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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

Apologies were received from Roy Briscoe.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 3 November 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2021 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

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.

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 6 - BI/20/02066/OUT – as the Chichester District Council external appointment to Chichester Harbour Conservancy

·       Agenda Item 9 – BO/20/03326/FUL – as the Chichester District Council external appointment to Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Rev. John-Henry Bowden

·       Agenda Item 10 - CC/21/00841/FUL – as the Chichester District Council external appointment to the Goodwood Aerodrome Committee

Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 6 - BI/20/02066/OUT – as a member of West Sussex County Council and a member of Selsey Town Council

·       Agenda Item 9 – BO/20/03326/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda item 11 – KD/20/00457/COU – as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 6 - BI/20/02066/OUT – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 9 – BO/20/03326/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda item 11 – KD/20/00457/COU – as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 6 - BI/20/02066/OUT – as a member of Selsey Town Council

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 6 - BI/20/02066/OUT – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 9 – BO/20/03326/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda item 11 – KD/20/00457/COU – as a member of West Sussex County Council

The Committee will receive an update report on the housing land supply; and are asked to make the following recommendation;

That the Committee notes the housing land supply update and the approach to housing applications as set out in para. 6.5 of the report.

Mr Ayling and Miss Stevens presented the report to the Committee. Miss Stevens introduced the report, she explained that the previous land supply position concluded, that as of April 2020 the Council had a 4.3 year housing supply. In response the Council brought forward an Interim Position Statement that was approved by the Planning Committee in June 2020.

Mis Stevens explained that West Sussex County Council undertake the monitoring of housing development for Chichester District Council (and other West Sussex authorities). The data provided by WSCC has been used as the basis for the latest land supply position.

Miss Stevens informed the Committee that Lambert Smith Hamilton had been appointed to undertake a Critical Friend Review of the 5YHLS report, and to review the evidence in respect of the windfall allowance; as well as the lead-on and build-out rates of residential development sites. She drew their attention to Appendix 1 of the report which set out the full review.

Based on the most recent data, Miss Stevens informed the Committee that the Council, as of 1 April 2021, is able to demonstrate at least 5.3 years of housing land supply.

Mr Ayling took the Committee through section 6 of the report. He explained that the findings to be tested at appeal and Members will be kept informed of the outcome of the examinations and how they impact upon the five-year housing land supply.

Mr Ayling drew Member’s attention to paragraph 6.4 of the report, he highlighted that although there is a current five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) it is important that to maintain this position going forward with planning applications considered if the benefits indicate it should be permitted. The five-year housing land supply statement has immediate effect and will apply to current appeals, it means the tilted balance no longer applies.

Mr Ayling informed the Committee that there was a typo in the recommendation which should read as follows ‘…set out in para 6.4 of the report’.

The Committee received representations from;

Cllr Tony Colling – Loxwood Parish Council

In response to comments made in the public representation; Mr Ayling acknowledged that the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan had being stalled by the water neutrality issue affecting the area. However, he reminded the Committee the same issue also applied to all planning applications and other Neighbourhood Plans within the area. He clarified that the Development Plan is the basis for all planning applications and referred to paragraph 6.3 of the report. In addition, Mr Whitty advised that whilst the Committee do not have to apply the tilted balance in their consideration, they should remain mindful to the future and maintaining a five-year housing land supply.

On behalf of the Committee Mrs Purnell thanked all officers for their work on the Five-Year Housing Land Supply Statement.

With regards to the A27 and the number of new homes that can be supported in the future; Mr Ayling explained that the 5YHLS is assessed through the Standard Method. A different figure to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

Outline Application with all matters reserved apart from access for the erection of up to 73 dwellings, open space and associated works, Class E(g) business floorspace and Class E(a) retail floorspace.

Refuse.

Bushell presented the report to the Committee. He drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included additional comments from; Birdham Parish Council, Selsey Town Council, and a further third-party comment; as well as a further reason for refusal.

Mr Bushell explained that the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee on 8 September 2021 for the five reasons recorded within the minutes of the meeting and set out within the report (page 64). With regards to the attendance of a representative from WSCC Highways Mr Bushell explained that unfortunately the WSCC representative had to offer apologies.

Mr Bushell outlined the current policy context and explained that the Council has now moved back to a Plan-led approach when considering applications. He explained that since the last Committee Meeting the Council had published its new Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) Statement and could demonstrate a 5.3-year supply. As a result, the officer recommendation had changed from permit (at the September Committee) to refuse, full reasons for the change in the recommendation were detailed in full within the report. In summary, because the Council could demonstrate a 5YHLS the application of the Tilted Balance in favour of development is no longer required and the planning balance is tilted back towards a plan-led approach. Mr Bushell informed the Committee that this approach had been adopted by the Planning Inspector in dismissing a previous appeal on the same site in 2018.

Mr Bushell highlighted the site location to the Committee and explained that the site adjoined the Birdham settlement boundary and was 150m north of the Somerley conservation site. He informed the Committee that the entire site was located within Floodzone 1.

Mr Bushell outlined the three land parcels located within the development site, as well as the proposed access arrangements. He informed the Committee that the proposal was for a mix of 73 houses, flats, and some bungalows, which gives a net density of around 27 dwellings per hectare, along with an employment building and retail until. There would be a foul water pumping station, which would have a holding tank facility for up to 48 hours.

Mr Bushell confirmed that since the September Committee the applicant had included the 3m maintenance buffer required for drainage ditches on the north, west and south boundaries. However, as detailed in the Agenda Update Sheet, it had not been clarified whether the buffer achieved the required level space for maintenance purposes. The Drainage Engineer had been consulted and due to the lack of clarity on this issue it was not possible to confirm whether the overall quantum of development could be accommodated on the site and as such this matter was included as a further reason for refusal of the application.

Mr Bushell informed the Committee that foul water from the site would drain to the Sidlesham Waste Water Treatment works, via the Pinks Lane pumping station. Since September the Committee report had been updated to provide further information on foul drainage, Mr Bushell  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

Demolition of existing dwelling and the erection of 50 dwellings to include 35 private units and 15 affordable units, creation of proposed vehicular access, internal roads and footpaths, car parking, sustainable drainage system, open space with associated landscaping and amenity space (resubmission of planning application reference LX/19/01240/FUL) - Variation of Condition 6 of planning permission LX/20/01481/FUL - to amend the wording and change the trigger point for this condition.

Permit

Mr Bushell presented the report to the Committee. He drew their attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included a correction to paragraph 8.9.

Mr Bushell explained that the application was to vary the wording of Condition 6 of planning application LX/20/01481/FUL, the principle of development for 50 dwellings was already established. The variation related to the disposal of foul water from the development site.

Mr Bushell highlighted the site location and approved layout.

He explained that the reason for the variation request is in relation to the first part of Condition 6. The applicant considers that it is unreasonable for the Council to impose a condition that prevents any development commencing on site, when the foul drainage issue only becomes a material consideration upon occupation of the first dwelling, also the requirement for the off-site drainage improvements are dependent on the timetable of the statutory provider (Southern Water) over which the developer has no control.

Mr Bushell informed the Committee that officers had reviewed the Condition and were concerned that it may be unlawful or ‘ultra vires’, as it depends on a development being carried out to the satisfaction of a third party when the decision on this matter should be the Planning Authority’s. Officers had consulted with Southern Water and it was proposed that the condition be varied as set out in the report.

Mr Bushell explained that the proposed variation to the condition would allow for general construction work, unrelated to the drainage works, to commence on site and the trigger point for provision of the offsite foul drainage system to service the development would move from pre-commencement to pre-occupation. If the Statutory Provider has not completed the required off-site works by the time the first dwelling is ready for occupation detailed interim on-site foul drainage measures including temporary storage would need to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and implemented on site. Mr Bushell confirmed that Southern Water had no objection to the variation of condition 6.

The Committee received representations from;

Cllr Tony Colling – Loxwood Parish Council

Mrs Katie Martin – Agent

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

With regards to how long interim measures might be in place; Mr Bushell explained the purpose of the condition is to ensure, that following first occupation, on-site interim measures were in place whilst Southern Water undertake completion of the necessary offsite works. In addition, Mrs Mayall informed the Committee that the interim measures were included within the condition as a backstop to enable development to go ahead. If housing is delivered and ready for occupation before the agreed 24-month period, the developer will take responsibility for managing the interim measures. Mrs Mayall informed the Committee of the Loxwood growth scheme, funding for the scheme has been secured to identify the preferred solution for growth within the catchment area and engineers were currently working up a design. Mrs Mayall was unable to provide a timetable for the works.

On the issue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

1 no. non-illuminated totem sign.

Permit.

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee. He drew their attention to the Update Sheet which set out an addendum to the report, clarifying that the applicant should read Stonewater.

Mr Mew highlighted the location of where the proposed sign would be located.

He informed the Committee that in response to the Parish Council’s objection the wording on the sign has been amended to say ’50 houses including Affordable Homes …’

The Committee received the following representations;

Cllr Tony Colling – Loxwood Parish Council

Mrs Katie Martin – Agent

Officers responded to members comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of whether planning permission was required for further housing to be provided as affordable than set out in the S106; Mr Whitty explained that all housing falls within the same use class (C3). Through the S106, the planning permission can only ensure that the minimum requirements of the local plan are secured. Should further permitted housing be provided as affordable, this was not a matter that the permission would, or should, have control.

In a vote the Committee agreed to the report recommendation to permit.

Recommendation; permit subject to the following conditions and informatives.

*Members took an 30 minute lunch break

Demolition of existing house and garage and the construction of new house and garage. Amendments to site levels and additional planting.

Permit.

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee. He drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; an addendum to the plan on page 125, an addendum to the report at paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 and an amendment to Condition 11.

Mr Mew outlined the site location and explained that the application site was located within the settlement boundary of Bosham and within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

He explained that there was an extant permission for a replacement dwelling and garage already on the site (BO/18/00806/FUL). This application seeks planning permission to demolish the existing property and replace it with a two storey house and integrated garage.

Mr Mew outlined the proposed elevations and highlighted to the Committee that it was important to note that this application would be 5cm taller than the extant scheme.

The Committee received representations from;

Mr Jeremy Button – Objector

Mr Mark Hayman – Applicant

Cllr Adrian Moss – Ward Member

Cllr Penny Plant – Ward Member (statement read out by Cllr Adrian Moss)

Officers responded to members comments and questions as follows;

With regards to concerns raised regarding potential surface water run off into the neighbouring pumping station; Mr Mew explained that there were a number of measures included within the application to mitigate run off and reduce the risk of flooding to the property including a green roof. He informed the Committee that the Drainage Engineer had reviewed the application and found the mitigation measures to be acceptable. Condition 4 of the report is included to ensure appropriate drainage measures are in place.

With regards to the difference in height that the structure needs to be raised in comparison to the extant permission; Mr Mew explained that the existing permission had a finished floor level of 4.4m AOD, this application has a finished floor level of 4.5m AOD, so there would be a 10cm difference. In addition, Mr Whitty explained that the mass of the building would be greater that the extant permission, however it is a contemporary design.

On the matter of the roof terrace and potential overlooking; Mr Mew confirmed that this issue was secured through Condition 12 of the report.

With regards to light spillage into neighbouring properties; Mr Mew informed the Committee that Condition 24 of the report addressed this issue and stated that no external illumination shall be provided other that what has been approved. He explained that this was to protect both wildlife and the character of the area.

On the matter of retrofitting the property as oppose to redeveloping; Mr Mew explained that due to the location of the property and the flood risk at the site it was more appropriate to redevelop. He drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.30 (p.142) of the report which detailed the Sustainable Design and Construction approach being applied at the site.

On the matter of window heights and the overlooking onto neighbouring properties: Mr Mew informed the Committee that this was secured  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

Removal of existing telecommunications mast and installation of new 20 metre mast including transfer of existing apparatus to new mast and installation of 3 no

Permit.

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee. He explained that the site  was an existing telecommunications site located within the Whitehouse Farm development site. The impact from the site is mitigated by an existing mature tree line and whilst it is currently sited in a rural location, Mr Mew reminded members that there was an extant permission on the surrounding farm land as part of the Whitehouse Farm development.

He acknowledged that there had been concerns from the City Council in their response regarding the height of the mast and confirmed that there would be minimal increase in the height. However, he did explain that there would be an increase in the massing of the bulk of the antenna which would   have a diameter of 2.65m. He confirmed that there was room within the enclosure to accommodate the new mast.

The Committee received representations from;

Mr Michael Doyle – Agent (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

On the matter of possible health implications resulting from the mast; Mr Whitty acknowledged members concerns, however, he explained that health effects from such development are not a material planning consideration. Applicants for such a development are required to submit an assurance document, which Mr Whitty confirmed the applicant had done and did meet the required guidelines. 

With regards to provision being made for this type within the GDPO; Ms Stevens confirmed that new provisions had been made, however, the fallback position was that there was a telecommunications mast already on site.

Following a vote the Committee agreed to the report recommendation to  permit.

Recommendation; permit; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

*Members took a five minute break

Change of use to wellness retreat (Sui Generis) alongside residential use (Class C3).

Defer

Mr Price introduced the report to the Committee. He outlined the site location and explained that property was accessed by a single-track lane which was shared by the Foresters Pub and six other dwellings. He explained that the application sought permission for a change of use for the applicant to develop a Wellness Centre in the Sussex Barn on a part-time basis, as well as permission for Bed and Breakfast accommodation to be provided in association with that use. He confirmed that there would be no physical changes to either building.

Mr Price drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda update sheet which included an addendum to the plan on page 163; an addendum to the report at paragraph 8.13; further Officer Comment in respect of paragraph 8.13 and an addendum to the recommendation on page 175; which should read as ‘Delegate to Officers’ and an amendment to Condition 6.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Tony Piedade – Kirdford Parish Council

Mr Anthony Brooks – Objector (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Mrs Meanock – Supporter

Cllr Adrian Moss – speaking on behalf of Ward Member Gareth Evans

Ms Lucy Connor - applicant

Officers responded to Members comments and questions;

On the issue of permitting the application on a temporary basis; Mr Price confirmed that this was a feasible option but advised that if the Committee were minded to accept the application on a temporary basis then they should defer the application and bring it back to Committee. In addition, Mr Whitty advised that if the Committee were minded impose a temporary condition this must be reasonable as the authority may face costs if an unreasonable impact is caused to the applicant.

On the issue of the property being used as an Airbnb property; Mr Whitty confirmed that so long as the property was being occupied as a single dwelling it can be advertised for Airbnb.

On the matter of water neutrality, Mr Whitty confirmed that the correct approach had been taken by officers when considering the application. He explained that it was not felt the application has any material impact as the potential water use at the property and associated buildings is already established and could be significant.

With regards to how water usage is monitored; Mr Whitty explained that Natural England prepare the methodology that predicts water demand, however, it cannot be fixed to individual usage. 

On the matter of electric car charging points; Mr Price confirmed that there were electric vehicle charging points on site, he was unaware of any further ecological enhancements.

Following a vote the Committee dismissed the report recommendation to Permit.

Mr Barrett proposed that the application be deferred, so that officers can negotiate a temporary application with the applicant, and to seek greater clarity on the access lane and water usage at the site. The proposal was seconded by Mr Potter.

In a vote the Committee agreed to defer; the application for the reasons set out by Mr Barrett in his proposal.

Recommendation;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

Detached garage with store/home studio over for ancillary use in connection with Mulberry Cottage.

Permit

Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee. She drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update which included additional information from the client, as well as a further officer comment.

Ms Stevens outlined the site location and highlighted where the proposed development was sited. She explained that the site was located outside a  settlement boundary in but was within the AONB area of Chichester Harbour. As a point of for the Committee Ms Stevens clarified that whilst reference had been made to the development being in a ‘dark sky’ area, unlike the South Downs National Park, this was not a designated dark sky area.

Ms Stevens highlighted the proposed elevations of the development and informed the Committee that timberboarding would be used in the construction of the development.

Ms Stevens informed the Committee that there had been a previous appeal on the site, however this was very old, having taken place in 2004. She explained that apart from the appeal being considered when Planning Policy was different, the appeal was for a separate residential dwelling, whereas this application is for an ancillary building to the main dwelling.

She informed the Committee that officers considered the relationship with neighbouring to be acceptable, with a minimum distance of 10m between the proposed development and neighbouring property.

The Committee received representations from;

Cllr Alastair Spencer – West Itchenor Parish Council

Mr Roger Jackson – Objector

Mr Brett Moor – Agent

Cllr Elizabeth Hamilton – CDC Ward Member

Officers’ responded to Members questions and comments as follows;

On the matter of further comments from the Harbour Conservancy regarding their holding objection; Ms Stevens explained that they had not been reconsulted following the negotiations with the applicant to reduce the depth of the development.

With regards to vehicular access to the garage; Ms Stevens confirmed that the access would be created over what was currently lawn. She agreed that a condition could be included within the permission which required that the new access be constructed from a permeable material to mitigate any adverse impact from surface water.

With regards to the retention of the beech hedge referenced within the Harbour Conservancy representation; Ms Stevens confirmed that a condition could be included to secure the retention of the beech hedge.

On the matter of the location of the property; Ms Stevens confirmed that the development location was as shown in the presentation and would be set back from the main dwelling.

With regards to any potential disruption to natural light at neighbouring properties; Ms Stevens informed the Committee that officers had considered the issue and believed that the development would not cause an unacceptable relationship with the neighbouring properties.

With regards to the height of the proposed development and the impact on the street scene; Ms Stevens clarified that the maximum height of the building would be 5.9m (2.4m at eaves), it is not felt that the development will have a significant impact on the local area. In addition she explained that even if the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

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

Ms Golding drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet, which provided a High Court update on the site of Land at Bethwines Farm and South of Ivy Lodge.

Mr Oakley queried repeat applications and that consideration be given to a decline to determination should further applications be received.

The Committee 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.

The Committee 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.

The committee is asked to consider in respect of the following item(s) whether the public interest including the press should be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption under Parts I to 7 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as indicated against the item and because, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption of that information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.The reports dealt with under this part of the agenda are attached for members of the Cabinet and senior officers only (salmon paper)

Or

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no part two items.