Chichester District Council
Agenda, decisions and minutes

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Virtually

Contact: Sharon Hurr on 01243 534614  Email:  shurr@chichester.gov.uk

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

Items
No. Item

24.

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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed everyone present to the virtual meeting.

 

Apologies for absence had been received from Rev Bowden and Mrs Folwer.

25.

Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 10 (b).

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

26.

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.

 

 

Minutes:

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of CC/20/03108/REM and CC/20/01897/FUL as a Member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in respect of CC/20/03108/REM and CC/20/01897/FUL as a Member of Chichester City Council.

 

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of CC/20/03108/REM and CC/20/01897/FUL as a Member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in respect of CC/20/03108/REM as a Member of Chichester City Council, and CC/20/01897/FUL also as a Member of Chichester City Council and a resident of Chichester Conservation Area.

27.

CC/20/03108/REM Land West Of Centurion Way And West Of Old Broyle Road, Chichester pdf icon PDF 435 KB

All outstanding Reserved Matters for the erection of 65 residential dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, informal open space and associated works on Phase 6.H, pursuant to permission 14/04301/OUT.

 

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Mr Harris presented the item to Members, provided a verbal update regarding a change to Condition 3 to reflect a recent revision and drew Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included amendments to two conditions relating to approved plans and tree protection.

 

The Committee received the following speaker:

 

Rob Collett – Applicant (statement read)

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:

 

With regards to the green space (pocket park) between the parcel and adjacent parcel, Mr Harris explained that the routing of the spine road had already been permitted under phase one, and that re-routing the access to the south of the park would not be possible as it would involve land that was outside of the Phase 1 application site. The path shown along the southern side of the park was a cycleway with the aim of improving facilities for cyclists, and contributing to what was intended to be a pedestrian friendly area. 

 

On the matter of issues which had occurred with the applicant on sites elsewhere in the District in relation to drainage and lighting problems for existing residents and negative impact on wildlife during construction work, Mr Whitty responded that although this should not be referenced with regards to this application, he was aware of the issues and that developers use different contractors for different sites.  The Council’s enforcement officers were involved in such matters across the whole of the site under discussion and would keep the works in progress under review in relation to any problems which may occur. 

 

With regards to the comments that Newlands Lane may have been a lost opportunity at outline stage in terms of it not being identified as a cycleway at that stage, Mr Harris responded that he did not consider this to be the case.  In relation to the outline application for phase one, there was unlikely to be a significant volume of cycle traffic and it would not have been justified.  On the matter of future vehicular traffic on Newlands Lane and phase two, Mr Harris advised this had not been shown on part of any approved parameter plan to date, but could be considered in the future if required.  In regards to unauthorised vehicle access where the cycle link emerged onto Newlands Lane, it would cross a deep drainage ditch and therefore this would prevent unauthorised access.  Mr Harris explained that Condition 5 included the requirement of details of the transition between the parcel and Newlands Lane which was likely to require bollards, and an informative could be added with regards to the expectation of such installation.  Mr Harris confirmed that surface water drainage was to be dealt with subsequently under the outline conditions, and therefore the details were not yet known.  Mr Harris added that he understood the location did not drain well due to ground conditions and therefore that a significant proportion of drainage would be directly into the wider network, designed at the outset for this eventuality, although the surface drainage had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

CC/20/01897/FUL 22A and Land to the Rear of 24 Lavant Road, Chichester, West Sussex pdf icon PDF 506 KB

Demolition of the existing dwelling at 22A Lavant Road and the construction of 4 no. dwellings and associated works.

 

Decision:

DEFER

Minutes:

Mr Mew presented the item to Members and provided a verbal update relating to an additional objection regarding the character of the area, privacy of neighbouring properties and the request for hedge planting.  Mr Mew also drew Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet regarding a third party representation which cited the lack of clarification relating to the construction method and any associated fire risks.

 

Mr Plowman left the meeting and did not return.

 

The Committee received the following speakers:

 

Simone Ivatts – Objector

Richard Zipeure – Objector

Nick Sutherland – Objector (statement read)

Paul White – Agent

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:

 

Statement provided Mr Plowman read in his absence.

 

With regards to consulting Southern Water, Mrs Stevens confirmed that there was no statutory requirement to do so on schemes under ten dwellings which was also in line with the adopted position statement.  It was acceptable for the scheme to discharge to Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works subject to the mitigation for nitrates.  On the matter of the protection of boundary vegetation, the trees and shrubs had been assessed as not worthy of a Tree Preservation Order but a plan had been submitted with the ecological mitigations and enhancements proposed as part of the scheme and Mrs Stevens confirmed that Condition 26 could be amended to clarify that the vegetation along the boundaries should be retained.  In terms of the wider approach to nitrate mitigation, in line with advice from Natural England, which the Council were working with, in regards to one-off schemes and also a broader approach going-forward, there was not a requirement for authorities to look at discreet areas within specific parts of Chichester Harbour as an example, or the wider Solent which had been divided into areas, which was the reason for Natural England accepting the type of mitigation proposed.  On the matter of the use of the agricultural land to be used for the mitigation scheme, this was grade 3 or 4, had been in recent use and officers were satisfied would provide an appropriate level of mitigation.   

 

With regards to the affordable housing provision, Mrs Stevens confirmed that within the development plan it was not possible to require a contribution for this size of development, and should this be a concern, it would have to be addressed by planning policy.  On the matter of the materials proposed, Mrs Stevens advised that there was a mix of materials within the locality and the cedar cladding on the rear properties was considered acceptable, but the materials condition could be amended to include a requirement for materials to be negotiated as part of the discharge of conditions application.

 

Mrs Stevens explained that the previous appeal scheme had included two detached properties to the front of the site and a row of three link-detached properties to the rear.  The current scheme included part of the adjacent neighbouring garden with two semi-detached properties to the front of the site and two chalet bungalows to the rear of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

29.

CC/21/00120/TPA 22 The Avenue, Chichester pdf icon PDF 419 KB

Fell 1 no. Sycamore tree (T1) subject to CC/98/00309/TPO.

 

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens presented the item to Members.

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:

 

With regards to the replacement tree, Mrs Stevens confirmed that the relevant condition required a suitable replacement of at least two metres tall which could be for example an oak or field maple but that decision would be made by the applicant. 

 

On the matter of pruning, Mr Whitby advised a tree would recover, and the tree would compartmentalise such wounding, but the general condition of the tree was worsening. 

 

Mrs Stevens advised that in accordance with the tree’s protected status, only one tree was required as replacement, and it was only in relation to planning applications that two replacements were required for each single tree removed and Mr Whitty added that Natural England would need to lobby to seek a change in this legislation to require a two for one replacement. 

 

Mrs Stevens confirmed that a condition stated the requirement for the tree to be replaced within the first planting season.

 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation to permit.

 

Recommendation to permit agreed.

 

30.

Control of Estate Agent Signs within the Chichester Conservation Area pdf icon PDF 229 KB

That officers make an application to the Secretary of State under Regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning (control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 for a Direction that deemed consent shall not apply for the display of Estate Agent Boards within the Chichester Conservation Area for a period of ten years.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Mrs Archer presented the item to Members.  The Agenda Update Sheet provided two corrections regarding the dates of the relevant legislation.

 

Mrs Archer responded to Members’ comments and questions:

 

Mrs Archer confirmed that the reasoning for seeking agreement to the recommendation in the report was in part due to the number of students lets and explained that this matter was under Regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning (control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations, and an application would therefore not be a planning application.  The report proposed that within the Chichester Conservation Area an application for permission to display signage would be required.  Mrs Archer also commented that other marketing methods were available.

 

Mrs Archer advised that if this was to apply to Midhurst Conservation Area, further work would be required with South Downs National Park, and confirmed that she would discuss this with the authority at her next meeting with them.  Mrs Archer also confirmed that further matters relating to the boarding-up of premises was also being considered, but this was part of separate legislation. 

 

With regards to the number of signs displayed for a single premises and the condition of the signage, Mrs Archer responded that a separate application would be required for each sign, which must be clean and safely displayed.  Each application would cost £132.  On the suggestion of the use of QR bar codes, Mrs Archer agreed that may be an idea which could be considered by the Business Improvement District group.  Mrs Archer was unable to provide statistics in relation to the number of student lets.

 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation that officers make an application to the Secretary of State under Regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning (control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 for a Direction that deemed consent shall not apply for the display of Estate Agent Boards within the Chichester Conservation Area of a period of ten years.

 

Recommendation Agreed.

31.

Chichester District Council Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters between 10 February 2021 and 9 March 2021 pdf icon PDF 447 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:

Mr Whitty confirmed that with regards to Land North of Stane Street, Westhampnett, the Parish Council and the Ward Members were advised of the variation to the Section 106 agreement.  The Government were currently encouraging changes to be accepted due to the current Covid-19 pandemic where they did not have a significant impact on delivery of housing.  The Parish Council did object, however the Council’s own advisor in relation to the sport and recreation need, had no objection and therefore did not find it would have a significant impact upon the provision and timing for development, and people wishing to use the facility.  With regards to Covid-19, the Council would not seek for a developer to have to fund further costs for work where not necessary.  If there was a reasonable assumption on the basis of a letter from an applicant, that there is a need to delay provision and that delay would not cause significant impact, the Council would accept such a situation particularly considering the Government’s current stance.  However, should it be considered appropriate to challenge a delay, the Council would be more robust or seek further evidence, but proportionality was key.     

 

On the matter of Land West of Birdham Farm, Birdham Road, Mr Whitty reported that the order required occupation to cease on 31st March 2021 and for the site to be cleared by 30th April 2021.  The occupants may apply for a later date for compliance and the courts were likely to agree an extension until 30th June 2021 for occupation to cease and 31st July 2021 for the site to be cleared, but that was dependent upon an application being made.  The current plan was for officers to gather evidence and consider legal proceedings on the basis of that evidence.  Mr Whitty agreed to provide an update report for the Parish Council and confirmed that other interested parties were being kept updated.

 

With regards to Land at the Corner of Oving Road and A27 for the erection of 143 dwellings, and the withdrawal of the application, Mr Whitty responded that he did not have any further information at the current time. 

 

On the matter of new units on Gypsy sites, Mr Whitty confirmed that appeals were being requested by way of hearing, in order to fully present evidence and allow third parties to participate in the process, but this was a decision of the Planning Inspectorate.  With regards to Land North West of Newbridge Farm, Salthill Road, Mrs Stevens confirmed had been requested as hearing by the appellant, and the Planning Inspectorate had been in communication with them early this year, as they had not submitted all of the required information, and added that the appeal schedule would be updated for the next meeting.

 

Mr Whitty explained that the procedure for Section 106 agreements was set out in the Council’s constitution and the procedure states that applications were determined and reported to Committee but prior to determination, comments were sought from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

32.

South Downs National Park Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters between 10 February 2021 and 9 March 2021 pdf icon PDF 30 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:

Members agreed to note this item.

33.

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

Minutes:

There were no late items.

34.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no restricted items for consideration.

Minutes:

There were no part two items.

 

Top of page