Agenda, decisions and minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday 6 January 2021 9.30 am

Venue: Virtually

Contact: Sharon Hurr on 01243 534614  Email:

Link: To listen to the live broadcast recording please follow the link which will direct you to the live broadcasting webpage

No. Item


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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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



Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 266 KB

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 9 December 2020.


That the minutes of 9 December 2020 be approved.



Urgent Items

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.



Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 269 KB

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 WI/20/01986/FUL as a Chichester District Council appointed Member of Chichester Harbour Conservancy.


Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in respect of SY/20/01821/FUL as a Member of Selsey Town Council.


Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications LX/20/01977/FUL, NM/20/01465/FUL, and WI/20/01986/FUL as a Member of West Sussex County Council.


Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications

LX/20/01977/FUL, NM/20/01465/FUL, and WI/20/01986/FUL as a Member of West Sussex County Council, and SY/20/01821/FUL as a Member of Selsey Town Council.



LX/20/01977/FUL - Land West Of Guildford Road, Loxwood, West Sussex pdf icon PDF 766 KB

27 no. residential dwellings comprising 19 market units and 8 affordable residential units; a single retail unit, on-site parking and turning, hard and soft landscaping together with sustainable drainage system and alterations to a public right of way.





Miss Bell presented the item to Members and drew attention to information provided in the Agenda Update Sheet which included a number of amendments to various conditions.  The conditions included the protection of trees, shrubs and natural features, and the requirement for a professional inspection of any trees prior to any felling.  That a schedule of materials, finishes and samples must be approved in writing, prior to building above slab level. That the details of Electric Vehicles charging point facilities are provided and how they will accord with West Sussex County Council: Guidance on Parking at New Developments (September 2020).  That no residential dwelling/unit shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided for that dwelling/unit, and approved in writing.  That before first occupation of each phase of the developmentdetails of any external lighting for that phaseshould be submitted and approved in writing.  That no part of the development (retail or residential) shall be first occupied until a scheme for the long-term management and maintenance of the hard and soft landscaped areas, had been approved in writing.  That the development hereby permitted should not be carried out other than in full accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the Reptile Mitigation Strategy (10 September 2020).  That there shall be no storage of goods, pallets, packaging or waste outside the Retail Unitother than within the area marked as 'service yard' and no goods, pallets, packaging or waste shall be stacked, stored or deposited above 2m in height.


Condition 10 would be deleted and as now combined with condition 36.  An additional condition would be added that no development shall commence, until a Phasing Plan has been approved in writing.  Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing

A comment had also been received from the Environmental Health Officer expressing no concern with regards to the proposed Public Right of Way Diversion and an additional informative included that the applicant was advised that an application would be required for the diversion of the Public Right of Way under S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Miss Bell also gave a verbal update in respect of a revision to Condition 6 which referenced foul drainage.   This revision stated that no development should commence: 

unless and until a Foul Water Sewerage Scheme for the proposed means of on-site foul water sewerage disposal has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, acting reasonably in consultation with Southern Water.  Thereafter all development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved on-site Foul Water Sewerage Scheme.  Occupation of the development shall be phased and implemented to align with the delivery by Southern Water of any sewerage network reinforcement required.  No occupation of any part of the development shall take place until one or both of the following actions have been undertaken;

i) The completion of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188.


KD/20/00906/FUL - Idolsfold Barn, Staples Hill To Plaistow Road, Kirdford, RH14 0JJ pdf icon PDF 185 KB

Erection of agricultural barn.




Mr Price presented the item to Members.


Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:


Mr Price confirmed that Condition 4 ensured that the building would be retained for agricultural storage and that it was not eligible for Class Q.  On the matter of security, the building would be located in close proximity to and in view of the main dwelling.  There was no requirement for change of use with regards to the access which would cross the garden, as access was already in place and was to be reinforced with Geoweb.  With regards to eco-system requirements, Mr Price confirmed that this was a South Downs National Park Authority policy related to applicants’ responsibilities for stewardship of the land and maintenance for the future, and not a Chichester District Council policy. 


Mr Whitty confirmed that on the matter of removal of general permitted development rights, the recommended wording had been included within Condition 4, although this was not strictly necessary as these rights do not apply to buildings constructed after May 2019.  Therefore, should the applicant wish to convert the building to a dwelling, a planning application would be required.


With regards to the requirement for the provision of bat and bird boxes on new developments, Mr Whitty confirmed that this was related to the level of disturbance and it could not be justified for this application.


In a vote Members agreed the recommendation to permit.


Recommendation to Permit agreed.


NM/20/01465/FUL - Land Adjacent To The Spinney Lagness, Road Runcton, West Sussex, PO20 1LD pdf icon PDF 521 KB

Erection of 9 no. dwellings with access, landscaping and associated works.



Refuse Against Offer Recommendation


Mr Mew presented the item to Members and drew attention to information provided in the Agenda Update Sheet which included that the applicant had agreed that the extant permission can be revoked, to ensure it was not constructed alongside the proposed development.


The Committee received the following speakers:


Tim Russell – Parish Council

Kerry Simmons – Agent


Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:


With regards to the estate road Mr Mew advised that the applicant had confirmed agreement to use appropriate materials to withstand the weight of a refuse vehicle and the wording of the relevant condition could be altered to reflect this requirement.   In relation to the air source heat pumps Mr Mew confirmed that a condition was included which required the details of technical specification and locations to be submitted.  With regards to the ownership of the highway land, Mr Mew advised that the road would be built to an adoptable standard and the intention was for it to be adopted.  Should the road not be adopted, a management company will be engaged for maintenance, but the area inside and outside the visibility splay would be adopted regardless to provide the highways authority with control of this area.  Mr Mew confirmed that a condition was included regarding the access on to Mill lane, which would be retained for pedestrian access and where it crossed third party land this would be secured via Section106.


With regards to the density Mr Mew provided a wider plan which showed sparser development along Lagness Road, with properties sitting in closer proximity in locations adjacent to the site, and therefore indicated that this proposal was not out of character for the area.  Mr Mew further explained that a recent ‘Interim Position’ scheme for North Mundham provided 32 dwellings per hectare and this development provided 36 dwellings per hectare, adding that the orientation of the site reduced the perception of coalescence.  The development also benefitted residents in Mill Lane by creating a footpath link and easier crossing point.


With regards to the weight afforded to coalescence, Mr Whitty explained that it was a material consideration, but this should be viewed against whether it outweighed the benefit of providing housing.  An Inspector would not just examine a map, but also consider the other factors such as how apparent it was from the road, whether there were other properties between the proposed development and the neighbouring settlement, and how well screened it was.  Mr Whitty advised that officers had taken these matters into consideration and did not believe that this would gain favour in an appeal, as it would not outweigh the benefits of providing housing. 


Mr Whitty further advised that the retention of landscaping could not be required in perpetuity, as confirmed by case law.  A limit of five years had been set but given the importance of the perception of coalescence that could be extended to ten years and the use of it in perpetuity as a landscape buffer.  


With regards to solar  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.


SY/20/01821/FUL - 153 High Street, Selsey, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 0QB pdf icon PDF 116 KB

Retrospective wooden boundary fence.


Permit Against Officer Recommendation


Mr Mew presented the item to Members and drew attention to information provided in the Agenda Update Sheet.  This included additional information from the Council’s licensing team that a Premises Licence was held as granted under the Licensing Act 2003 since 2019.  A condition of the licence stated ‘The outside area shall be clearly delineated by wind breaks or a barrier or fencing’ as requested by Sussex Police ‘to ensure patrons are aware of the extent of the premises and … prevent patrons spilling out across the pavement.’.  The Licencing team had concluded that from a compliance perspective, a removable barrier or permanent solution would be in accordance with the condition.  Third party comments had also been received regarding the positive aspects of the fence.


The Committee received the following speakers:


Edward Sye – Applicant

Tim Johnson – Ward Councillor (statement read)


The Chairman summarised that Members comments had reflected their inclination to support approval of the application, and therefore invited a proposal to be made. Rev. Bowden made a proposal to permit the application which was seconded by Mr Barrett. 


Mr Whitty responded to Members’ comments and questions: 


Mr Whitty confirmed that if Members were satisfied with a weathered rather than painted appearance for the fence there would not requirement for that to be included within a condition, but the Committee must be aware that their decision must accord with the statutory duty to conserve and enhance a conservation area.  Mr Whitty expressed disappointment with regards the height of the gate and its impact on the interaction of the property with the street.  Miss Golding reminded Members that the reasons for the decision must be clear.


On the matter of whether a condition could be imposed that the fence was linked with the use of the property and should that change, the fence must be removed, Mr Whitty advised it would be difficult to do so as the impact would be the same and it could also be argued that the fence was in place for a number of reasons, so the condition would be unlikely to meet the test of necessity. 


Mr Whitty advised that paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework set out where there is less than substantial harm, the public benefit test could be used and further advised against a requirement for the fence to be painted.


In a vote Members agreed the proposal to permit the application as the perceived harm to the conservation area was outweighed by the public benefit.


Recommendation to Permit against officer recommendation agreed.

Mr Wilding left the meeting and did not return



WI/20/01986/FUL - Pheasant Cottage And Owl Cottages, Itchenor Road, West Itchenor, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 7DA pdf icon PDF 254 KB

Demolition of existing buildings, cessation of commercial use as furniture repair workshop and erection of 1 no. new building comprising 2 no. self- catering holiday units - Removal of Condition 8 of planning permission WI/07/05509/FUL - To allow properties to become one property occupied without the holiday let condition. Variation of condition 13 to allow the residents of the property the use of the garage.




Mrs Stevens presented the item to Members and drew attention to information provided in the Agenda Update Sheet.  This included additional supporting information from the applicant regarding reference to a High Court case, that comments from Economic Development and Estates were inaccurate, that Chichester Harbour Conservancy had objected to the application although had previously supported it and that there was a need for housing and the cottages would be unoccupied. 


The Committee received the following speakers:


Sarah Billingshurst – Supporter

Albert Plumb – Applicant (statement read)

Tim Johnson – Ward Councillor (statement read)


The Chairman Mrs Purnell left the meeting and did not return.


Rev Bowden took the role of Chairman for the remainder of the meeting.


With regards to other properties along the lane, Mrs Stevens responded that she believed that they were residential properties and was not aware if any were rented out or were ‘Airbnbs’.  On the matter of the personal circumstance of the applicant, Mrs Stevens advised that substantial evidence had not been submitted with the application which set out their personal needs or details regarding their current property.  Mrs Stevens drew attention to the question of the need for this particular building, or the whole of the two cottages which would provide a total six bedrooms.


Mr Whitty advised that the decisions must be made based on planning policy and arguments related to sympathy for the applicant were not material considerations.  There was however a policy to maintain the tourism industry within the peninsula.  Since the last appeal, the price of the properties had not been reduced, and the marketing of the properties required the applicant to consider all potential methods for renting the properties, or if they wish to sell the properties, to review the sale price. 


Mrs Fowler left the meeting and did not return.


In a vote Members agreed the recommendation to refuse the application.


Recommendation to Refuse agreed.

Members took a ten minute break.


Mr McAra left the meeting and did not return.





The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) - Consultation on Supporting housing delivery and public service infrastructure pdf icon PDF 291 KB

To note the contents of the MHCLG consultation on proposed measures to support housing delivery, economic recovery, and public service infrastructure.

Additional documents:


Mrs Stevens presented the item to Members and drew attention to information provided in the Agenda Update Sheet.  This included an addendum to the Appendix which provided the consultation questions and responses.


In respect of the response to 17.1 it should read:


‘Yes. It is considered that public service infrastructure proposals should embed sustainable design, and this should include measures to promote sustainable modes of transport via the provision of cycle routes, secure cycle parking and electric car charging points within the proposed permitted developments.’


Mrs Stevens clarified that the recommendation in the report requested that the Committee ‘note’ the contents of the consultation, however the recommendation should be as per paragraph 5.1 of the report; to note the consultation, and to endorse and provide comments on the proposed response.   Mrs Stevens further clarified that the report set out the broad proposals and appendix 1 detailed the proposed response to the consultation.  Mrs Stevens added that she intended to utilise the response to question 22, to clarify concerns regarding broadening permitted development rights primarily in relation to the changes of use of business units to residential units.


Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions: 


Mrs Stevens confirmed that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was not generally payable where new homes were permitted under prior approval, Mrs Stevens clarified that CIL was payable on conversions but a vacant building credit could be used to off-set the payment, which was under review.  With regards to waste drainage this is not a matter which could be considered under prior approval, but in circumstances in which there was an issue with this going to a designated site and into the harbour, where that was likely to have a significant effect, the permitted development rules would not apply.  This was similar with recreational disturbance, as that also may have a significant impact on a designated site.  With regards to the fourteen days for consultation, Mrs Stevens confirmed that she agreed that this was a short period of time, but had given a positive response as it was acceptable in terms of officers having to meet the timeframe for determining the application, the consultation was clear that it would only apply where pre-application discussions had taken place.  In relation to education, Mrs Stevens agreed that changes had taken place with provision in regards to the number of academies, which may result in further planning applications or permitted development but was not likely to increase matters significantly.  With regards to facilities for well-being, Mrs Stevens advised that school sports fields were afforded protection, but having a Neighbourhood Plan would not ensure the protection of other facilities.  In relation to the cumulative impact of planning, Mrs Stevens confirmed that this would be included with the responses.  With regards to the loss of GP surgeries, Mrs Stevens advised that these now fell into Class E and unless there was a condition which limited the use for premises only to be used as a doctors surgery, the use could be altered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 193.


Chichester District Council Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters between 19 November 2020 and 15 December 2020 pdf icon PDF 302 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.


Miss Golding provided Members with an update regarding the injunction proceedings for Land West of Birdham Farm, Birdham and explained that the occupiers should have moved from the land by 31 December 2020 and were required to remove all structures by 31January 2021.  The occupiers gave notice on Christmas Eve that they wished to make an application to the courts to defer the two compliance periods for three months and made an application on 29December 2020 for an urgent hearing which was not granted before 31 December 2020, and a hearing date was now awaited. 


With regards to the Land adjacent to Melita Nursery, Chalk Lane, Sidlesham, Mrs Stevens responded that this was a site for which an application had been considered and the applicant had confirmed they would withdraw the appeal, but the applicant did not submit the information required for this to become a valid appeal, which was the reason for no further action being required.


Mrs Johnson left the meeting and did not return.


With regards to Flintwalls, The Street, Boxgrove, Mr Whitty advised that if a fence replaced a wall which was not listed, the planning authority could not require that the wall was reinstated and only that the fence must be removed.  Mr Whitty confirmed that this matter would be included on the next meeting’s agenda.


With regards to Land North West of Premier Business Park Miss Golding confirmed that repeated appeals against proceedings by an occupier was permitted.  On this particular application the occupier had made an application which had been refused, but the court might consider the current application based on different circumstances related to the Covid-19 situation.  Miss Golding explained that the court would take each application on its own merits, and further information could be provided following the meeting if required.


Mr Potter left the meeting and did not return.



South Downs National Park Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters between 19 November 2020 and 15 December 2020 pdf icon PDF 201 KB


Mr Whitty responded to Members’ comments question:


Mr Whitty explained that of two appeals related to the erection of masts, with one appeal dismissed and one allowed, the reason for the different decisions lay with the proximity of the mast to the building, with the closer of the two allowed as more appropriate.



Consideration of any late items as follows:

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.



Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no restricted items for consideration.


There were no part two items.