Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday 7 July 2021 9.30 am

Venue: Committee Rooms, East Pallant House

Contact: Fiona Baker on 01243 534609  Email:  fbaker@chichester.gov.uk

Note: The full audio can be accessed via Internet Explorer. 

Items
No. Item

72.

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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

 

The Chairman read out a statement prepared by Mr Nicholas Bennett, Monitoring Officer, which explained the physical measures put in place to comply with current legal requirements, including screens and the use of masks.

 

Apologies were received from Cllr Barrett and Cllr Fowler in advance of their late arrival

 

73.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 359 KB

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 9 June 2021.

Minutes:

The minutes of 9 June 2021 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

74.

Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 7 (b).

Minutes:

The Chairman announced that a late item had been received and that it would be dealt with under agenda item 14 on the agenda.  She explained that the Committee would receive a Part II update relating to Planning Appeal APP/L3815/W/21/3274502 – Land adjoining A27 Scant Road West, Hambrook,

 

The press and public would be excluded for this item.

 

 

75.

Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 268 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:

Rev. Bowden declared a prejudicial interest in respect of CC/20/02907/FUL

 

Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in respect of;

·       CC/20/01164/REM as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/20/01897/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/20/02907/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/21/01391/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

 

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of;

·       CC/20/01164/REM as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/20/01897/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/20/02907/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/21/01391/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

 

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in respect of;

·       CC/20/01164/REM as a member of Chichester City Council

·       CC/20/01897/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council

·       CC/20/02907/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council

·       CC/21/01391/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council

 

Mr Potter declared a personal interest in respect of;

·       SDNP/21/01391/FUL & SDNP/21/01968/LIS as the Chichester District Council external representative to the South Downs National Park

·       SDNP/20/04510/FUL & SDNP/21/04511/LIS as the Chichester District Council external representative to the South Downs National Park

 

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in respect of;

·       CC/20/01164/REM as a member of Chichester City Council and as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/20/01897/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council and as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/20/02907/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council and as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       CC/21/01391/FUL as a member of Chichester City Council and as a member of West Sussex County Council

 

 

76.

CC/20/01164/REM Warrendell Adjacent To Centurion Way Off Plainwood Close Chichester West Sussex (approximate start time 9.35am) pdf icon PDF 457 KB

All outstanding Reserved Matters for the erection of 21 dwellings with associated vehicular access, parking and landscaping, pursuant to permission CC/98/02043/OUT.

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Ms Thatcher presented the report to the Committee. She drew attention to the Agenda Update which included; a correction to the report, further representations, and amendments to both the plans and proposed conditions.

 

Ms Thatcher explained that an application for 21 dwellings on the site had been approved in 1998. However, due to the passage of time and the failure to complete the S106 agreement the permission had lapsed. Negotiations on the S106 had continued and in order to resolve the situation the application was altered from ‘Full’ to ‘Outline’ with all matters reserved. The Outline application had been approved at Committee in 2018; the Reserved Matters had been received in 2020 and was within the agreed time limits.

 

She explained that the Committee were being asked to consider the Reserved Matters of layout, scale, appearance, access and layout in respect of the 21 dwellings approved through the Outline planning permission.

 

Ms Thatcher highlighted the site location to the Committee and the proposed layout and elevations. She explained that the affordable homes would be located in plots 20 and 21. She confirmed that the entire location was located within Flood Zone 1.

 

The Committee received the following representations;

Mrs Linda Bye – Objector (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

For the purpose of clarity Mr Whitty reiterated the site history and explained that an application had been submitted 23 years previously; however, the S106 agreement had never been signed, and the application not determined. Two years ago the applicant changed the application to an Outline planning application for 21 dwellings which had been considered and approved by the Planning Committee. What the Committee were being asked to decide on was the Reserved Matters (REM) of layout, appearance, scale and access for the approved Outline application.

 

On the matter of the Centurion Way link Mr Whitty confirmed that this would be open to public access.

 

On the matter of noise disturbance, particularly on Bank Holidays and Sundays; Ms Thatcher confirmed that the site working hours were included under Condition 25 of the Outline planning permission, which restricts the hours of construction from 7.30am – 6pm Mondays to Fridays; 8am – 1pm on Saturdays and no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. In addition, Ms Thatcher explained the difference between the condition included within the Outline application and the REM application. She informed the Committee that the condition attached to the Outline application related to construction hours on site, whereas condition 8 in the REM application referred specifically to protect against noise from development. She confirmed that the condition set out in the Outline application would take precedent over the condition included within the REM application.

 

With regards to the Construction and Environmental Management Plan, Ms Thatcher confirmed that this was included within the Outline application.

 

With regards to the proximity of the site to a scheduled ancient monument, Ms Thatcher explained that there was a monument located to the south of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

77.

CC/20/01897/FUL 22A And Land To The Rear Of 24 Lavant Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 5RG (approximate start time 10.45am) pdf icon PDF 608 KB

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

Decision:

Defer for S106 then permit.

Minutes:

Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee. She drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included an amendment to the recommendation and additional consultation responses.

 

Ms Stevens explained that the recommendation had been amended to ‘Defer for S106 and then permit’, as the S106 had not been completed.

 

The application had originally been presented at Committee in April 2021, at that time the Committee voted to defer the application for further information. Ms Stevens highlighted the additional information which had been requested by the Committee including; the use of nitrate mitigation, amendments to the landscaping scheme (including the retention of an apple tree at the rear of the site) consideration to the housing mix, further advice on fire risk due to the buildings being timber framed and also a consultation with Southern Water.

 

Ms Stevens informed the Committee that three of the objections received have subsequently been removed following further discussions regarding landscaping at the rear of the site.

 

The Committee received the following representations;

Mr Paul White – Agent

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

With regards to the inclusion of a condition to control the numbers of vehicles on site; Ms Stevens drew the Committee’s attention to condition 3 of the report, which required that no development could commence until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan had been approved. She agreed that an informative could be included asking the developer to be mindful of the way site workers parked along Lavant Road and to be mindful of local access along the footway. In addition, Mr Whitty explained that whilst an informative could be included, Chichester District Council are not the highway authority and have no enforcement power to prevent inappropriate parking.

 

On the matter of a potential foul sewage pipe crossing the site, Mr Whitty explained that the response received from Southern Water was a standard response used as a safeguard; it does not mean that there is a foul sewage pipe there; however, an informative would be included to bring the potential issue to the developer’s attention.

 

With regards to the calculations used to calculate the nitrate mitigation required, Ms Stevens confirmed that the figure of 2.4 people per dwelling was taken from Natural England’s methodology policy for the mitigation of nitrates upon the Harbour. Recent cases have tested this methodology in the courts and it has held up as being correct.

 

On the matter of bedroom sizes, Ms Stevens explained that there were no policies within the Local Pan on space standards; however, there are National Space Standards that set out requirements for bedrooms, living rooms etc. if there is a material consideration regarding the size of a bedroom the National Space Standards would be applied to ensure that there suitable space is provided 

 

On the matter of waste management and litter generated by site workers; Ms Stevens agreed that this could be included within condition 3 and the Construction and Environmental Management Plan.

 

In a vote the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

78.

CC/20/02907/FUL 20 Sherborne Road Chichester PO19 3AA (approximate start time 11.20am) pdf icon PDF 456 KB

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two replacement one and a half storey detached dwellings.

Decision:

Delegate to officers.

Minutes:

Having declared a prejudicial interest Rev Bowden left the room for the duration of the item.

 

Ms Fjola Stevens presented the report to the Committee. Before presenting her report she provided a verbal update on the report recommendation. She informed the Committee that the recommendation as set out in the report was to refuse the planning application due to the impact of the development as a result of nitrates on the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation.

 

However, the applicant has subsequently submitted a Nitrates Report and mitigation scheme which shows that the development would be nitrate neutral, therefore the recommendation has been amended to; ‘Delegate to Officers.

 

Ms Stevens explained that the primary reason for the recommendation to ‘refuse’ was due to the nitrate issues, however, it is not possible to amend the decision to; ‘Defer for S106 then permit’, as officers require time to consider the information that has been submitted to ensure that it is acceptable; a Habitats Regulation Assessment must be undertaken and Natural England must be consulted before a formal decision can be offered.

 

Ms Stevens highlighted the site location to the Committee and the proposed design layout. The developments had been designed as ‘lifetime’ homes, with the provision of a lift and downstairs bedroom.

 

She informed the Committee that the proposed nitrate mitigation site was located within East Dean, whilst the mitigation does look acceptable; Ms Stevens reiterated that it still required full consideration and an HRA was required.

 

The Committee received the following representations;

Mr Pal – Applicant

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

With regards to any other concerns that may cause officers to refuse the application Ms Stevens confirmed that the only reasons for refusal were as set out in the report (page 110 of the Agenda Pack), however, she did inform the Committee that whilst the application remained undetermined consideration would have to be given to any further representations.

 

With regards to the inclusion of recreation disturbance within the S106 agreement Mr Whitty explained that this would be picked up by officers through the recommendation.

 

On the matter of the chalet style building; Ms Stevens agreed that if the application is recommended for approval then a condition would be included to ensure that the chalet building remains incidental to the main house.

 

With regards to the amenity view; Ms Stevens explained that there was boundary treatment already in situ and did not feel that it would be reasonable to ask for further amendments at this stage.

 

With regards to the comments received from the Highway Authority; Ms Stevens confirmed that the Highway Authority was satisfied with the proposal.

 

In a vote the Committee agree the updated recommendation to Delegate to Officers

 

Recommendation, Delegate to Officers for the reasons listed in the report.

 

79.

CC/21/01391/FUL St James Industrial Estate Westhampnett Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 7JU (approximate start time 12.05pm) pdf icon PDF 709 KB

Redevelopment of the existing industrial estate, including demolition of the existing buildings. The scheme provides approximately 4448m2 (47877ft) of lettable industrial space all under B1(b), B1(c) and B8 use classes with 5 no. replacement buildings. - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission CC/20/01914/FUL - changes to Block 1 from one single large unit into 10 smaller units and associated works.

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She drew their attention to the update sheet which set out an amended description to the development and an amendment to condition 37.

 

In addition, Ms Bell informed the Committee that a late update had been received from the Environment Strategy Officers; who had confirmed that they had no objections to the application, subject to the proposed conditions included in the report.

 

Ms Bell explained that the application is a Section 73 application and is seeking to vary condition 1of planning permission CC/20/01914/FUL which had been approved by the Planning Committee in November 2020. The application specifically seeks to change Block 1 from one single large unit into 10 smaller units and associated works. The variation only applies to Block 1; Blocks 2, 3, 4 and 5 would remain unchanged from the previous application.

 

Ms Bell highlighted the proposed elevations to the Committee and explained that the proposed elevations would be lower than that which had been approved in the original application.

 

There were no representations.

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

With regards to the proposed height of the development; Mr Whitty highlighted that the original building height; which had been deemed acceptable and subsequently approved by the Committee; was greater than what was being proposed, therefore it was difficult to identify what harm was being cause in lowering the height. He advised that the Committee should not seek to restrict development unless harm can be identified. In addition, Ms Bell informed the Committee that officers had spoken to the applicant regarding the proposed height of the building; they had informed them that the units had been designed for ‘start-up’ businesses or businesses which were looking to establish a presence in Chichester. The height of the development is important for a number of reasons including the stacking and delivery of shipments, or for the installation of a mezzanine. The applicant had also informed officers that the eaves height was comparable and in-line with other similar developments in the area.

 

On the matter of the north east wall; Mr Whitty explained to the Committee that this was an existing wall and as such the Committee were not able to request the applicant make any changes to it.

 

With regards to the appearance of the development; Mr Whitty explained that whilst the development was utilitarian in its design, it was an industrial development and in keeping with other similar developments in the surrounding area. He advised that if the Committee are concerned that the application does cause potential harm to the public realm, then they delegate to officers to allow for a potentially more attractive design to be negotiated, however, he reiterated that this was an industrial unit that was in keeping with local style and design. 

 

With regards to the north elevation; Ms Bell acknowledged members comments regarding the appearance. She explained that the palette is considered to be of contemporary style, with a double pitch roof which does  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

80.

SDNP/21/01967/FUL & SDNP/21/01968/LIS Village Hall East Dean Lane East Dean Chichester West Sussex PO18 0JG (approximate start time 12.50pm) pdf icon PDF 369 KB

Replacement of 1 no. meeting room window to the south elevation.

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Mr Price and Mr Broadway presented the report to the Committee.

 

Mr Price highlighted the window to Committee and explained the reasons why officers were recommending that the application be refused.

 

The Committee received the following representations;

Mrs Vicky Mudford – On behalf of the applicant

 

Officers responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows;

 

On the matter of why it was considered unreasonable to replace the single glazed window with the proposed double glazed wooden window; Mr Broadway explained that the replacement would have a detrimental impact on the listed building. Technology had advanced and there a number of more sympathetic options that would be more suitable and in keeping with the nature of the building, for example single glazing with a secondary glazing system.

 

Mr Price confirmed that the SDNPA had two primary policies for listed buildings which followed the principles set out in NPPF for safeguarding listed buildings.

 

Mr Price confirmed that both Mr Broadway and the case officer have had conversations with the Village Hall Management Committee to discuss the alternative options available. Mr Price explained that officers were not averse to replacing the window, but it must be considered in the context of the listed building status.

 

Mr Whitty reminded the Committee that they must consider the integrity of the advice that had been presented by Mr Price and Mr Broadway, if the Committee were to overturn the recommendation then they would set a precedent for future applications.

 

Following the discussion Cllr Potter proposed the following recommendation ‘Permit, subject to conditions’, this was seconded by Cllr Bowden.

 

In a vote the Committee agreed to overturn the recommendation and permit the application.

 

Recommendation, the application be permitted, subject to conditions.

81.

SDNP/20/04510/FUL & SDNP/20/04511/LIS Barn to The West of Didling Manor Farm Didling Lane Didling Treyford Midhurst West Sussex GU29 0LQ (approximate start time 1.20pm) pdf icon PDF 300 KB

Conversion of agricultural barn to provide a staff welfare facility

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Mr Price presented the report to the Committee.

 

He explained that whilst the building itself was not listed in its own right, it had been considered as curtilage listed due to its location and surrounding properties.

 

Mr Price drew attention to the agenda update sheet which set out further detail from the applicant and how the holding would be run in future.

 

Mr Price explained that the use of the building was ancillary to the farm business and as such did not require a change of use application.

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

With regards to what services such as electricity being on site; Mr Price could not confirm that they were on site; however, he explained that it was most likely as there are a number of residential properties located around the building.

 

In a vote the Committee agreed the recommendation to permit.

 

Recommendation, that the application be approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10 of the report

 

*Cllr Potter left the meeting at 14.17

*Cllr Fowler left the meeting at 14.20

82.

Chichester District Council Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters pdf icon PDF 244 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 Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda update sheet which included an update on Hundredsteddle Farm and Plot A, Land north of Premier Business Centre, Birdham.

 

On the matter of Land West of Birdham Farm; Mrs Golding confirmed that the eviction notice had expired on 30 June 2021.

 

On the matter of Hundredsteddle Farm, Mrs Golding explained that the council were challenging the PINS decision letter and costs letter both dated 25th March 202, on a matter of law. She informed the Committee that the Planning Inspector had held that they could not comment on the use of the land, however, as a matter of law they should be commenting. The proceedings were issued on 5 July 2021 and it is a matter for the court to accept the letter and consent to a review

 

The Committee agreed to note this item.

83.

South Downs National Park Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters pdf icon PDF 314 KB

Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters

Minutes:

The Committee agreed to note this item.

84.

Crouchlands Farm Enforcement Report pdf icon PDF 221 KB

Members of the Planning Committee are asked to make the following recommendation;

 

That Members of the Committee note the contents of this report.

Minutes:

Mrs Archer presented the report to the Committee; Mrs Stevens, Divisional Manager, Environment Protection, was also in attendance to answer questions.

 

Mrs Archer informed the Committee that the purpose of the report was to update Members on the enforcement proceedings taken against Crouchlands Farm. She explained that much of the site was now in compliance with the enforcement notice; however, officers undertook a site visit after the expiry of the compliance period and confirmed that ‘Lagoon 3’ still remained intact with no evidence to suggest that any works of compliance had been attempted or were about to start.

 

Mrs Archer explained that the case had been passed to the Legal team for their consideration and advice. The next steps in a case such as this would be to move to prosecution.

 

The Committee received the following speakers;

Cllr Gareth Evans – CDC Ward Member

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

With regards to the removal of the underground infrastructure, Mr Whitty informed the Committee that the authority had sought expert ecology advice; the advice received was that due to the period of time that had passed the best option was to leave the pipework in situ. Mr Whitty confirmed that all other apparatus had been removed.

 

With regards to providing a concise timeline detailing the next steps in the enforcement process, Mr Whitty explained that this was not possible due to the complexity of pursuing a prosecution, however, an indication of the process could be provided.

 

On the matter of CDC taking responsibility for the site Mr Whitty explained that at no point would CDC take responsibility for the site. He explained that there was no obligation or ability for the authority to take responsibility; as a final option CDC could take direct action, but this would not be considered until all other options (including prosecution) had been exhausted.  

 

With regards to the distribution and spreading of the contents of Lagoon 3, Mrs Stevens advised that this would be managed by the Environment Agency as the body responsible for the agreeing the required permits.

 

Mr Whitty confirmed that the site owner is liable for any pollution on the land.

 

On the matter of any future owner being obligated to return the site to agricultural land; Mr Whitty explained that through the enforcement notice the land is required to be returned to its previous state, which in this case is agricultural land. However, it is important to note that the authority cannot force anyone to farm the land.

 

With regards to concerns regarding any inappropriate use of the land being permitted in return for the site being cleared, Mr Whitty confirmed that the authority would never entertain any inappropriate use of the land, and explained that there is no ‘trade off’ in planning terms.

 

On the matter of the reopening of the surrounding PROW’s; Mrs Stevens confirmed that WSCC had been asked to reopen the surrounding paths; however, they had taken the decision that the paths would remain  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

85.

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

As announced by the Chairman a late report relating to Planning Appeal APP/L3815/W/21/3274502 – Land adjoining A27 Scant Road West, Hambrook,

 

The Chairman proposed that by virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded for this item. Cllr Briscoe seconded the proposal.

 

Following a vote the Committee resolved to exclude the press and public.

 

The Chairman invited Ms Bell to present her report to the Committee.

 

The Committee received a representation from Cllr Moss.

 

Officers responded to questions and comments from the Committee.

 

Following a vote the Committee resolved to agree the report recommendation.

 

 

86.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no restricted items for consideration.

Minutes:

The public and press had been excluded under Agenda Item 14.

 

There were no further Part II items.