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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The Chairman read out a statement prepared by Mr Nicholas Bennett, Monitoring Officer, which explained the physical measures put in place to comply with current legal requirements, including screens and the use of masks.

Apologies were received from Mrs Judy Fowler.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 5 May 2021.

The Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda update sheet which set out the following amendment’s to the minutes;

• Minute Item 48 (page 5 of Agenda pack)

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation to permit.

Permit

• Minute Item 49 (page 7 of Agenda Pack)

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation to permit.

Recommendation to Permit agreed subject to no objection being received from the water authority and the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

• Minute Item 52 (page 12 of Agenda Pack)

Paragraph 3, 5th line; …however, to comply with the Governments …

Paragraph 5, 9th line; … the reason for this was to clarify the situation regarding the lawful use of the land as a whole.

The minutes of 5 May 2021 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

The Chair will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 14(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 Briscoe declared a personal interest in respect of WE/20/01569/FUL as a member of Westbourne Parish Council

Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in respect of;

·         WW/20/02491/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         WE/20/01569/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         CC/21/00115/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of;

·         WW/20/02491/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         WE/20/01569/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         CC/21/00115/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mr Potter declared a personal interest in respect of;

·         WE/20/01569/FUL as the Chichester District Council external representative to the South Downs National Park Authority

·         SDNP/20/01158/FUL as the Chichester District Council external representative to the South Downs National Park Authority

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in respect of;

·         CC/21/00115/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council

·         CC/20/01590/DOM as a member of Chichester City Council

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in respect of;

·         WW/20/02491/OUT as a member of Chichester City Council and as a member of West Sussex County Council.

·         WE/20/01569/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         CC/21/00115/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council and as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         CC/20/01590/DOM as a member of Chichester City Council

Outline planning application for residential development of 70 dwellings (some matters reserved except for access).

Refuse against officer recommendation.

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She drew Members’ attention the update sheet and the following addendums to the report, which included further representations and amendments to proposed conditions

Ms Bell highlighted the site location to the Committee and explained that whilst the application site fell within the parish of West Wittering, it was located along the parish boundary with East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council, lying just 50m from the settlement boundary of East Wittering; whilst not contiguous with the settlement boundary officers had considered the application to be adjacent to and contiguous with the settlement of East Wittering.

Ms Bell informed the Committee that the site was identified in the HELAA.

Ms Bell explained that the application was an outline application with all matters reserved except for access, the issues of appearance, scale, landscape and layout were all for the consideration of future Reserved Matters applications. The application was seeking approval for 70 dwellings of which 30% would be affordable.

Ms Bell explained that due to the council not having a five year housing supply, and the Local Plan being out of date the Planning Authority is required to apply the ‘Tilted Balance’ methodology as set out in 11(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The Committee received the following representations;

Rob Hutton, West Wittering Parish Council – Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

East Wittering Parish Council – the Chairman informed the Committee that she had used her discretion to allow EPC to address the Committee given the application site and its proximity to the Parish - Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

Mrs Lisa Clark – Objector – Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

Mr George Thomas – Objector – Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

Ms Juliet Johnson – Objector – Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

Miss Katie Lamb – Agent – Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of concerns regarding sewage; Ms Bell informed the Committee that Southern Water were the statutory consultee for this issue. Whilst acknowledging the concerns raised by the Committee, Ms Bell explained that as the statutory consultee Southern Water had raised no concerns and confirmed that they have the capacity to accommodate the increase in sewage from the site. In addition, Mr Whitty advised the Committee that if they were to refuse the application over concerns regarding sewage the authority would have no conclusive evidence to present in support of this claim at appeal, meaning that it would likely be afforded little weight by the Planning Inspectorate.

On the matter of flood risk and high water table; Ms Bell referred to a recent correspondence with the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency confirmed that since the Sandpiper Walk application there had been a significant amount of modelling and updating work completed during 2015. This had been done to better understand the risk of fluvial flooding. Following the completion of this work the application site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Erection of 1 no. dwelling and associated landscaping.

Defer

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee.

Mr Mew informed the Committee that whilst the proposed site location was outside the settlement boundary and not in a location that would normally be considered for the construction of a dwelling, the application was being put forward under paragraph 79(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

‘79(e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it:

·       Is truly outstanding or  innovative, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and

·       Would significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.’

He confirmed that the application does meet the criteria to be considered under paragraph 79(e). In addition he informed the Committee that the applicant had incorporated advice of two Independent Design Review panels as part of the application process, both of which concluded that the design met the criteria of paragraph 79(e). Mr Mew reminded the Committee that under paragraph 129 of the NPPF the advice of the design review was a material consideration.

The Committee received the following speakers;

Mr Richard Hitchcock, Chairman Westbourne Parish Council – Parish Council (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Mr Robert Hughes – Agent (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Officers responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows;

On the matter of the ‘weight’ of influence carried by the Westbourne Neighbourhood Plan, Mr Whitty explained that the NPPF and the Local Plan sit as an umbrella to all Neighbourhood Plans; meaning that Neighbourhood Plans must be in general conformity with both the NPPF and relevant Local Plan. A neighbourhood plan cannot prevent application of national or local policy; it is developed to supplement it. Therefore it is officer’s recommendation that this application is not in conflict with the Westbourne Neighbourhood Plan and does meet the criteria of NPPF 79 (e). With regards to the site causing any visual harm Mr Whitty explained that the design concept had been developed from the Landscape Assessment and officers felt that visual harm (if any) was minimal.

On the matter of refuse collection; Mr Mew explained that refuse would be collected from an existing track adjacent to the proposed site location which already serviced neighbouring properties. Mr Mew informed the Committee that he had contacted CDC waste services who had confirmed that the applicant had contacted them and that refuse would be collected from this location. 

On the matter of visibility splay and the impact upon the ancient woodland, Mr Mew informed the Committee that WSCC highways had not required any removal of trees to achieve the visibility splay and therefore there is no anticipated impact to the Ancient Woodland.

On the matter of Condition 24; Mr Mew explained that this was there as a mechanism to secure what is required for a paragraph 79 house. In particular, recoding the sustainability measures and innovation technologies that are being used in the construction and how findings can inform other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Change of use and associated signage from flexible class B1 B2 and B8 to class E indoor sport, recreation of fitness.

Permit

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee.

There were no comments or questions from Members.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation to permit.

Recommendation PERMIT subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

Alterations to existing dwelling together with ground floor rear extension and side porch.

Defer

Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee and drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included additional representations.

Ms Stevens explained to the Committee that much of what was proposed within the application was subject to Permitted Development including the porch element to the side of the building. Ms Stevens informed the Committee that this was the fall-back position and as a material consideration carried a significant amount of weight. She explained the reason for the planning application being submitted was because when combined both the side and rear extension were greater than the width of the house.

Ms Stevens explained that the roof lights identified in her report were included as part of a permitted development on an existing lost conversion and did not form part of the application being considered by the Committee.

Ms Stevens informed the Committee that a tree survey had been submitted as part of the application. A condition for the translocation of two trees was already included within the proposed report; however, Ms Stevens confirmed that the applicant has indicated that they would be happy for a condition on the planting scheme to be included if the Committee felt that was necessary.

The Committee received the following speakers;

Mrs M Klinger – Objector (statement read by Mrs Baker)

Mr J Halliday – Objector (statement read by Mrs Baker)

Mr W Mclaren-Clark – Objector (statement read by Mrs Baker)

Mrs E Rogerson - Applicant

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

Ms Stevens confirmed that the proposed extension would be built right up to the site boundary as shown on the plans. On the matter of construction and maintenance Ms Stevens explained that these were separate matters that the applicant would need to resolve should permission be given and was not a matter for the Committee to consider.

On the matter of the council’s guidance note for alterations to dwellings and extensions; Ms Steven’s confirmed that the proposal complied with the council’s design statement.

On the matter of permitted development, Mr Whitty explained that it was a technicality that much of the scheme required permission from the Local Planning Authority, due to the side extension adjoining another extension, that the application had been submitted. If permission is not granted then the side extension could be constructed through permitted development, and with prior approval the majority of the rear extension could also be constructed.

On the matter of the proposed obscure glass glazing and roof lights, Mr Whitty informed the Committee that because the glass glazing was at ground floor level it did not require planning consent, nor was it required to be obscured.

On the matter of roof lights, Mr Whitty confirmed that the roof lights did not form part of the application.

On the matter of permitted development within a Conservation Area; Mr Whitty confirmed that if the site was located within a Conservation Area it would not be subject to the same permitted development rights.

Cllr Plowman proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Temporary on site accommodation for a worker essential to the operation of the land based business.   

Permit

Mr Price presented the report to the Committee. He referred the Committee to the Agenda update sheet which included a revised site location map.

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of why the application was only temporary and not permanent; Mr Price explained that the business was established in 2014, since then it has progressively developed and the number of animals located at the site now required the permanent presence of a member of staff, both for the welfare of the animals and for security purposes. Mr Price explained that it was standard practice for a recently established business, such as this, to apply for a temporary permission. A temporary application helps provide a the business owner with a level of surety required to develop the business further, it also provides a test for South Downs National Park if the item is considered again at the end of the three year period.

On the matter of Condition 3; Mr Price agreed that the condition could be amended to the following; The occupation of the residential mobile home hereby permitted to be stationed on the site shall be limited to a person solely working or employed at the equestrian business carried on at Pondfield Farm Stables and any resident dependants.

In a vote Members’ agreed the recommendation to permit.

Recommendation, that the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10 of the report, as amended.  

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 Land West of Birdham Farm, Mr Whitty confirmed that the dates referenced were correct and no further action could be taken until after the July date.

Members agreed to note this item.

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 Land north of Blind Lane, Mr Whitty confirmed that the Parish could comment and would provide further advice outside the meeting.

The Committee agreed to note this item.

The Committee is requested to consider the report and its appendix and make the following resolutions:

1.    That Planning Committee approves the Sussex Planning Noise Advice Document for consultation.

2.    That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and Environment (following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Chichester Contract Services) to consider the representations arising from the consultation exercise and, provided the representations do not require significant amendments to the Document, to approve adoption (with minor amendments if considered appropriate) of the Document.

Resolved;

2.1 That Planning Committee approves the Sussex Planning Noise Advice Document for Consultation

2.2 That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and Environment (following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Chichester Contract Services) to consider the representations arising from the consultation exercise and, provided the representations do not require significant amendments if considered appropriate)of the Document

Mr Paul Thomson, Senior Environmental Health Officer presented the report to the Committee.

Mr Thomson provided the Committee with a brief background to noise and the impact that it can have on; the environment, health and quality of individuals and communities. He explained that noise can be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

Mr Thomson informed the Committee that the Planning Noise Advisory Document had first been produced in 2014 and subsequently revised in 2015. This latest version, which the Committee were being asked to consider had been developed by a group of pan Sussex Environmental Health Officers.

Mr Thomson explained that the document sought to deliver the following three aims;

1.    Provide a level of clarity to agents and applicants as to the Council’s approach to noise related issues through the development management system which is consistent with other local authorities in both East and West Sussex.

2.    Ensure appropriate standards are set, including; ProPG and the World Health Organisation 2018 Noise Guidelines, and that these standards are referred to in noise assessments and applied consistently in planning decisions. Mr Thomson informed the Committee of the noise hierarchy and how developers are encouraged to adopt a sustainable approach to noise mitigation measures.

3.    Encourage developers and applicants to liaise with Local Authorities at the earliest opportunity before a planning application is submitted, minimising any potential delays to the decision making process.

The document helps to inform developers and applicants of when a noise assessment is likely to be required. Mr Thomson informed the Committee that the document was an important reference document that supports the council’s position when responding to applications, some authorities such as Crawley Borough Council and Arun District Council have formally adopted the document as part of the Local Plan Evidence.

Mr Thomson explained to the Committee that Chichester District Council were looking to formally adopt the document as a local technical guidance note, following a limited scope consultation with developers and agents; Mr Thomson highlighted that this was not a public consultation as it was a technical advice note.  The consultation period will run for a period of seven weeks from 21 June – 6 August 2021, any amendments or alterations that are identified through the consultation process will be appended to the document as applicable to Chichester District Council only.

In addition to the document there are policies unique to Chichester District Council, including a MAS Environmental Limited 2018 noise study for Goodwood. Mr Thomson explained that this had been commissioned by the Council to set specific criteria for noise considerations from both the aerodrome and motor racing circuit.

Mr Thomson responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

Mr Thomson confirmed that the document was available on the Council website and could be shared with Parish Councils.

Mr Thomson clarified that the document was a ‘live’ document; the purpose of the consultation was for Chichester District Council to formally adopt the document as a Technical Advice Note.

On the matter  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

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 restricted items.