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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

Apologies were received from Cllr Donna Johnson, Cllr Graeme Barrett and Cllr Peter Wilding

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 5 January 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2022 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 12(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 Oakley declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 7 – CH/21/01797/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – CC/21/03119/ADV – as a member of West Sussex County Council and Chichester City Council

·       Agenda Item 7 – CH/21/01797/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

The Planning Committee are asked to consider the attached report and make the following recommendations;

Recommendations

2.1          That the Committee:

a)    note the content of this report, and

b)    approve the date of publication of the Natural England position statement on 14 September 2021 as the date at which water neutrality is a material consideration, and consequently that its requirements are not applied retrospectively in respect of the determination of relevant planning applications, including applications for the revocation, modification or discontinuance of a permission on water neutrality grounds granted prior to that date.

Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee. She explained the report on Water Neutrality set out a background on what it was, why it was an issue within the Chichester Local Plan area and when it was required. The report also contained links to the Natural England (NE) Position Statement (published on 14 September 202), the NE FAQ Document and the Sussex North Water Supply Zone Map.

Ms Stevens clarified that the NE Position Statement became a Material Consideration from its date of publication on 14 September 2021, and applied to both applications received since that date, as well as those that were under consideration at that time.

The Committee received a representation from;

Mr Wayne Beglan – Kirdford Parish Council

Officers responded to Members’ comment and questions as follows;

With regards to applications that had been decided on but had not yet received permission; Ms Stevens explained that if there had been a resolution to permit an application, but it had not yet been determined then the Position Statement would apply, and permission would not be issued and negotiations regarding water neutrality would be entered. In addition, Ms Stevens confirmed that the Townfield site under consideration would be required to demonstrate water neutrality.

In respect of the Cala site determined in October 2021; Ms Bell informed the Committee that the application was part of another application which had been determined in October 2019; prior to water neutrality being a material consideration. She explained the Section 73 application which had been granted (post 14 September 2021) was an amendment to the original application, officers had considered its impact on water neutrality and considered there would be no further impact on the water usage than already established through the extant permission.

On the matter of deferring the report; Ms Stevens advised the Committee there would be no benefit to deferring the report. It was important that the council provide certainty and clarity regarding its position on Water Neutrality for developers and applicants. She cautioned that if it fails to do this then there maybe implications regarding the future of housing land supply.  She confirmed that both officers and Cllr Taylor (the portfolio holder) had been in contact with Kirdford Parish Council and would continue to liaise with them outside the meeting.

With regards to the two-stage screening process, detailed in 4.3 of the report; Mr Day outlined the screening process to the Committee. He explained that at the first stage consideration was given to something known as the ‘likely significant effect’, as part of the Habitats Regulation Assessment. This assessed whether the proposal would lead to an increase in water consumption and where there was an existing use on site, whether the new application would create any further increase or decrease in the level of water consumption. He stressed that at this stage no mitigating factors can be considered. If after the first stage screening an application was considered to have an increased impact on the water consumption, then it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

1 no. externally illuminated fascia sign, 1 no. internally illuminated fascia sign, 1no. internally illuminated brass menu board, 4 no. awnings with lettering and 3 no. lettering on glazing.

Permit  

Ms Prichard presented the report to the Committee and drew their attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included an update to Section 4.0 of the report.

Ms Prichard highlighted the site location and explained that it was located with the in the Chichester Conservation Area and showed pictures of the current unit.

Ms Prichard showed the Committee a picture of the proposed lighting and location of the illuminated menu board. She drew attention to the external side elevation and highlighted how the external lighting would be hidden under the proposed awnings. She confirmed that the external lighting would only be used during hours of darkness.

The Committee received the following representation;

Ms Charlotte Baker – Applicant

The Committee asked no questions.

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.

Non material amendment to planning permission 21/03391/FUL, to revise elevation drawings detailing the removal of brick plinth walls and canopies and the revision of northern boundary wall design.

Delegate to Officers

Ms Thatcher presented the report to the Committee. She drew attention to the Agenda Update sheet which set out; an amendment to the proposal; an additional comment from WSCC Highways and eight additional objections.

Ms Thatcher detailed the location site and confirmed that it was within the Chichester settlement boundary. In January 2022 Planning permission had been granted to redevelop the site, and Ms Thatcher informed the Committee that following a recent site visit she could confirm demolition and ground works had commenced.

Ms Thatcher explained that the application sought Non-Material Amendments (NMA) to the planning permission granted in January 2022. She provided a summary of the proposed amendments;

·       The removal of brick plinths from blocks 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, to be replaced with vertical cladding which would continue to the ground.

·       The removal of the entrance canopies from all blocks.

·       The removal of the brick piers from the western side of the North boundary wall.

Ms Thatcher confirmed it was officer opinion that all the proposed amendments were minor and could be considered as Non-Material

The Committee received the following representations;

Mrs Abigail Blumzon – Objector (statement read by Lynne Friel)

Mr Alan Mee - Objector

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

With regards to the design merits and the sustainability merits of the proposals; Ms Thatcher informed the Committee as the application was a Non-Material Amendment application, planning merits (or any other merits such as design and sustainability) cannot be considered. She advised the Committee that they were being asked to consider whether the proposals could be considered as non-material and drew their attention to section 7 of the report which set out the relevant Planning Policy.

On the issue of the northern boundary wall; Ms Thatcher explained that the works to the northern boundary wall had already been approved as part of the earlier planning application. She reminded the Committee that with regard to the western part of the northern boundary wall the proposal was only for the removal of the brick piers, which was considered a non-material amendment.

Ms Thatcher confirmed that should the Planning Committee decide the proposed amendments were not non-material then the Council would have to come back to Committee with a further Section 73 application

With regards to any potential lighting provided in the pedestrian canopies; Ms Thatcher informed the Committee that any lighting provision would have been included as part of the lighting condition which had not yet been discharged. However, she did not think there had been any lighting proposed with the canopies.

In response to the Committee’s concerns that the proposed amendments to the northern wall were greater than what could be classified as a non-material amendment; Ms Stevens acknowledged the importance of considering each of the individual amendments proposed in turn, however, she advised the Committee that the application they were being asked to consider was whether there would be any material change to the permitted scheme. The permitted scheme was an industrial site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

Demolition of existing property and construction of 2 no. detached dwellings, garaging and associated works.

Defer for S106 then permit

Mr Thomas presented the report to the Committee. He drew their attention to the Agenda Update which included an additional representation from the Parish Council and an additional third-party objection.

Mr Thomas highlighted the application site and informed the Committee that the site was located within the Parish of Chidham and Hambrook and the Chichester Harbour AONB.

Mr Thomas highlighted the length on the gardens that fronted the main road and explained that they were approximately 30m in length. He showed the Committee the proposed elevations and designs of the two dwellings. The existing estate fencing would be extended along the eastern, and a new hedge would be planted.

The application had been submitted with a nitrate neutrality report and had identified a surplus of 0.8kg of nitrate per year to be mitigated for nitrate neutrality to be achieved. Mr Thomas highlighted the proposed area of land (a total of 0.03ha) to be used for the nitrate mitigation and confirmed that the land did fall within the Chichester Harbour catchment area.

The Committee received the following representations;

Ms Kerry Simmons – Agent

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the proposed nitrate mitigation; Ms Stevens explained that advice was provided by Natural England who had reviewed the proposed mitigation and confirmed that it was suitable, and the assessments undertaken were acceptable. She explained should there be any issue with the mitigation the S106 would ensure suitable mitigation is agreed before permission is granted.

On the matter of the Strategic Wildlife Corridors; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to pages 37 and 38 of the report which set out the comments from the Environmental Strategy team. She confirmed that consideration had been given to the impact on the wildlife corridor, with particular consideration being given to the impact on bats and lighting and conditions had been included to ensure ecological enhancements.

With regards to whether the site could be considered a windfall site; Ms Bell explained that officers considered the application to be a new application and not attached to the previous Green Acre development. The land was previously developed land which meant it could be redeveloped in principle. Overall, there would be a net increase of one dwelling.

Ms Bell explained to the Committee why the application was supported by the Neighbourhood Plan Policy.

With regards to the difference between the first-floor heights of the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling; Mr Thomas confirmed that the proposed heights were broadly in line with the existing heights. In addition, Ms Stevens outlined the proposed window layout and the developments relationship with neighbouring properties.

On the matter of how much land should be set aside to achieve nitrate neutrality; Ms Stevens explained that nitrate mitigation could be achieved in several ways, taking land out of agriculture was just one way.

On the matter of how CDC safeguards the land used for nitrate mitigation; Ms Golding explained that the S106 agreement would be signed by all interested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 179.

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 Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update sheet.

With regards to the proportion of appeals relating to gypsy and traveller applications and matters; Ms Stevens was unaware of the proportion and would review this outside the Committee.

On the matter of the Land within the Westhampnett/North East Chichester Strategic Development Location; Ms Stevens would liaise with Ms Bell and confirm outside the meeting whether the appeal was heard after the Council had announced the current 5YHLS statement

With regards to how the Council would be represented at the Public inquiry for the field south of Raughmere Drive; Ms Stevens explained that a Barrister, along with the case officer and other specialists will be representing the Council.

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 is asked to consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements.

Mrs Archer presented the Schedule of Contraventions to the Committee. She highlighted the number of ‘on hand’ cases had dropped since the last meeting from 435 to 407. Included within that number are 125 cases that are awaiting input outside the Council’s control.

She informed the Committee of two updates. The Council had withdrawn from prosecution on the case at Medmerry View, Drove Lane as compliance had been reached and; a further stop notice had been issued to land at Newells Lane.

Officers responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows;

With regards to an update on the Cutmill Depot, Newels Lane; Mrs Archer would liaise with officers outside the meeting and feedback.

On the matter of compliance dates Mrs Archer explained that whilst these were written down, they were often not adhered to and further interaction from the enforcement team was required.

With regards to land at Hunston; Mrs Archer confirmed that the authority had written to the Inspectorate to make them aware of the issue. She explained that a stop notice was not issued at the time, but she would seek an opinion from the litigation lawyer.

The Committee agreed to note the item.

*Cllr McAra left the meeting at 12.58pm

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.