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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

No apologies for absence had been received and all Members were present.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 6 November 2019 (to follow).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2019 be approved and signed by the Chairman with the following amendments:

That minute 20 included a trigger for Condition 26 Bat and Bird Boxes, and in Condition 34 the Open Space, to be included within the recommendation.

That minute 24 included a Condition regarding brick wall detailing, to be included within the recommendation.

That minute 25 included the form of recommendation as approved by the Committee.

With regards to minute 20 that Mrs Johnson had spoken on behalf of Mr Johnson, and also on her own behalf for planning application SY/19/00321/FUL.

With regards to minute 25 Mrs Sharp queried if the Environment Agency had now provided advice in relation to the chalk stream.  Mr Whitty responded that, this had not yet been received.

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 14.

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 planning application BI/19/02122/FUL as a member of Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

Rev. Bowden declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/19/02109/TPA and CC/19/01286/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications WW/19/01622/FUL, PS/19/00682/FUL, CC/19/02109/TPA and CC/19/01286/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council and TG/19/02365/FUL as a member of Tangmere Parish Council.

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications WW/19/01622/FUL, PS/19/00682/FUL, CC/19/02109/TPA and CC/19/01286/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/19/02109/TPA and CC/19/01286/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council.

Demolition of an existing bungalow with a garage and erection of 2 no.
replacement two storey dwellings with separate access and parking

REFUSE

Mrs Stevens introduced the application. 

Additional information was provided on the agenda update sheet relating to amended conditions regarding the boundary treatments, the provision of cycling and refuse storage facilities, and the use of porous materials for the proposed hardstanding and driveway.  A further verbal update was provided with regards to condition 13, confirming that the strategy must reflect the WSCC Parking Guidance 2019, and also that a condition removing permitted development would be reasonable.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Bill Buckland – Parish Council

Mrs Sue Miles – Objector

Miss Heather McCrudden – Agent

During the discussion Members debated the character of the proposed dwellings within the setting, over-development, sub-division of plots and appropriate number of sub-division of plots, height of the proposed buildings causing loss of the open vista of the street, loss of single floor accommodation, number of proposed parking spaces, loss of a traditional dwelling, greater sustainability of proposed buildings, hedgehog provision and whether one dwelling could be positioned to the front and one to the rear of the plot.  The Chairman reminded the Committee that they could only debate details regarding the application as presented.  Mrs Stevens responded that the current dwelling was not a listed building and could be demolished without planning permission.  The width of the plot was slightly wider than other plots within the vicinity which had been sub-divided as proposed in this application, and some other plots would not be considered as suitable for sub-division.  Mrs Stevens confirmed that weight could be given to the ‘Village Design Statement’, and that this identified the eclectic design within the area.   Mrs Stevens further confirmed that it would be possible to walk between the two proposed dwellings and the neighbouring property and other properties had been built-out close to their boundaries.  It would be necessary to identify the harm caused with regards to refusing the application on the grounds of the width of the plot.  Mrs Stevens also added that it would be possible to reverse into the parking area, there would be provision for one car charging point for each dwelling as part of the considerations, the highways authority had made no objections and the road was used at low speeds allowing any necessary manoeuvres.   

Members sought further clarification regarding whether it was considered by officers reasonable to refuse the application and the likely outcome, should the applicants appeal the decision.  Mrs Stevens confirmed that all applicants have the right of appeal, and that the officers’ recommendation was for the application to be permitted. 

Members further debated whether the parking of six vehicles would negatively impact on the character of the street and if in accordance with NPPF 127 this may provide reasonable grounds for refusal, the issue of granting permission and further applicants citing previous permissions for similar proposals, the improved energy efficiency of proposed dwellings, over-burdening of the site, and the impact of an accumulative effect relating to sub-division of plots.  Mr Whitty added that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

Erection of 6 no. flats with associated parking, bin and cycle store, landscaping and open space (consistent with scheme approved under 16/00444/FUL).

REFUSE

Mr Power introduced the application.

Additional information was provided on the Update Agenda Sheet regarding the corrected name of the applicant, additional relevant planning history, amended conditions relating to no occupation prior to vehicular access construction, or until secure cycle parking spaces have been provided and no external illumination permitted other than in accordance with a lighting scheme having been submitted and approved.

Further verbal updates were provided regarding new and amended conditions in relation to litter control, requirement for bird/boxes/nesting bricks, reference to West Sussex County Council Highways Parking Guidance 2019, on the matter of contaminated land, to ensure the proposal would not impact on the integrity of the remediation as previously permitted, and internet provision.

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Roger Owers – Objector

During the discussion Members debated the previous permission granted and now lapsed, the change of context to the current time related to the setting, the high density nature of the site, requirement of piling works, contamination, broadband limitations, loss of trees, limitations of new tree planting due to adjacent treatment works, the current opportunity for recreational activity on the site, the proposed limited buffering of proposed development from the reduced open space and the design of the spine road with a pinch point and the effect of parking spaces near to the location.  Members further discussed the lack of amenity around the proposed development, disruption to local residents during the construction process, views that the development should have been built when other adjacent plots were under construction, and the number of written objections received by the Council.

Mr Power responded that the density was not out of keeping with the location, the proposed conditions dealt with issues regarding contamination and broadband.  The remaining open space would still be of considerable size and  the remaining provision of open space would comply with Local Plan policy.  The Construction Management Plan could control the impact of piling works to neighbouring amenity, as to could the storage of construction  materials and any clearing/tidying of site could be controlled by this condition.  Mr Whitty added that piling works would be part of the material considerations and with regards to climate emergency, policy 40 of the current Local Plan has been taken into consideration.  In relation to the delay in constructing the proposed development and lapsed permission from 2016, this was a decision of the developer.

Members further debated safeguarding the remaining public space from future development, proximity of the public space to the flats and likelihood of conflict, that it was now easier to comprehend the impact of the proposed development with other adjacent dwellings completed, whether a site visit was appropriate, and whether repositioning the flats within the plot would achieve a better result.  Mr Whitty responded that a condition related to the open space and there was a s106 requirement, the NPPF had become more defined in terms of the obligation to establish well-designed places.  With regards to the proximity of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Installation of 3 no. portacabin buildings consisting of 1 no. two storey office, 1 no. single storey toilet block and 1 no. single storey welfare unit for a temporary 2 year period.

PERMIT

Mrs Stevens introduced the application.

Additional information was provided on the Update Agenda Sheet regarding an amended condition relating to the timescale for the removal of the portacabins.

During the discussion Members debated the necessity for facilities at the site, the retrospective nature of the application, and work required for the remediation of the land, and general recycling within the portacabins.  Mr Whitty responded that the over-riding condition was the permitted timescale for portacabins to remain on the land and that removal could be enforced, and that he could not confirm that recycling was taking place within the portacabins.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

The Committee took a 15 minute break.

Fell 1 no. Holm Oak tree (T3) subject to CC/93/00284/TPO.

PERMIT

Mrs Stevens introduced the application and Mr Whitby, the Council’s Tree Officer.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Alan Carn – Objector

Ms Jenny Cole – Objector

Mr Colin Wood – Supporter

Mr J Summers – Supporter

Mrs Kathleen Spur – Applicant

The Chairman invited Mr Whitby to provided further information regarding the tree.  Mr Whitby explained that the tree was a mature Holm Oak tree from the Mediterranean region, three metres in circumference, and had been pruned every eight years.  The tree was an evergreen, with old foliage dropping in May, followed by new foliage and flowers forming, and was a healthy specimen. 

During the discussion Members debated the Holm Oak on the other side of the street, whether the wall could be removed and a fence erected in its place, the risk to the footpath and applicant’s garage, the amenity value of the tree, the replacement, the need to remove the element of risk, the reduction in flood risk by the tree’s take up of water, that trees are part of a cycle, and a replacement tree being of a more appropriate variety or form for the location.

The Chairman advised that previously Planning Committees had refused to allow the felling of a tree and the resultant damage caused had required that the Council fund the cost of repairs, and also that the Committee should be aware that the Council would also be liable for any trips or falls caused by the tree. 

Members further debated the definition of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), whether the tree had to date caused any cracks in the adjacent garage wall, the impact of not removing roots if the tree was felled and how easily a replacement tree could be planted in the location.

Mr Whitty responded that permission could not be refused due to the climate emergency, and that the tree had a value within the street scene and was in good health but a balanced view was required.  There was no current evidence that the tree was causing damage to the garage or the dwelling, although this may be a material consideration for the future.  The Holm Oak on the other side of the street had not caused the same degree of issues, a fence would not retain the soil surrounding the root ball, and a reduction in the roots could cause the tree to become unstable.  The area was in flood zone 2/3 only within a specific year event but Mr Whitty agreed the tree did take up excess water.  The amenity of the footpath was also to be considered and required work to remediate the footpath, was likely to be on-going.  Mr Whitty further advised that should the application be refused, from today forwards, should any damage occur to the applicant’s property, the Council would be liable, and cited a similar situation in which costs had totalled over quarter of a million pounds.  The highways authority had requested that the tree was felled,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Demolition of existing care home and detached bungalow, construction of new 55 bed care home.

PERMIT

Miss Taylor introduced the application.

Additional information was provided on the Update Agenda Sheet regarding further comments from WSCC as the highways authority clarifying information in relation to the pedestrian infrastructure, that correspondence had been received from the agent agreeing to the pre-commencement conditions, that Longdale Avenue, should read Langdale Avenue, and an amendment to the Decided Plans Table.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Gary Abraham – Objector

Mrs Helen Dodd – Objector

Mr Adrian Kearley – On Applicant’s Behalf

During the discussion Members debated whether the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the plot, which was confirmed by Miss Taylor to have been reduced in size during negotiations with officers.  Members further discussed the description of the model of the operation of the home which seemed to be both a nursing home and also cater for residents who were cared for under the support of an elderly, mentally and infirm (EMI) establishment.  Further matters debated included limited sunlight into the building and outside areas, the potential for basement being lower than the water table and conditions for employees working in the basement.  Mr Whitty explained the proposed use of the development would be classed as C2 in planning terms, and the operation of the home was not a planning matter and similarly any potential issues with the basement or working within the basement was not a planning matter.  The current buildings had C2 use, and the new development would be an improvement upon the existing buildings.  Officers also considered that the impact on neighbours of the replacement development would be reduced in comparison with the current buildings and the level of separation was acceptable.  Mr Whitty also responded to the Chairman’s request for clarification regarding overshadowing, confirming it would be reduced in the summer when the sun was higher and there would be a degree of overshadowing in the winter.

Members further debated the shortage of residential homes in the area, the size of the building, the relationship with neighbours and the design of the roof. Mr Whitty confirmed that officers’ considered the relationship with neighbours would be improved as the new development would be further away from neighbouring properties in comparison with the current building, although there would clearly be some impact on the amenity of neighbouring gardens. 

Members further debated parking standards associated with C2 use, the proximity to the A27, the ownership of the tree belt, potential impact of ventilation units on neighbours, and the financial viability of operating such a home related to the number of beds required for sustainability.  Mr Whitty responded that the case being made by the applicant was related to the necessary size of the proposed home for financial sustainability.  The tree belt was in the ownership of the highway authority, protection measures for the trees was required during construction, but the trees may be impacted upon depend on future A27 development, and the development was considered acceptable with or without the trees.  A condition provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Change of use of the land from agricultural to mixture of agricultural and equestrian. Erection of 1 no. building for keeping horses and agricultural equipment and hay storage

PERMIT

Mrs Stevens introduced the application.

Additional information was provided on the agenda update sheet relating to an amended condition that there would be no external illumination permitted other than in accordance with a lighting scheme having been submitted and approved. A verbal update was provided stating a condition requiring no external storage and removal of existing containers is recommended.

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Gordon Churchill – Parish Council

Members sought clarification regarding the area of the site, which Mrs Stevens confirmed as 0.2 hectares.Mrs Stevens confirmed that permitted development rights  would be removed by condition to prevent conversion of the proposed building to a residential dwelling.  Members sought further clarification regarding whether the land was of sufficient size for the keeping of horses, and Mrs Stevens responded that the land was of sufficient size for this purpose.

Recommendation to Permit agreed with an additional condition restricting external storage, and requiring removal of existing storage containers. 

Mr McAra returned to the meeting.

The Committee is requested to note the introduction of the new ‘WSCC Guidance onParking at New Developments August 2019’ and that, in accordance withLocal Plan Policy 39, the guidance will be used by the Council indetermining all planning applications.

Mr Whitty introduced the guidance document and also provided a map at the meeting, which illustrated the location of the five types of zone across the district.

Members sought clarification on whether division of a property into separate dwellings would require an increased number of parking spaces.  Mr Whitty responded that an increased number would be required, but if for example a householder extended their property, the guidance would not apply. 

Members commented that old ward boundaries were being used with the map and sought clarification as to how charging points for vehicles would be charged financially, which was confirmed would potentially be via a phone app.  Mr Whitty added that with regards to charging points for public parking spaces on a development, this matter would be overseen in accordance with a management plan. 

Members sought further clarification regarding the map, and why there were different coloured zones within the city of Chichester.  Mr Whitty responded that the map had been provided by West Sussex County Council, and the differing Chichester city zones may relate to the proximity to public transport, but he would need to seek further information.  Council Members who were also County Council Members confirmed that the work on the guidance had been based upon the 2011 census car ownership figures and other historical evidence, which was less current, and with regards to larger developments the guidance may have to be revised.  Mr Whitty commented that cars could be parked in the road and the Council could take a view on the impact on the amenity.  With regards to the area within the National Park, Mr Whitty responded that he did not yet know what their reaction to the guidance had been.  Mr Whitty further confirmed he would forward the link to the guidance on the County Council website for Members of the Committee.

The document was Noted.

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

Members of the Committee did not require any further information.

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

Members of the Committee did not require any further information.

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 was no requirement to exclude the press and public.