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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The Chairman announced Planning Application KD/21/00427/FUL; The Workshop, Village Road, Kirdford, would be considered as an additional application under agenda item 16a, this item would be brought forward to agenda item 13. They confirmed all papers had been made available for public inspection five clear working days ahead of the Planning Committee.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 4 May 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 May 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 16 (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 6 – CH/21/02361/FUL - as the External Appointment to Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

Mr Potter declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 12 – SDNP/21/05833/FUL – as the External Appointment to the South Downs National Park

·       Agenda Item 13 – SDNP/22/00098/FUL – as the External Appointment to the South Downs National Park

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – WH/21/00489/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 6 – CH/21/02361/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 – CC/21/00382/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 8 – CC/22/00786/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 9 – CC/21/03657/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 16 – KD/21/00427/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – WH/21/00489/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 6 – CH/21/02361/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 – CC/21/00382/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 8 – CC/22/00786/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 9 – CC/21/03657/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 16 – KD/21/00427/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in;

·       Agenda Item 5 – WH/21/00489/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 6 – CH/21/02361/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 7 – CC/21/00382/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council and a Member of Chichester City Council

·       Agenda Item 8 – CC/22/00786/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

·       Agenda Item 9 – CC/21/03657/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council and a Member of Chichester City Council

·       Agenda Item 10 – CC/22/00428/ADV – Member of Chichester City Council

·       Agenda Item 16 – KD/21/00427/FUL – Member of West Sussex County Council

Change of use of land for use as a certified 'Caravan and Motorhome Club' site for siting up to 5 no. caravans, motorhomes or trailer tents.

Defer for S106, then Permit

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee. He explained the application was for a change of use of land, for use as a certified ‘Caravan and Motorhome Club’ site for up to five motorhomes and caravans.

Mr Mew informed the Committee that it was important to note the application would normally have been ‘Permitted Development’, however in this instance planning permission is required due to the need to mitigate impact from the application on birds in the harbour and nitrate neutrality.

The site is located to the south of Madgwick Lane, located close to the Goodwood motor circuit and the Rolls Royce factory. Mr Mew highlighted the area of land where the pitches would be located and highlighted the location of the proposed service point.

To provide context and demonstrate why officers considered the site to be sustainable, Mr Mew showed the Committee a map with other certified sites in the South of the district, most of which were in rural locations outside settlement boundaries and away from public services.

There were no representations

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions as follows;

In response to concerns regarding access to the site; Mr Shaw reminded the Committee the site access was already established. He confirmed that Highway officers had visited the site and were confident that the required visibility splay could be achieved. He drew attention to Condition 4 of the Report (p.32) which prohibited occupation of the site until the visibility splays had been achieved. The condition also required the splays to be maintained.

With regards to concern over the ownership of the ‘verge’; Mr Shaw acknowledged comments made, he explained that ownership of the land was not a material planning consideration. The area of land required for the visibility splay was currently unregistered, he informed the Committee that the applicant was currently going through the process to get control of the required area of land. He assured the Committee that the Condition could not be discharged if the land could not be maintained.

On the issue of footway provision; Mr Shaw confirmed a pedestrian access had been considered, however, at sites such as the one being considered, it was not unusual for there to be no footway provision. He explained that mitigation could only be secured against the impact of the development and officers did not believe there was enough justification, based on the number of potential trips, to secure a new footway. In addition, Mr Shaw made the Committee aware of improvements being undertaken at Madgwick Park which the site would benefit from.

In response to concerns regarding access for those with disability; Ms Stevens confirmed the application did not conflict with any policies.

In a vote the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for S106 and then permit subject to conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Resolved; Defer for S106, then permit; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

*Members took a five-minute break

Demolition of existing warehouse buildings, B8 container storage, residential caravans/park homes and stables and the erection of 9 no. dwellings and associated works including landscaping and access alterations.

Refuse; against officer recommendation

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She provided the following verbal update;

-       An additional condition for the requirement of a sample flint panel wall for plot 9 would be included if the application is permitted.

Ms Bell highlighted the application, which was located on the northside of the main road and between the settlement boundaries of Nutbourne East and Broadbridge. The Chichester Harbour AONB is located to the south of the site

Access to the site is shared with three other dwellings and set back approximately 100m from the road. Ms Bell confirmed the land was designated as previously developed land.

Ms Bell showed the Committee the current site layout which was ‘mixed use’, comprising of 1715m² of industrial and warehouse buildings (falling under Use Class E), a B8 storage container, four caravans/park homes and equestrian stables. Ms Bell highlighted where these units were currently located.

Ms. Bell informed the Committee the applicant had undertaken a commercial viability report (May 2022), which had considered the viability of redevelopment, subsequent modelling demonstrated the site did not support sustainable long-term employment. Ms Bell confirmed it was officer opinion Policy 26 was not triggered.

Ms Bell clarified the application was for full permission for the development of nine open market dwellings, including associated works. A commuted sum for Affordable Housing would be secured through S106 agreement. Ms Bell detailed the proposed mix of housing and layout, with a density of 16 dwellings per hectare. She highlighted the proposed parking arrangements which would consist of 17 on-plot parking spaces and nine garages, there would also be two visitor spaces. The proposal included a minimum of 20% active electrical charging points.

Ms Bell detailed the proposed landscaping and informed the Committee the current hedging would be maintained wherever possible. She highlighted a 3m maintenance buffer to the north of the site which was secured through condition.

Ms Bell drew Member’s attention to the 1.5m maintenance buffer for the drainage ditch which ran to the western boundary of the site, along with a 3m access for a small digger; she confirmed this was secured by condition.

Ms Bell showed the Committee the proposed elevations for the different dwellings.

As part of the development the existing access onto the Main Road would be improved through the removal of a small brick structure which would allow the bell mouth to be widened and achieve the required visibility splays.

Ms Bell informed the Committee that the development would require nitrate mitigation, and a site of .366ha was required to offset the development. The applicant was proposing an area of land in East Dean which was classified as a mix of grade 3 and grade 4, Ms Bell confirmed the area of land was in the fluvial catchment of the Solent Maritime SAC. A S106 is recommended to secure the mitigation and ensure the land is taken out agricultural in perpetuity. Ms Bell confirmed Natural England had raised no objection to the application.

The Committee received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 239.

Demolition of existing office building and redevelopment for 9 dwellings, including access, parking, landscaping, amenity space and associated infrastructure.

Defer for S106; then permit.

Mr Young presented the report to the Committee. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update sheet which set out an addendum to the report replacing the word ‘refuse’ with ‘refuge’.

Mr Young reminded the Committee that the application had been deferred by the Planning Committee on 21 March 2022 and surmised the reasons for deferral.

He highlighted the site location and explained the application sought permission for the construction of nine residential dwellings and the demolition of the existing office block.

Mr Young drew the Committee’s attention to the new detailing on Pot 7 and showed them the more detailed street scene which had been provided by the applicant. He highlighted the proposed layout and parking arrangements.

In response to the request for a refuge on the Bognor Road, Mr Young drew the Committee’s attention to pages 98 and 99 of the report which set out the comments from West Sussex County Council as the Highway authority.

Mr Young confirmed the property had been marketed in line with Policy 26.

He informed the Committee that there had been no objection from Natural England in relation to nitrate mitigation.

The Committee received representations from;

Miss Phillipa Gatehouse – Agent

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions as follows;

In response to a request that an informative be including for CIL spending on a pedestrian refuge; Ms Stevens advised the Committee that it would not be appropriate to include either a condition or an informative for CIL spending. She explained the CIL process behind how CIL monies are prioritised and allocated.

Mr Shaw confirmed that there was continuous access from the application site to Bognor Road.

With regards to the pedestrian refuge; Mr Shaw explained that whilst CIL was in place consideration could only be given to the trips generated from the proposed nine units. There would be a reduction in the number of trips that were generated from the site, the site would also benefit from highway improvements secured through neighbouring developments. In addition, Mr Shaw clarified that whilst in theory there was potential for a pedestrian refuge to be accommodated it would be subject to further investigation work. He acknowledged comments that there was a mechanism for delivering a refuge outside the Planning process.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to make the report recommendation to defer for S106 then permit; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Resolved; defer for S106 then permit; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Construction/installation of a LV switch room for the St James Industrial Estate.

Permit.

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She outlined the site location and provided a background summary to St James Industrial Estate.

Ms Bell highlighted the area within the St James Industrial Estate where the application site was proposed. She explained that the application was for the construction of a Low Voltage (LV) switch room. As there will be no noise emitting plant installed the Environmental Health Officer has confirmed there will be no requirement for any further noise assessment.  

In addition, Ms Bell updated the Committee on the boundary treatment of the site and confirmed that it had now been discharged by the applicant.

There were no representations.

There were no comments or questions.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to make the report recommendation to permit; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

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

Construction of a new extension to the existing building

Defer for site visit.

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She drew attention to the Agenda Update which included a correction to the report and the inclusion of a new condition. In addition, Ms Bell provided a verbal update and informed the Committee of the following two pre-commencement conditions (which the agent had agreed to);

-       Full details to be provided showing the proposed soakaway in relation to an existing venting trench for gas and the existing soakaway. As officers are concerned there may be some overlap

-       Full details of how the bund will be reinforced and landscaped, particularly on the eastern edge.

Ms Bell highlighted the site location and confirmed it fell within the settlement boundary of Chichester City Council. She identified neighbouring building including its proximity to Aldi and Home bargains. Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to the bund and its location alongside The Pitcroft. She explained the existing building was used as a carpet wholesaler for storage and distribution and the application was for an extension to the existing building.

She highlighted the site access off Barnfield Drive and parking arrangements on site. West Sussex County Council as the Highway Authority have made no objection and have confirmed the parking provision is acceptable.

Ms Bell showed the Committee the proposed elevations, along with the existing and proposed layout plans. Ms Bell confirmed the ownership of the site was up to the little wooden fence (which was highlighted in photographs shown to the Committee).

With regards to the neighbouring residential properties Ms Bell informed the Committee that there was 26m between those on The Pitcroft and the proposed extension.

Ms Bell highlighted the existing bund and its current contours compared with the proposed amendments. The current Bund is 2.3m with vegetation on it, with landscaping in front, the proposed extension would require the bund to be cut to a 60^o angle, which would be reinforced with a textile membrane to allow grass and vegetation to grow through. Ms Bell explained it was the exact methodology for the new bund which officers wished to see and why the additional pre commencement condition had been proposed.

Ms Bell informed the Committee that during the application process further landscaping had been included and were detailed within the report at para 8.30, page 136.

Ms Bell confirmed the drainage officer had considered the proposal. The gutters would drain to a soakaway which would be an extension to the existing soakaway and would be in the northern corner of the site. However, further details and surveys are required to ensure the location is appropriate.

The Committee received representations from;

Mr Garry – Objector

Mrs Anita Shortman – Objector

Mr Luke Crooks – Applicant

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions as follows;

With regards to the site notices; Ms Bell assured the Committee the site notices were replaced.

On the matter of a wildlife survey; Ms Stevens confirmed a preliminary ecological assessment was submitted as part of the application. The assessment had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 242.

4 no. illuminated signage with trough lighting

Permit

Mr Young presented the report to the Committee. He explained the application sought permission for the installation of 4 illuminated signs, with trough lighting between ground and first floor level.

Mr Young highlighted the site location and its proximity to the Cathedral and the Cross. He drew the Committee’s attention to p.154 of the report and the Standard Conditions recommended, which included no illumination to take place other than during dark hours and during the hours of business.

There were no representations.

There were no comments or questions.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to make the report recommendation to permit; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

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

Installation of 1 no. air-source heat pump. With associated installations of civil's, plate heat exchangers, pipe work, power and controls, concrete plinth and perimeter fence.

Permit.

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee. He explained the application was for an air source heat pump and associated compound, which was being installed as part of the public sector decarbonisation scheme.

Mr Mew outlined the site location and highlighted where the pump would be located. He confirmed the site was located outside the conservation area.

Mr Mew informed the Committee the applicant had sought advice during the pre-application stage and drew their attention to Condition 3 (p.163) which requested a noise validation report to be submitted and approved before the pump would be brought into use.

There were no representations.

There were no questions or comments.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to make the report recommendation to permit; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

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

Change of use of land for all weather turnout area for private equestrian use only (in association to permissions SDNP/18/00474/FUL & SDNP/21/03596/CND)

Approved.

Mr Price presented the report to the Committee. He explained the reason for Committee referral was due to Parish Council objection. He provided a background summary to the application site and informed the Committee that it had been a former dairy farm but was now a mixed-use establishment with equestrian use.

Mr Price outlined where the proposed all weather turn-out area (AWTA) would be located and explained that a post and rail fence would be installed to secure the area. He informed the Committee that there would be a slight alteration in levels with the southern end of the site being raised slightly above ground level.

The Committee were shown views of the site from the passing bridleway and from Hillgrove Lane.

Mr Price explained that the proposed AWTA would be a complimentary addition to the current establishment by providing a small area of turnout for horses when ground conditions were poor or for when a horse’s health required its use. Mr Price clarified the AWTA would be for personal use only and confirmed this was secured through condition.

Mr Price informed the Committee the conditions in the report reflected the proposed supplementary landscaping and surfacing materials. He confirmed there would be no lighting permitted to the development.

The Committee received the representations from;

Mrs Janet Long – Agent

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions as follows;

Mr Price clarified that the proposed area was not a menage as it was too small, he explained a menage would normally be around 60mx40m in size.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to make the report recommendation to permit; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

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

*Members took a five-minute break

Retrospective planning permission on 1 no. part-built barn (west of field) and 1 no. new barn (north east of field).

Refuse.

Mr Saunders presented the report to the Committee. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which clarified the reason for Committee referral. Mr Saunders also provided the following verbal updates;

-       The combined floor space recorded in the report is incorrect, the correct combined floor space is 460m²

-       The site does not lie in the Cocking and Singleton Tunnels SAC buffer as reported in paragraph 8.17, page 190.

Mr Saunders explained the application was two agricultural buildings, one of which was retrospective as the building had been constructed.

Mr Saunders highlighted the site locations; he showed the Committee where the constructed barn was located and drew attention to the proposed site for the second barn. The Committee were shown a number of photos of the site from the Public Rights of Way which passed the site.

Mr Saunders showed the Committee some elevations of the proposed buildings. The building which had already been constructed was stepped and would be used for sheep, it also housed toilet facilities. The second building would be used for the storage of tractors, it would also include space for administration and toilet facilities.

Mr Saunders detailed the four reasons for the proposed recommendation to refuse as set out on page 191 of the report. 

The Committee received representations from;

Mr James Rice – Objector

Mr Kane Adams – Applicant

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions as follows;

Mr Saunders clarified the site was 6.34ha and not acres.

In the issue of the third reason for refusal; Mr Saunders acknowledged comments and agreed the reason could be expanded to include wording from para 8.14.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to make the report recommendation to refuse; for the reasons set out in the report.

Resolved; refuse; for the reasons set out in section 10 of 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.

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

16a) KD/21/00427/FUL; The Workshop, Village Road, Kirdford

Permit

As announced by the Chairman, the Committee considered application KD/21/00427/FUL; The Workshop, Village Road, Kirdford, RH14 ONW. The item was brought forward and discussed as Agenda Item 13.

Mr Young presented the report to the Committee. He explained the reason the application was being presented at Committee was the result of the Parish Council refusing the application.

Mr Young highlighted the site location, he confirmed the site was located within a designated enterprise hub as identified in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Mr Young highlighted the site access, which was already used by existing buildings on the site and identified the parking arrangements. He also drew attention the rainwater harvesting tank on site which was 3000l.

Mr Young detailed the proposed design and building materials. He showed the Committee the proposed elevations and its proximity to other buildings on site.

He informed the Committee the development would provide bat sensitive lighting and bird boxes, in addition native hedging would be planted. He confirmed no trees would be affected by the development. The site is considered water neutral and supported by Natural England.

Mr young informed the Committee that the hours of operation would be 8am – 7pm Monday to Friday and 9am – 5pm on weekends.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to Member’s comments and questions as follows;

With regards to the hours of use; Mr Young clarified the proposed hours of use were in line with the adjoining units which already operated to these hours. He confirmed the hours of operation included Sundays and Bank Holidays.

With regards to Condition 7; Mr Young acknowledged comments made and agreed that it could be reworded to focus the applicant on providing the landscaping and thereafter maintain and regenerate some of the biodiversity lost. In addition, Ms Stevens provided further background to Condition 7 and how it was applied to major applications.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to make the report recommendation to permit; subject to the amended conditions and informatives set out in the report.

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

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no part two items.