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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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 Cllr Graeme Barratt, Cllr Briscoe, and Cllr Judy Fowler.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 6 April 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 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.

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.

Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda 7 - SI/21/02786/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda 8 – LX/20/01977/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council 

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda 7 - SI/21/02786/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda 8 – LX/20/01977/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council 

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda 5 – CC/21/02880/ADV – Member of Chichester City Council

·       Agenda 6 – CC/21/02893/FUL – Member of Chichester City Council

·       Agenda 7 - SI/21/02786/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda 8 – LX/20/01977/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council 

1 no. non-illuminated fascia sign to front of building to replace existing.

PERMIT

Mrs Purnell explained the officer report for Agenda Item 5 would also introduce Agenda Item 6, however, a separate vote would be taken for each item.

Mr Thomas introduced the report to the Committee, he drew their attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included an additional Informative for Agenda Item 5 (CC/21/02880/ADV) and an additional comment for Agenda Item 6 (CC/21/02893/FUL) regarding the paint colour.

Mr Thomas outlined the site location to the Committee which was included within the Chichester Conservation Area. He confirmed the Shippham Building Sign located on the building would be retained as part of the application.

Mr Thomas informed the Committee the application (Agenda Item 5 CC/21/02880/ADV) had been revised during the application process and now only sought permission for a single central sign to the front of the building. The proposed paint (Agenda Item 6 CC/21/02893/FUL) was in keeping with the conservation area.

Mr Thomas showed photographs of neighbouring shop fronts to provide some context for the Committee.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions as follows;

On the issue of items such as baskets and billboards being placed outside the store; Ms Stevens explained it was not possible to include a condition on this issue.

Mr Thomas agreed the proposed additional informative for Agenda Item 5 (set out on the Agenda Update Sheet) could be included as a condition.

On the matter of the street number; Ms Stevens confirmed this was considered part of the fascia.

In a vote the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

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

Shopfront re-painted with new paint.

PERMIT

The officer’s report was introduced under Agenda Item 5.

There were no representations.

All comments and questions were addressed under Agenda Item 5.

In a vote the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

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

Change of use of land to storage of caravans and boats. Erection of secure storage building and associated hardstanding. (part retrospective).

REFUSE

Ms Tomlinson presented the report to the Committee. She drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included an addendum to the reasons for refusal.

Ms Tomlinson outlined the site location, which was within the Sidlesham Parish boundary but, outside the settlement boundary. She explained the current site layout and detailed how the proposed application (part of which was retrospective) would be incorporated. She confirmed there would be no changes to the site access.

Ms Tomlinson showed the Committee a series of photos to provide some context of the site. She clarified that Mutton’s Farmhouse was a grade II listed building

Ms Tomlinson explained the reasons for the officer recommendation to refuse the application, highlighting how it conflicted with current planning policy.

The following representations were received;

Mr Hughes – Owner

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions as follows;

In response to comments made regarding the rural economy; Mr Young advised the Committee the contribution from the site to the rural economy would be minimal. Officers had considered the application carefully against Planning Policy specifically the National Planning Policy Guidance 2021 and the Adopted Local Plan and had considered issues such as the increase in traffic and environmental impact when making their recommendation.

Following a discussion Mrs Johnson proposed the Committee go against the officer recommendation and permit, the application on the grounds that there would be no harm caused to the visual impact and it would support the local rural economy.

The proposal was seconded by Rev. Bowden.

Before the Committee voted on Mrs Johnson’s proposal the Chair invited Ms Tomlinson to outline conditions that would likely be attached if the application were permitted. Ms Tomlinson informed the Committee conditions relating to the following aspects would be attached if the permission were granted;

·       Timings of operation

·       Approval of plans

·       Approval of use

·       Approval of storage height

·       Agreement of equipment to be stored on site

·       Lighting and illumination

·       Landscaping

Ms Tomlinson informed the Committee the conditions proposed by the Parish Council would also be included except the condition for 24-hour use.

Ms Stevens advised the Committee that decisions made by the Planning Authority would be taken into consideration as a material consideration should a similar application be submitted.

The Committee then voted on Mrs Johnson’s proposal, as the vote was tied the Chair used their casting vote to overturn the proposal.

The Committee then voted on the report recommendation.

In a vote the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to refuse, for the reasons set out in the report.

Recommendation; refuse, for the reasons set out in the report.

27 no. residential dwellings comprising 19 market units and 8 affordable residential units; a single retail unit, on-site parking and turning, hard and soft landscaping together with sustainable drainage system and alterations to a public right of way

DELEGATE TO OFFICERS

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She drew attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included an amendment to Condition 5 and additional third-party representations.

She explained the reason for the report recommendation to ‘Delegate to Officers’ was due to a number of outstanding matters which would need to be completed before the application could be positively determined. Including; a number of pre-commencement conditions which had yet to be discharged on the extant planning permission; the S106 agreement and agreement on the water neutrality. Ms Bell confirmed once the outstanding matters had been resolved it was officer’s intention to permit the application with proposed conditions.

Ms Bell outlined what changes had been made to the application since it had been presented at Committee in January 2021. The main changes were in relation to water neutrality which had come forward whilst the S106 was being drafted. Water neutrality is a material consideration and therefore the developer was required to demonstrate how they would achieve water neutrality.

Ms Bell explained the applicant had done an immense amount of work to demonstrate water neutrality on site. She confirmed the Council had undertaken an assessment of the proposals and consulted with Natural England (as the statutory consultee).

Ms Bell outlined the three measures put forward to achieve water neutrality;

1.    Using the extant water demand from an earlier extant planning permission. Ms Bell explained the Council had sought legal advice on this proposal. The extant permission would provide 3440 litres per day.

2.    The inclusion of water reduction measures, such as on-site rainwater harvesting systems. Ms Bell explained if approved a condition would be included to ensure no occupancy could take place until water mitigation measures had been approved and signed off.

3.    An off-site water neutrality scheme at Fisher’s Farm. Ms Bell explained the three elements of the scheme to the Committee included;

a.    A 10,000ltr rainwater harvesting tank to provide a wash down facility for farm vehicles

b.    A 10,000ltr rainwater harvesting system linked to toilets in the new part of the farm.

c.     An improvement to the toilet facilities at the entrance to the farm.

Ms Bell confirmed Natural England had reviewed the Plans and agreed the developer had achieved water neutrality.

Ms Bell highlighted further changes to the site since 2021, which included amendments to the parking arrangements and alterations to the layout of floor plans in some properties.

Ms Bell reminded the Committee of the site location and proposed layout. She confirmed the site was within the Parish of Loxwood. Although much of the site was located outside the settlement boundary, the north eastern part of the site was located within the settlement boundary did form part of the land allocation in Policy 5 of the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan.

Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention the Public Right of Way (PRoW) which ran along the southern edge of the site. She explained that as part of the application process the PRoW would be diverted around the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 228.

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. Lang introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update sheet, which included an update on High Court Hearings.

On the matter of Land within Westhampnett; Ms Bell informed the Committee that the hearing had been delayed for many reasons including the 5YHLS, all information was now with PINs and a decision was expected very soon.

On the matter of Land South of the Stables; Ms Lang explained that this had been withdrawn from the court list because officers were waiting on the outcome of another parcel of land.

On the matter of Crouchlands, Lagoon 3; Ms Stevens explained the comment in the report and why Counsel advice had been sought. 

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 quarterly schedule which updating the position with regards to planning enforcement matters.

Ms Lang introduced the report.

On the issue of Land North West of Newbridge Farm (p.143); Ms Lang explained there were two separate parcels of land in separate ownership, with separate breaches.

Following a vote 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.