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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The minutes relate to the meetings of the Planning Committee on 31 March 2021 and 7 April 2021 (copies to follow).

The Minutes of 31 March 2021 be amended as follows:

Planning Application TG/20/02893/OUT Land Adjacent to A27 Copse Farm, Tangmere Road, Tangmere -

·         Reference to Temple Bar junction and the costs of providing the pedestrian and cycle ‘crossing’, should read ‘crossings’

·         Reference to existing cycle routes, and ‘The delivery of the alternative routes along the side of the A27...’, should have the word ‘south’ included to read ‘The delivery of the alternative routes along the ‘south’ side of the A27….’

·         The recommendation to Permit, should include reference to the amended and additional Section 106 Heads of Terms elements in the Agenda Update Sheet and the additional Conditions/Informatives accepted by officers at the end of the debate

and be approved.

The Minutes of 7 April 2021 be amended as follows:

Mrs Fowler’s name had been misspelt under Chairman’s Announcements.

Planning Application: CC/20/03108/REM Land West of Centurion Way and West of Old Broyle Road, Chichester

·         With reference to an amendment to Condition 5, as accepted by Mr Harris, Principal Planning Officer, should also have been reflected within the recommendation.

and be approved.

Mr Plowman made a further general comment regarding the inclusion of voting numbers within the Minutes.

Post Meeting: Mr Whitty will give further consideration to this request and respond to the Committee in due course.

The Chair will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 7 (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 respect of Chichester Harbour Conservancy Consultation on Planning Principle 19: Houseboats as a Chichester District Council appointed Member of Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of CH/20/00593/FUL as a Member of West Sussex County Council.

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of CH/20/00593/FUL as a Member of West Sussex County Council.

Change of use of detached garage, store with games room over to 1 no. 3 bed dwelling.

PERMIT

Mr Mew presented the item to Members and drew Member’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet providing revised wording for Condition 14 and confirming details relating to the waste treatment plant to ensure the proposal was nitrate neutral and did not result in an increased nitrate level within the Chichester Harbours.  The Agenda Update Sheet also included a further amendment to include the word ‘not’ in reference to resulting in loss of habitat or biodiversity, and an additional clarification regarding foul sewage.

The Committee received the following Speakers:

Jane Towers – Parish Council

Andrew Kerry-Bedell – Objector

Clare Hawkins – Objector

Mr McAra left the meeting

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:

With regards to the boundary, Mr Whitty confirmed that regardless of any issues relating to boundaries, planning permission may be granted, as boundary matters were a separate legal issue.  The Council had a duty with all applications in terms of ‘best endeavours’ to ensure the ownership certificate was correctly completed, following submissions from both the applicant and third parties, officers were satisfied that the certificate had been completed correctly, for the purposes of determining the planning application.

With reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 77, Mr Mew confirmed that the scheme was not being put forward as an exception.  The principle was established through the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) Policy LP1 which referred to windfall sites, and which applied to developments of ten or less and therefore a distinction was required to be drawn between larger developments and this site for a single unit.  With regards to not meeting housing need, the proposal was for a three-bedroomed dwelling, which was not a new build and therefore had to be accommodated within the existing building.  The site was within the proposed wildlife corridor, but both the building, the hardstanding and access were in situ, and the environmental strategy unit had been consulted and did not have any objections to the proposal, and had recommended the inclusion of a condition regarding bat and bird boxes.

With regards to the length of time taken for the application, Mr Mew explained that this was related to the matters of boundary dispute, and the research and correspondence which had been undertaken as part of due diligence to ensure the correct certificate had been secured, and associated revisions of the plans.

On the matter of maintenance of the foul drainage, Mr Mew confirmed a condition had been included to secure the details of the maintenance and a separate planning application was not required for the drainage as this formed part of the proposals.  Part H of the building regulations would apply to the sewerage system and an Environment Agency permit would not be required.

With regards to the character of the area, Mr Mew reminded Members that the proposal was for an existing building and hardstanding, there was no additional built form for the current proposal.  On the matter of the Interim Position Statement (IPS), Mr Mew confirmed that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The Planning Committee is asked to note the contents of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy consultation on the proposed Planning Principles 19: Houseboats, and to comment on and endorse the proposed response to the consultation.

MEMBERS MADE COMMENTS AND THE REPORT WAS NOTED

Mrs Stevens presented the item to Members and drew Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet and confirmed ‘boathouses’, should read ‘houseboats’ and provided a further verbal update which confirmed that the word ‘now’ should read ‘no’ under the title ‘Chichester Canal’ in the report and on the Agenda Update Sheet to read ‘…any increase in size is limited to ‘no’ more than 25% greater than the existing.’

The Committee received the following Speaker:

Timothy Firmston – Birdham Parish Council

The Chairman advised Mr Firmston that he should also pass his comments to Chichester Harbour Conservancy as this was their consultation.

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions:

On the matter of the definition of a houseboat, Mrs Stevens explained that this was a complex area and there was no definition of such in planning law and was a matter of fact and degree, considering the form of the houseboat, whether it floated or was attached to a bank, and was dealt with in a similar manner to a caravan, whereby permission was required for the change of use of the land for the siting of a caravan for human habitation.  There was significant and complex planning law relating to houseboats and planning units, when it was a change of use or when it would become a building. If a houseboat was permanently attached to a bank this may be operational development, and work to the bank which may require planning permission.  Mrs Stevens cited instances of Inspectors concluding that a houseboat was no longer a vessel and was a building due to its structure or the extent of building above the boat and therefore it was difficult to present a definition and each application was required to be considered on its own merits.  The British Waterways Act 1971 provided a definition which had been used by Inspectors in their consideration, and was as such a starting point. Mrs Stevens suggested that included within the consultation response was that anyone considering a houseboat should approach the planning authority for advice regarding whether or not planning permission was required.  On the matter of 25% increase in size, Mrs Stevens agreed and advised that should be more closely defined, for example similar to buildings, and length and silhouette above the waterline were considered.  With regards to navigational safety, Mrs Stevens confirmed it was also not clear within the document as to what would be taken into consideration by Chichester Harbour Conservancy although there were many rules relating to use of the harbour.  Mrs Stevens added that by the principle of having a change of use and stopping a water way being used for navigation may present a concern to the Harbour Conservancy although the key issue was likely to be with regards to the main channels within the harbour, but this was not clear within the guidance, and therefore clarification may be required as to how it would be applied.

With regards to having a baseline for the silhouette, Mrs Stevens agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the Chair 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 Chair 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.