Chichester District Council
Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Rooms - East Pallant House

Contact: Graham Thrussell (Senior Member Services Officer) 01243 534653 or Katherine Jeram (Member Services Officer) 01243 534674  Email: gthrussell@chichester.gov.uk or Email: kjeram@chichester.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

275.

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be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications (agenda items 5 to 16)which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

Minutes:

Mr Hayes welcomed the very large number of members of the public, members of the Planning Committee, other Chichester District Council (CDC) members who were present, CDC officers and the press representative. He gave advice on practical arrangements including the emergency evacuation procedure which was displayed on the screens.

 

Mr Hayes stated that as this was Remembrance Day the customary period of silence for two minutes would be observed at 11:00; its commencement and conclusion would be marked by a brief sounding of the East Pallant House warning bells.

 

The following CDC members were in attendance during the meeting as observers and in some cases (as noted at the appropriate points in these minutes) as speakers: Mr J C P Connor, Mrs P A Hardwick, Mrs E P Lintill, Mrs P Plant, Mr H C Potter, Mr J Ridd, Mrs S T Taylor and Mr D Wakeman. 

 

He introduced the officers who were in attendance for the start of this meeting (others would arrive in due course for particular items).   

 

Apologies for absence had been received from Mr McAra.    

 

There were no agenda items which had been deferred or withdrawn.

276.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday 14 October 2015 and will be circulated separately subsequent to the despatch of this agenda.

Minutes:

The Planning Committee received the minutes of its previous meeting on Wednesday 14 October 2015. No amendments were proposed.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Planning Committee approves without amendment the minutes of its meeting on Wednesday 14 October 2015. 

277.

Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 19 (b).

Minutes:

There were no urgent matters for consideration under agenda item 19 b) (Late Items).

278.

Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 132 KB

For 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 or parish council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies, please refer to pages 1 to 2 of this agenda.

 

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:

The obligation to make declarations of interests related to agenda items 5 to 16, 18 and 20 inclusive.

 

A – Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

 

Disclosable pecuniary interests have been introduced by section 30 of the Localism Act 2011 and are set out in paras 3 to 7 of Part 3 of Chichester District Council’s (CDC) Code of Conduct adopted on Tuesday 9 October 2012. They are interests that either the member has or is aware that his or her partner has. Where such an interest exists, the member concerned must declare it. Unless the member has previously received a dispensation to do so from the Monitoring Officer, he or she may not participate in any discussion of or in any vote taken on that item of business. The member concerned must move to the public seating area for the duration of the item of business in question and from that area he or she may make representations, answer questions or give evidence relating to that item of business, provided that he or she has received a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer to do so.

 

There were no declarations of a disclosable pecuniary interest made at this meeting.

 

B - Personal Interests

 

Personal interests are defined in paras 8 and 9 of Part 4 of CDC’s Code of Conduct adopted on Tuesday 9 October 2012. They include (as set out on pages 1 and 2 of the agenda for this meeting) membership of parish councils, West Sussex County Council, outside organisations or public bodies where those local authorities, organisations or bodies have been consulted in respect of an item in the schedule of planning applications or another relevant agenda item.

 

Miss Golding explained that the personal interests set out on pages 1 and 2 of the agenda were to be taken as having been declared by the member concerned in respect of the relevant planning applications in agenda items 5 to 16 inclusive where such consultations had taken place.

 

There were five members of the Planning Committee who made the following declarations of personal interests:

 

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications BO/15/01507/ FUL (agenda item 5) and WW/15/02328/REG3 (agenda item 15) as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy. 

 

Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications BO/15/01507/ FUL (agenda item 5), D/15/01583/OUT (agenda item 6), BX/15/02463/FUL (agenda item 7), CC/14/03681/REG3 (agenda item 8), CH/15/02332/FUL (agenda item 10) and TG/15/ 02310/OUT (agenda item 11) as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Mrs Kilby declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/14/03681/ REG3 (agenda item 8) and CC/15/02466/DOM (agenda item 9) as a member of Chichester City Council. 

 

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning application TG/15/02310/ OUT (agenda item 11) as a member of Tangmere Parish Council.

 

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications BO/15/01507/ FUL (agenda item 5), D/15/01583/OUT (agenda item 6), BX/15/02463/FUL (agenda item 7), CC/14/03681/REG3 (agenda item  ...  view the full minutes text for item 278.

279.

BO/15/01507/FUL - Oakcroft Nursery Walton Lane Bosham West Sussex PO18 8QB pdf icon PDF 166 KB

Application for the demolition of existing redundant glasshouses and associated buildings; construction of new hospice with 18 bedroom in-patient unit and day hospice with associated external stores, cafe, shop, offices car parking and landscaping; new section of footway linking site to the A259 together with associated enhancements to pedestrian crossing facilities.

Minutes:

[Note During the course of this agenda item the Remembrance Day two-minute silence was observed between 11:00 and 11:02]

 

Mr Harris presented this planning application for (a) the demolition of existing redundant glasshouses and associated buildings, (b) the construction of a new hospice with 18 bedroom in-patient unit and day hospice with associated external stores, café, shop, offices, car parking and landscaping and (c) a new section of footway linking the site to the A259 together with associated enhancements to pedestrian crossing facilities. 

 

He described the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens namely (a) a location plan (the principal features of and nearby to the site were identified); (b) an aerial photograph (with relevant details close to the site such as fields and roads identified); (c) the site/ application plan for this proposal (the details of the scheme were explained); (d) colour pictures of the elevation details; (e) highway works plan; (f) colour images illustrating the massing of the existing and proposed buildings; (g) four colour photographs of the existing condition of the site sent by the applicant to the members of the Planning Committee under cover of a letter dated 6 November 2015; (h) colour photographs with different views of the local roads including the A259 and Walton Lane.

 

The agenda update sheet reported:

 

(a)  The amendment of the final line of para 8.58 of the report (page 24 of the agenda papers) namely that ‘refuse’ should be substituted for ‘permit’ so as to read ‘the recommendation to refuse is justified and proportionate.’. 

 

(b)  The request made to the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government for the application to be called in for determination in the event that the Planning Committee was minded to approve the same contrary to the officer’s recommendation.  

 

(c)  The consequential need for a resolution to permit the application, if the Planning Committee was so minded, to take the form of ‘Defer for referral to the Secretary of State and, in the event of no call-in, then permit (with appropriate conditions)’.

 

(d)  The additional comments submitted by Southern Water relating to sewage disposal (officers had invited a representative to attend this meeting but no-one had been available).

 

(e)  The additional supporting information supplied by the applicant relating to traffic impact, car parking, foul water and site ownership.

 

(f)   The comments by officers on the applicant’s contentions regarding the prospect of the site being available for housing development as proposed in the emerging Bosham Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029 (BPNP).  

 

(g)  The further third party representations received namely four additional third party support, one additional third party other (death rates at the applicant’s existing premises) and the information sent to Planning Committee members. 

 

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

(a)  Mr A Johnstone (the chairman of Bosham Parish Council) – parish representative objecting to the application

 

(b)  Mr O James – objector

 

(c)  Mrs C Pexton – objector

 

(d)  Mr J Course – objector  ...  view the full minutes text for item 279.

280.

D/15/01583/OUT - St Wilfrid's Hospice Grosvenor Road Donnington West Sussex PO19 8FP pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Application for the demolition of existing hospice and replacement with 21 no residential dwellings.

Minutes:

Miss Bell introduced this planning application for the demolition of an existing hospice and its replacement with 21 residential dwellings and made reference to a sequence of slides consisting of (a) a location plan (relevant features identified); (b) a colour site proposal plan (details of access and layout including parking provision); (c) a colour access drawing; (d) colour elevation drawings; and (e) photographs of the site and its immediate vicinity. 

 

Miss Bell summarised the following agenda update sheet entries for this application: (a) an amended plan; (b) clarification of inconsistencies within the report as to access road width; (c) amendment of condition 14 (parking provision); and (d) extra conditions 19 (public footpath connection points) and 20 (illumination of access/external areas).

 

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

(a)  Mr E Padley (Donnington Parish Council) – parish representative objecting to the application

 

(b)  Mr P Balaam – objector

 

(c)  Mr P White – agent for the applicant

 

Mr J Ridd, the Donnington ward member, addressed the Planning Committee objecting to the application.

 

Mr Hayes welcomed two West Sussex County Council Highways representatives, Mrs A Meeus (Assistant Planner Strategic Planning) and Mr T Townsend (Senior Planner Strategic Planning) who were present for this item to answer members’ questions. 

 

During the discussion Miss Bell, Mr Frost, Mrs Meeus and Mr Townsend responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail with regard to:

 

(a)  The use of different surface treatment and/or painted white lines for the access road in order to alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians.

 

(b)  The use of lighting on the fence.

 

(c)  The assessment of traffic impact as a result of this development.

 

(d)  The open space provision.

 

(e)  The need for signs to show that the existing public footpath along the north eastern boundary would also be a cycleway. 

 

With regard to (a) and (e) officers advised respectively that there would be an additional condition 21 (surface treatment for access road) and that the additional condition 19 (public footpath connection points) mentioned in the agenda update sheet would be amended to require a cycle link from the site to Queens Avenue.

 

At the conclusion of the discussion the Planning Committee voted unanimously by 14 votes to nil and with no abstentions to approve the application. 

 

 

Decision

 

Recommendation to defer for section 106 agreement then permit with amended condition 14 (parking provision) and new conditions 19 (public footpath and cycleway connection points), 20 (illumination of access/external areas) and 21 (access road surface treatment) agreed.

281.

BX/15/02463/FUL - Land South West of Rose Cottage A285 Redvins Road to Tinwood Lane Halnaker Boxgrove PO18 0NQ pdf icon PDF 80 KB

Application for the erection of a single-storey, one-bedroomed dwelling.

Minutes:

[Note Immediately prior to the commencement of this agenda item Mr Cullen and Mr Hall withdrew from the committee table and sat elsewhere in the Council Chamber for its duration, in accordance with their respective declarations of prejudicial interests made at the start of this meeting]

 

Mr Whitty introduced this planning application for the erection of a single storey one bedroomed dwelling. He made reference to a sequence of slides consisting of (a) location plans (identified relevant features); (b) photographs (various views); (c) a close-up location plan; and (d) a floor plan. He identified as the main issue the principle of development and sustainability (paras 8.2 to 8.6 in the agenda report). The other issues were: impact on (a) conservation area and surrounding area (paras 8.7 to 8.11); (b) setting of the adjacent listed building (paras 8.12 to 8.13); (c) amenity of neighbouring properties (paras 8.15 to 8.16); (d) highway network (para 8.17). The application gave rise to major conflicts with Policies 1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development), 2 (Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy) and 45 (Development in the Countryside) of the Chichester Local Plan. As explained in para 8.4 of the report, the policy context had altered significantly since the previous planning application (BX/14/01585/FUL) had been refused by the Planning Committee in November 2014.

 

Mr Whitty drew attention to the agenda update sheet which amended para 8.18 in the agenda report and thereby the reason for the refusal recommendation. 

 

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

(a)  Mr M Bish (Boxgrove Parish Council) – parish representative in support

 

(b)  Mr M Woolston – supporter

 

(c)  Mr M Hall – supporter

 

(d)  Mr R Dollamore – on the applicant’s behalf

 

Mr H C Potter, the Boxgrove ward member, addressed the Planning Committee in support of the application.

 

During the discussion a majority of members expressed support for the application. They felt that the proposed dwelling would be in a sustainable location, on a suitable site, was a smaller property than the one refused permission in November 2014 and would be well-screened.

 

A minority of members considered that the application was contrary to policy, would detract from the appearance of the site and lacked an objective rationale (as opposed to the applicant’s subjective desire to build the proposed dwelling).  The site could always be re-examined in the context of the emerging Boxgrove neighbourhood development plan (NDP).

 

Mr Whitty and Mr Frost advised members with respect to their questions and comments. Among the points made were the following:

 

(a)  The policies in the very recently adopted Chichester Local Plan should be followed unless there were material considerations to the contrary which outweighed those policies. The Chichester Local Plan allowed the local planning authority to manage development through the allocation of sites (including NDPs and windfall sites within identified settlement boundaries). In addition the local planning authority had a current five-year housing land supply.

 

(b)  The emerging Boxgrove NDP and the current status of this site vis-à-vis  ...  view the full minutes text for item 281.

282.

CC/14/03681/REG3 - Plot 21 Terminus Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 8UH pdf icon PDF 137 KB

Application for outline planning permission for up to 5 no B2/B8 commercial units with ancillary trade counter use and associated parking and servicing (total floor-space circa 2,200sqm).

Minutes:

This proposal had been referred to the Planning Committee for determination because the applicant was Chichester District Council.

 

Mrs Langford introduced this application for outline planning permission for up to five B2/B8 commercial units with ancillary trade counter use and associated car parking and servicing (total floor-space circa 2,200m2). She explained the proposal for what was one of the key industrial areas of the city with reference to various slides shown on the screens: (a) an aerial photograph of the site and its surroundings with a zoom-in image of the site (the proposal and situation were explained); (b) photographs of the exterior and interior of the existing building; (c) an existing/proposed site plan; (d) a plan showing tracking for large vehicles and parking places with photographs of similar business units in the area; (e) illustrative elevations provided by the applicant. The issues of access, layout and scale were for consideration at this stage; appearance and landscaping were reserved matters. 

 

The agenda update sheet reported (i) a consultation response from West Sussex County Council Local Development Division which had been erroneously omitted from the agenda report but had been taken into account during the planning officer’s assessment and (ii) amendments to conditions 4 (demolition and construction management), 6 (surface water drainage details), 10 (reconstruction of access) and 12 (cycle parking provided).

 

No members of the public addressed the Planning Committee.

 

During the short discussion members spoke in support of the scheme.

 

Mrs Langford answered members’ questions on points of detail regarding (a) the reason for there being no TAD infrastructure requirement, (b) the development being exempt from the Community Infrastructure Levy - any site specific works would be covered by a section 106 agreement if required and (c) the potential to merge two units by removing internal partition walls.    

 

The Planning Committee voted unanimously to approve the application namely by 13 votes to nil with no abstentions.

 

Decision

 

Recommendation to permit with amended conditions 4 (demolition and construction management), 6 (surface water drainage details), 10 (reconstruction of access) and 12 (cycle parking provided) agreed.

283.

CC/15/02466/DOM - 119 Cedar Drive Chichester West Sussex PO19 3EL pdf icon PDF 45 KB

Application for the demolition of existing garage; construction of rear extension and replacement roof.

Minutes:

Mr Whitty presented this planning application for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a rear extension and replacement roof. He explained the proposal with reference to a series of slides shown on the screens: (a) a location plan; (b) a site plan with a close-up of the location plan; (c) photographs of Cedar Drive and the subject and neighbouring properties; (d) existing and proposed plans; and (e) a floor plan.

 

There were no entries in the agenda update sheet for this item

 

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

·         Mrs C Mendoza – objector

 

·         Mr D Telfer – applicant

 

Mr Plowman commenced the debate by explaining why he had issued a red card for this application. He was concerned that the development (which was not an isolated example) would change the character of the street-scene. The loss of this type of valuable housing stock was to be regretted and would not be replaced. The character of Parklands was undergoing negative change as bungalows were being converted into houses.   

 

During the debate, save for Mr Plowman all the other members who spoke expressed their approval of the proposal, which they considered would enhance and not detract from the character of the area. It was felt that the housing mix in the street was eclectic; the area had been slowly evolving and there were examples of properties nearby which had been extended. 

 

Mr Whitty commented on the issue of overlooking which had been raised by the objector who had addressed the meeting and queried by a member. Paras 8.8 to 8.11 covered the matter and explained why officers did not consider that the development would create any unacceptable impact as a result of inter alia overlooking.

 

Mr Frost drew attention to the policies in the Chichester Local Plan which were in favour of a mix of units.

 

At the conclusion of the debate all but one of the 12 members of the Planning Committee who were present voted in favour of the application; Mr Plowman voted against.

 

Decision

 

Recommendation to permit agreed.

284.

CH/15/02332/FUL - Land North of The Avenue Hambrook Chidham PO18 8TZ pdf icon PDF 193 KB

Application for the erection of 6 no dwellings and associated works.

Minutes:

Mr Whitty introduced this planning application for the erection of six dwellings and associated works.  In doing so he showed members slides on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan; (b) a site plan (summary of planning history); (c) a colour site plan (proposed units); (d) a colour drainage/surface water plan (system details and ability of vehicles to turn on site); (e) photographs (various views); and (f) colour elevation drawings for specific plots. He explained that officers were recommending this back-land site proposal for approval having regard to its being an appropriate and sustainable location for a small-scale yet relatively comprehensive scheme. The principle of development having been considered acceptable, there were no material considerations which outweighed that assessment ie design and impact upon character of the surrounding area and/or neighbouring properties, drainage, highway safety, and aboricultural and ecological considerations.

 

The agenda update sheet contained the following entries: (a) amendments to the application; (b) further supporting information from the applicant; and (c) an amended condition 5 (drainage ditch easement).  

 

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

(a)  Mr C Archer (Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council) – parish representative objecting to the application

 

(b)  Mr P Barry – agent for the applicant

 

During the debate a majority of members expressed concerns about the application to the extent that they did not feel able to support it. The following points were mentioned:

 

(a)  The development was not only and obviously in-filling but it was a regrettable example of ‘garden-grabbing’.

 

(b)  The urban character of the scheme was inappropriate for this location of what had been designed and laid out as individual properties in large plots. It would result in an internal, land-locked group of houses which would be out of character with the area and it would constitute a pocket of high density. If permitted it would create a precedent for even more of this kind of development. 

 

(c)  The parish had had more than its fair share of housing in the last five years without the requisite level of infrastructure to support it. The concerns of the local parish council in this regard (as well as others) were set out on pages 72 and 73 of the agenda report.  

 

(d)  The continuing unresolved foul drainage problems experienced by residents (caused in large part by rainwater infiltration in an area of inferior drainage) which would be exacerbated by this development. The efficacy of the proposed arrangements was questionable.

 

(e)  The familiar parking congestion on The Avenue was noticeably absent from a photograph shown on the screen.

 

(f)   The safety to risk to children who would exit from the houses straight onto the access road.

 

(g)  The emerging Chidham and Hambrook neighbourhood development plan (NDP) did not envisage this site as suitable for development.

 

Mr Whitty and Mr Frost responded to members’ questions and comments with regard to:

 

(a)  The character of the area and the existing level of back-land development.

 

(b)  The housing allocation for the parish in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 284.

285.

TG/15/02310/OUT - 31 Tangmere Road Tangmere West Sussex PO20 2HR pdf icon PDF 135 KB

Application for the construction of 3 no dwellings and associated works.

Minutes:

Mr Whitty presented this planning application for the construction of three dwellings and associated works. He described the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens namely (a) a location plan; (b) a colour site proposal plan; (c) photographs (various views) and elevations.

 

The agenda update sheet reported:

 

(a)  the substitution of a new para 6.1 in the agenda report: the comments previously attributed to Tangmere Parish Council were in fact those of a third party;

 

(b)  the receipt of additional consultations/details: Environment Agency and applicant’s supporting information;

(c)  the supply of further planning assessment of the proposal with respect to the impact on heritage assets, housing land supply and waste water disposal.   

 

Mr Whitty advised that the recommendation was now simply one of permit ie without a deferral for a section 106 agreement.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

(a)  Mr B Wood (Tangmere Parish Council) – parish representative objecting to the application

 

(b)  Mrs K Simmons – agent for the applicant

 

During the debate several members expressed concerns about the proposal, which included the following reasons for opposing the grant of planning permission:

 

(a)  The proposed development would involve the loss of what was a prominent, distinctive and well-maintained dwelling-house at the entrance or gateway to the village and would have an adverse impact on the character of the area; the site formed part of the estate on the west side of Tangmere Road.

 

(b)  The Policies 33 (New Residential Development) and 47 (Heritage and Design) of the Chichester Local Plan gave weight to protect the character of the area (which would be adversely harmed by this development) and the type of dwelling of which the existing property was an example. If the current dwelling-house were to be demolished (which would be regrettable) it was hard to see how similar proposals could be resisted. It was, therefore, important to hold the line by refusing this application.

 

(c)  The proposal would amount to overdevelopment of the site.

 

(d)  The doubts about the adequacy of the foul and surface water infrastructure did not favour approving the application. There was insufficient evidence that Southern Water had assessed (as opposed to not objecting to) the adequacy of foul drainage arrangements.

 

(e)  The parking congestion on Edwards Avenue was already noticeable and Tangmere Road was a well-used C-class road. The adverse impact of the development on these roads and there were doubts about the adequacy of on-site turning.   

 

Mr Whitty answered members’ questions and comments on points of detail with respect to the following matters:

 

(a)  The opinion of the Historic Buildings Adviser as reported in the agenda update sheet, which included the fact that planning permission would not be required for demolition (only prior approval as to the method of demolition and proposed restoration of the site).

 

(b)  The fact there was a varied street-scene and the character of the area would not be harmed by the proposal.

 

(c)  The property had not been very sympathetically extended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 285.

286.

WE/15/01901/FUL - Land to North of Hill House Hambrook Hill North Hambrook West Sussex pdf icon PDF 52 KB

Application to remove redundant horse shelter and stores and replace with modern stabling (re-submission of WE/14/02789/FUL).

Minutes:

Mr Saunders presented this planning application to remove redundant horse shelter and stores and replace with modern stabling (re-submission of WE/14/02789/FUL) and drew attention to a sequence of slides consisting of (a) aerial photographs (one with a zoom image); (b) a site plan; (c) photographs (various views); and (d) proposal plans. In reply to a member’s clarification question he advised that all but one of the existing buildings would be removed; the field shelter would be retained.  

 

There were no entries in the agenda update sheet in respect of this application.

 

The following member of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

·         Mr R Briscoe (Westbourne Parish Council) – parish representative objecting to the application.

 

During the discussion a majority of members expressed concerns about the application with reference to the allegedly observed unsatisfactory condition and care of the animals kept in the field, the size and suitability of the land for the proposed use having regard to para 1 of Policy 55 (Equestrian Development) in the Chichester Local Plan ie overdevelopment, and the justification for a stable of the proposed size in any event given the number of the animals on the site and particularly in view of the retention of the field shelter. It was questioned whether this type of upgrade was necessary and there was speculation as to what might be the ultimate intended use of the site. The details of construction of the proposed modern stabling were queried. 

 

In reply to members’ questions and comments Mr Saunders advised with respect to: 

 

(a)  The number of animals which would be kept on the site if approval were to be granted: three ie the existing horse and donkey and an additional horse. .

 

(b)  The British Horse Society guidance was precisely that – there were various variables such as what a horse ate, its size, the time of the year and weather – and its advice that there should be two horses kept to a hectare should be interpreted accordingly. The applicant owned other land to the south of the site.

 

(c)  The details of the existing and proposed buildings and the dimensions of the site.

 

(d)  The potential for the conversion of the proposed stable to an alternative use would be the subject of planning control and condition 4 (stable – no commercial use) was being recommended.

 

At the conclusion of the discussion the Planning Committee voted first of all on the officer recommendation to permit: five members were in favour of permitting and seven were against it. The recommendation was not, therefore, carried.

 

It was then proposed by Mr Oakley and duly seconded by Mrs Tassell that the application should be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and hence non-compliance with para 1 of Policy 55 of the Chichester Local Plan namely inadequate land for the number of horses to be kept on it.

 

 

 

 

Refuse for the following reason:

 

 

The removal of a redundant horse shelter and stores and erection of modern stabling would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 286.

287.

WW/15/02020/FUL - 10 Windsor Drive West Wittering West Sussex PO20 8EG pdf icon PDF 49 KB

Application to change of use of amenity land to garden land and erection of fencing.

Minutes:

Mr Saunders introduced this application for a change of use of amenity land to garden land and erection of fencing, which he explained with reference to a series of slides shown on the screens: (a) an aerial photograph of the site and its surroundings and (b) photographs (various views of Windsor Drive and Harrow Drive and its overall open plan layout, the amenity strip, corner plots where landowners had introduced boundary treatment and the type of fencing which was being proposed). The basis for the recommendation to permit was set out in 8.2 to 8.6 and 8.8 of the agenda report.

 

The agenda update sheet reported an amendment to para 3.1 of the report.

 

The following member of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

(a)  Mr K Martin (West Wittering Parish Council) – parish representative objecting to the application.

 

During the discussion some members objected to the proposal, principally because it would detract (especially being on a corner plot) from the character and appearance of the open layout of this estate (a feature supported in the village design statement) and would set an undesirable precedent for others to follow suit. Some expressed reservations about the need for the proposal in view of the modest amount of land which would be enclosed and the type of boundary treatment ie a fence rather than a wall – the latter was felt, as between the two, to be more appropriate.

 

Mr Whitty and Mr Frost answered questions on points of detail regarding what was meant by amenity land; the ownership of this piece of amenity land; the extent of the land which the fence would enclose (the side and the rear); the fact that the planting of, say, a privet hedge would not require planning permission (it would not amount to development); the irrelevance of the applicant’s motives for wishing to enclose the land; and the imposition of a condition to require a wall to be erected in place of a fence would be a fairly substantial change to the application which ought to be addressed by negotiation with the applicant.

 

It was proposed by Mrs Tull and seconded by Mr Dunn that the application should be delegated to officers to negotiate with the applicant for a wall to be erected instead of a fence. The proposal was carried on a vote being taken: eight members voted in favour and four members were against.

 

Delegate to officers to negotiate with the applicant for a wall to be erected instead of a fence and then permit.

 

[Note This decision was at variance with the planning officer’s recommendation]

288.

WW/15/02066/FUL - Recreation Ground Rookwood Road West Wittering West Sussex pdf icon PDF 95 KB

Application for the re-submission of WW/14/01522/FUL; the installation of two full-sized tennis courts within the sports field curtilage situated adjacent to the existing play park.

Minutes:

Mr Whitty presented this application which was a resubmission of application WW/14/ 01522/FUL namely the installation of two full-sized tennis courts within the sports field curtilage situated adjacent to the existing play park. During his commentary members viewed a set of slides shown on the screens: (a) an aerial photograph of the site and its surroundings (relevant features identified); (b) photographs (varied perspectives); (c) a location plan. The consultation response received from Sport England was summarised: its objection was based on the loss of a playing field without the new tennis courts being served by artificial sports lighting.  

 

The agenda update sheet reported an amendment to the recommendation by virtue of the objection raised by Sport England, the text of which had been altered from permit to the following: ‘Defer for referral to the secretary of state and, in the event of no call-in, permit’.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

(a)  Mr K Martin – objector

 

(b)  Mr B Buckland – on behalf of the applicant

 

During the short discussion three members spoke in support of the scheme.

 

The Planning Committee voted to approve the application: 11 members were in favour and there was one abstention.

 

Recommendation to defer for referral to the secretary of state and, if no call-in, then permit agreed.

289.

WW/15/02328/REG3 - East Head Snow Hill West Wittering West Sussex pdf icon PDF 98 KB

Application to recycle up to 3,000 tonnes of shingle/sand from the northern tip of East Head to form a low shingle bank behind The Hinge at the southern end of the spit.

Minutes:

Mrs Langford described this application by Chichester District Council to recycle up to 3,000 tonnes of shingle/sand from the northern tip of East Head to form a low shingle bank behind The Hinge at the southern end of the spit. During her presentation she drew attention to a sequence of slides displayed on the screens: (a) an aerial photograph of the site and an aerial zoom image (the nature, purpose and implementation of this proposal were explained – this being one of a series of periodic applications to reinforce the spit); (b) photographs; (c) contour graphs. She said that in short it was a relatively small project to recharge the beach in an area of vulnerability.

 

The agenda update sheet contained no entries in respect of this application.

 

One member of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

(a)  Mr D Lowsley – on behalf of the applicant

 

During the short discussion members spoke in support of the scheme.

 

Mr Hayes exercised his discretion to allow Mr Lowsley to answer a question on a technical point of detail regarding shingle migration: this would not occur on West Wittering beaches.

 

Mrs Langford gave advice in reply to a question about planting on the proposed low shingle bank: none was proposed in what was a very delicate ecological area.  

 

The Planning Committee unanimously approved the application: there were 12 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

 

Recommendation to permit agreed.

290.

SDNP/15/02781/CND - Fuel Care 10 Midhurst Road Road Fernhurst Midhurst West Sussex GU27 3EE pdf icon PDF 305 KB

Application for the variation of condition 2 of SDNP/13/05945/FUL to accommodate the minor change in the siting of plot 1 relative to southern boundary together with a minor increase in the width of plots 1 and 4.

Minutes:

Mr Saunders outlined this application for the variation of condition 2 of planning application SDNP/13/05945/FUL to accommodate the minor change in the siting of plot 1 relative to the southern boundary together with a minor increase in the widths of plots 1 and 4. In the course of his opening he referred members to slides shown on the screens: (a) plans and (b) photographs (external and internal).

 

Mr Saunders identified and summarised the three salient issues with respect to this proposal: (a) the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area; (b) the effect on the living conditions of nearby properties; and (c) the effect of the revised siting on the protected Horse Chestnut tree. Each of those issues was assessed in section 8 of the agenda report. 

 

The agenda update sheet contained no entries in respect of this application. 

 

No members of the public addressed the Planning Committee.

 

Mrs P A Hardwick, one of the two Fernhurst ward members, addressed the Planning Committee on behalf of her fellow ward member Mrs N D Graves and for herself, expressing local disquiet at the way in which there had been departures from the plans for the scheme which was the subject of planning application SDNP/13/05945/FUL. Whilst not objecting to this application or wishing to seek enforcement action to be taken, she said that the two ward members wished to emphasise the importance of adhering to plans.

 

The application was not debated by members.

 

The Planning Committee voted by a majority to approve the application: ten members were in favour, one was against and there was one abstention.

 

Recommendation to approve agreed.

291.

Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters pdf icon PDF 182 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:

The Planning Committee considered and noted the schedule of planning appeals, court and policy matters circulated with the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

 

The agenda update sheet contained the following entries regarding section 6 (Court and Other Matters) of this schedule (pages 146 and 147 of the agenda):

 

(a)  Injunction - Land at Premier Site Birdham Road

 

(b)  Injunction – Land at Scant Road East

 

(c)  Prosecution – The Barnyard

 

No member had notified Mr Hayes in advance of this meeting of any point for mention. 

 

In reply to a question by Mr Oakley about the required resources in order to pursue the injunction proceedings in respect of (a) above, Mrs Archer said that these were adequate despite the enforcement team having two unfilled officer vacancies and she remarked that the delays were caused by the court system. 

 

There was no discussion of this agenda item.

292.

Land North West of Decoy Farm House Decoy Lane Oving West Sussex - 03/00173/CONMHC - Non-Compliance with Two Enforcement Notices Issued under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 pdf icon PDF 148 KB

The Planning Committee will be asked to consider the agenda report and the following two recommendations:

(1)  That direct action be taken under  section 219 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure compliance with two enforcement notices as set out at paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7 below; and

 

(2)  That the Planning Committee recommends to the Cabinet that contractor (ii) is instructed to undertake the specified actions in the enforcement notices and that a budget of £20,000 be approved to fund this work

 

[Note The appendix to the agenda report is exempt material and will be circulated to members and relevant officers only]

Minutes:

The Planning Committee considered the agenda report with respect to this matter (copy attached to the official minutes) and also (within Part II after the exclusion of the press and public – see minute 294 below) its confidential appendix which had been circulated only to members and relevant officers. 

 

Mrs Archer presented the report. She referred to the lengthy planning history since 2003 and the fact that a second conviction in March 2015 had not persuaded the landowners to begin at long last to comply with the long outstanding enforcement notices EN O/11 and EN O/12. Accordingly officers had concluded that of the available options for enforcement action set out in section 4 of the report it was now appropriate to take direct action under section 219 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. She outlined the process to be followed when taking direct action. 

 

Members supported the option of taking direct action but wished to ask Mrs Archer questions on points of detail about the exempt financial information in the confidential appendix.

 

In order to do so a resolution for the meeting to go into Part II was first made. This was unanimously agreed following a proposal by Mrs Tull and seconded by Mr Oakley. The resolution appears in minute 294 below.

 

At the end of the Part II discussion the meeting resumed its session within Part I and the Planning Committee voted unanimously in favour of the recommendations in paras 2.1 and 2.2 of the agenda report.     

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Planning Committee approves the taking of direct action under section 219 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure compliance with enforcement notices EN 011 and EN O12.  

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE CABINET

 

That the Cabinet approves the instruction of the contractor on page 156 of the confidential Part II appendix to the agenda report to undertake the specified actions in the enforcement notices and a budget of £20,000 to fund this work. .  

293.

Late Items

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the Chairman at the start of this meeting (agenda item 3) 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

Minutes:

There were no late items for urgent consideration at this meeting.

294.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

The Planning Committee is asked to consider in respect of the following matter whether the public, including the press, should be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption under Part 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 namely informationrelating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and because, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption of that information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

The matter in question is the appendix to the report for the foregoing agenda item 18* and it is being circulated (printed on salmon-coloured paper) with this agenda for members of the Planning Committee and relevant officers only.

 

*Land North West of Decoy Farm House Decoy Lane Oving West Sussex - 03/00173/ CONMHC - Non-Compliance with Two Enforcement Notices Issued under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

 

Appendix - Exempt financial information

Minutes:

As stated in the foregoing minute 292, during the consideration of agenda item 18 (Land North West of Decoy Farmhouse Decoy Lane Oving West Sussex O3/00173/CONMHC Non-Compliance with Two Enforcement Notices Issued under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) the Planning Committee resolved that the meeting should move into Part II in order to consider the exempt financial information in the appendix to the agenda report.

 

It was proposed by Mrs Tull and seconded by Mr Oakley that the press and public should be excluded from the meeting for the aforesaid purpose. On a vote being taken by a show of hands the Planning Committee was unanimously in favour. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That in respect of the consideration of the appendix (exempt financial information) to the report for agenda item 18 (Land North West of Decoy Farm House Decoy Lane Oving West Sussex – 03/00173/CONMHC – Non-compliance with Two Enforcement Notices Issued under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) the public and the press be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption under Part 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and because, in the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption of that information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

Top of page