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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 1 March 2023.

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 1 March 2023, 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 14 (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 8 – WI/22/02637/FUL – as the Chichester District Council appointed member to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy

-       Agenda Item 9 – WI/22/02876/FUL – as the Chichester District Council appointed member to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in;

-       Agenda Item 5 – CC/22/01501/REM – as a Member of West Sussex County Council

-       Agenda item 6 – NM/22/02679/FUL – as a Member of West Sussex County Council

-       Agenda Item 7 – PS/21/02127/FUL – as a Member of West Sussex County Council

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in;

-       Agenda Item 5 – CC/22/01501/REM – as a Member of West Sussex County Council & Chichester City Council

-       Agenda item 6 – NM/22/02679/FUL – as a Member of West Sussex County Council

-       Agenda Item 7 – PS/21/02127/FUL – as a Member of West Sussex County Council

Application for the approval of Reserved Matters for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following Outline Planning Permission 14/01018/OUT  - erection of class C2 assisted living/extra care accommodation with communal facilities and car parking.

Defer

Mrs Prichard introduced the report and outlined the proposed development site which was located at the southern end of the Graylingwell development.

She explained the application was for the reserved matters for appearance, landscaping, scale, layout, and scale of a C2 care home. The care home would comprise 61 apartments, community facilities and parking; full details were set out within the report.

Mrs Prichard confirmed that West Sussex County Council had reviewed the proposed parking arrangements and had raised no objection.

The Committee were shown a series of artists impression of the proposed landscaping arrangements.

Mrs Prichard explained the elevations and highlighted the difference between the outline proposal and this reserved matter application.

Mrs Prichard informed the Committee that Condition 37 of the outline permission required the applicant to submit updated details on protected species such as bats and reptiles prior to commencement.

Representations were received from

Mrs Patricia O’Neill - Objector

Mr Gian Bendinelli – Agent

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mrs Prichard confirmed there would be three disabled bays allocated within the forty parking spaces provided.

Responding to concerns regarding the scale of the building; Mrs Prichard explained that under the parameter plans a scale of 3 – 3 ½ storeys had been agreed. With regards to the layout the outline masterplan had shown two separate buildings, this REM application joins the second building to the south.

Mrs Prichard informed the Committee that Surface Water Drainage was covered by Condition 17 of the outline application. In addition, Ms Bell confirmed that at this stage the flood risk and drainage strategy were in compliance with the approved outline application.

Officers acknowledged comments that the drainage scheme had been developed when there were two buildings, Ms Bell highlighted that the amount of hardstanding was similar to what had been proposed at the outline stage. However, should the scheme need amending this could be done via a non-material amendment as was done as i as part of the 9a development.

On the matter of parking provision for visitors; Mrs Prichard reminded the Committee that WSCC had reviewed the application and were satisfied with the proposals. WSCC guidance does not require a minimum or maximum number of spaces for a C2 scheme. Mrs Prichard highlighted that there were also a number of pay for parking car parks very close to the site which could be used if there was no space available.

On the matter of shift changes; Mrs Prichard informed the Committee there would be eight members of staff at any one time.

With regards to service vehicles accessing the site; Mrs Prichard told the Committee that from information provided these would be small scale transit van type vehicles, officers had no reason for concern.

Mrs Prichard informed the Committee that she was unaware of whether the applicant had undertaken any risk assessment regarding cricket balls being hit onto the site from the neighbouring cricket pitch.

With regards to the difference in levels and elevations; Mrs Prichard explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Erection of extensions to existing packhouse, revised parking arrangements and improvements to site access.

Permit

Ms Bell introduced the report. She drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; the removal of objection from North Mundham Parish Council; two additional conditions regarding the travel plan and vehicular access and amendments to conditions 5, 7, 11 and 13.

Ms Bell also gave a verbal update informing the Committee of an amendment to condition 17, so that the following words (in bold) would now be included wth the condition; ‘In particular all structural mitigation listed in Table 2 of the Noise Management Plan must be implemented prior to first occupation and maintained for the duration of the development’.

Ms Bell outlined the site location, which was located within the Runcton Horticultural Development Area (HAD). She highlighted the residential dwellings adjacent to the site, but not part of the application.

Ms Bell highlighted the access point off Vinnetrow Road, this access was also used by other developments within the HDA.

Ms Bell outlined the amendments to the loading and parking arrangements, which would be provided as part of the development. Parking provision would include both disabled and motorcycle bays, along with separate cycle storage for 22 bicycles.

The committee were shown the elevations and layout of the proposed extensions. Solar panels would be installed on the extensions.

Representations were received from

Mr Peter Zwinkels – Objector

Mr Richard Goodall – Agent

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to concerns regarding noise levels from the site; Mr Thomson detailed the noise assessment undertaken as part of the application process. He informed the Committee that he had met with Mr Zwinkels and discussed his concerns. These issues had been considered by the applicant and addressed through the Noise Management Plan, submitted as part of the application.

He explained that the noise assessment had been done with chillers and trailers in operation to replicate a ‘worse case’ scenario. The assessment had been repeated in July (following discussion with Mr Zwinkels) when temperatures were much higher, and the chillers were required to operate at higher output.  The Acoustic Consultant had been granted access to neighbouring properties to establish the level of background noise generated from the site.

Mr Thomson explained some of the noise mitigation measures proposed as part of the noise management plan, including the erection of a 4m high acoustic wall and a time restriction on vehicle operations within the site.

Ms Bell confirmed the noise management plan would be enforceable. She highlighted that condition 17 had been amended to ensure all physical features such as the acoustic fencing must be installed prior to the first occupation. Whilst the noise management plan included an annual review programme, condition 17 also offered the additional safeguard of a full review at any point at the request of the Local Planning Authority.

With regards to on site litter control; Ms Bell agreed this could be included within condition 3.

With regards to condition four; Ms Bell explained that condition four was a pre-commencement condition, which meant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Erection of L-shape stable block providing four stables, open hay barn and tack room and muck heap.

Permit

Miss Haigh introduced the report. She outlined the site location and highlighted the public rights of way which ran past the site. The Committee were shown a series of photos which showed the view of the site from the public bridleway.

Miss Haigh showed the proposed layout, including where the muck heap would be located.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

In responding to a question from Cllr Briscoe; Miss Haigh confirmed officers had considered the risk of run-off from the muck heap entering the drain situated at the northeast of the site. She explained the muck heap was located so that any runoff would flow away from the drain, in addition, condition 5 (p. 75) required a written method of waste disposal to be submitted prior to first use, to minimise any future risk.

With regards to any restrictions on the site; Miss Smith informed the Committee that she was unaware of any restrictions on the site. There had been a previous application refused on the grounds of visual harm, however, that had been for a much larger development, the application being considered was significantly smaller and the visual harm was minimal.

On the matter of Water Neutrality; Miss Haigh explained the site was water neutral. She confirmed that Natural England had been consulted and raised no objection.

Responding to a question from the Chairman; Miss Smith confirmed that there was evidence of equestrian use in neighbouring fields, however, she was unaware of any other fixed stables.

Following a vote, the Committee supported the report recommendation to Permit.

Resolved; Permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

*Members took a five-minute break.

Adjustment to previously permitted swimming pool location and new pool room and associated pool plant.

Permit

Mr Thomas introduced the report. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an additional representation from West Itchenor Parish removing their objection.

Mr Thomas outlined the site location and highlighted the public footpath which ran alongside the boundary.

Mr Thomas presented the proposed layout and elevations. He explained the development was designed to reflect the character and appearance of the main dwelling. 

There were no representations.

Following a vote, the Committee supported the report recommendation to Permit.

Resolved; Permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Amendments to previously permitted north and west elevation boundary treatments.

Permit

Mr Thomas introduced the report. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; a revised description and explanation that Condition 1 had been deleted as works had already commenced.

Mr Thomas outlined the site location and highlighted the public right of way which ran adjacent to the site. He explained the application sought amendments to the previously permitted boundary treatments along the north and west side of the property.

He explained the proposed amendments to the boundaries. The previously approved brick wall on the side boundary would now be clad in timber, and a retaining wall (at a height of 49cm) would be installed on the western boundary at the entrance to the property. A post and rail fence, along with a Hornbeam hedge would be planted behind the wall.

Mr Thomas showed the Committee photos of the site, which included the retaining wall as construction on this had already been completed.

Representations were received from

Mr Christopher Mead-Briggs – West Itchenor Parish Council Representative

Mr John Brown - Agent

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the wall; Mr Thomas explained that he was unaware of what had been in place previously but confirmed the wall was a retaining wall. In addition, Miss Smith assured the Committee that should the applicant wish to amend the wall in any way they would be required to submit a new application.

On the matter of what weight could be given to the West Itchenor Village Design Statement, Miss Smith advised that the Village Design Statement could be given some weight, but must be balanced against other relevant policies and material considerations

With regards to softening the appearance of the timber clad on the northern boundary; Mr Thomas explained this was not possible as the area adjacent to the boundary wall was outside the control of the applicant.

Following a vote, the Committee supported the report recommendation to Permit.

Resolved; 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.

Cllr Potter commented that now the Appeal in Funtington Parish Council (18/00323/CONHI), West Stoke Farmhouse, had been withdrawn he hoped the hedges would now be cut back. Mrs Stevens agreed to follow the matter up with the Enforcement Team and would feedback outside the meeting.

Cllr Oakley noted with disappointment that the hearing for Land East of Farmfield Nurseries, Hunston had been adjourned.

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 attached report and make the proposed recommendation at 2.1;

That the Planning Committee;

i) notes the information within the report, and

ii)agrees that the Council does not contest reason for refusal number two of appeal APP/L3815/W/22/3313480.

That the Planning Committee;

i)               Notes the information within the report, and

ii)             Agrees that the Council does not contest reason for refusal number two of appeal APP/L3815/W/22/3313480

Mr Mew introduced the report and explained APP/L3815/W/22/3313480 was an ongoing appeal.

Mr Mew outlined the appeal scheme which was currently awaiting determination by the Planning Inspectorate . Planning permission had been refused, contrary to officer recommendation, by the Planning Committee on 6 May 2020. The three reasons for refusal by the Committee were detailed within the report at paragraph 3.1.

Mr Mew explained that the main issue was whether the Council would continue to contest reason for refusal number two, which states;

‘The proposal is located outside of any built up area boundary and is therefore within the open countryside and as such not well related to existing settlements with local services and facilities. The application is therefore contrary to Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan’.

The reason for bringing the appeal back to Committee was due to a recent appeal decision which is a material consideration which officers believe carries significant weight. Mr Mew informed the Committee that appeal decision was for APP/L3815/W/21/3268916 a gypsy and traveller application located less than 50m from the appeal site being considered.

Mr Mew concluded that considering this recent appeal decision it was officers’ advice the Council no longer contests reason for refusal number.

Cllr Oakley commented that he believed the outcome for APP/L3815/W/21/3268916 highlighted how the Planning Inspectorate treated gypsy and traveller applications differently to other applications.

Following a vote, the Committee supported the report recommendation.

Resolved;

The Planning Committee;

i)               notes the information within the report, and

ii)             agrees that the Council does not contest reason for refusal number two of appeal APP/L3815/W/22/3313480

The Planning Committee are asked to consider the attached report and make the proposed recommendation;

2. Recommendation;

2. 1 That the Planning Committee consider and agree the attached responses to the consultation questions for submission in response to the government technical consultation ‘Stronger performance of local planning authorities supported through an increase in planning fees’.

That the Planning Committee consider and agree the attached responses, as amended, to the consultation questions for submission in response to the government technical consultation ‘Stronger performance of local planning authorities supported through an increase in planning fees

Mrs Stevens introduced the report. She explained the consultation was a technical consultation which was looking to strengthen the performance of local planning authorities through an increase in fees.

The consultation focused on the following three areas; planning fees, improving local planning capability and capacity, and local planning performance including how it could be measured. Mrs Stevens highlighted the following as the key headlines;

-       Increasing planning fees by 35% for majors and 25% for others

-       The introduction of new metrics to measure performance

-       Proposed change in determining applications from 6 months for major applications and 16 weeks for all others.

Mrs Stevens invited members of the Committee to email any further comments which would be considered before the final response was submitted.

With regards to enforcement costs; Miss Golding explained that legislation did not allow for charges to be made regarding enforcement notices. Mrs Stevens agreed a comment could be included within the consultation response highlighting that the proposals do nothing to help support the cost of enforcement services. 

With regards to Q19; Mrs Stevens agreed the response could be amended to ‘no’.

With regards to Q20; Mrs Stevens agreed that a further comment could be included to highlight that the requirement to undertake an annual report would be a time-consuming exercise and not an efficient use of resources available.

Mrs Stevens agreed that variation in costs regionally could be included within the response to Q1 and Q2.

Mrs Stevens agreed to include a comment within Q15 highlighting the delay in response to applications from statutory consultees.

Following a vote, the Committee supported the report recommendation as amended.

Resolved;

That the Planning Committee consider and agree the attached responses, as amended to the consultation questions for submission in response to the government technical consultation ‘Stronger performance of local planning authorities supported through an increase in planning fees

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 2 items