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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 4 January 2023.

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 4 January 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 9(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.

Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in;

-       Agenda Item 5 – SY/22/00126/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council and Selsey Town Council

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in;

-       Agenda Item 5 – SY/22/00126/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in;

-       Agenda Item 5 – SY/22/00126/FUL – as a member of Selsey Town Council

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in;

-       Agenda Item 5 – SY/22/00126/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

Demolition of existing dwelling replaced with 1 no. new dwelling.

Permit

Mr Mew introduced the report. He outlined the site location and informed the Committee that the application site was located within the settlement boundary of Selsey.

Mr Mew presented the proposed site plan and confirmed that the current access would be maintained. He drew attention to the existing building footprint, showing how it was both similar in depth and width to the proposed development. The Committee were also shown the proposed layout and elevations.

Mr Mew outlined the differences between the existing development, proposed application and the application which had been previously refused. He explained that following previous refusal the owner had sought Pre-Application advice to develop the proposed application. It was important to note that there was a significant drop in the eaves and ridge height of the proposed development compared with the refused scheme; and the development had been moved further back from the boundary edge.

The Committee were shown a series of photographs of the location and surrounding area.

There were no representations. 

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Mew clarified where the application site was in the photographs shown, he explained there was an outbuilding located in front of number 45, with the main dwelling set back behind the outbuilding.

Mr Mew acknowledged comments made regarding the cumulative impact on the skyline of the street.

With regards to a condition being attached to prevent future business use, specifically holiday lets; Mr Mew explained that it would not be reasonable to attach such a condition as the existing property could already be used in this way.

In response to concerns regarding overlooking to number 45 from the Juliette balcony; Mr Mew informed the Committee that the Juliette Balcony did not create a raised platform and plans showed obscure glazed windows to the neighbouring property.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to Permit.

Resolved; Permit, subject to the conditions and information set out in the report, plus the additional conditions as set out above.

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 Purnell drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an update on High Court Hearings at Bethwines Farm, Blackboy Lane, Fishbourne, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8BL

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 updating the position with regards to planning enforcement matters.

Mrs Archer introduced the report. She drew attention to the table on page 49 and highlighted that since the last report the case load had decreased by 73 to 418 cases on hand.

In response to a question from Cllr Oakley; Mrs Archer informed the Committee that it was around three months waiting time for a court hearing. She explained that the Courts had changed very much since Covid, for example the process for swearing an affidavit.

With regards to 17, Nettleton Avenue; Mrs Archer noted that there had been no compliance yet.

Cllr Wilding enquired why the enforcement notice had been withdrawn from Smugglers Cottage, Lurgashall; Mrs Archer explained that when the Planning Inspectorate grant planning permission under a Section 78 appeal, then there is no further requirement for enforcement action and the notice is withdrawn.

In response to a question from Cllr Briscoe, Mrs Archer explained why partial costs had been awarded against the Council at the Old Army Camp, Westbourne.

Mrs Archer acknowledged concerns regarding Racton View, she explained the gates would be the subject of a public interest test as they had been reduced in height to what was allowed under permitted development.

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.

The committee is asked to consider in respect of Agenda Item 11 whether the public interest including the press should be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, namely Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) and because, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption of that information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

The reports dealt with under this part of the agenda are attached for members of the Planning Committee and senior officers only (salmon paper).

Cllr Purnell proposed the Part II resolution in relation to Agenda Item 11 on the grounds of exemption in Schedule 12A namely paragraph 5 and not paragraph 3 as stated on the agenda.This was seconded by Cllr Brisbane.

In a vote the following resolution was agreed;

That in respect of Agenda Item 11 that the public including the press should be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 namely paragraph 5(as the item relates to information of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings) and because in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

The Planning Committee is requested to consider the exempt report and make the proposed recommendations as set out in the report.

*Report to follow

The Committee agreed the following recommendation as set out in 2.1 of the report.

Ms Thatcher introduced the report and explained why the recommendation was proposed.

Comments and questions were received from Cllr’s Oakley, Potter, Rodgers, and Purnell. Ms Bell and Ms Thatcher responded.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to make the recommendation set out in 2.1 of the report.

Resolved; Not to contest reason for refusal 2, specifically:

·       Not to contest reason for refusal 2 in relation to existing ditch maintenance

·       To continue to contest reason for refusal 1 in relation to loss of employment land

·       To maintain the need for appropriate mitigation for recreational disturbance and nitrate neutrality via legal agreement and conditions in relation to reason for refusal 3.