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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

She informed the Committee that Agenda Item 5 – NM/21/02878/OUT – Land North of Larock, Post Office Lane, North Mundham had been withdrawn to allow further investigation with regard to surface water and ground water following amended guidance in the NPPG which was issued on 25 August 2022.

Apologies were received from Cllr John-Henry Bowden and Cllr Fowler.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 10 August 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 August 2022 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 10 (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 6 – D/21/0099/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 – CC/21/03657/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 6 – D/21/0099/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 – CC/21/03657/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 6 – D/21/0099/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 – CC/21/03657/FUL – as a member of West Sussex County Council and Chichester City Council

Outline application (with all matters reserved accept Access) for the construction of 19 no. dwellings and associated infrastructure with vehicular access from Post Office Lane, North Mundham.

Withdrawn from agenda – will be considered at future Planning Committee

As announced by the Chairman the item was withdrawn to allow further investigation with regard to surface water and ground water following amended guidance in the NPPG issued on 25 August 2022.  

Construction of 1 no. Manager's house with landscaping and associated works.

Defer for S106 and then permit.

Mr Thomas presented the report to Committee. He reminded the Committee that the application had been deferred by the Committee at the meeting on 6 July 2022 for publicity as a departure from the development plan and to reduce the extent of the residential curtilage.

Mr Thomas outlined the site application and showed the revised site plan. He explained that following discussion with the applicant there has been an enhancement to the tree boundary and a reduction in the domestic curtilage. This would be secured through a landscaping condition should the Committee chose to permit the development.

Mr Thomas explained the reasons for the proposed refusal as set out in the report.

The following representations were received;

Mr Robert Brown – Applicant

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Ward Member

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

With regards to the conditions which would be attached if the application were permitted; Mr Thomas went through the list of likely conditions which would be attached, including; a three year time limit for development to commence; a condition to secure materials; a condition to secure surface water drainage; conditions to secure ecological enhancements and soft landscaping (in accordance with the ecological assessment), a condition to replace trees within first five years; a condition to secure the dwelling as agricultural occupancy. He also advised that if the application were permitted the rights for permitted development (such as an extension) and the installation of external lighting would be removed.

With regards to the replacement of trees within the first five years; Ms Stevens clarified that the condition would require any trees that die within the first five years to be replaced.

With regards to bin and bike storage; Ms Stevens confirmed these would be secured through condition if the application was permitted.

With regards to a condition being included to secure the watering of trees; Ms Stevens explained this would be unreasonable, the tree planting and maintenance would be secured through condition.

Ms Stevens advised the committee if they were minded to permit the development they should propose to ‘defer for S106 and then permit’. Mr Thomas explained a s106 agreement would be required for recreational disturbance.

Following a vote the Committee voted against the officer recommendation to refuse.

Cllr Briscoe proposed the application be deferred for S106 and then permitted.

This was seconded by Cllr Sharp.

In a vote the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for S106 then permit.

Resolved; Defer for S106 then permit. 

*members took a 10 minute break

Construction of a new extension to the existing building.

Permit

Ms Prichard presented the report to the Committee. She outlined the application site and highlighted the proposed extension, drawing the Committee’s attention to the proximity of the development to its neighbouring locations.

Ms Prichard explained the application had been deferred for a site visit at the meeting on 15 June 2022, the Committee had also requested further information on; the proposed soakaway; clarification regarding land contamination and gas venting; confirmation of how the remaining bund would be supported; further details of biodiversity net gain and clarification of site levels. Ms Prichard confirmed these matters had been addressed and were detailed in the report in bold print.

She showed the Committee the proposed elevations and confirmed there would be no changes to the eastern elevation.

Ms Prichard highlighted the bund and the proposed amendments (including landscaping) that would be made as part of the application. She explained the bund would be excavated at a 60^o angle and reinforced would with a geotextile membrane. The height would be retained at the existing height of 2.3m.

Ms Prichard informed the Committee that since the last Committee meeting the applicant had had a tree survey undertaken in response to concerns over Ash Dieback. The results of the survey have meant that 17 trees will be remove along the northern boundary, however 29 trees would be retained. In addition, a revised planting plan has been submitted which shows the planting of 34 new native species along the boundary.

Ms Prichard highlighted the proposed new soakaway and confirmed that it did not conflict with either the existing soakaway or the gas venting trench.

The following representations were received;

Mr Simpson – Objector

Mrs Shortman – Objector

Mr Gary Ewins – Supporter

Mr Luke Crooks – Applicant

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

With regards to managing the visual impact from the building; Ms Prichard agreed that if the Committee wished the five year limit for replacing trees could be removed, so that the applicant would be required to replace trees indefinitely if required.

On the issue of Solar Panels; Ms Prichard advised the Committee that the installation of solar panels was not part of the application. In addition, Ms Stevens acknowledged the concern raised by the Committee over the visual impact from the installation of solar panels, but advised the removal of any permitted development rights would only be applicable to the extension and not the building as a whole.

With regards to concerns regarding impact from noise; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 17. She confirmed officers had reviewed and considered the Noise Impact Assessment, and, with the inclusion of condition 19 were satisfied the noise element was acceptable.

On the matter of separation distances between residential buildings and commercial buildings; Ms Prichard drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.15 of the report. She explained that whilst there was no set guidance for separation distances between houses and proposed commercial building the Council did have guidance contained within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 284.

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

Ms Stevens drew the Committee’s attention to Melita Nursery, Chalk Lane (page 126) which had been allowed at appeal. She clarified that the maximum number of additional pitches which could be sited at Melita was seven.

The Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included updates on High Court Hearings for both; Land at Flat Farm, Broad Road, Hambrook, West Sussex PO18 8FT and Westhampnett/North East Chichester SDL.

The Committee noted the decision at the Former Portfield Quarry as a positive reflection in the use of local evidence.

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.