Chichester District Council
Agenda, decisions and minutes

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Committee Rooms, East Pallant House

Contact: Fiona Baker on 01243 534609  Email:  fbaker@chichester.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

14.

Chairman's Announcements

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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed everyone present to the meeting and read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

 

Apologies were received from Cllr Barrett and Cllr McAra. Apologies were also received from Cllr Bowden who would be arriving late.

 

15.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 130 KB

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

Minutes:

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October were agreed as a true and accurate record.

 

16.

Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 15 (b).

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

 

17.

Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 72 KB

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.

 

 

 

Minutes:

Mrs Donna Johnson declared a personal interest;

·       Agenda Item 5 – BO/21/00571/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council & WSCC External Appointment Chichester Harbour Conservancy

·       Agenda Item 6 – BO/22/01550/FUL & BO/22/00876/LBC – WSCC External Appointment Chichester Harbour Conservancy

·       Agenda Item 7 – BI/22/01742/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council & WSCC External Appointment to Chichester Harbour Conservancy

·       Agenda Item 8 – SY/21/02895/FUL – Member of Selsey Town Council

·       Agenda Item 10 – WW/22/02183/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 11 – SDNP/21/02183/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

 

Mr Simon Oakley declared a personal interest;

·       Agenda Item 5 – BO/21/00571/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 – BI/22/01742/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 10 – WW/22/02183/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 11 – SDNP/21/02183/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

 

Mr Henry Potter declared a personal interest;

·       Agenda Item 5 – BO/21/00571/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 10 – WW/22/02183/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

 

Mr Carol Purnell declared a personal interest;

·       Agenda Item 8 – SY/21/02895/FUL – Member of Selsey Town Council

 

Mrs Sarah Sharp declared a personal interest;

·       Agenda Item 5 – BO/21/00571/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 – BI/22/01742/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 10 – WW/22/02183/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 11 – SDNP/21/02183/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

 

 

18.

BO/21/00571/FUL - Land North Of Highgrove Farm Main Road Bosham West Sussex pdf icon PDF 449 KB

Construction of 300 dwellings (including 90 affordable dwellings), community hall, public open space, associated works and 2 no. accesses from the A259 (one temporary for construction).

Decision:

DEFER

Minutes:

Mr Bushell presented the report to Committee. He drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; an additional comment from Bosham Parish Council; a correction to the report at paragraph 8.56; a revised plan; an additional condition (condition 33); additional third-party comments and an additional planning comment.

 

Mr Bushell outlined the application and explained that it was a full application which sought permission for the construction of 300 dwellings, including 90 affordable dwellings, a community hall, public open spaces, and two accesses from the A259 (one of which was a temporary construction access).

 

Mrs Potts outlined the significance of the site in terms of Planning Policy and the development of the Local Plan. She explained the site had been identified as part of the Preferred Approach for 250 dwellings in 2018, the figure was in addition to the 50 dwellings allocated at the site as part of the adopted site allocations DPD 2018.

 

Miss Potts explained the Local Plan evidence work continued to support the development of the additional 250 dwellings at the site.

 

Following an appeal, the Councils current five-year housing land supply figure was set at under five years, however, Mrs Potts told the Committee work was currently being finalised on the updated figures for 2022 – 2027, it was expected this information would be published towards the end of November.

 

Mr Bushell highlighted the site location. He explained the site was within the Parish of Bosham and adjoined the settlement boundary of Broadbridge, with the Chichester Harbour AONB located to the south of the site.

 

He showed the Committee a superimposed image to demonstrate how the development would border with the Broadbridge settlement area.

 

Mr Bushell outlined the proposed access arrangements from the A259 and explained a cycle priority junction was included within the design, which would link with the existing cycleway which crossed the entrance to the site. In addition, the 30mph speed limit would be extended along the A259 past the new site entrance.

 

Mr Bushell presented the proposed layout of the development and explained how it was designed in a ‘perimeter block’ approach. He highlighted the following and where they would be located within the development;

 

·       Community Hall – the S106 would secure the management and maintenance of the building

·       Allotments

·       Green Space and LAP

·       Mini Football pitch – an addition to the scheme, that responds to a need to provide facilities for the younger ages.

·       Foul water pumping station

·       Affordable housing – these would be ‘pepperpotted’ throughout the development and would include a mix of affordable/social rent housing, shared ownership and first homes.

 

He informed the Committee there would be no streetlighting or floodlights within the development in order to minimise any adverse impact on the dark night sky area. The Committee were informed of the proposed landscaping, which would be secured through Condition 18 and the proposed SUD arrangements.

 

Mr Bushell outlined the proposed parking arrangements and explained there would be 717 spaces provided in total, with 60 allocated for visitors.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

19.

BO/22/01550/FUL & BO/22/00876/LBC - Bosham Sailing Club The Quay Quay Meadow Bosham Chichester West Sussex PO18 8LU pdf icon PDF 196 KB

Erection of balcony structure to replace the current marquee.

Additional documents:

Decision:

BO/22/1550/FUL – PERMIT

 

BO/22/00876/LBC - PERMIT

Minutes:

Miss Smith presented the report to Committee. She drew the Committees attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; an addendum to the report reflecting that the Chichester Harbour Conservancy had no objection to the LBC application; additional representations which had been received; an amendment to Condition 4 and the inclusion of a new condition to ensure blinds are installed to protect the dark skies this would be included in application BO/22/01550/FUL.

 

Miss Smith highlighted the site location. She informed the Committee that it was located within the Bosham Conservation area and the Chichester Harbour AONB and the impact on both had been considered as part of the recommendation.

 

Miss Smith confirmed the development fell within Flood Zone 3 and that Annexe 3 of the NPPF wets out flood risk vulnerability classification. The development falls within the water-compatible classification, specifically water-based recreation  and was considered acceptable. In addition, the applicant had agreed to include a water exclusion strategy.

 

The Committee were shown drawings of the site, Miss Smith explained the marquee which was currently in situ was an unlawful development. The new development would replace the marquee.

 

Miss Smith showed the Committee the proposed elevation, she highlighted the new dormer window and the spiral staircase.

 

The following representations were received;

Mr Ashley Hatton (Manor of Bosham & the Hundred Ltd) – Objector

Mr Paddy Mirams & Mr Alistair Langhorn – Supporters

 

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

 

In response to concerns regarding the impact on the dark new skies; Cllr Purnell drew the Committee’s attention to the additional condition proposed on the update sheet which required blinds to be drawn between the hours from dusk till dawn.

 

On the matter of the blinds and light spillage at first floor level; Miss Smith confirmed there would be no blinds over the doors onto the balcony. However, condition 5 (page 87) prevented any external illumination from being installed without planning permission in order to avoid light spillage.

 

Regarding the proposed use and hours of operation; Miss Smith confirmed a condition could be added to restrict the hours of use. On the issue of a condition being imposed to restrict who could use the venue Miss Smith advised this would not be reasonable, given the existing use of the building.

 

In response to concerns regarding overlooking; Miss Smith confirmed the issue of overlooking of neighbouring properties had been fully considered by officers as part of the report.

 

On the matter of the public consultation the Chairman used their discretion and invited Mr Mirams from the public gallery to confirm who had been invited; Mr Mirams confirmed the consultation was held in the Sailing Club and was open to members of the public.

 

Following a vote on BO/22/01550/FUL, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to Permit.

 

Resolved; permit subject to the following conditions and informatives set out in the report, plus the amendment to Condition 4 to secure blinds, the inclusion of Condition 6 as set out in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

20.

BI/22/01742/FUL - Chichester Marina Birdham Chichester West Sussex PO20 7EJ pdf icon PDF 260 KB

Demolition of three workshops/sheds for the comprehensive redevelopment of the South-West area of the marina comprising four purpose built buildings including marine related workshops, offices, storage, reprovision and extension of the retail (chandlery) and a cafe/restaurant together with an additional 23 car parking spaces, boat parking and storage and appropriate landscaping (Variation of condition 3 from planning permission BI/12/00475/FUL - To allow building D to have a mixed use cafe/restaurant (use class Eb) to a maximum of 365 sqm.)

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Miss Taylor presented the report to Committee. She drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which set out amendments to paragraphs 3.1 and 8.2.

 

Miss Taylor informed the Committee the application was being submitted under Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to amend condition 3 of previous planning permission 12/00475/FUL. She explained what had been approved originally and how the current application sought permission to increase the floor area of building D by 121sqm.

 

Miss Taylor showed the Committee the site layout and drew their attention to building D. She highlighted the difference between what had been permitted and the extension being sought.

 

Miss Taylor explained the building had been vacant since April 2022. The proposal would allow building D to have a mixed-use café/restaurant and was supported by the Economic Development team.

 

Miss Taylor confirmed the impact on the Chichester Harbour AONB had been considered and there had been no objections.

 

The following representations were received;

Mr Matt Boyle – Applicant

 

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

 

On the matter of cycle parking provision; the chairman used their discretion to allow Cllr Hamilton (as a Birdham Parish Councillor) to answer. Cllr Hamilton confirmed there were places to securely store a bicycle.

 

No further comments were made.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

21.

SY/21/02895/FUL - The Boulevard 3 New Parade High Street Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 0QA pdf icon PDF 330 KB

Retention of canopy to shopfront.

 

Decision:

Refuse, against officer recommendation

Minutes:

Mr Mew presented the report to Committee. He explained the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee on 10 August 2022, for further negotiations with the applicant, regarding the proposed material, lighting, and depth of guttering.

 

Mr Mew highlighted the site location and showed the Committee photos of the site and the structure. He confirmed negotiations had taken place and detailed the proposed amendments to the application.

 

The following representations were received;

Mr Andrew Brown – Selsey Town Council

Mr Matthew Pickup – Agent

 

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

 

In response to concerns regarding the impact of noise; Mr Mew informed the Committee that it was important to note the structure had been in place since June 2021. During that period no noise complaints had been made. There had been some antisocial behaviour complaints in the local area, but these were not associated with the business.

 

With regards to access being restricted by the structure; Mr Mew explained the Committee must make their determination on what was there at present and confirmed access requirements had been met.

 

In response to concerns regarding the materials used and their impact on the surrounding area; Mr Mew drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.6 which detailed the proposed amendments to the structure, which would reduce the impact of the metal roof.

 

Following a vote, the Committee rejected the report recommendation to permit the application.

 

Cllr Johnson proposed the application be refused on the grounds that it was not in keeping with the surrounding area and would have a negative impact on the street scene, which can be seen from the conservation area

 

Cllr Fowler seconded the proposal.

 

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the Cllr Johnson’s proposal to refuse the application for the reasons set out above.

 

Resolved; refuse, against officer recommendation, for the reasons set out above.

 

 

 

 

22.

WR/21/02064/FUL - Land South Of Dunhurst Barn Skiff Lane Wisborough Green West Sussex pdf icon PDF 236 KB

Change of use of land to mixed agricultural and private equestrian, together with the erection of a stable building and menage and laying of a track.

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Mr Mew presented the report to Committee. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included an amendment to Condition 6 and 10.

 

Mr Mew outlined the site location; he highlighted the sites proximity to the nearest residential dwelling and; drew attention to the bridleway which passed near to the site and the ancient woodland which bordered the site

 

Mr Mew explained the application was for the construction of six stables and a manege. He showed a proposed layout of the stable design along with a   cross section of the proposed manege. The development was for the applicant’s own horses.

 

Mr Mew informed the Committee it was the applicant’s intention to graze part of the land and use the remaining land to produce hay which would feed the horses. Mr Mew highlighted the different areas of land to the Committee.

 

The following representations were received;

Mr Mark Tanner – Objector

Ms Hannah McLaughlin – Agent

 

 

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

 

Regarding how visible the site was from the bridleway; Mr Mew explained the site would be well screened from existing vegetation and was not expected to have any visual impact.

 

On the matter of agricultural land classification; Mr Mew informed the Committee the land was classified as Grade 3 agricultural land. In addition; Ms Golding clarified that the grazing of horses was classified as agricultural.

 

In response to concerns regarding surface water run-off; Mr Mew informed the Committee that the drainage matters had been part of detailed discussion with both CDC and Natural England. Condition 4 secured the drainage details and was included to protect local watercourses and ensure adequate surface water drainage was provided. Mr Mew provided further details of the proposed drainage and explained how surface water would be stored below ground in tanks which would be emptied by a specialist contractor.

 

On the matter of the muck heap; Mr Mew highlighted the location of where the muck heap was proposed and explained how run off would be collected in the proposed underground storage tanks.

 

With regards to Policy 55 of the Local Plan; Ms Stevens acknowledged concerns raised regarding the ‘loss of agricultural land’, however, she confirmed Policy 55 was accepting of equestrian development and reminded the Committee the land could be brought out of active agricultural use at any point.

 

In response to the future use of the development; Mr Mew drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 10 (page 145) which prevented the commercial use of the development, he agreed the Condition could be amended to state in addition its use would be associated with the occupation of the house.

 

With regards to permitted development rights; Mr Mew explained there were no permitted development rights associated with the development. Any proposed future development would require a further planning application.

 

In response to concern regarding outside storage; Mr Mew agreed a Condition could be included (if permitted) to restrict the outside storage.

 

On the matter of the proposed inclusion of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

23.

WW/22/01646/FUL - Land North-East Of The Truffles Piggery Hall Lane West Wittering West Sussex PO20 8PZ pdf icon PDF 257 KB

Change of use of land to tourist accommodation including siting of  2 no. shepherd's huts and associated works.

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Mr Thomas presented the report to Committee. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; an additional comment from the CDC Tree Officer and additional conditions 12, 13 and 14.

 

Mr Thomas outlined the site location and explained the site was located within the Parish of West Wittering, approximately 1.6km from the village.

 

The Committee was shown a proposed site plan, Mr Thomas drew the Committee’s attention to the proposed access arrangements and highlighted where the shepherds huts would be located. He explained the field was well screened and would have minimal visual impact.

 

Mr Thomas explained the proposed huts were constructed on site to a high development standard. The Committee were shown photos of the shepherds huts.

 

The following representations were received;

Cllr Bill Buckland – West Wittering Parish Council

Dr Peter Collinson – Objector

Ms Joanne Gilhooly – Objector

Mr Chris Aston – Supporters

Mrs Kerry Simmons – Applicant

 

Before opening the discussion, the Chairman used their discretion to read out a statement from Cllr Barrett in his absence.

 

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

 

In response to concerns regarding the boundary between the site and field; Mr Thomas explained there was a small post and rail fence, but an additional condition could be included to ensure the whole site was enclosed. Committee members asked that in addition to fencing, hedgerow planting could also be incorporated, Mr Thomas agreed this was not unreasonable and could be included as part of the condition.

 

In response to concerns that further shepherds huts would be brought on to the site; Mr Thomas informed the Committee that Condition 9 would limit the number of huts allowed on the site to two, it would also prevent tented and any other form of accommodation from being brought on to the site. 

 

On the matter of policy; Mr Thomas confirmed the NPPF carried more weight than the Village Design Statement, although it was a material consideration.

 

On the matter of future subdivision of the field; Mr Thomas explained that any change of use or subdivision would require a separate planning application.

 

With regards to visitors using the wider field; Ms Stevens explained the wider field was not part of the application. As discussed, an additional condition to include more fencing  and hedge on the boundary of the application site would assist in preventing visitors from accessing the wider field, an informative could be included to remind the applicant visitors should not access the wider field.

 

In response to concerns regarding the use of fire pits and BBQ’s; Ms Stevens advised an additional condition could be included, requiring the applicant to submit a detailed management plan which would address the use of equipment such as bbqs and firepits and ensure they would be safely managed. The management plan would also be expected to include ‘quiet hours’ to limit impact from noise and late nights.

 

On the matter of nitrate mitigation; Mr Thomas explained there was no requirement for nitrate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

24.

SDNP SO/21/02183/FUL - Green Lanes Farm Back Lane Forestside Stoughton PO9 6EB pdf icon PDF 251 KB

Demolition of existing and construction of replacement farm office.

Decision:

PERMIT

Minutes:

Mr Saunders presented the report to Committee. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included a further comment from the Landscape Team.

 

Mr Saunders explained the application was for the demolition of an existing ‘chalet style’ office and construction of a replacement farm office.  He outlined the site location, which was within the Parish of Stoughton and confirmed all land within the blue line was within the control of the applicant. The proposed development would be located in the area identified by the red line. The site was already well screened by existing vegetation.

 

Mr Saunders provided a brief summary of the farming enterprise which operated from the site and why a larger office facility was being sought.

 

The following representations were received;

Mrs Lysaght – Objector

Sue Montila – Objector

Mr Michael Conoley (on behalf of Caroline Tipper) – Objector

Mr Jack Stilwell – Applicant.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Saunders to respond to some of the comments made by some of the speakers.

 

Mr Saunders confirmed that in 2018 retrospective planning permission had been given for the siting of two containers (located in the NE of the site) and two agricultural barns. He confirmed the landscaping condition had been discharged.

 

Mr Saunders confirmed the building would at no time have a first floor or mezzanine and drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 5 on page 173. If an additional floor were required at a future date a full planning application would be required.

 

 Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

 

In response to concerns regarding the removal of the containers; Mr Saunders drew members attention to Condition 7 (on page 173), he suggested the condition could be amended to include the word ‘permanent’ as follows ‘…the complete and permanent removal’. The Committee agreed this amendment if permitted.

 

Mr Saunders confirmed enforcement officers had previously visited the site. However, officers had worked with the applicant and retrospective applications had been made, as was entirely within their right. He reminded the Committee the application they were considering was not a retrospective application.

 

In response to concerns regarding the future use of the development; Mr Saunders agreed a Condition (if permitted) could be included that would require the removal of the building should it no longer be required.

To answer a question of regarding the extent of the concrete base at the site Chairman used their discretion and invited the applicant to confirm. The applicant confirmed neither of the containers were stored on a concrete base, the current office was on a concrete base and this would be incorporated within the new development.

 

With regards to the use of a comma in Condition 7; Mr Saunders agreed if permitted the comma could be removed to read as follows; ‘…removed from the site together with…’

 

 

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

 

Resolved; permit, subject to the report conditions and informatives, as well as the agreed amendments to Condition 7  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

Chichester District Council Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters pdf icon PDF 200 KB

The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements.

Minutes:

Ms Stevens drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an update on High Court Hearings for the site; Land at Flat Farm, Broad Road, Hambrook, West Sussex, PO18 8FT.

 

Cllr Potter asked if a new appeal had been lodged for the Bethwines Farm proposal. Ms Stevens confirmed there had.

 

The Committee agreed to note the item.

 

*SO returned for minute item 25.

 

26.

South Downs National Park Authority Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters pdf icon PDF 61 KB

The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements.

Minutes:

Cllr Wilding asked for an update on the appeal for SDNP/21/01971/FUL – Abesters Quell. Mr Saunders informed the Committee the matter was with PINS for consideration.

 

The Committee agreed to note the item.

 

27.

Schedule of Contraventions pdf icon PDF 260 KB

The Planning Committee is asked to consider the quarterly schedule updating the position with regards to planning enforcement matters.

Minutes:

Mrs Archer introduced the report. She drew the Committee’s attention to the table set out on page 203 and highlighted the reduction in case numbers since the last report.

 

Cllr Briscoe noted the positive impact from a recent Article 4 direction and enquired if this was a tool which could be used more commonly to support enforcement. Mrs Archer acknowledged the comments but explained that an Article 4 Direction is not an enforcement tool, it is used to supplement and support policy.

 

In response to a question from Cllr Oakley regarding trends, Mrs Archer informed the Committee case numbers remained consistent averaging around 500 per year. However, the level of customer interest and expectation had increased.

 

Cllr Purnell thanked the Enforcement Team.

 

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to note the item.

 

28.

Consideration of any late items as follows:

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

Minutes:

There were no late items.

 

29.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

 

There are no restricted items for consideration.

Minutes:

There were no part two items.

 

30.

Agenda Update Sheet - 09.11.2022 pdf icon PDF 201 KB

 

Top of page