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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 7 September 2022.

Cllr Oakley raised the following amendments;

-       Page 4, 5^th paragraph up; ‘it’ should be replaced with if

-       Page 6, 2^nd paragraph down; insert the word ‘of’’ after the word use.

He also raised concern that the minutes did not clearly identify the additional conditions agreed for Agenda Item 7. Ms Stevens acknowledged the concern and agreed further clarity would be given going forward.

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on 7 September were received 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 (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 – BI/22/01497/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council and the WSCC external appointment to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy

·       Agenda Item 6 – BI/22/01498/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council and the WSCC external appointment to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy

·       Agenda Item 7 – LX/21/02849/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – BI/22/01497/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 6 – BI/22/01498/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 – LX/21/02849/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – BI/22/01497/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 6 – BI/22/01498/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council and as a member of Chichester Cycle Forum

·       Agenda Item 7 – LX/21/02849/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

As a registered speaker Cllr Moss declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – BI/22/01497/FUL – as the CDC external appointment to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy

·       Agenda Item 6 – BI/22/01498/FUL – as the CDC external appointment to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Installation of 1 no. hub pay station and associated works within the existing west car park at Chichester Marina.

PERMIT

Miss Taylor presented the report to Committee. She drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update sheet, which confirmed the applicant as Premier Marina’s Ltd and; included an additional consultation response from West Sussex County Council Public Rights of Way, who had no objection to the application.

Miss Taylor highlighted the site location and confirmed that it was located within Birdham Parish but outside the settlement boundary. The site was located within the Chichester Harbour AONB.

Miss Taylor went over what the application proposed and detailed the proposed appearance and dimension of the proposed payment station. She confirmed that officers believed the size and scale was acceptable and would not cause any harm to the surrounding AONB.

The public right of ways (PROW) which run alongside the site were highlighted to the Committee, Miss Taylor confirmed the installation would not conflict with them in anyway and reiterated that no objection had been received from WSCC Rights of Way Officers.

Miss Taylor advised the Committee that parking arrangements at the site where not part of the planning application and were a private matter which would be addressed by the Management Company. However, in response to concerns raised by both Apuldram and Birdham Parish Council’s West Sussex County Council highways had advised that there were legal mechanisms in place to discourage parking on roads outside the application site.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Graham Campbell – Birdham Parish Council

Mr Andy Pearce – Agent

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of whether parking charges were a consideration for the Committee or not; Miss Taylor confirmed that they were not. In addition, Ms Stevens explained that whilst introducing parking charges was a commercial decision, the Planning Committee could consider the potential impact on local roads arising from the proposal. However, she reminded them that WSCC have raised no concerns.

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

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

Demolition of existing car park island and creation of new proposed ticket machine island, installation of 1 no. new hub pay station and 2 no. main entry lane hub ticket machines and associated works within the existing east car park at Chichester Marina.

PERMIT

Miss Taylor presented the report to Committee. She drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; confirmation of the Applicant; Additional Consultation Responses from WSCC Highways Authority and WSCC Public Rights of Way and; an additional informative.

Miss Taylor advised the Committee of a verbal update on Condition 3, which would be amended to state; ‘Notwithstanding the submitted details, the island and entry and exit barriers….’

Miss Taylor explained that Agenda Item’s 5 and 6 were related and showed the Committee the relationship between the two application sites. She reminded the Committee that the site was located within the Chichester Harbour AONB.

Miss Taylor explained the application and what was being proposed. She informed the Committee that the applicant had indicated that there would be reduced charges for staff.

She confirmed that officers considered the size and scale of the application to be acceptable and would be unlikely to cause any harm on the surrounding AONB. However, Miss Taylor explained WSCC Public Rights of Way had submitted an objection to the proposed barrier structure over concerns it would impact within the width of the public footpath and therefore restrict lawful access. In response, to these concerns Condition 3 was amended clarifying that, if the application were permitted, further consent would be required from WSCC Public Rights of Way team. The applicant had also submitted further plans showing how the footpath could be accommodated.

Miss Taylor highlighted the land ownership of the site; she drew attention to the area of land on the eastern side of the access road which was in the ownership of West Sussex County Council. The applicant would be required to obtain separate permission from WSCC as the freeholder before undertaking any works on site.

WSCC Estates had also advised of an existing covenant which would need to be maintained, Miss Taylor highlighted that the applicant would be made aware of this through Informative 5 of the report (page 41).

Miss Taylor showed the Committee the proposed car park layout.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Graham Campbell – Birdham Parish Council

Mr Andy Pearce – Agent

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of a potential impingement from the barriers when down on the Public Rights of Way; Miss Bell acknowledged the concerns raised. She assured the Committee officers had spent much time considering the application and talking to WSCC PROW officers. Following further discussions with the applicant, officers were confident that any issue of impingement could be resolved. Ms Bell confirmed further permission would be required from WSCC PROW in addition to the requirements of Condition 3 and this requirement was set out in the informatives included within the report.

With regards to ticketing arrangements; Ms Bell informed the Committee this was a management arrangement and not a planning issue.

On the issue of the barrier width; Ms Taylor referenced the figures quoted within the Committee report. She informed the Committee further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

5 no. residential dwellings, vehicular and pedestrian access and hard and soft landscaping.

Deferred for site visit.

Mr Mew presented the report to Committee. Mr Mew drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet, which included; additional addendums to the report and an Additional Condition to address on-site water neutrality measures.

Mr Mew drew the Committees attention to paragraph 7.11 (page 58) of the report. He informed members that it was important to note that following a recent public inquiry the Planning Inspector had found the Council’s housing land supply to be below five years. Mr Mew explained that as the Council no longer had a five-year housing land supply the tilted balance must be applied when determining planning applications.

Mr Mew outlined the site location; which was located outside the Loxwood settlement boundary. The side was bordered on three sides by existing developments. Mr Mew highlighted the historic buildings and confirmed there was a 30m distance between them and the proposed development.

The Committee were shown details of the proposed site layout and how it would be accessed from Willetts Close. The development would be comprised of five dwellings including;

-       x2 two-bedroom dwellings

-       x2 three-bedroom dwellings

-       x1 four-bedroom dwelling.

Mr Mew showed site elevations and confirmed the proposed materials were consistent with the local area.

Mr Mew detailed the measures proposed by the developer to achieve water neutrality and explained how a two-pronged approach was being taken with both onsite and offsite measures (as set out in the report from page 68). He explained the offsite measures would be controlled through a S106 with all interested parties involved, including Horsham District Council and the South Downs National Park.

Natural England had been consulted on the proposed mitigation measures as part of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and was satisfied that water neutrality could be achieved through the proposed measures.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Tony Colling – Loxwood Parish Council

Mr Charles Todhunter – Objector*

Mrs Hannah Carey – Objector*

Mrs Kathryn Smalley – Objector (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Mr Huw James – Agent

Cllr Gareth Evans – CDC Ward Member (Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

*prior to speaking the Chairman asked both Mr Todhunter and Mrs Carey to confirm that they were speaking as an individual and not as a representative of the Parish Council, both confirmed they were speaking as individuals.

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the Interim Position Statement (IPS) and what weight it carried; Mr Mew confirmed the IPS was a guidance document and not policy.  The IPS was used to help direct development to the most appropriate locations. When the tilted balance is engaged any adverse impacts must demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In response to concerns regarding the artificial subdivision of the site; Mr Mew agreed that it appeared some artificial subdivision of the site had taken place. However, whilst this was not encouraged within the IPS, it did not mean the site was not suitable and should be considered.

With regards to ‘double counting’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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

That the Committee approves the recommendation to enter into a legal agreement with the owner of land at Droke Lane, East Dean, and the South Downs National Park Authority to secure the provision of a credit-selling nitrates mitigation scheme.

The Committee approves the report recommendation to enter into a legal agreement with the owner of land at Droke Lane, East Dean and the South Downs National Park Authority to secure the provision of a credit-selling nitrates mitigation scheme.

Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee. Mr Day, (Environmental Manager), Mr Belderson (Planning Link Officer, South Downs National Park) and Mr Kennedy (Environmental Manager, PUSH Partnership) were in attendance to assist.

Ms Stevens explained approval to enter into a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act and Section 33 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act, to secure a nitrate mitigations scheme at land known as Droke Lane, East Dean was being sought.

The proposed legal agreement would be between Chichester District Council, the South Downs National Park Authority and the owners of the land. Ms Stevens explained the SDNPA were included as a signatory as the land was located within the national park and it would be the responsibility of the SDNPA to monitor and enforce the agreement.

The agreement would allow the landowner to sell credits to developers for the level of nitrates removed by taking the and out of agricultural use. Each credit sold would be the equivalent of approximately 1kg of nitrogen per year. Ms Stevens explained the number of credits provided by the site would accommodate around 158 dwellings, resulting in 126.67kg of nitrates being removed from the Harbour.

Ms Stevens explained what was meant by nutrient neutrality and provided an overview of how it had impacted development within the Chichester Harbour catchment area. She showed the Committee the catchment area for the Harbour and highlighted where the proposed scheme was located.

The site area was 4.78ha and was classified as grade 3, 4 and 5 agricultural land. It had been taken out of active agriculture in June 2021; this had been supported by a signed declaration.

In addition, to securing nitrate mitigation, the site had provided an opportunity to deliver wider biodiversity gains. As a result, the scheme had been developed in consultation with SDNPA and offered a range of different landscapes including the infilling of hedgerows, wild meadow, and grassland.

Natural England had been consulted on the proposals. To begin with they had raised concern over the certainty of how the site would be monitored and maintained, however, following further discussion they were now fully supportive of the scheme and content that it would deliver the nitrate mitigation proposed.

Ms Stevens explained how the scheme would operate, she highlighted that unlike previous schemes which required an individual S106 legal agreement, credits purchased from this scheme would be managed through a planning condition. The proposals indicated the credits were intended for small developers who had previously been unable to progress projects due to the cost associated with nitrate mitigation.

The monitoring of the site would be undertaken by the South Downs National Park and was included within the legal agreement. In addition, Planning Officers would undertake an assessment each time an application was put forward offering mitigation from the site.

Ms Stevens informed the Committee officers from the SDNPA would undertake an annual site visit for the first five years, then a five yearly would take  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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 Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update which included an update on High Court Hearings at land at Flat Farm.

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 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.