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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 11 March 2020.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of 4 March 2020 be approved.

The Chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 15 (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.

In addition to the interests declared by members in the report Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest as a member of the Chichester Cycle Forum with relation to agenda items 10 and 11.

Erection of single storey rear extension.

Permit.

Mr Mew presented the item to members.

Mr Mew then responded to member’s comments and questions. He explained that ecological matters would be addressed through informatives not specific conditions.

In a vote members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

Change of use of part of adjacent travellers site to extend depot, replacement and upgrade of existing depot yard flood lighting, installation of commercial vehicle washing station and removal of existing modern wall that currently is on top of Tudor historic wall.

Permit.

Mr Mew presented the item to members.

A statement was then read out on behalf of Linda Lanham of Westhampnett Parish Council.

Mr Mew then responded to member’s comments and questions. He confirmed that the number of pitches remained nine. He clarified that West Sussex County Council (WSCC) had raised no safety concerns relating to the bin store. With regard to planting he confirmed that it would be slightly set back from the wall however this could not be reasonably conditioned.

Mr Whitty responded regarding foul water concerns. He explained that the applicant proposed attenuated release with flooding issues non pertinent. He confirmed that the discharge rates and times could be conditioned but members should consider the application as it has been submitted against the council’s policies. He added that Southern Water has responsibility for maintaining the water network. 

Mr Whitty then explained that the applicant remains in dialogue with WSCC who made no representations against the application.

Mrs Johnson proposed a condition to restrict the outflow of foul water which was seconded by Rev Bowden. Mr Whitty explained that officers would be content to add this to the officer recommendation. The condition would not allow water to enter the foul sewer network where Southern Water have been made aware of capacity issues.

In a vote members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

Change use of storage barn to 1 no. dwelling house and associated works, including natural swimming pond and landscaping.

Refuse.

Mr Mew presented the item to members.

The Committee received the following speakers:

·         Geoffrey Gestetner – Supporter – written statement read out

·         Rachel Hodgson – Supporter – written statement read out

·         Richard Hermer – Applicant

·         Adrian Moss – CDC Member

·         Penny Plant – CDC Member

Mr Mew then responded to member’s comments and questions. He confirmed that the 2002 planning permission granted on the site relates to a six bed dwelling with the current proposal a four bed dwelling. He explained that the amendment to the design is significant including the garden space. He clarified that mitigation payments can be sought for each dwelling on site. He confirmed that the reference to permitted developments for barn conversion does not apply as the site is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). With regard to building regulations under Policy 40 sustainability measures must be detailed. He confirmed that the measurements of the original permission were 457 square metres with the application 499 square metres. With regard to light spillage he explained that it would be difficult to mitigate through a requirement for blinds.

Mr Whitty added that members should consider Policy 46 of the Local Plan. He explained that if members were to vote against officer recommendation there would need to be good grounds based on that Policy.

In a vote members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Refuse agreed.

Change use of land to travellers caravan site consisting of 4 no. pitches each containing 1 no. mobile home, 1 no. touring caravan, 1 no. utility dayroom; play area and associated works.

Delegate to officers to include consultation with West Sussex County Council to seek further views on Highway implications.

Mr Power presented the item to members.

The Committee received the following speakers:

·         Robin Barratt – Objector

·         Angus Murdoch – Agent

·         Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Mr Power then responded to member’s comments and questions. He explained that there is a private track leading to the site which is narrow but the access is not considered a safety issue. He confirmed that the council cannot currently meet the five year land supply of pitches. He clarified that the wildlife corridor does not form part of the Local Plan. He explained that the nitrates do not discharge into the Harbour. Mr Whitty added that the private road access could not be assessed as part of the application as it is not covered by Highways.

Mr Oakley proposed refusal on the grounds that the application does not meet the Local Plan Policy criteria 36.2 for safe access. Mr Sutton seconded the proposal. Mr Whitty explained that it was likely the decision would be appealed on those grounds. He suggested deferral for further views to be sought from the Highways authority. Mr Oakley accepted the proposal to delegate to officers to consult with the Highways Authority. Mr Sutton agreed the revised proposal.

In a vote members agreed the delegation.

Delegate to officers to include consultation with West Sussex County Council to seek further views on Highway implications.

Members took a 20 minute lunch break.

Mr Wilding left the meeting.

Relocation of 2 no. existing travelling show people plots plus provision of hard standing for the storage and maintenance of equipment and machinery, 6 no. new pitches for gypsies and travellers including retention of hard standing.

Refuse (contrary to officer recommendation)

Mr Power presented the item to members.

The Committee received the following speakers:

·         Cllr Mottershead – Funtington Parish Council

·         Dawn Appleton – Agent

·         David Palmer – CDC Member

Mr Whitty then responded to member’s comments and questions. With regards Mr Briscoe’s suggestion to defer for a site visit he explained that it would not be possible during the current pandemic. Mrs Purnell then suggested that the deferral could be for photographs to be provided. Mr Whitty explained that the approach risked appeal on non-determination as it was unlikely that all the information members wished to obtain by deferral would be possible. With regard to enforcement concerns relating to the site he explained that this should not form part of member’s considerations. He added that intimidation is not a matter for refusal.

In a vote members did not agree the officer recommendation.

Mr Briscoe then proposed refusal on the grounds of an unsustainable site referencing paragraph 13 of PPTS Policy B and Policy C, paragraph 14.

Mr Oakley proposed refusal on the grounds of Paragraph 25 relating to dominance and Policy 36.6. This was seconded by Mr Sutton.

In a vote members agreed the proposed refusal.

Refuse (contrary to officer recommendation).

Application for all outstanding reserved matters (layout, appearance, scale and landscaping) following outline planning permission CC/14/04301/OUT, for sports facility consisting of 1x adult rugby pitch, 1x adult football pitch, 1x adult cricket pitch and sports pavilion building with associated drainage, landscaping, parking and other works (Phase 1).

Permit.

Mrs Bell presented the item to members. Mr Shaw from WSCC was also present.

The Committee received the following speakers:

·         Ian Sumnall – Chichester District Cycle Forum – Objector

·         Philip Maber – Objector

·         Mark Record – Objector

·         Robert Collett - Applicant

Miss Bell and Mr Shaw then responded to member’s comments and questions. With regard to the right hand turn Mr Shaw explained that the matter was considered as part of the outline planning consent. He confirmed that a stage one road safety audit was completed at this stage. He clarified that there were numerous links to the north and back of Centurion Way for shared cycle and pedestrian access. The cycle lane is the appropriate 3 metre width. 60 spaces have been provided for cycle parking. He confirmed that it would not be reasonable to require upgrade of any cycle and pedestrian paths outside the developer’s ownership. He explained that there would be one coach drop off space with scope to park further vehicles. Electric provision was secured at part of Phase 1. Phase 2 provides opportunity for the chance to secure further electric charging points.

Mr McAra left the meeting.

Mr Whitty and Miss Bell then summed up a number of additions that members requested:

·         Robust boundary treatment

·         Litter bins

·         Cycle covers

·         Permeable paving

·         Bonded surfacing

In a vote members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

Members took a short break.

All outstanding Reserved Matters for the erection of 29 residential dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, informal open space and associated works on Parcel P.3D, pursuant to permission 14/04301/OUT.

Permit.

Mr Harris presented the item to members. Mr Shaw was also present.

The Committee received a statement from Mr Collett the applicant.

Mr Harris and Mr Shaw then responded to member’s comments and questions. Mr Shaw confirmed a condition regarding bat boxes. He then in referring to the presentation slides explained that the design of the road layout was deemed appropriate with no accessibility issues. With regard to the infrastructure drainage Mr Harris explained that it was covered in the outline planning permission. He clarified that the cycle link had been placed on the direct desire line but there would be nothing to stop cyclists travelling across the northern route to link to the site.

In a vote members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

The Planning Committee is asked to consider the quarterly schedule for the period up to 1 April 2020 which updates the position with regards to planning enforcement matters.

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.

Members 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.

Members 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 II items.