living on the site and that the previous site owners had sold the site to the neighbouring developer. He explained that the issuing of a certificate in itself does not change the use of the land and it could still be used as a Gypsy and Traveller site. However, if the use subject of the certificate was to be implemented and the land was to revert to agriculture this would become the lawful use of the land.

 

Ms Golding confirmed that there is no time limit attached to a Certificate of Lawful Development.

 

In response to concerns raised over the applicant’s future intention to build house on the site, Ms Golding confirmed that such a development would require planning permission and an application would have to be made to the planning authority for consideration.

 

Ms Golding explained that no conditions can be imposed on a Lawful Development Certificate.

 

With regard to the use of the land as a Gypsy and Traveller site, Ms Golding explained that if the land did not revert  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

49.

LM/20/03360/FUL White Cottage, Copse Road, Hammer, Linchmere (11.05 approximate start time) pdf icon PDF 320 KB

 

Conversion of dwelling into 2 no. dwellings with associated parking.

 

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Mr Mew presented the item to the Committee, and drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which set out the following addendums to the report;

 

 

·       Addendum to report

 

The description of the proposal should read: Construction of a two-storey side extension to provide 1 no. additional dwelling and associated works including parking.

 

The recommendation on page 31 should read: Delegate to officers to permit, subject to no objection being raised by the water service and sewerage service providers (South East Water and Thames Water).

 

·       Additional Consultation Comments; received from (full correspondence set out on the Agenda Update sheet)

 

o   West Sussex Highways (further comments 04.05.21)

o   West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (further comments 29.04.2021)

o   CDC Environmental Protection (Further comments 28.04.2021)

 

 

·       Additional Third-Party Representations; a total of three third parties have submitted additional representations commenting on a further 17 matters, full details of which are set out in the Agenda Update Sheet.

 

·       Applicant’s supporting information; two letters have been submitted by the applicant in response to the further third party comments, dated 29th April and 3rd May. Full details are set out on the Agenda Update Sheet.

 

·       Additional Conditions

 

8. Notwithstanding any indication shown on the approved plans, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) hereby approved, the dwelling at Plot 02 shall not be first occupied until the first floor window(s) in the west elevation of the development hereby permitted, shown to serve the landing and bathroom, shall be permanently;

 

(i)             glazed with obscure glass with a glass panel which has been rendered obscure as part of its manufacturing process to Pilkington glass classification 5 (or equivalent of glass supplied by an alternative manufacturer), and

 

(ii)            non-opening below 1.7 metres from the finished floor level of the room in which the window is installed.

 

Reason: To protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining residential property.

 

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning ((General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no window(s) or door(s) shall be inserted into the north, west or south elevations of the dwelling at Plot 02 hereby permitted without a grant of planning permission.

 

Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of neighbours and the surrounding area.

 

In addition to the updates included within the Agenda Update Sheet, Mr Mew informed the Committee of one further update, this was to include a condition to secure details of landscape and boundary treatment and implementation.

 

The Committee received the following speakers;

Mr Andrew Slater – objector

Mr David Bateman – objector

Mrs Karen Clarke – on applicant’s behalf

 

Officers responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows;

 

Mr Mew clarified that there was an error on the update sheet and it should read as follows; ‘to delegate to officers, subject to no objection from the Water Authority to permit’.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

50.

CC/20/03166/REM Land West Of Centurion Way And West Of Old Broyle Road, Old Broyle Road, West Sussex (11.50 approximate start time) pdf icon PDF 265 KB

 

All outstanding Reserved Matters for the erection of 84 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, informal open space and associated work on Phase 6I, pursuant to permission 14/04301/OUT.

 

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Mr Harris presented the item to the Committee.

 

The Committee received the following speaker:

Mr Nick Billington – agent (statement read by Mrs Baker)

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

On the matter of the treatment and design of the green area referred to as ‘Eastern Square’ Mr Harris explained that this had been agreed under an earlier Reserved Matters application. He did not have the details but recalled that it was meant to be an informal area of open space with approved planting of specific trees; he did not believe that there was any provision for play equipment at the site.

 

On the matter of the treatment of the dwellings around the area, Mr Harris explained that officers had worked with the developers to ensure that the area is framed appropriately. For example the dwellings along the south side of were originally terraced units, however they have now been broken up with enhanced details and materials to improve the street scene around the area.

 

Mr Harris acknowledged that the majority of affordable housing was located within one area of the site, however, there was some pepperpotting and this did accord with the requirements of the SPD Guidance and the approach taken on other parcels within the SDL.

 

On the matter of the overall provision of affordable housing, Mr Harris confirmed that the overall number of affordable housing located throughout the entire site would meet the requirements of the outline planning permission. He explained the four affordable homes removed from this particular site had been redistributed into parcel 5G (another site to be developed by Linden Homes). In addition he assured the Committee that as the final parcels of land were being developed, the authority Housing Officers were very carefully monitoring the provision of affordable housing to ensure that the correct amount is delivered.

 

On the matter of whether the affordable housing proposed would be indistinguishable from other houses on site, Mr Harris informed the Committee that officers had worked closely with developers to make them as indistinguishable as possible.

 

With regards to the proposed parking provision at the allotments, Mr Harris explained that the parking provision for the allotments was not part of the application that the Committee were being asked to determine, however, he confirmed that the issues raised by the Committee would be taken into account.  In addition as part of the forthcoming S106 agreement which would run alongside the Reserved Matters Application the applicants would be required to submit an ‘Allotments Scheme’ which would address the issues such as waste collection, water provision and the size of pitches, all in line with the draft specification for the allotments which was included in the S106.

 

Mr Harris confirmed that the footpath running along the west of the site was suitable for wheelchair users. In addition Mr Shaw provided the Committee with some background information regarding the design principles of footways and shared surfaces, and further confirmed that the proposals were in line with Manual  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

51.

CC/19/03191/REM Phase 2 Of The Westhampnett/North East Chichester SDL Land North East Of Graylingwell Park, Chichester (12.35 approximate start time) pdf icon PDF 352 KB

 

Application for reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and

scale) for residential development comprising up to 200 no. dwellings,

including an element of affordable housing, associated landscaping and

open space, Lavant Valley Linear Greenspace, surface water attenuation

and ancillary works and vehicular access from the area known as 'Phase

4 of the Graylingwell Park development permission CC/16/03791/OUT.

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Mr Bushell presented the report to the Committee. As part of the presentation he drew the Committee’s attention to the ‘Lavant Valley Linear Greenspace’ which is a 3m wide cycle and pedestrian path that runs along River Lavant before linking up into Fordwater Road. Details for delivery of the path have been secured through earlier outline planning permission and the associated section106 agreement.

 

The Mr Bushell reminded the Committee that a series of three parameter plans had already been approved as part of the outline planning permission and a condition was included in that permission to ensure that the Reserved Matters were in broad compliance with what was shown in those parameter plans.

 

*Cllr Plowman left the meeting at 1.02pm.

 

The Committee received the following speakers;

Mr Roy Littleford – Objector

Mr Craig Burden – Applicant

 

Mr Bushell responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

With regards to the landscape planting, Mr Bushell acknowledged Members’ comments but disagreed that it had been compromised in order to safeguard the delivery of 200 homes. Whilst a major structural planting scheme had not been submitted (as anticipated by Policy 17 of the Local Plan), a very detailed and carefully considered landscaping scheme had been submitted which included planting along the north and south orientated streets to help soften the visual impact of the development. Officers had worked closely with the developers to ensure that the most appropriate compromise between the need to deliver 200 houses and the planting of new trees was achieved. This included tree planting within the site and on the eastern boundary.

 

Mr Bushell confirmed that the shared use of the Lavant Valley Path (represented by the broken blue line in the presentation) was a public thoroughfare for the shared use of pedestrians and cyclists and a condition would be applied to ensure that the public were fully aware that this was the case, for example through the use of signage and surfacing treatment.

 

Mr Bushell explained that the Lavant Valley Path could not be realigned any closer to the River Lavant as this would negatively impact on both the SuDS basin and biodiversity interests within that part of the site.

 

On the matter of allotment provision, Mr Bushell confirmed that the section 106 agreement included provisions for the delivery, management and maintenance, however, in response to Members’ comments this requirement could be tightened up to ensure that plans showing boundary fences and proposed layout were submitted by the developer and this could form part of a separate condition.

 

On the matter of the foul water pumping station, Mr Bushell confirmed that it had now been relocated to outside of the flood zone.

 

Mr Bushell confirmed that the road to the SE of the site was a ‘no through road’ and appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that there was no vehicular access from Madgwick Lane to the site.

 

On the matter of affordable housing provision, Mr Bushell, confirmed that the style and appearance of the market housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

52.

Schedule of Contraventions pdf icon PDF 488 KB

 

The Planning Committee is asked to consider the quarterly schedule which updates the position with regards to planning enforcement matters.

Minutes:

Mrs Archer introduced the item to the Committee. She drew attention to the charts included within the report, and informed members that these had been added following feedback from the Committee. She explained that the charts provided a representation of the progress of current enforcement cases compared with previous.

 

Mrs Archer informed the Committee that there had been a spike in enforcement cases at that beginning of the Lockdown period, which accounted for the overall spike in the number of cases.

 

On the matter of the Birdham Gypsy site, Mrs Archer informed the Committee that the authority had received notification of the defendant’s decision to apply to the courts for an extension of time to comply. She explained that it was originally agreed that they should have left the site by the end of March 2021 and completed works of compliance by the end of April 2021, however, as a to comply with the Governments road map out of the Lockdown permission was granted to allow them to remain until June 2021.  As yet there has been no confirmation from the courts as to whether the application for an extension to time has been successful.  As a result the authority will have to wait before pursuing the next course of action, which would be a site visit from the Enforcement team.

 

Officers responded to questions and comments as follows;

 

On the matter relating to land North West of Newbridge Farm, Mrs Archer informed the Committee that the gypsy site was currently going through the appeal process; however, running alongside the appeal is a separate application for the field to be used as a gypsy site. In addition, a further investigation is currently being undertaken on a neighbouring parcel of land regarding the use of the site, this investigation is separate to the gypsy site. Mrs Archer explained that the Inspector overseeing the appeal has been informed that there is a separate investigation taking place on a neighbouring plot of land, the for this was to clarify any regarding the lawful use of the land as a whole.

 

On the matter of Land East of Brook House, Mrs Archer explained the original land holding on which the shed was sited, had been split into a separate parcel of land and subsequent planning applications had been made to develop the shed as a boathouse. Protocol dictates that when a planning application is submitted on an enforcement site then the investigation is paused and held in abeyance until the outcome of the application is determined; as a consequence this causes a delay in the investigation process. This case is currently being considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

Members agreed to note this item.

53.

Chichester District Council Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters between 10 March 2021 and 13 April 2021 pdf icon PDF 80 KB

 

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

Minutes:

Members agreed to note this item.

54.

South Downs National Park Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters between 10 March 2021 and 13 April 2021 pdf icon PDF 36 KB

 

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

Minutes:

Members agreed to note this item.

55.

Consideration of any late items as follows:

 

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

Minutes:

As announced by the Chairman at Agenda item 1 the following item was considered as a late item;

 

·         MHCLG and DCMS Consultation on Change to permitted development rights for electronic communications infrastructure: technical consultation

56.

MHCLG and DCMS Consultation on Change to permitted development rights for electronic communications infrastructure: technical consultation pdf icon PDF 297 KB

The Planning Committee is asked to note the contents of the MHCLG and DCMS consultation on changes to the permitted development rights for electronic communications infrastructure: technical consultation and to comment on, and endorse, the proposed Council response set out in Appendix 1.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Ms Stevens introduced the item to the Committee. She explained that the report set out the proposed changes to permitted development for telephone communication equipment. Ms Stevens drew the Committee’s attention to Appendix 1 of the report which set out the proposed responses to the consultation.

 

Following the presentation Member’s agreed to email Ms Stevens directly with any comments or questions they had regarding the proposed responses.

 

*Cllr Oakley left the meeting at 2.04pm

 

The meeting closed at 2.05pm

57.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

 

There are no restricted items for consideration.

Minutes:

There were no restricted items.

 

Top of page