Agenda, decisions and minutes

Special Planning Meeting, Planning Committee - Wednesday 31 March 2021 9.30 am

Venue: virtually

Contact: Sharon Hurr on 01243 534614  Email:

Link: To listen to the live broadcast recording please follow the link which will direct you to the live broadcasting webpage

No. Item


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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.


The Chairman welcomed everyone present to the virtual meeting.


Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 257 KB

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3 March 2021.


The minutes of 3 March 2021 be approved.


Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 8 (b).


There were no urgent items.


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.





Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of O/20/02471/FUL and BI/20/02899/FUL as a Chichester District Council appointed Member of Chichester Harbour Conservancy.


Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of TG/20/02893/OUT

as a Member of Tangmere Parish Council and West Sussex County Council, and O/20/02471/FUL also as a Member of West Sussex County Council.


Mr Potter declared a personal interest in respect of TG/20/02893/OUT as a Member of Boxgrove Parish Council.


Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of TG/20/02893/OUT

and O/20/02471/FUL as a Member of West Sussex County Council.


TG/20/02893/OUT Land Adjacent To A27 Copse Farm, Tangmere Road, Tangmere, West Sussex pdf icon PDF 883 KB

Outline planning application for a residential-led mixed use development comprising up to 1,300 dwellings (Use Class C3), an expanded village centre (comprising flexible units suited to Use Class E and pubs or drinking establishments and/or takeaways in Use Class Sui Generis), community uses, primary school, informal and formal open space, playing pitches, footpaths, cycleways, associated landscaping, utilities and drainage infrastructure, including on-site pumping station(s) with connection to the Strategic Foul network; associated infrastructure and groundworks; with all matters reserved except for the principal access junctions from the A27 grade-separated junction and Tangmere Road and the secondary access at Malcolm Road.


Additional documents:




Mr Bleakley presented the item to Members and provided a verbal update, confirming a minor amendment to the application relating to of a small area of land to the west of Saxon Meadows has been excluded from the application.


Information provided in the Agenda Update Sheet:


  • Further response from Natural England confirming agreement with the Council’s Habitats Regulations Assessment.


  • Additional representations from Boxgrove Parish Council, regarding the lack of detail in relation to the off-site junction mitigation measures and the proposals for monitoring traffic movements.  The requirement to maintain bus service route 55 serving Boxgrove and Halnaker.  That the Construction Management Plan prohibits construction traffic from using The Street, Boxgrove.  A requirement to further develop safe walking and cycling routes connecting Tangmere and South Downs National Park. 


  • Representations from Lavant Parish Council regarding the issues related to additional traffic on minor roads.


  • Further information from the applicant providing agreement to fund two cycle improvement studies, relating to the possible widening of the Temple Bar bridge footpath and potential improvements for the existing Westhampnett cycle route, in addition to the £630,000 contribution currently offered. 


  • Amendment to paragraph 8.59 within the report, deleting ‘up to’ in the first sentence, to read ‘Policy 18 allocates the site for 1,000 new dwellings, but emerging Policy AL14 recognises the potential of the site to satisfactorily accommodate a higher number of dwellings and consequently proposes a minimum of 1,300 dwellings on the site’.


  • Additions to the Heads of Terms for a Section 106 Agreement in paragraph 8.214 regarding ‘Community Buildings’, ‘Public Transport’, ‘Direct Highways Works’, and ‘Off-site Highway works and contributions’.


  • Changes to recommended conditions including, Condition 4 (Design Code), Condition 11 (CEMP) and updates to Condition 35 and 38.


The Committee received the following Speakers:


Andrew Irwin – Tangmere Parish Council

Philip Maber – Objector

Ian Sumnall – Supporter

Ellen Timmins – Agent

Russell Henderson – Agent


Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:


Mr Bleakley confirmed that in relation to the A27 Temple Bar junction, the costs of providing the pedestrian and cycle crossing would be not be taken from the £630,000 contribution, which was allocated to cycleway improvements.  With regards to the north-east corner of the site and connectivity of the cycleway to the existing network, as the connection was shown on the Parameter Plan which was conditioned, its delivery should be ensured and would be further considered at the reserved matters stage.  Mr Bleakley advised that officers do not currently have details regarding access to the allotments or the car park for the allotments, although these could be sought and a condition added, although he did not consider this to be necessary.  On the matter of planting or building within three metres of water courses, Mr Bleakley advised that a condition recommended this, but was aware the Parameter Plan appeared to show this as closer than three metres.  Mr Bleakley confirmed that the condition would be the over-riding factor.  The requirement for keeping land to the west of Mannock Road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.


O/20/02471/FUL Land at the Corner Of Oving Road, and A27, Chichester, West Sussex pdf icon PDF 360 KB

Erection of 143 dwellings, with associated access, parking, public open space, landscaping, extension to residential curtilages of existing properties along Oving Road and other associated works.





Mr Bushell presented the item to Members and clarified that the proposal was for an additional 43 dwellings to the 100 currently permitted.  Mr Bushell drew Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included the deletion of the provision of an off-site pedestrian/cycleway link to Oving Road from the anticipated Section 106 agreement Heads of Terms, which would now be secured by condition only. There was also an amendment to Condition 17 to require the developer before the commencement of the development to enter into a Section 278 Agreement with West Sussex County Council to secure the off-site pedestrian/cycleway link to Oving Road.


The Committee received the following Speaker:


Mr Craig Burden – Agent


Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:


With regards to design, Mr Bushell explained that currently there was a permission granted on the site for a hundred dwellings and the design of the additional 43 dwellings would follow the approved scheme.  On the matter of the north-west pedestrian/cycleway link, the majority of the three metre wide path would be on Highways England land, but there would also be some adjustments to the surrounding road network, principally associated with the Oving Road traffic light junction, hence the necessity for the involvement of the County Council.  Mr Bushell added that at Condition 17 there was a requirement for consultation with Highways England.  In relation to the emergency access at Condition 30, Mr Bushell explained that in an earlier iteration of the drawings there had been an acoustic fence shown across the frontage of Oving Road which had now been removed to ensure unobstructed access for emergency vehicles and the condition would be amended to indicate this requirement.  With regards to internal roads, they would be built to adoptable standards, with a standard clause in the Section 106 regarding private roads and those for adoption, to ensure County Council had some control.  Dog and litter bins would be looked at further, could be included in the landscape condition and would be managed by the estate management company.  On the matter of foul drainage, Mr Bushell explained that there was a signed deed of easement between Redrow, Cala Homes, and Hanbury Properties who were the landowners at Shopwhyke Lakes to allow Redrow to discharge foul water from up to 143 dwellings to the Cala Homes pumping station on the Shopwyke Lakes site which had sufficient capacity for both developments.  This was under the supervision of Southern Water, which would also be responsible as the statutory undertaker for foul water disposal between the Cala Homes pumping station and Tangmere pumping station.


On the matter of the clustering of a line of affordable housing on the eastern side of the site, Mr Bushell confirmed this had previously been approved for the 100 dwellings. This pattern was repeated on the western side, but the line was sufficiently broken with gaps, a mix of affordable and market properties, roads and parking, to ensure it was not a continuous line of affordable housing and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.


BI/20/02899/FUL Houseboat Water Gypsy, Chichester Marina, Birdham, Chichester, West Sussex pdf icon PDF 363 KB

Installation of a replacement houseboat at Berth No. 16 of Chichester Canal.


Refuse (against officer recommendation)


Mr Price presented the item to Members and drew Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet, which confirmed the recommendation to ‘permit’.


The Committee received the following speakers:


Graham Campbell – Parish Council

Jonathan Hogan – Agent


Officers responded to Members’ comment and questions:


With regards to the character of the Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) Mr Mew responded that the presentation had shown a number of other examples of houseboats, some more traditional and some more contemporary, and Chichester Harbour Conservancy had not objected.  Mr Mew also confirmed that the application was for a replacement houseboat and therefore the requirement for nitrate mitigation did not apply.


In relation to the Birdham Neighbourhood Plan, Mr Mew explained that policy 1 referred to heritage assets and their setting which identified the canal and lock as a heritage asset.  The policy referred to support for the continued presence of houseboats, and that any development must conserve or enhance the heritage asset of the parish.  Mr Whitty added the photographs exhibited in the presentation showed the range of similar developments, and therefore it would be difficult to make the argument that this development was not in character or in keeping with what was already in existence.


In regards to the utilities, Mr Mew confirmed that a specification document had been submitted with the application which was conditioned, and utilities were accessed via a utilities pole.  Mr Mew also confirmed that the plans showed a walkway to the canal side which would be fixed to the boat.  On the matter of use of the land adjacent to the houseboat for any structure, this would require a separate planning application. 


Mr Mew advised that the dimension of the proposed houseboat was 14 metres in length, by 4.3 metres in width, and 3.77 metres tall.  The previous houseboat at this mooring was granted permission in 2013, and was 15 metres in length, and therefore longer, but more narrow, less tall, and was more traditional in appearance.  Mr Mew added that policy 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan in terms of light pollution did carry weight and was in the AONB, but the Chichester Harbour Conservancy had not raised an objection.  The rear of the houseboat, at the position of a balcony above water level, had glazing across the width of the boat with an over-hang, which would assist to mitigate light spillage upwards and glazing on the sides of the houseboat was limited.  Mr Mew also confirmed that there would be sufficient width across the canal for another boat to pass the proposed development.


Mr Whitty advised that Birdham Neighbourhood Plan was not specific in terms of setting any design code, it just sought to preserve and enhance the AONB.  Design was subjective, and there was an existing eclectic mix, it was stated in an AONB that the local authority should not be subjecting personal views on design, and it should be only a matter of whether a development was in character and in keeping.


Mr Barrett  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.


Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no restricted items for consideration.


There were no part two items.


Consideration of any late items as follows:

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the Chairman 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 chairman 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.