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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

Apologies were received from Cllr Bowden and Cllr Fowler.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 11 August 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 August 2021 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 13 (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 BI/20/02066/OUT as the external appointment to Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in;

·         BI/20/02066/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         CC/21/01789/DOM as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         NM/20/02989/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in;

·         BI/20/02066/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         CC/21/01789/DOM as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         NM/20/02989/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in;

·         BI/20/02066/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         CC/21/01789/DOM as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         NM/20/02989/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

Outline Application with all matters reserved apart from access for the erection of 73 dwellings, open space and associated works, Class B1 floorspace and retail floorspace

Defer for further information.

Mr Bushell presented the report to the Committee. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which detailed a change to the description of the development; amendments to conditions 26 and 27; amendments to the report and noted the additional representations received since the Committee report was published.

Mr Bushell highlighted the site plan to the Committee and presented them with an illustrative layout of the proposed development. He explained that the proposal was for a total of 73 dwellings comprising of; 52 market housing dwellings and 21 affordable housing dwellings. However, he did remind the Committee that the final layout and housing mix was a matter that would be determined as part of the Reserved Matters and therefore may change.

Mr Bushell highlighted the proposed site for the foul water pumping station and advised that it would include a holding tank with 48 hours storage capacity installed as part of the development.

Mr Bushell explained that the application was an Outline application to agree access points onto the site as well as the principle of development when assessed against the criteria in the Interim Position Statement on housing. He highlighted the three vehicular access points from Bell Lane and confirmed that the northern most access point would serve only one property.  In addition he advised the Committee that the Swept Path Analysis demonstrated adequately safe vehicular movement for the Council’s refuse vehicles.

Mr Bushell told the Committee that as part of preliminary work to inform the review of Birdham Neighbourhood Plan in terms of finding potential future housing sites, the site had been ranked as the third most suitable development site, out of 17. Whilst acknowledging objections, Mr Bushell informed the Committee that due to the lack of a five year housing land supply and development plan housing policies being out of date which was a fundamental shift in policy circumstances, it was the officers recommendation to permit the development as the site was viewed as being in a good sustainable location when the NPPF’s ‘Tilted Balance’ was applied.

The Committee received the following representations;

·         Mr Clive Bush – Parish Council representative

·         Mr Pieter Montyn – WSCC Councillor

·         Mrs Lisa Clark – Objector

·         Dr Carolin Cobbold – Objector

·         Mrs Pat Macdonald – Objector

Before the Chairman opened the floor to debate, she invited Mr Whitty to address the Committee and explain what the ‘Tilted Balance’ was and its significance in considering planning applications.

Mr Whitty informed the Committee that the Tilted Balance is a material consideration and advised the Committee that they must take it into account when considering an application. He explained that under paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); (unless the site is in an area of AONB or other protected location), if a site is considered as being sustainable then the presumption must be in favour of granting permission. If the Committee choose to refuse an application they must clearly demonstrate that they have considered paragraph 11(d) and are able to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Demolition of garage and side extension, erection of two storey side and rear extensions and alterations and additions to fenestration. Fenestration changes of the porch. Loft conversion - Removal of Condition 3 (i) of householder permission CC/19/00666/DOM - Obscure glazed glass.

Permit

Mr Simpson presented the report to the Committee. He drew the Committee’s attention to the agenda update sheet which explained that the Cllr Bowden had removed his red card objection; a red card had subsequently been submitted by Cllr Sharp.

Mr Simpson explained the application sought to remove Condition 3 of a previous application which had been granted by Committee in November 2019. Condition 3 of the original application required that the two outer windows on the gable end would be glazed with obscure glass. Mr Simpson informed the Committee that the reason this application was now been recommended for approval was due to the fact that since the original application the situation had changed, there were now outdoor buildings in the neighbouring properties which mitigated the previous issue of overlooking.

Mr Simpson highlighted the site location and where it was located in respect to neighbouring properties.

The Committee received the following representations;

·       Ms Sarah Gottesman – Objector (statement read by Fiona Baker)

·       Mrs Maribel Bryer – Applicant

Before open the debate the Chairman invited Mr Whitty to confirm and clarify exactly what the Committee were being asked to consider. Mr Whitty clarified that the application the Committee were being asked to consider was the removal of Condition 3 and the requirement for obscure glazing on the two outer windows of the gable end.

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

With regards to the building in the rear of 129 Cedar Drive; Mr Whitty confirmed that the buildings did appear to be designed to be permanent fixtures.

In a vote the Committee agreed the recommendation to permit.

Recommendation; permit subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

*Members took a five minute break

Hybrid planning application comprising of full planning permission for 66 dwellings and associated development, including landscape, highways and parking, and outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access for open space (including informal amenity open space, bandstand and community orchard) and provision of new 3.5m wide footway/cycleway link to West Sussex Alternative Provisions College with reconfiguration of existing car parking spaces and relocation of storage facility

Defer for further information.

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She drew the Committee’s attention to the agenda update sheet which included amendments to conditions 10 and 11; an amendment to paragraph 3.14 of the report and some additional information from the applicant regarding biodiversity net gain.

Ms Bell highlighted the site location and explained that the application was a hybrid application with full planning permission being sought for 66 dwellings and associated infrastructure; including parking; the ecological mitigation land; the SUDs and play area. Outline permission is being sought for the open space, cycle link and reconfiguration of the school parking. Ms Bell explained the reason parts of the application were in outline was due to the fact that at the time of submission, WSCC and North Mundham Parish Council had not finalised detailed layout proposal for those elements in outline.

Ms Bell informed the Committee that the proposed vehicular access utilised the existing internal roads and access point that were granted through the Lowlands Nursery site, which was considered by Committee in December 2020.

Ms Bell highlighted the public right of way which runs along the southern boundary of the application site and connects North Mundham with Hunston.

She explained that the application site is stretched across two parishes, with two thirds of the application site (including all the proposed housing) falling within North Mundham Parish Council and the other within Hunston Parish Council.

The proposed housing mix for the site is 70% market value housing and 30% affordable housing, including 14 rented properties and 6 shared ownership properties. The majority of the developments would be two storey dwellings; apart from six properties located in the southern area of the site which will be single storey. The site layout and design have taken into account nearby listed buildings including St Stephen’s Church.

Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to the proposed area of ecological mitigation which included a reptile receptor area. 

Ms Bell highlighted the sustainability measures proposed including PV panels on 17 dwellings and air source heat pumps in all properties. The proposed measures equate to around a 42% improvement above Building regulations on heating and a further 10% from renewable energy.

Ms Bell explained that the open space (not including the SUDs) was expected to be taken over by North Mundham Parish Council, with discussions currently taken place to secure a maintenance contribution for the next 15 years.

The Committee received the following representations;

·         Mr Timothy Russell – North Mundham Parish Council Representative

·         Ms Amanda Sutton – Agent

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the condition for the drainage ditch line; Ms Bell agreed to review the condition to ensure that the moat is adequately maintained.

With regards to the Open Space to the east and why it could not be included within the full planning permission; Ms Bell explained that at the time of submission the application included a community facility provision, where the details were unknown at the time  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

The Planning Committee is asked to note the contents of the consultation and to comment on, and endorse, the proposed Council response.

Ms Bell presented the report to Committee. She drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which set out an amendment to the recommendation. 

She informed the Committee that the development of the off shore windfarm would comprise of both on and off shore infrastructure. Ms Bell explained that none of the proposed on shore works would take place within Chichester District, but would be located in Arun, Horsham and Mid Sussex; including the South Downs National Park.

Following the report members discussed the site and consultation and made the following comments;

In was noted that windfarms can be a positive addition to the tourist industry; in Brighton and Hove the off shore windfarm is a tourist attraction with people taking boat rides out to visit the site.

Whilst the impact from construction on ‘wet fish’ fishing had been considered, the potential impact on the shellfish industry is not yet fully understood, however, representatives were meeting with Rampion to discuss this issue.

In a vote the Committee agreed to make the recommendation set out in the report at 9.2 including the amendment as set out on the Agenda Update Sheet.;

i)               The Planning Committee note the contents of the consultation on the proposed Rampion 2 Offshore Windfarm development and;

ii)              Have commented on and endorse the recommended CDC consultation response set out in section 9.2 and the Agenda Update Sheet. Any further comments will be incorporated prior to the response being forwarded to the applicant.

The Planning Committee are asked to consider the attached report and make the proposed recommendations.

Mr Whitty presented the report to the Committee. He informed the Committee that following the Planning Committee meeting in January 2020, where a draft version of the guidance note had been endorsed, a public consultation had taken place from 31 January 2020 to 16 March 2020. He explained the delay in the guidance note coming back to Committee following the consultation was due to a number of factors, but largely due to the fact the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) had been amended 10 times during that period.

Mr Whitty explained that the document was not a policy document and could not be used to refuse applications; however, it was a useful document that sets out what is expected and required from developers, applicants and officers who are involved in Class Q applications.

Following the report Mr Whitty responded to members’ comments and questions as follows;

With regards to whether the caveat of subsequent applicationsset out in paragraph 8.0 of the report was required, Mr Whitty confirmed that it was. He explained that if the caveat was removed there would be no justification to resist a larger dwelling should such an application be put forward at a future date as the principal of the scale; design and proportion of the development would have already been established through the Class Q application.

On the matter of the associated curtilage of a Class Q development; Mr Whitty explained that there is no specific guidance on this matter and agreed that a subsequent note could be included within the guidance document to address this issue and restrict the curtilage as far as is reasonably possible.

With regards to developments in a flood zone 3 area; Mr Whitty confirmed that flooding is an issue that can be considered under the GPDO, therefore if an application were to brought forward in a flood zone 3 area it is unlikely to be supported.

In a vote the Committee agreed to make the recommendation set out I the report.

Recommendation;

i)               The Planning Committee approves the Chichester District Council Guidance Note on Class Q Prior Approvals (September 2021) (included in Appendix 1), to be used by the Council in determining all relevant prior approval and planning applications.

ii)              That the Divisional Manager for Development Management is authorised to make necessary minor changes to the guidance to take account of future pertinent case law or appeal decisions.

The Planning Committee are asked to consider the attached report and make the proposed recommendation.

Mr Whitty presented the report to the Committee. He highlighted the site location and confirmed that the site had not been in use for the last five years.

The Committee noted the contents of the report.

In a vote the Committee agreed to make the recommendation set out I the report.

Recommendation;

The Planning Committee resolves to make a revocation order s14(1) of the Planning (Hazardous Substances)Act 1990, i.e. revoking the Hazardous Substances Consent ref CC/02/03063/HSC for “Continuation of hazardous substance consent for the storage of high pressure natural gas”. (and all previous relevant consents) on the gasholder site, Terminus Road, Chichester; subject to its confirmation by the Secretary of State under Section 15 of the Act.

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

Ms Golding provided the Committee with a High Court update in respect of a gypsy site in Birdham. She explained that the authority had exercised their powers to ‘decline to determine’ on a planning application. The applicant had subsequently lodged a judicial review (for which you need the courts permission), their paper application was refused; however, they have exercised their right of appeal, which was being heard in the High Court at 2pm on Wednesday 8 September. Ms Golding will report the outcome at the next Committee meeting.

The Committee agreed to note the 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.

The Committee agreed to note the item.

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.

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no part two items.