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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The Chairman congratulated Mrs Stevens on her recent appointment as Divisional Manager for Planning.

Apologies were received from Mrs Judy Fowler.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 8 December 2021.

The following matters were raised and agreed;

The minutes be amended to correctly reflect when Mr Oakley left and rejoined the meeting.

Minute item 157 be amended to note that Mr Oakley queried about repeat applications and that consideration be given to a decline to determination should further applications be received.

With the addition of the above amendment the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 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 10(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 - FB/21/02509/FUL – as the Chichester District Council external appointment to Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Mr Briscoe declared a predetermination in respect of Agenda Item 5 – WE/20/01569/FUL, because he had objected to the previous application made by the applicant at this site. Ms Golding confirmed that Mr Briscoe would not be involved in discussion or decision making for this item.

Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – WE/20/01569/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 6 – FB/21/02509/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 - CC/21/03391/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council and a member of Chichester City Council

Mr Potter declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – WE/20/01569/FUL – as the Chichester District Council external appointment to South Downs National Park

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – WE/20/01569/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 6 – FB/21/02509/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 - CC/21/03391/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council and a member of Chichester City Council

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – WE/20/01569/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 6 – FB/21/02509/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 - CC/21/03391/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council and a member of Chichester City Council

Erection of 1 no. dwelling and associated landscaping.

Refuse; against officer recommendation.

As Mr Briscoe had declared a predetermination in the item he withdrew from the committee and took a seat in the public gallery.

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee. He explained the application was for a detached dwelling being brought forward as an exception site under Paragraph 80 (e) of the NPPF.

Mr Mew reminded the Committee that the application had been considered at two previous Planning Committee meetings where it had been deferred.

Mr Mew provided a verbal update on Condition 18, he explained that the reference to ‘either’ was an error and had been deleted.

Mr Mew highlighted the site location. He reiterated that in terms of policy the site was being brought forward under Paragraph 80(e) of the NPPF and advised that for the reasons detailed within the Committee Report officers felt the application did meet the requirements set out in Paragraph 80(e).

He informed the Committee that the application had been through significant pre application discussions, including advice from the Conservation and Design team. It had also been reviewed by an independent design panel who agreed that the application met the requirements of Paragraph 80(e).

On the matter of policy Mr Mew explained that the Westbourne Neighbourhood Plan had now being made, however, the August Planning Committee had been held after the referendum therefore the conclusions regarding the Neighbourhood Plan (set out in paragraph 3 of the report) were still relevant.

As part of the presentation Mr Mew detailed the Landscape Management Plan to the Committee. The plan included further tree and hedgerow planting, the creation of wildflower meadows, wetland grassland, installation of bat boxes and the removal of overhead electricity cables.

Mr Mew referred to the Westbourne Village Design Statement which recognised the use of flint and diverse variety of architectural types within the Parish.

Mr Mew provided an overview of the elevations, and the view corridors from the site. He also detailed the sustainability features of the application and emphasised that the development would deliver sustainability benefits over and above what was required from a new build. Post occupancy learning benefits would be secured through condition.

In response to the Committees request for further information regarding how the development would enhance the local area Mr Mew showed a Journal article that had been submitted by the architects highlighting the high energy performance ratings of their previous projects. The article also provided evidence for the outstanding design of the proposed development.

With regards to how the development would assist and inform future development Mr Mew explained the architects have a document of ‘Joined up Thinking and Practice’ covering matters such as; design and construction principles and improving building health and wellbeing. The document is shared with organisations like universities to help bring new technologies forward. In addition, the architects regularly speak at industry events and have provided a library of informative videos to help disseminate learning further.

With regards to learning outcomes, Mr Mew informed the Committee that the management of nitrate mitigation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

Creation of 4 no. parking spaces, dropped kerb, boundary treatment and landscaping

Refuse; against officer recommendation.

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee. By way of verbal update, he explained that the paragraph numbering for sections 7 and 6 within the report were incorrect, he confirmed that the content included was correct.

He also confirmed that the site was not located within the settlement boundary, as stated in paragraph 8.2 and in the table at paragraph 5 and was located outside the settlement boundary as set out in paragraph 2.1 of the report.

Mr Mew informed the Committee that the application was for the creation of four parking spaces at the front of Black Boy Court and associated works. He highlighted the site location and where the proposed works would be located.

The site is adjacent to the A259 and has been reviewed by WSCC Highways who have raised no objections.

He highlighted the elevations and proposed landscaping, including a low-level flint wall.

Mr Mew informed the Committee that the site was within a conservation area and adjacent to a Grade 2 listed building, however, he explained that the low wall which could be seen in the presentation was not historic and planning permission was not required for its removal.

The Committee received representations from;

Mrs Carter – Applicant

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the existing flint wall; Mr Mew drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.6 of the report. He explained even though the site was within a Conservation Area no permission was required for the removal of the wall because as it was under 1m in height.

With regards to concerns regarding the turning space available; Mr Mew confirmed that the spaces were 2.4m by 4.8 did meet the required standard for parking spaces. He highlighted that there was 6.5m between the opposite spaces and reminded the Committee the WSCC had been consulted and were satisfied that there was adequate turning provision and had raised no objections.

With regards to how many parking spaces were currently associated with properties at Black Boy Court; Mr Mew clarified that there are currently 23 parking spaces provided. In addition, he drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.10 of the report and explained the existing 8 flats at Black Boy Court were only served by 8 parking spaces which results in vehicles being parked on the highway when residences have more than one vehicle.

With regards to the possibility of including a condition to limit commercial vehicles; Mr Mew explained that this was not proposed and unless there was a request for a change of use from residential to commercial is not something that would require planning permission.

On the issue of character and impact on the conservation area; Ms Stevens advised the Committee that many of the surrounding properties did have forecourt parking and it is unlikely that this proposal would stand out. The landscape proposed would help soften the appearance and ensure there would be minimum impact to the street scene.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

Redevelopment of the existing industrial estate, including demolition of the existing buildings. The scheme provides approximately 4448m2 (47877ft) of lettable industrial space, use classes E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii) (formally known as use classes B1(b), B1(c)) and use class B8 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 and to regularise the conditions of permission CC/21/01391/FUL to reflect conditions contained in permission CC/20/01914/FUL

Permit

Ms Thatcher presented the report to the Committee. She drew their attention to the Agenda Update which included additional comments from the CDC Environmental Protection Officer and two further representations received following the publication of the Committee report.

In addition, by way of a verbal update, Ms Thatcher informed the Committee that there was an error on condition 2 and explained that there should only be one proposed site plan which should be 1010 revision 11 plan, she confirmed that this would be corrected.

Ms Thatcher highlighted the application site and confirmed that demolition on site has already begun. She explained that the purpose of the proposal was to regularise the varied conditions of attached to the 2021 permission, so that they reflect the conditions attached to the 2020 permission.

To highlight the difference between the conditions attached to the two permissions, Ms Thatcher displayed a table to the Committee which set out the differing conditions and the key conditions changes which were being proposed within the application.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

With regards to the previous application and whether it could be deleted; Ms Thatcher explained that the previous application would remain extant. The applicant would have the choice of which application they choose to develop; however, it is expected that they would choose to implement the current permission. In addition, Mr Whitty explained that whilst an application can be revoked there are no compelling circumstances to do so. 

With regards to condition 8; Ms Thatcher explained that this condition was included to ensure greater control over the final boundary treatments at the site. If significant changes were proposed they would be dealt with through a separate application. 

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

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

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

Mrs Purnell drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update which included an update on High Court Matters.

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.

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no part two items.